The Vital Queenship of Our Lady

So complete is the dependency of the creature upon the divine power in which he swims, that the creature is not so much a thing as a relationship …. One's inescapable participation in the divine fire. -Bishop Robert Barron, "St. Thomas Aquinas"

This work seeks to survey the theological, scriptural and magisterial foundations of the Church's regard for Our Lady as the divinely appointed universal 'Queen-Mother' whose natural and supernatural powers and prerogatives are described by her roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate.

The first half (Parts I & II) of this effort includes a discussion of the interrelationship of the general Christology of the Church with her unique Mariology, specifically as this applies to on-going processes of formulating comprehensive description of the Queen-Mother and her relationships as completion of the Church's cadre of Mariological dogma. Part II attempts to round out the preceding review with a synthesis of general knowledge gained about the Church's Mariological methodologies as specifically applied to the mystery of Our Lady's title-role of 'Universal Queen-Mother.'

The latter half of the work steps farther out from the above backward-looking glance at the Church's relationship with her Mother, in an attempt to extrapolate and apply what has been learned to the current conversation being had about the permissibility, prudence and probability of declaring a final Marian dogma which seeks to complete dogmatic truth about herself and all her on-going relationships as Christ the King's, Queen-Mother.

It is essential to consider the mystery of Mary within the context of the mystery of Jesus.[1]

PART I: Who do they say that I AM?

The Gebirah tradition stands as the explanation of Mary's queenship.[2]

The structure of ancient civilizations included top-down monarchies. The Egyptians, Hittites and Assyrians are among this group and could be said to be notable stand-outs because of both the historical and biblical record of their interaction and influence on the Davidic Dynasty. These kingdoms, as well as that of ancient Israel itself, practiced polygamy. The factor of multiple wives, concubines and offspring from them, made the modern notions of queenship as mostly an honorary designation of the then current wife of the king or simply a female king, untenable on multiple levels, but most particularly where royal succession was concerned. To choose one queen from many wives invalidates the nature of a queen's authority which comes from a unique and close familial relationship to the king.[3]

The kingdoms of Israel circumvented the above issues by their designation of the new reigning king's mother as Gebirah.[4] The term means 'Great Lady' and indicates, only the biological mother of the newly anointed king. Also implicit in the ancient Judaic use of the term:

Royal dignity - holding moral and participative power commensurate with her son, the king's. The former, by way of both having and passing on the royal Davidic lineage. The latter as exercise of her co-equal interest in both the day-to-day and future success of their dynasty. On the throne the queen mother represented the king's continuity with the past, the visible affirmation of God's ongoing plan for his people, the channel through which the Lord's dynastic promise to David was fulfilled.[5]

-Royal Office - unique roles and responsibilities such as advocate/mediator for the people and councilor to the king. In the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the king held an extremely important and influential office …These various roles of the Gebirah illustrate how the office of Queen Mother played an integral part in the Davidic Kingdom.[6]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines 'Mediator/Mediatrix' as, one who links or reconciles separate or opposing parties. It then differentiates the uniqueness of Mary's title of 'Mediatrix' as being in virtue of her cooperation in the saving mission of Christ who alone is the unique mediator between God and humanity.[7]

With that last crucial differentiation, as the necessary distinction of Our Lady's unique person, power and queenship, correlative extrapolation from the life of the Davidic gebirah, to the Mystery of Our Lady's everlasting role as Gebirah of the Eternal Kingdom becomes possible and permissible.

