Hello and welcome to a Masterclass in Mariology. This is Dr. Mark Miravalli. I'm joined by
my colleague and dear friend, Dr. Robert Festigi, as we continue to try to unpack on a graduate
or doctoral type of level, a symposium fashion of the great pearls regarding Our Lady, both
in terms of truth and in terms of love. We want this particular lecture, symposium discussion,
to focus as kind of a segue between Our Lady in Scripture, which we've done in our previous
sessions, to ultimately Our Lady in Dogma, but as an interim presentation to discuss
Our Lady very briefly in the early church, and also to speak about the nature of Marian
devotion as treated by St. Thomas. Unfortunately, it's just too restrictive to try to do an
entire series on the history of Mariology, which would be massive in and of itself, but
the goal of this particular segment is to connect the scriptural references through
the fathers and at least a little essence of Mary's understanding of devotion, the level
in which the medieval church examines her and is so wonderfully articulated by St. Thomas
Aquinas. So, Robert, let's begin, if we can, with, since we've just left Our Lady in the
New Testament in previous sessions, let's begin with a authentically Catholic understanding
of Our Lady in the Apocrypha. So maybe for our listeners and viewers, you could kind
of define what Apocrypha means, and then what Catholics do and do not believe as found regarding
Our Lady in the Apocryphal writings.
Thank you very much. Well, the word Apocrypha refers to non-canonical writings of the early
Christian centuries, and it comes from a word meaning hidden or secret, and there are some
Apocryphal writings which are way off. They're coming from a Gnostic, dualist point of view,
and St. Irenaeus in the second century highly criticizes these. Then there are other Apocryphal
writings which reveal concerns of early Christians, and so they kind of blend together
legend with devotion. And so we have sometimes legends of the saints, but what these Apocryphal
writings about Mary reveal is a great interest in her life, what happened to her after she
departed from this earth, and so on. So it shows a great interest. I'll just read to you what
Fr. Luigi Gambaro states, that the Apocryphal writings cannot be considered a witness to the
official teaching of the Church, but they at least serve to give a certain idea of the religious
interests and Marian piety of their time, and of the questions that the faithful asked about the
Lord's mother. And so we have some of these, like the Odes of Solomon date from the late first or
early second century, and they testify that Mary gave birth without pain. So very early on, this
was the awareness. And then of course there's the proto-gospel or proto-evangelium of James,
which refers to Joachim and Anne as the parents of Mary, and that Mary, St. Anne conceiving
Mary was somewhat miraculous. So it shows a great interest, and then it was trying to explain the
brothers and sisters referred to in Scripture of our Lord. And so we don't accept this, but some
people in especially in Eastern Christianity accept this, that Joseph was an elderly widower,
and so he had children of his own, but he was the one selected. There's also testimony in rather
graphic detail, as we know, of Mary giving birth without losing her physical sign of virginity.
So this is from about the middle of the second century, but it shows how in the early church
these were great concerns. And then we also, I could mention these transitus stories. Some of
these date from the 200s probably, the third century, and they continue into the sixth century,
and they relate stories of Mary's passage from this world to the next. They all agree that Mary's
body is placed in a tomb, which is later found to be empty. And so there's a great interest
in what happened to her, that she was taken up to heaven. So this is early testified in these
transitus stories. And Mark, maybe you could mention something about witness to Mary and
devotion in the catacombs. Certainly, and before we leave the apocryphal writings, I think it's
very important, and we've talked about this before, that we make this distinction, that the church
does not derive from apocryphal writings as its source anything that we hold as part of our
doctrinal truths or our liturgical truths. Rather, we see in apocryphal writings the manifestations
of the oral lived tradition that was part of the apostolic church. That's a key difference because
otherwise we're saying, well, yes, part of what we believe are from legendary
writings or writings that we ourselves say are not biblical writings. And so it's critical to say
we don't get the names of Anne and Joachim from the proto-evangelium of James, but the reality
and the existing living tradition which has and possesses the fact that Anne and Joachim are the
parents of Mary, that's also reflected in apocryphal writings. And then it reflects things
that are not accurate, like the idea that Joseph is a widower, that the church has never embraced
