C. The Queen is Crowned

As Mary gradually became identified with the great goddesses of the ancient Greco-Roman world, pious believers began to accord to her the same honorary titles that were accorded to other goddesses.

next to each other on thrones, like king and queen. During the Middle Ages and later, when the title “Queen” was freely used in reference to Mary, many of her statues and paintings show her with a crown on her head.

The “official” enthronement of Mary, however, occurred only in 1954, when the pope, Pius XII, issued his Encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (To the Queen of Heaven), establishing a liturgical feast in honor of Mary.^[680] While this is not a dogmatic constitution defining Mary’s queenship as a “revealed truth,” it does sanction the use of the title, for encyclicals are papal letters to which the people are expected to show respect and obedience.

“Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, was finally granted, as the supreme culmination of her privileges.. that she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.”^[682]

In 1943, when the pope issued the encyclical Myslici Corporis, in which he dealt extensively with the role of Mary in redemption, he had already referred to her with these words: “... her body and soul refulgent with the glory of heaven, where she reigns with her Son...”^[683] It would take too much space to review all the honors that Pius XII paid to Mary. In various other pronouncements he called her “Queen of the Family,” “Queen of Saints,” “Queen of Mothers,” and so forth, thus giving expression to a belief that was widely held in the church at least since the Middle Ages.

With these pronouncements a development of nearly two thou­sand years reached its climax: Mary has been officially en­throned as Queen of Heaven where she reigns jointly with Jesus.

To understand this point clearly we must know how the minds of Christians work when they talk about articles of faith. The basic point is that nothing can be an object of faith that does not rest on divine revelation. Divine revelation is found in the Bible, which is The Word of God; therefore, what is in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is revealed truth.^[684] So far most Christians would agree, but at this point differences arise. Some, mostly those whose roots go back to the sixteenth-century Reformation, say that the Bible contains the apostolic tradition which was closed when the canon, i.e., the list of authoritive books in the Bible, was established. Others, mostly Roman Catholics, say that “... it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence.”^[685] Scripture and tradition, however, should not be considered two sources, but one, because “both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.”^[686] The Bible has a chronological primacy because it was committed to writing before tradition began to develop. However, when the apostles appointed bishops as their successors, they also transmitted to them the teaching authority. Tradition, therefore, means apostolic teaching as it “develops in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit.”^[687] The difference between scripture and tradition is merely the fact that one is contained in a book and the other is transmitted without writing.^[688] Thus, divine revelation is contained in both written tradition and “living” tradition.

But this is not all. Scripture and tradition need to be interpreted and the privilege of interpretation “has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the church.”^[689] An object of faith must be supported by all three of these elements, because, “... sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the teaching authority of the church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”^[690] The teaching authority of the church is called the Magisterium and any discussion of a matter pertaining to an article of faith, in our case, the queenship of Mary, must begin with an exploration of what the Magisterium teaches; only after that can scripture and tradition be examined. Pope Pius XII laid down the following general rule: the task of the theologian is “to show how that which is taught by the living Magisterium is contained explicitly or implicitly in scrip­ture and in divine tradition.”^[691] The starting point is, therefore, the mind of the Magisterium, because compared with that scripture and tradition are “remote” sources.^[692] The teaching authority of the church culminates in the pope and since the pope is infallible when he makes a solemn declaration in matters of faith and morals, he can declare an article of faith to be dogma on his own authority, i.e., motu proprio. This was the case with the promul­gation of the dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven.^[693] Let us see how these principles are applied to the thesis of Mary’s queenship.

The queenship of Mary is clearly a part of the teaching of the Magisterium, as the encyclicals Fulgens Corona and Ad Coeli Reginam show. The earliest magisteral references go back to the early Middle Ages and then gradually become more frequent as popu­lar devotion to Mary becomes more widespread.