In fact, the Church sees types, anti-types, symbolism and themes of Our Lady's queenship throughout the Old Testament. These would include 1 and 2 Kings which presents pericopes illustrating the importance of the king's mother from various angles. Of these, the most referenced include; the mention of her name in the introduction of major monarchs (all except three,[8]), citation of one queen-mother specifically as member of the royal court (2 Kings 24) and credence given to the gebirah as possessing an actual office by citing an instance where a king divests his mother of that office, (1 King 15:13). However, the most important vignette showcasing the elevation and interaction of king and gebirah, is often cited as 1 Kings 2:19-20 wherein her son having recently taken the throne of his father, David, Bathsheba makes entrance into public audience with the King without having been formally invited. Notably, even as favored wife of the previous monarch, this act was strictly forbidden. However, Solomon not only allows his mother's presence, but takes that opportunity to publicly elevate her to the power, prestige and office of the 'Gebirah' of his kingdom. He does this first by bowing to her, then leading her to a seat at his right hand. He then manifests her new position by audible acknowledgment that he will not refuse her. The significance of the fact that he hears the request but does not do exactly what she asks is two- fold. First, because it demonstrates the divinely-enhanced wisdom of Solomon and secondly as witness of the inherent assumption of the 'new' 'Great Lady's' maternal right to council, mediate and advocate still always subordinate to the King's own mediational and judicial office as ruler-protector of their mutual realm.

Mary's queenship is not something far removed from the Christian life, an exulted position in heaven that we are to honor only from a distance. "She is not an isolated and extraneous figure, but one who in communion with all Christians, participates in the same reign as Christ …."Mary is queen by which she exercises a 'leadership' in regards to the people of God: with her prestige and with the excellence of her existence as first Christian and 'type' of the Church, she represents a point of reference necessary for the faithful who intend to discover their own royal identity as children of God and give to the Lord a larger space in their lives". [9]

If 1 Kings 2: 19-20 can be said to best illustrate the inaugural event of the most important gebirah of the Old Testament, then perhaps, Jn2:1-10, ('Wedding Feast of Cana'), could be said to best illustrate the first public manifestation of the 'Great Lady' of all of Sacred Scripture. At a minimum, there is much more going on at the Wedding Feast of Cana than meets the un-trained eye or impure heart. We shall speak of Mary's authority but we shall not describe it as an authority over her Son. It is an authority, (a true influence) over grace and consequently over the subjects of her Son's Kingdom. [10]

Submerged beneath this display of human compassion super-charged by Divine Mercy, is a conversation between the heirs-apparent of 'Kingdom Come.' Amid the happy hub-bub that is a wedding and in almost as few words as created Eden, Mother approves timing after Son reminds her of the ramifications of a public display of the Incarnate Word's power.

"Woman, what is this to you and to me, my hour has not yet come?" [11]

"Do whatever He tells you."[12]

Perhaps even more importantly in terms of delving for clues as to the indescribable depth of the Trinity's combined personal love for Our Lady as the Daughter, Mother and Spouse, is the single ancient honorific, Jesus employs to address Mary ('Woman'). Here is divine affirmation and confirmation from the Incarnate Word that His own Mother is the mysterious 'Woman' whose appearances 'book-end' the whole of Sacred Scripture itself.

… the Protoevangelium has been described as a complete synthesis of Mariology, wherein the whole of Mariology is found "in a nutshell" … the luminous figure of Mary is "sketched" in the Protoevangelium as the Mother of God, the Virgin Mother, the Immaculate: ….the associate of the Savior in the work of Redemption, the Mother and Mediatrix of men, the one assumed body and soul into heaven, the victorious Queen united to her Son, the King of the universe.[13]

Does the multi-leveled interaction between the disguised divine king and His gebirah actually contain something like a humanly bearable 'flash' of His immortal Self as He eternally views His Salvific Plan for His creatures? And from the standpoint of this high and peaceful 'plateau' in their lives, does Jesus, in a mortal moment antithetical to the immortal one in which the devil bought Jesus to another, more distant high peak, 'bring' His Beloved Mother up to a similar height at Cana, so that she can see with Him the actual height, depth and breadth of their co-mission? Theologians such as Father Kerwin evidently do not think so (below) but this seems somewhat at odds with the Church's love for 'both/ands' rather than 'either/or':