that. It was, I think, rather unfortunate that St. John Chrysostom kind of latched onto that,
and I think that gave life in the Eastern church to this idea, but they've never sanctioned it
either. But, of course, these are testimonies, and as you say, with Father Gambrough appropriately
stating, to the interest of Our Lady from the beginning as part of the living tradition of the
church. And the realities that are conveyed in these testimonies are wonderful
manifestations of what is believed by the faithful. And also some of the things of
Joseph being anywhere from 80 to 120 to 180 in some of these apocryphal writings. Obviously,
again, a well-intentioned effort to protect Mary's virginity, but it's using age rather
than virtue to the loss of St. Joseph. So in reference to, we're seeing even
what is estimated in terms of Our Lady in the catacombs now, anywhere from the end of the
first century to the first half of the second century, several rather important images, some
would even include it to the second century into the third century, images of Our Lady in the
catacombs. Now, why is that significant? Because the catacombs were the sacred places of the early
Christians. I think there's been a lot of deconstructionist writings of saying, well,
no, Christians never hid in the catacombs. Well, in fact, they did hide in the catacombs,
and there was true persecution. And so when they decorated the catacombs, it was done with the
deepest of reverence, and that's why you have images of Our Lady in the catacombs. For example,
one of the most significant, I think, is in the catacombs of St. Agnes,
where Our Lady has her arms outstretched, and in one arm is St. Peter, and the other arm
is St. Paul. Well, that's really Our Lady as mother of the apostolic church. Peter and Paul
always stand for the church, the fact that Our Lady would be in the middle of them. Also,
where they had images, you know, they'd have images of Our Lady on gravestones, which would
indicate her intercessory power. They would have images of Our Lady over the
nave, in which they would celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass, and she'd be at the top
of that, almost as a protectress. And so these are all real testimonies to the early church
understanding of the centrality of Our Lady, especially after the ascension of our Lord Jesus.
Exactly. It's amazing. And then we see in the early apostolic authors, saints,
theological development, and also great Marian devotion testified by very early prayers, like
what we call the Sub tuum praesidium, which goes back at least to the fourth century, but maybe the
third. But this shows how the intercessory power of Mary was recognized very early on. If I make,
may I read this prayer? Please do. Yes. And this is, it's called Sub tuum praesidium in Latin,
because it begins with, under thy patronage, we fly. But this is a standard translation.
We fly to your patronage, O Holy Mother of God. Despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin.
So we see Mother of God, she's the Virgin, and she delivers us from all dangers, her great
intercessory power. So a number of doctrines, really dogmas about Mary, are expressed in this
very early prayer. Yeah, it's very true, Robert. And some would put it around 250 A.D., even in
the middle of the third century, depending on historical author. But what does it tell us?
It tells us that at a time of persecutions, the early church went to Our Lady. And as you rightly
point out, she's referred to as the Theotokos, you know, over 200 years or ish before Ephesus,
before this is declared. And it also is a great point that a dogma is a doctrine before it becomes
a dogma, right? It's a truth that the church teaches before it's solemnly proclaimed, because
it's in this, in the source of revelation. And secondly, it talks about the early church's
intercessory power, excuse me, the early church's belief in Our Lady's intercessory power.
I couldn't help but think, Robert, with reference to the sub-tomb, how we have third
century Christians who trust in Our Lady's intercession, but we have 21st century Christians
who don't. That's a regress. That's not a proper development of doctrine. That's not a hermeneutics
of continuity. And so the idea, you know, I was talking with one friend recently, and he was
talking, you know, in polite debate with a Protestant Christian saying, do you think that it really took
us 15 centuries to get everything right? That we really needed, you know, an interjection of
Martin Luther in the 16th century? So for the first 15 centuries, we were so wrong about the
Eucharist, about Mary, and about the Holy Father. But here we have 21st century Christians hesitant
to call upon Mary, because I think they don't see this as a tapping of intercession. They see it as
a form of idolatry, and they don't distinguish between prayer to a member of the mystical body,
which is what the early church is doing, a mother of the mystical body, as Augustine will confirm,
versus adoration. And we'll talk about those distinctions a little bit later.