Tradition can be ascertained from the works of the church fathers and other ecclesiastical authors and from the liturgy, the official form of public worship in which the church gives expres­sion to what it believes. Neither of these goes back much beyond the Middle Ages as far as the queenship of Mary is concerned, which means only that this truth, which was implicitly always in the apostolic deposit of faith, became explicit gradually. Thus, magisterium, scripture, and tradition are all utilized to support the thesis, which thus can be viewed as a truth revealed by God.^{[695] [696]}

What is the function of Mary in her capacity as queen? The Greek and Roman goddesses were in charge of all female func­tions, presiding over marriage, childbirth, and similar issues. But what is Mary doing as a queen and what is the extent of her authority? In popular piety simple believers still turn to her with the same problems our pagan ancestors brought to their goddesses, and it is a common homiletic device, even among Protestants, to refer to Mary as the paragon of wife and mother. Officially, however, her queenship has not yet been completely defined and scholars still disagree among themselves concerning some issues. Everybody seems to agree that the kingdom of Mary is the kingdom of Jesus Christ and that she jointly rules with him. Authority is not divided between them because they rule in complete agreement and unity. Mary is not vice-regent, so to speak, neither does she have independent spheres of influence. She is so closely united with Christ that the two act as one. It is conceivable, therefore, that a definition of Mary’s rule with Christ may eventually conclude that in this association the words of Paul receive their fulfillment, “there is neither male nor fe­male”;^[697] masculine and feminine are reunited in the image of the Godhead. The kingdom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom, the unique nature of which is the salvation of mankind. The rulers' function is directed toward this end and they exercise it in full harmony with grace and mercy.

Three conclusions can be made from this view of Mary’s unique association with Jesus: First, she has a share in the work of redemption which Christ accomplished. This means that Mary is Co-redemptrix with Jesus, who is the Redeemer. Secondly, Mary is a Mediatrix between mankind and Jesus, and thirdly, she is the Dispensatrix of all graces. These are not offical articles of faith but theses, which are very often used by Mariologists when they try to define Mary’s role in the economy of salvation. Of these three, the Co-redemptrix role of Mary has been almost fully developed by theologians and under favorable conditions it could be defined as a dogma by the magisterium. The same principles that were used in the definition of the “immaculate conception” could apply in this case, too: the magisterium unanimously agrees with it; scripture and tradition do not oppose it; the belief is universal among the faithful; and it is a fitting doctrine.^[698] The first pope to refer to Mary with this title in an encyclical was Leo XIII in 1894. After him many others used it and now it is a common designation of Mary.^[699] The biblical arguments in this case, too, rest upon the interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:38: Mary cooperated with Jesus in the work of redemption by assenting to be impreg­nated by the Holy Spirit of God. In the words of a famous Dutch scholar:

Mary is “the receiving and co-operating principle of our redemp­tion. By this we mean, in the first place, that Mary was, in her active conception and receptivity, the co-operating principle in ‘objective redemption,’ in that she was personally involved in the objective reality of our redemption in the man Jesus, and shared in the objective fact of the state of redemption of the whole of man­kind brought about in principle in CAnst” ^[700]

Mary as “the receiving and cooperating principle” is as subtle and beautiful a definition as any pagan could have given of the nature of the divine female: it recalls the idea of Terra Mater, Cae­lestis, and all other goddesses, who in their own way expressed the same idea, namely that life is the result of an active coopera­tion between male and female. The Co- redemptrix idea, which is a horrendous thought to many Protestants,^[701] could be the basis of a new definition of the concept of God in which womanhood will receive its equal share.

Mediatrix and Dispensatrix of all Graces are expressions of Mary’s queenly function. The first means that the prayers and requests of the faithful go to Jesus through Mary and because of her media­tion will receive a favorable response. According to the second, all good things and spiritual blessings that come to human beings are dispensed by Mary. These titles are outgrowths of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix and are supported by the same arguments that were used to support that thesis. Generally, the same popes who favored Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix also promoted her as Media­trix and Dispensatrix of all Graces. A few examples will suffice. Pope Leo XIII made this statement: “As no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through his Mother.”^[702] She is, therefore, “Mediatrix to the Mediator.”^[703] Pius IX: “God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her we obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”^[704] The quotes could be multiplied but the thrust of the argument is clear. It has been pointed out many times that these theses rest on an uncertain foundation, namely on the incorrect Latin translation of Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate, which reads, "... she shall bruise your head...” The Hebrew text, and all modern translations, have the masculine gender, "... he shall bruise your head...” So in several Marian treatises it is stated, “Her foot has crushed the head of Satan,”^[705] while it should read “His foot...” However, Mary belongs to the Adam-Christ, Eve- Mary parallelism even without this error. More significant is the fact that in the use of these titles there is a subtle shift of the enlightening and mediating role of the Holy Spirit, which is silently being assigned to Mary. Consciously or unconsciously, Marian theology is moving toward a significant reinterpretation of the original Christian concept of the Godhead as consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit will be taken over by Mary, as is shown in a painting located in the Vatican’s Galleria Pia. Mary is depicted here between God the Father and Jesus Christ; all three have the same height and appear to be equal. This is the image of the new Trinity in which the feminine has regained its proper place.^[706]