But this presage of sovereignty (at her Immaculate Conception) is completely enveloped and overshadowed by her union and association with Christ the King. She is vowed to the destiny of the human race because she is bound to Christ's destiny.[14] … Mary's consent to the total mystery of Christ was undoubtably obscure in the sense that she did not understand all that was being asked of her in regard to its concrete details; yet her's was a full consent.[15]

Either way, in consideration of all of the above, perhaps it is appropriate to say that the practical and supernatural genius of the gebirah in Sacred Scripture is that by all possible means; blood, spirit, interest and will, the only logical and legitimate objectives of a given gebirah should have been actions toward the peace, prosperity, spread and continuance of her son's kingdom. Yet, like every queen since Eve up to Our Lady, the understanding of and choice for 'self-centric' action always remained. As attested by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, Mary both 'queen of the dishes and dirty laundry' and divinely-commissioned Queen of the Universe, is the only mother who ever chose Perfection, perfectly.

We cannot speak of the divine maternity alone or in the abstract as being foundation for Mary's proper queenship. It is her divine maternity as it was concretely realized in the order of events as they evolved under divine Providence.[16]

PART II: What do they say that I am?

"One could argue that Christian faith might lead to greater empathy for a subject and there by greater understanding than a non-faith perspective, but this is clearly not a necessary corollary of faith … But the entire question of the role of Christian faith in writing history must be examined at different levels. … The scholarly or critical study of the history of the church and Christian doctrine is a relatively new phenomenon in theology. The discipline is barely two hundred and fifty years old in an intellectual community that has been studying theology for more than seventeen centuries ... The object of all these early attempts at the history of Christian doctrine or of heretical opinion was not history as such, but rather a nonhistorical truth standing outside and above the chronology of a problem ..."[17]

The above is taken from a defense of exegetical historical-critical methodology. As such, the author seems to assert that judging the validity of Sacred Scripture through as narrowly-neutral a lens as possible is better done and of greater value than the Church's traditional Christocentric approach. However, as is often the case with any form of 'devil's advocacy,' there is still truth to be mined from the sentiment, albeit not necessarily the one the authors intended. To wit, what is stated as being an impediment to finding truth is actually an unintended confirmation of how the Church sees God through its Sacred Scriptural element. In fact, a nonhistorical truth standing outside and above the chronology of a problem is even a pretty good if crudely basic description of Mary, Universal Queen, as well.

In its teaching on the Marian Dogmas specifically, THE 655 touched briefly on various historical, exegetical and theoretical attempts to separate Jesus Christ from Himself or to remove Him from Sacred Scripture altogether. This illuminated one interesting point about the prudence of obeying Church-governed exegetical traditions and drove home, a newly-learned maxim regarding the 'co-dependency' of Christology and Mariology. First, that the insanity of trying to separate the Author, from His work, invites the even deeper madness of willful ignorance (heresy). Second, it drives home the truth of Dr. Miravalle's adage that, 'Mariology safeguards Christology.'[18] '

Thus, the lack of sterile historicity that such authors (as above) see as problem for both Christology and certainly correspondingly, Mariology, the Church views as the instrumental grace lovingly given and carefully wielded down through The Ages by all strata of the Sensus Fidelium. This applies specifically to Church-intrinsic Mariological doctrine surrounding Mary's universal maternal queenship as follows:

* The early Church did not differentiate Mary's title from her roles. Nonetheless; The early Church quickly perceived the important role Mary played in God's redemptive plans,"[19] as evidenced by the fact that 'Advocate' is her earliest known title, invoked most frequently and fervently during the first three hundred years of intense persecution. Besides depictions of her in the catacombs in various motherly, queenly and/or protective poses, other evidence includes; a) a second century text which invokes Mary as 'Parakletos' meaning 'defender, comforter, advocate' and, b)a recently discovered prayer preserved on papyrus called the Sub Tuum Praesidium ' which refers to Mary as the Mother of God in whom we find protection. [20] Interestingly two prayers[21] commonly in use today mirror both the sentiment and language of the Sub Tuum Praesidium, showing both continuity of belief in Mary's queenship and trust in her power to exercise its various roles (Advocate, Mediatrix).