Yes, exactly, exactly. But I mean, it reveals, it's almost like it's honoring Mary with great
devotion, O glorious and blessed virgin. So this is recognizing she's glorious, she's blessed,
she's a virgin. And this is third century. If she had other children, then why are you calling her
virgin? Yeah, right. And you know, as C.S. Lewis quipped, you know, when you have a toothache,
there's only two people that really exist in the world, yourself and the dentist,
the one who can remove it. And so the early Christians under serious persecution, we know
the persecutions of Diocletian and others, they went to the mother. And that's a testimony to
their level of belief in Our Lady's powerful intercession back in the third century. Well,
let's also anchor the first major theological image of Our Lady, Robert, in a model that still
can testify to essentially containing every major dogma and doctrine, at least implicitly,
contained in it. And that's Our Lady as the new Eve. So let's go to Justin and Irenaeus for
the articulation of this massive contribution to understanding who the mother is,
and they have it, as many believe, even from the apostolic age. Exactly. Mary is the new woman,
but she's also recognized by these early church fathers as the new Eve. And St. Justin Martyrs
dies around 165 AD. But this is what he writes, the Son of God became man through a virgin,
so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it had begun.
For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the
serpent's words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy. For when the angel Gabriel brought
her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and that the power of the Most High
would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered,
let it be done to me according to your word. So this is recognizing the parallelism
between the first Eve who was disobedient and the new Eve who was obedient. And this is
even more, maybe significantly expressed through St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who died around 202. But
he's writing around the year, well, probably 180 AD. And this is actually quoted in Vatican II,
Lumen Gentium 56. And here it's this, it's not just simply a reference to her being the
mother of God and the new Eve, but also it very much supports what we would call co-redemption.
And so that, I'll just read to you part of this, you know, first, Adam, he says, had to be
recapitulated in Christ so death might be swallowed up in immortality. And Eve had to be recapitulated
in Mary so that the Virgin, having become another Virgin's advocate, might just destroy and abolish
one Virgin's disobedience by the obedience of another. And then even though Adam, that even
though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a Virgin. By disobeying, she became the cause of
death for herself and for the whole race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband,
was still a Virgin. And by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the
whole human race. The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience, what Eve bound
through her unbelief, Mary loosed by her faith. That's a stunning, you know, Mary-logical
on steroids single line, that Mary was the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.
I would dare say, Robert, of 10 one-liners in the history of Mariology, this is clearly of the 10.
It might be clearly of the top five as well, so let's not pass lightly over this. And why does
the Council, what's the context of Lumen Gentium 56 when they quote this? The context is saying
Mary was not simply passively engaged. She was actively cooperating in the salvation of humanity.
Well, that's straight up co-redemption. And even if they're talking about the incarnation by way
of emphasis, the incarnation is the redemption anticipated and begun, as the fathers tell us.
And so here you have in the second century, and they estimate his writings against the heresy,
against, you know, against heresies, somewhere between 180 to 185 AD. But this is being taught
on three continents, Robert, at the same time. That's why many historians believe that this was
part of the apostolic tradition passed on from John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, that Mary is the
new Eve. Regardless of its immediate history, this is saying that a human being, a woman, a new Eve,
is paralleled antithetically with the old Eve. So you've got the same themes. You've got Adam,
Eve, a tree, and you've got disobedience. And so we've got the new Adam, the new Eve, the new tree
of the cross, and Mary's obedience. But key of it all is that Mary actively participates in the
greatest action of human history, which is the redemption. And I also love that specification
that Irenaeus includes, saying that she's the cause for herself and the whole human race. So
that begs the question, well, we know Mary's part of the human race, and Irenaeus knows she's part
of the human race. Why that for herself? Is this not some seed fashion of Mary's unique
mode of salvation, even perhaps a remarculate conception that has Irenaeus
specify her, you know, salvation for herself and the whole human race?
Exactly, exactly. And when we talk about the title co-redemptrix, it's interesting that
Father Gabriele Roschini, the founder of the Marianum in Rome, in his book, Who is Mary?
One of the questions is, what does it mean to say Mary is the co-redemptrix of the human race?
And he says it means that just as Eve cooperated with Adam in our ruin, Mary cooperated with Christ
in our reparation or our redemption. That's what it means. I remember you said you once spoke with
Cardinal Schönborn, and you asked him, when did the belief in Mary in co-redemption begin? And
he said the second century. But it might even go back earlier than that, but maybe you could report
on what the Cardinal said. Yeah, that was his reference, and that's why, you know, when I asked
him to do an article for us on co-redemptrix, he sent a homily he gave, but he extended it,
on the fact that Mary deserves the title co-redemptrix just in virtue of her yes
at the Annunciation. But this further goes with co-redemption and a unique human role.
I mean, Robert, there's so much we can say about this, and I just want to
compliment the fathers for their strong unanimous defense of a woman's active cooperation
in the redemption. That's nothing more than what the title co-redemptrix ultimately means.
Surely there could be specifications of exactly her role at Calvary, and we grant that, but
that's what we're talking about here, and they got it from the second century. I remember talking
with Father Laurentan at the 2000 Jubilee for the Pontifical Marian Academy. We were having lunch
together, and we had a long-standing kind of duel regarding the co-redemptrix, and he was not at all
in favor of this definition. And right in the middle of his vegetables, oftentimes he only
ate vegetables. He was very slight. And as he was eating his vegetables with a little olive oil on
them, I thought, surely, surely in Irenaeus you see this causality. He said, yeah, well, but they
don't use the term. But you know, Robert, I find that objection to be so odd for a scholar. Well,
they don't use the term transubstantiation either. They don't use the term Trinity. I mean,
that term's not in Scripture. The word Bible is not in the Bible. I mean, and quite frankly,
to dovetail, I found it to be one of the arguably worse, dare I say, theological comments that was
reported by Cardinal Ratzinger saying something similar, that the co-redemptrix title, you know,
isn't a biblical title. Well, there's so much of what we hold that are not specifically biblical
titles. But this all is, the truth is there with Irenaeus from the beginning.
Exactly. And I would go back to the young Father Laurentin, who in 1951 published an
article, later turned into a little book about the title co-redemptrix. And because it had been
sanctioned by Pius X, and now we know also Leo XIII, and also used by Pius XI, he said it would
be gravely temerious for anyone to dispute its legitimacy. And he's the same man writing in 1951.
And then in the year 2000, almost 50 years later, he reverses himself. But I think the young
Father Laurentin had it right in 1951. Right. And it's reminiscent of what we talked
about before in that Cranotanda, where the theologians who took the title out of the first
schema said the title absolutely true in itself, but which could be misunderstood
by our separated brethren, that is, Protestants. Well, let us pray and hope that the Church never
uses that as our theological method for removing things that might be misunderstood by our
Protestant brethren. Things like the Eucharist, things like the papacy and infallibility, let alone
things of Our Lady. But it's there from the beginning, from the apostolic era, and that's
what's so powerful and so great that Vatican II quotes Irenaeus to specifically defend active
role, because that active role is also going to manifest itself clearly at Calvary as well.
Exactly, exactly. And as we've talked about, Lumen Gentium 58 shows an active involvement in Mary
in uniting her sufferings to those of her of her beloved son, our Lord, and also offering him,
you know, surrendering her maternal rights, but offering, consenting to the immolation of the
son she brought forth. So this is something active. If you consent, you're active. It's not something
passive. No, that's exactly true. And, you know, as we're going through this segue
from Scripture to the specific dogmas, of course, there's other great gems. We have, you know, the
Council of Ephesus in 431, the definition of Our Lady is the Theotokos, the God-bearer. We have the
whole development of Mary's testimony, this unanimous testimony to Mary's perpetual virginity,
as well as the dogma, as we'll talk about in 649 by Martin I, her threefold virginity,
virginal before, during, and after the birth of Christ. And then, of course, the extraordinary
medieval explosion of devotion to Our Lady. But I say explosion, Robert, not because,
not in terms of a lacking of the foundations before the Middle Ages. This was a beautiful
development, almost like an embryo in the womb of the Church, of the truth about Our Lady. It moves
on. It's present in the Apostolic Church. It moves on gradually. It grows and matures.
And then, you know, walk into any medieval basilica or cathedral, and you see the, you know, huge
image of Our Lady as the mediatrix and the, you know, popes and saints and mystics and religious
under her, almost like little children under the mother. But all of that presupposes an accurate
concept of devotion. So we're going to hit devotion briefly here, not because devotion
is more important than dogma, because dogma is more important. Ultimately, we love based on the
truth, but that it's critically important that we see that the medievals had their devotion in order,
and it's defined and articulated and categorized as so. So if we can, let's go to
the angelic doctor, St. Thomas, in Tares Part, Question 25, Article 5, where he talks about
these great categories, which, quite frankly, are not his to originate. I mean, it's really John
Damascene talks about these in the 8th century, but Thomas, as always, gives such clarity to these
categories of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, and how those relate to Our Lady. Yes, and also in the
second part of the second part, in Question 84 and Question 103, he teaches pretty much the
same, but here is the distinction between latria, which is the worship due to God alone, and dulia,
which is veneration, respect. And I sometimes think of that last of the divine praises
after benediction, blessed be God in his angels and in his saints. And so in other words,
the angels and the saints are worthy of honor because they reflect God and God's bounty and
God's grace and his living in them. And so I know he does refer in responding to one of the
objections about the title hyperdulia given to Mary, but he said this is because she's worthy
of the highest veneration possible. I think sometimes we get mixed up with the word worship.