*Early Church Fathers did not explicitly title Mary as Queen but did give intrinsic affirmation of her as such. Examples include, St. Jerome's Latin translation (from Syriac) of the name "Mary" as "domina" which means 'Lady' which itself in Latin connotes the dignity then associated with royalty. In the East, Andrew of Crete referred to her as "Regina universorum hominum" meaning 'universal queen of men'. [22]

*In the Medieval Period, there is frequent mention of Mary's queenship. Notable examples include St. Bernard of Clairvaux's early linking of Mary's divine maternity with the reality of her self-emptying cooperation in the redemptive work of Christ.

*During the Seventeenth Century, often called the 'Golden Age of Mary Co-redemptrix,' Mariological study flowered into an 'increased emphasis on Mary's queenship in the strict, formal sense.[23] Important 'high-water marks' of this period include work by various theologians which made logical ties to Mary's right to be recognized as divine queen with all the actionable power that right would include in support and combination with her full participation in His human and divine struggles to win back Mankind to God and vice versa, … she was queen by natural right and right of conquest and therefore gained a share in her Son's royalty.[24]

*Evidence that liturgical practices kept pace with the increasing development and refinement of Mariological thought in terms of Mary as queen, can be seen in songs and practices by both 'lungs of the Church' (East and West rites). An example in this category would include the Byzantine liturgy often calling Mary, "Queen" and hymns of the West such as the Salve Regina putting the same sentiment to music.[25]

What is true of Tradition is also true of the Magisterium. Its teaching during the first thousand years, when making reference to Mary, would use queenly language. An example is the Third Council of Constantinople's language for her including the term as "despoina," a queenly title.

By 1477, more specific 'enthronement' of Our Lady as Queen of the Universe by the papacies began with Pope Sixtus IV, Cum Praecelsa referencing Our Lady as, the Queen of Heaven, the glorious Virgin Mother of God.

Various Papal statements, encyclicals and/or ecclesial 'moves' such as allowing the naming of cathedrals under Our Lady's queenly titles, inaugurating feast days which honor her queenship and/or the issuance of ordinary papal teaching referencing her in both direct and indirect language as 'Queen', continue and intensify this trend until by the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, a succession of popes are being solicited by the 'vox populi,' theologians and Magisterium alike to formalize various aspects of Our Lady's divine queenly nature and mode. Landmark documents to this effect include:

*Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, (declaration of the Immaculate Conception), 1854 - Describes the extent of Mary's queenship by naming her as "Queen of heaven and earth" and directly links Mary's royal office with her intercessory power, i.e., the "efficacy" of her queenly office.[26]

*Pope Pius X, Ad Dium Illum, 1904 (Encyclical) - Bases Mary's queenship on her unique participation in Christ's redemptive work.[27]

*Pope Pius XI, Munificentissimus Deus, (Apostolic Constitution), 1950 - Defines the Assumption, mentions the queenship of Mary in his explanation of the Assumption.[28]

*Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam, (Encyclical), 1954 - "expounds on the two-fold meaning of Mary's queenship"[29] (excellence and efficacy).

*Pope Paul XXIII, Luman Gentium, (Dogmatic Constitution, Vatican II), 1958 - explicitly refers to Mary as "Queen of All Things," and links her queenship to her Immaculate Conception. [30]

*Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (Encyclical), Pope John Paul II, 1987 - reaffirms previous papal teachings which associate Mary's queenship with her Immaculate Conception then ingeniously melds the dual images of 'Full of Grace' with that of the fully human humble handmaid serving in God's earthly kingdom.

The exalted roles of Mary, Mother of Jesus, as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces with the Mediator and Sanctifier, and Advocate for the people of God, are providential roles performed by the Immaculate Mother of God and are firmly present in Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, as authoritatively and consistently taught by the Church's Magisterium."[31]

PART III: Will they say all that I AM?

Whenever we minimize Mary it eventually takes a stab at God the Father.[32]

Various historical and modern 'detractors' have read into the lag-time of dogmatic declaration of what the Church has always considered intrinsic Mariological doctrine as indicative of either offensive (self-serving) invention or defensive posturing against legitimate criticism that the Church's historic allowing and even encouraging hyperdulia, is in reality her inability to correct the growth of a 'cultic' environment (negative connotation) around Mary which rises to the level of sarcastically but ingeniously named, 'Mariolotry'. In actuality however, the careful development of any dogma as exampled herein with specific reference to aspects of her queenship, rather illustrates the wavy history but unwavering methodology by which the Church finally accurately and truthfully describes intrinsic Mariological doctrine into defined dogma.

Perhaps this conservative methodology can also be seen as a further reflection of how the Church's behavior venerates then imitates the actions of Our Lady Herself. As Our Lady is the humble handmaid of her Suffering-Servant-Messianic-King-Son in co-service to their present and future 'descendants' (first Catholics then all Mankind), the Church in its uncompromising guardian and stewardship, teaching and preaching of the entire Deposit of Faith, whether it already be declared dogma or reside still in 'mustard-seed' form, imitates Our Lady in her still on-going Christological Mission to shepherd all persons into the 'New Jerusalem.' Further and as/with Our Lady, the Church, never desiring to be the focal point herself, exists only to 're-calibrate' human focus and nexus of desire, away from His Creations' arch-enemies; the world, the flesh and the devil, and back on to where the real refuge for restless hearts resides; the Kingdom Himself.

To that end, such facts as those discussed herein, should help combat and calm the ecumenically-oriented-type fears which have been in vogue since at least Vatican II. With strict regard to the declaration of dogma which immortalizes Mary as Queen via scriptural, traditional and magisterially sifted 'proof' that she has already and always been active in her queenly roles and aspects ('Immaculata,' Gebirah, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate), it would seem that the proposed thesis of Our Lady kindly and ceaselessly traversing the 'circle of grace'[33] itself be as 'self' evident as the Kingdom of God being located within. However, to those who see her as the channel of grace in only the crudest sense (passive physical conduit), such sublime 'divine- circle-talk' will always be suspected as attempt to square the circle of grace rather than close it:

Objection 1: Calling Mary a "Co-redemptrix" places her on an equal level with Jesus Christ the Divine Son of God, making her something like a fourth person of the Trinity, a goddess or goddess, which is blasphemy for any true Christian.[34]

Regardless of such cynical assertions, the fact of her two thousand year history, is the living reminder that extrapolation of dogma from intrinsic doctrine about all the Mysteries and specifically what constitutes appropriate worship/reverence/devotion for whom, has always and only emerged from study and struggle, prayer, penance, patience and prudence of God-graced hearts and intellects within and under the watchful eye of the Catholic Church.

For instance, consider that contrary to what her detractors assert, from the first dogmatic declaration confirming Our Lady as 'Theotokis'[35] up through more modern magisterial documentation citing Our Lady's queenship, (Dei Verbum (Vat. II) , the Magisterium has been demonstratively careful to caution both devotees and detractors against erring too far on either side of their antithetical divide, i.e. as 'defect' which disallows the affording to the Mother of God that which the Church ascribes to her or 'excess' which is any position which would place the mother of Jesus on a level of equality with God' which coincidentally is basically the same objection just highlighted.