If you go back into older English, the word worship had a broader application, and so even
in Ontario, there's still a tradition of calling a judge your worship. Now that could be very confusing,
but the distinction that St. Thomas makes, and it's already there in St. John of Damascene,
it's there in the Second Council of Nicaea, 787, is between the worship due to God alone,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also we can worship the sacred humanity of Christ.
That's why we can worship his sacred heart, as was affirmed by Pius VI, and then again by
Pius XII, that because of the hypostatic union, his heart is part of his sacred humanity, which
is united to his divine person, so we worship, even as the Second Council of Constantinople said
in 553, we don't have a separate worship for his humanity and a separate worship for his divinity.
We worship both with the same act of worship because he's human and divine.
We wouldn't have a type of Nestorian worship on our side where we're splitting him
and happen, but no, really it is, you know, rightfully said, the Secunda Secundae, that
second part of the second part, Question 103, Articles 3 and 4, where he really, and the other
references, he goes into those with application, but that's really your Latria, Dulia, Hyperdulia
reference, and you know with Latria, he specifies this is the worship due to God alone. We would
use the word adoration predominantly for this, and St. Thomas says, well, why does God deserve
our adoration, the worship proper to an uncreated being, and Thomas answers, because of his absolute
lordship, that's right, of his dominion, he is the creator of all, and that's why God alone, God alone
deserves the Latria, which is, again, a species of the category worship. So, as you point out, well,
Robert, there's confusion about that word worship, but the word worship is comparable to the word
devotion. It's a generic reference. It includes worship of God, worship of the saints, worship of
the angels. Now, today, we tend to avoid the word worship for the Hyperdulia and Dulia categories,
that of the saints and angels. We use the word devotion. That's fine, but you can't call the
earlier church or the medieval church in error, because they use that term more generically. So,
Latria is that species of worship due to God alone in virtue of his absolute lordship, and
it's very strongly distinguished from Dulia, which comes from the word dule, you know, the
word for slave, you know, servitude. Right, that's right. Yes, and you know, the word adoratio,
you know, adoration, had a broader meaning. I remember reading Suarez, writing in the late
16th century, and he makes a distinction between adoratio latriae, the adoration of the worship
due to God alone, and adoratio duliae, which today we would be better to use veneration, veneration.
And I remember reviewing the English translation of Father Hauke's excellent book, Introduction
to Mariology, and even though he's German, he wrote it in Italian, because he was teaching in
Italian-speaking Lugano in Switzerland. But he says the word worship, cultus, in its generic
meaning refers to honor directed to a person because of his or her excellence. In religious
realm, it refers to the reverence expressed towards God and to the creatures united with him.
So first of all, worship is owed to God as Lord and end of every creature. We speak of adoration,
of lutritic worship, cultus latriae. The Greek word latriae refers to service of God. Honor
directed to the saints is motivated by their union with God. Such veneration is called dulia,
cultus duliae, refers to service or slavery in general. So, you know, that's where the
word dulos means slave or servant. So we express honor to those to whom we owe service or veneration.
Right, and who would be in that category? Well, all creatures that serve God in excellence, that
manifest in a created excellence, which is what we call holiness. So that's the angels and the
saints. And again, Thomas rightfully says it is very legitimate to honor created excellence.
Quite frankly, Robert, we do it all the time. We have Olympic gold medals and we have keys to the
city. So we don't have a problem with honor. We have academic awards. We have Nobel Peace Prizes.
Well, that's all honoring created excellence. But for those who had a created excellence in
relation to God in the order of holiness, they deserve our veneration. And that's the general
category of dulia. And now Our Lady, and there's a laundry list of reasons, but there's a couple
of predominant reasons why hyperdulia, which I kid with the students, sounds like a thyroid condition,
but it's really this proper level of devotion exclusive to Mary for three fundamental reasons.
So why does Mary receive what is a form of devotion, which differs not only in degree,
but Thomas' look, nature. It differs in nature and degree than dulia. And that's because of her
theotokos, by being the mother of God, by her immaculate conception, and by her perfect
obedience to the will of God, as Trent teaches. So maybe you can elaborate a little bit on
the hyperdulia category. Yes, it's the highest veneration we could give to a creature.