Nevertheless, as per God's ordained all-out war between 'the Woman and her seed' and 'the Serpent and his seed,' any attempt to more fully describe the depth of meaning inherent as in the Church's description of Our Lady as 'daughter of the Father, 'Mother of the Son' and 'Spouse' of the uncreated Immaculate Conception' most certainly will continue to be met with the furious and intractable insanity of the three-headed foe; 'the world,' the flesh and the devil'.[36]

The point of the above is simply this: Since opposition is inevitable, i.e. literally, "No. Matter. What?" it would seem to behoove those formulating the language for the fifth Marian dogma to literally think outside the circle (of grace) into the God-only regions of the depth, breadth and height of the love the Trinity has for 'their' 'Woman.'

This may necessitate a deeper dive into such Mariological thought as which St. Maximillian Kolbe had begun before he entered in to the even deeper mysticism of martyrdom. This in turn may also delay the timing of the declaration of the Fifth Dogma.

…. proclaim Marian roles of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate for the People of God which in truth constitutes one fundamental coredemptive role with the Redeemer and Sanctifier under its various aspects, as Christian dogma revealed by God …[37]

PART IV: When should they say all that I AM?

MAY THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, STRENGTHEN AND GUIDE THEM TO PROCLAIM THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT MARY, WHO IS DAUGHTER OF THE FATHER, MOTHER OF THE SON, SPOUSE OF THE SPIRIT, AND MOTHER OF THE CHURCH. [38]

Precisely because Marian dogmatic declarations have been seen to release a torrent of supernatural grace upon the world, in this time so troubled many fears its actual end is near, it would seem that the near future would be the appropriate essential timing for a fifth dogmatic declaration. This does not seem to square with the above thesis that its timing should be slowed to allow for more further investigation into the meta-physicality of Our Lady after her Assumption and Coronation relating and correlating to that of the 'new creation' Jesus showed the disciples after His Resurrection but before ascending vis a vie His own 'newly' 'added' power. Perhaps some caveat in the language of the fifth dogma conveying that it might not be the last, would help solve this timing/substance paradox?

However, such questions of great estate are eventually handled by the mighty, more humbler but equally earnest intellects can still learn from the Church's past Mariology by the literal 'practice' of trying to apply them one's self as follows:

Practice Thesis: Perhaps still in mustard-seed form, included within the current traditional methodological support for the dogmatic declaration of Our Lady as 'Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate,' there is an even deeper truth regarding how and when the unimaginable depths of His Triune Love 'unionized' all 'their' individual unions with Our Lady into Its literal giving of His own mysterious 'substance' even over and beyond the 'immaculatizing' of her humanity. As corollary to both meanings all the 'cos' between Our Lady and Lord, this would equate (roughly) to what happened to Jesus at the Resurrection and Ascension to what happened to Mary at her Assumption and Coronation. 'Mining' previous Marian dogmatic justification and processes for the validity of this thesis might include:

TRADITION

*St. Justin Martyr - first century theologian who articulates the antithetical-parallel between Our Lady and Eve wherein there is no difference in essence (Grace) between the two women before the Fall.

* St. Irenaeus - extraordinary thesis of the distinction of Mary's mode of Redemption from that of the rest of humanity's. God 'side-steps' (saves) Mary from the fallen state therefore she never experiences any of its consequences therefore her essence and status remain stasis in at least the Eve-equivalent divinely created state, keeping further unimaginable unions 'possible for God'.

* St. Thomas Aquinas - In defending the reason for the special and unique category of 'hyperdulia' devotion deserved by Our Lady, articulates the concept of grace being not a quantity of 'substance' but the quality (degree) of actualizing the substance of God (grace) as participation. In Mary's unique case, that participation is total self-giving of her divinely and uniquely completed human essence in support of God's Divine Plan of Salvation. The second part of the rationale treats of reasons for hyperdulia as being that Mary alone possesses an intrinsic relation to the hypostatic union. Does this not leave room for a 'hypra-static union'?

*St. Maximillian Kolbe - begins treating of the above referred to depth of union between Our Lady and the Trinity in his thesis on the created (Mary) and uncreated (Holy Spirit) Immaculate Conceptions. The first expression of this sharing of divine marital love was the Incarnate Word entering time. Does this preclude an even further dimension of self-giving of the bottomless fountain of Life and Love?