And this is found in Fabulis Deus, the proclamation of the immaculate conception.
But in the beginning of that, Blessed Pius IX says, Mary was filled with such an abundance
of the gifts of the heavenly bounty, far more than any creature. So that's why she could be
called the queen of the angels. And then he more or less adapts Anselm's point, God is that
then which nothing greater can be thought, and that he adapts Mary as the creature,
that then which none greater can be thought. You can't even imagine, next to God we couldn't conceive
of a more perfect creature, because she is the living ark who brings God to creation.
So that this is, but if I may read just a little bit from Saint Thomas, this is the second part
of the second part, question 103, and you summarized this beautifully before. And he says, for God has
absolute and paramount lordship over the creature wholly and singly, which is
entirely subject to his power, whereas man partakes of a certain likeness to the divine lordship,
for inasmuch as he exercises a particular power over some man or creature, wherefore
dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays
service to the lordship of God. And we would say, you know, Mary is called domina, which means
lady, but it's the feminine of dominus, or lord, you know. And so
she's also called, you have Kyrios, and she's also called by Greek fathers Kyria, you know.
She's the lady. And so even more so than any lord, she's the lady, and even more than
kings and monarchs and presidents, she deserves the highest veneration possible of human beings
towards a creature. And when we think about what it means to be the mother of God, to actually
have the second person of the trinity inside you, and to give the word flesh, and then when we think
about how the saints, and again Aristotle's right, the more you can emphasize the difference of
things, the more clearly you have the distinctions in your mind about them. So if we think of the
great saints, like, you know, Padre Pio, and the little flower, and Saint Maximilian, the apostles,
Saint Paul, Peter, etc. But then we contrast that with she who gives birth to the Redeemer,
she who doesn't just excel in grace as the saints do, but she who has a plenitude, a fullness of
grace from the moment of her conception. And as this manifests itself, she who never even committed
venial sin. Now, I don't take us for Jansenists, Robert, but venial sin is not that difficult to
commit any impatience, any judgmental thought, any sin against charity. But to go her 60-some years on
earth, even after they crucify her innocent son, and to never exercise an uncharitable thought or
judgmental thought, that's something beyond what any other human could do. And that's why
that specification, that it's not just mordulia, it's different in nature and degree than that
devotion we have to the saints. That's why Saint Bernard is right, de Maria numquam sares, enough
cannot be said. Unless, if you want to be theologically careful, unless you're talking about
Latria. Of course, that's too much, but that's not too much love of the mother. I just want to
address that too, Robert, because you can't love the mother too much. Our love of our blessed mother
will never equal the love of Jesus Christ for his mother. So people like the Coloridians, the early
church sect that gave Latria to Mary, and most of them were believed themselves to be women priests,
that's not too much love. That's a disorder. That's a falsification of truth upon which then
error of the heart or devotion come. That's very different. That's radically different
than saying, oh, I think I love her. I love Our Lady too much. You can't love Our Lady too much,
but you can have errors about her, and that's what happened with the Coloridians.
Exactly, exactly, and as Saint Louis de Montfort puts it so beautifully in True Devotion to Mary,
God had no absolute need of Mary, just as he had no absolute need to create, and compared to
God, Mary's less than an atom. In fact, she's like nothing because she's a creature, but God
chose to accomplish his greatest works through her, and this was predestined.
Abba Eterno, as Lumen Gentium 61 says, and this is why many like Venerable Maria of Agreda
say this is what led to the rebellion of the angels, some of them, when they saw that God
was going to become, this was part of his plan to become incarnate, and that she would have,
she would have be superior to them, so out of jealousy and envy, they rebelled,
and that rebellion continues. That's why demons hate the name of Mary, because she's a creature,
but yet she has, you know, control over them. You know, she did something that they could never do
to be the mother of the word incarnate. You know, Robert, I've had several exorcists tell me,
and one was the principal exorcist in Rome, that when the name of Mary is brought up during
exorcism, the demons tend to flee. In fact, there was one reference by an American exorcist,
Monsignor Rossetti, in the DC area, where he believed he was exorcising both Beelzebul
and Satan himself from this poor soul, and at mention that our lady was coming,
Beelzebul left on his own, because he didn't want to face the mother. He didn't want to have the
humiliation of having to be sent away, but the exorcist in Rome had mentioned, and one of the
corollary commentaries, that during an exorcism, that one of the demons confessed to the priest,
who, by the way, is always in charge of the exorcism. This is not like Hollywood exorcisms,
where the priest is flying out the window because of the power of Satan. No, the priest has the
power in the name of Jesus Christ. But the demon revealed, he said, you fools, if you only
understood the power of the name Coredemtrix, you would be invoking our lady by that name.