SCRIPTURE

The Church has always had a sense of enormous love of Christ for His mother. But if we confine ourselves to the Gospel record, it is very difficult to find any concrete evidence of it ….[39]

* Matthew 20:22 - A mother asks Jesus for the special glorification of her sons by designating them to sit on either side of Him in His Kingdom. He denies them on two bases; a) that they do not fully comprehend what they are asking, and b) that such glorified positions are not His to grant but especially supplied and reserved for whom they have been prepared by the Father.

Through the lens of Mariology being intrinsic to Christology, a reading of this verse might posit that this is Jesus pointing to Mary as the glorified gebirah of His Coming Kingdom, justified in two ways; a) Though He acknowledges that the disciples will drink of 'His Chalice,' an acknowledgement that their painful participation in the Salvific Plan is mandatory, they do not, cannot and will not 'know' the fullest depth or expression of what that means. We know that Mary as Queen of the Universe, is the only one who could know and therefore the only one whom the divine royal seat is 'pre'-served'. And, b) the fact of designating only His Father as the one who "prepares" the positions. Thrones vis a vie the gebirah documentation in the OT, connote both "office" (commission and capability) and essence, i.e. something in the actual 'make-up' over and above DNA which differentiates the person or line. The sources of Christ's kingly power determine the nature, the extension, and the mode of exercise of that power. [40]

REV 22: 1 - Re-introduces the 'Woman of Genesis' and less obviously "the river of life.," now flowing "bright as crystal" and both bisecting and circumnavigating its own source. This is a reiteration of Gen 2:10 wherein that river of life subdivides into four rivers with names which refer to earthly kingdoms, perhaps signifying God's grace present in all creation before and during its alienation from Him. Mary, then as 'inheritess' of divine DNA from her Father, life-giving mother and loving wife of the members of the Trinity could also perhaps be rightly represented in this river imagery, which after its own 're-glorification, is still sourced from the Father, travels 'by the light of the Son, through the New Jerusalem and, as the only element that can change form while remaining same in substance, lives, moves and has her being within her Spouse the Holy Spirit.

MAGISTERIAL

Pius IX, Ineffibilius Deus, 1854 - …. Showered her with heavenly gifts and graces from the treasury of His divinity so far beyond what He gave to all the angels and saints...that under God a greater could not be dreamed, and only God can comprehend the marvel.[41]

Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam, - It is easily concluded that she is a queen, since she bore a son who, at the very moment of his conception, because of the hypostatic union of the human nature with the Word, was also as Man king and Lord of all things.[42]

Like, Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus which defines Our Lady's Assumption but leaves open the question of her death, the above cited papal documents seem to invite opened ended inquiry into the height, depth, breadth of Our Lady's glorified 'being-ness'. Perhaps vis a vie the urgency of fully completed Marian dogma, the Holy Spirit is already moving to courage those whom He has given a magnifying glass rather than a smoke-stained mirror. In fact, evidence of such convergent thought-effect is seen already between two seemingly completely divergent 'communities'.

Consider the case of St. Catherine Laboure who simultaneously entertained 'visions' of Our Lady which confirmed Her as 'Mediatrix of All Graces' while receiving the electrified shock of experiencing the reality of the Assumed Queen's glorified supra-humanity. Catherine heard the whisper of Her silken skirts and felt the skin and bones underneath, as she lay her head in Our Lady's lap ….

After five years of conducting experiments on the Shroud of Turin, the Italian ENEA, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, published a report that reads:

It should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts.[43]

… Thirty- four thousand billion watts. Is this the output of the divine fire which Father Barron spoke of in the beginning of this paper? The Trinity’s own complete yet infinite fiat waiting to connect and electrify all Mankind? Mary Queen of the Universe certainly knows.