You'd be invoking her, didn't call her our lady, you'd be invoking her by that title all the time.
So this is that dynamism of recognizing the true unique hyperdulia level of love, based on the
truth of who the mother is. Is she human? Yes, forever she will be human. Is she a new creation?
Yes, she is that too. Exactly, and I think in the Magnificat, there's that one line,
God who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And Mary,
she's the masterpiece of God, and she has a kind of omnipotence through grace. This is what
Saint John Paul II said, referring to Blessed Bartholomew Longo's
phrase, omnipotent through grace, but it's always through grace.
And so she's great because God chose her, and God chose to accomplish such great works
through her. But she's not just a passive instrument, she's active, she's a mother.
A mother is active, and so she gives her consent in the name of all human nature to be the mother
of the word incarnate. This is at the very center of salvation history. How could we forget about
Mary? You're absolutely right, Robert. And let's end on this note, since you bring this up. I just
want to go to Secunda Secundae question, so the second part of the second part of the Summa,
question 82, article 2, where Saint Thomas says that devotion one has to God's saints does not
terminate in them, but reaches to God through his saints. So let's just think about that for a second,
that those who excelled in love of God co-naturally, essentially reflect God, because the whole reason
they're saints is because they excelled in love of God. So, you know, imagine a room of artists,
and let's say they have an artwork, at least one artwork next to them, okay? And then you're
walking around and you say, oh, I love that piece of art, I think that's beautiful. And then the artist
says, well, thank you. But then you respond, well, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking about the artwork.
And then the artist humbly says, yes, but I am the creator of that. And you say, I don't care.
Well, that would be irrational, right? Because if you praise the masterpiece, you're praising
the creator of the masterpiece, necessarily. And so, as you say, well, the mother is the
masterpiece of God. When you praise the mother, when you give her the hyperdulia she deserves,
that glory always redounds back to God. And that's why, you know, Saint Maximilian,
and, you know, many of the saints who have said, to honor Mary is to glorify God. Now you have to
make your distinctions, but it's not possible to honor the masterpiece and not to honor the master
while you're honoring the masterpiece. Exactly. And in Fabulis Deus, proclaiming the dogma of
the Immaculate Conception, these are the words of Blessed Pius IX, and God honored her, Mary,
above all creatures, with such love that in her alone he was pleased with the most singular
benevolence. And then he continues, therefore he wonderfully filled her far more than all the
angels and saints with an abundance of all the heavenly gifts taken from the treasury of his
divinity. In this way, she, being always and absolutely free from every stain of sin,
completely beautiful and perfect, would possess such a plenitude of innocence and sanctity
that under God none greater could be known, and apart from God no mind could ever succeed
in comprehending. These are the words of a pope proclaiming a dogma. This is what we believe
about Mary. That's right. That's the mother. Well, that's excellent. That's a perfect quote
to end our treatment on. Again, talking about Our Lady in the patristics, talking about authentic
medieval distinctions and authentic corresponding levels of love of Our Lady. So it's not just a
type of hyperbolic pietism of why Our Lady deserves a love beyond all the saints or all
the angels. This is theologically grounded, and it's something that really pleases our Lord. So,
well, thank you, Robert, for this, again, always engaging episode of converse regarding the truth
and the love of Our Lady. And this will bring us to our next segment, where we'll begin
the authentic Marian dogmas of Our Lady. And we'll start, of course, with Our Lady as the
mother of God. So, again, so grateful for your invaluable insights, both of head and of heart,
and as well your neurological encyclopedic dimensions of knowledge of what the Church
teaches about Our Lady. Thank you very much. We thank God for the Church, and thank God for the
Blessed Mother, the Mother of the Church. Yeah, amen. For your great insights, Mark. God bless you.
We praise God. Thank you. All right, and thanks for being with us with a Masterclass in Mariology.
More to come in our humble efforts to try to bring the full truth about Our Lady and a proper love
to her through the internet to the entire world, for all those who want to know the whole truth
about Mary, as Saint John Paul II would say. Thanks for being with us. God bless you all.