Never an arbitrary expression of might, the divine potential is exercised for the sake of raising up children to Abraham … We recall that when speaking of the Incarnation … God's power is fully revealed in Christ because there is nothing greater than that God becomes human. This means that the might of God is never more blazingly evident than in the act of self-forgetting love in which God joined his creation in order to raise it again … God's power, as St. Anselm has it, is the capacity not to say yes or no, but rather the capacity to say only yes."[44]

Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love Him.

-Tina Wilson is a graduate student at Franciscan University of Steubenville working towards her Masters of Arts in Catechesis and Evangelization.

ENDNOTES

[1] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no.6 (2007),44.

[2] Timothy Gray, "God's Word and Mary's Royal Office, "Miles Immaculatae, 31, no.13 (1995): 387.

[3] Timothy Gray, "God's Word and Mary's Royal Office," Miles Immaculatae, 31, no. 13 (1995): 373.

[4]Mark I. Miravalle, Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 468.

[5] George T. Montague, Our Father, Our Mother Mary and the Faces of God (Steubenville: Franciscan University Press, 1990), 92.

[6] Timothy Gray, "God's Word and Mary's Royal Office, Miles Immaculatae" 31, no.13 (1995): 374.

[7] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition, (Washington, D.C.: USCCB Communications,2000),887.

[8] Edward Sri, Queen Mother A Biblical Theology of Mary's Queenship ( Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2005), 49.

[9] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no.6 (2007): 114.

[10] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no.6 (2007), 121.

[11] Jn 2: 3-6

[12] Ibid.

[13] Stefano M. Manelli, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2005), 18.

[14] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no.6 (2007),158.

[15] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no. 6 (2007), 120.

[16] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no.6 (2007), 121.

[17] James E. Muller and Richard A. Bradley, Church History, An Introduction to Research, Reference Works, and Methods (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995), 54.

[18] Miravalle, Dr. Mark I., Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, THE 655 Mary in the Modern World, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 25 minutes, September 2019, http://www.accessfus/blackboard.com

[19] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 486.

[20] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 488.

[21] The Hail Holy Queen and Memorare

[22] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 493.

[23] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 494.

[24] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 495.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 499.

[27]Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 497.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 499.

[30] Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 500.

[31] Mark I. Miravalle, Mary COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, ADVOCATE (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1993), 76

[32] Miravalle, Dr. Mark I., Professor, Marian Text Quantity, THE 655 Mary in the Modern World, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 25 minutes, September 2019, http://www.accessfus/blackboard.com

[33] Miravalle, Dr. Mark I., Professor, Advocate: Title and Role of Mary, THE 655 Mary in the Modern World, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 25 minutes, September 2019, http://www.accessfus/blackboard.com

[34] Luis Cardinal Aponte Martinez, et al., Mary Co-redemptrix Doctrinal Issues today (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing,1993), 94.

[35] Council of Ephesus

[36] Miravalle, Dr. Mark I., Professor, Mary's Spiritual Motherhood, THE 655 Mary in the Modern World, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 25 minutes, September 2019, http://www.accessfus/blackboard.com

[37] MARK I. Miravalle, MARY, COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, ADVOCATE (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing,1993), 78.

[38] MARK I. Miravalle, MARY, COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, ADVOCATE (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing,1993), V.

[39] Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity (San Francisco: Ignasius Press, 1946), 319.

[40] George Kerwin, "Queenship of Mary -- Queen Mother," Marian Library Studies, 28, no.6 (2007), 160.

[41] Pope Pius IX, Ineffibilius Deus, 1950

[42] Mark I. Miravalle, Mariology A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta: Queenship Publishing, 2007), 498.

[43] Bradley Eli, "Modern Science Can't Duplicate the Image on the Shroud of Turin" last modified April 4, 2017, accessed Nov. 2019, http://ChurchMilitant.com

[44] (Robert Barron, Thomas Aquinas Spiritual Master, (New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company, 2008), 119.