The queenship of Mary has been confirmed by the Vatican Council II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Here it is stated that, “She was exalted by the Lord as Queen of All, in order that she might be the more thoroughly conformed to her Son...”^[707] However, this statement appears as a chapter in the larger Consti­tution on the Church. That the theme was not given independent treatment was understood by many as an attempt to tone down “fruitless and passing emotion...” and “vain credulity,” i.e., ex­cessive Marian piety.^[708] If this indeed was the desire of the council fathers, their success was partial. While no new doctrines on Mary were defined, popular piety is as strong as ever; new apparitions of the Virgin are reported periodically, such as the recent one in Medjugorje in the former southern Yugoslavia.^[709] The presently reigning pope, John Paul II, is devoted to the patron of Poland, the Black Virgin of Czestochowa. In June 1979, he visited this image, prayed before it, and delivered a moving mes­sage to “all God’s people throughout the world who are particular­ly aware of the presence of Our Lady of Jasna Gora.”^[710] For the occasion the image was dressed as a queen, with a crown bearing magnificent jewels, and a robe also richly bejeweled. The baby Jesus on her arm is similarly attired.^{[711] [712] The crown is, of course, a symbol of queenly dignity. Since earliest Christian times, count­less images have depicted Mary like that, and it is a particularly favorite popular feast when a local statue of the Virgin is crowned. The processions and ceremonies surrounding such crownings are strongly reminiscent of ancient processions honoring statues of goddesses, such as Athene, with a new peplos.XQ1 The abun­dance of gold and jewelry that constantly surrounds the image in Czestochowa is breathtaking and would put to shame Lacinian Juno or Caelestis in Carthage.[713] This seems to be the way devoted followers of the goddess, from pagan to modern times, can best express their love for the one they sense to be alive behind her material likeness. A queen, after all, must have wealth.[714]}

The queen reigns again. In a recent encyclical the pope solemnly announced a “Marian Year,” a year-long celebration of Mary. The encyclical, called Redemptoris Mater,^nQ starts out by affirming Mary’s “precise place in the plan of salvation” but stresses especially the mysterious relationship between Mary and the church. It reviews all the biblical passages to which Marian interpretations are given, from Genesis 3 to Revelation 12, and reiterates the Marian doctrines and theses, her divine mother­hood, her role as mediatrix, and others. Considering next the post- apostolic period, it, interestingly, emphasizes that Mary did not receive an apostolic mission on the day of Pentecost.^{[715] [716] Church councils, liturgical texts, and ecclesiastical authors are quoted in this letter, which is really a Mariology in a nutshell, drawing on all the well-known arguments and interpretations that support the privileges of Mary. Noteworthy in this letter, however, is a renewed emphasis upon what the pope calls “the Marian dimen­sion of the life of Christ’s disciples.” A passage from this section deserves to be more fully quoted:[717]}

This Marian dimension of Christian life takes on special impor­tance in relation to women and their status. In fact, femininity has a unique relationship with the Mother of the Redeemer, a subject which can be studied in greater depth elsewhere. Here I simply wish to note that the figure of Mary of Nazareth sheds light on womanhood as such by the very fact hat God, in the sublime event of the Incarnation of his Son, entrusted himself to the ministry of a woman. It can thus be said that women, by looking to Mary, find in her the secret of living their femininity with dignity and of achieving their own true advancement. In the light of Mary, the Church sees in the face of women the reflection of a beauty which mirrors the loftiest sentiments of which the human heart is capable: the self-offering totality of love; the strength that is capable of bearing the greatest sorrows; limitless fidelity and tireless devotion to work; the ability to combine penetrating intui­tion with words of support and encouragement.

A pagan who felt the need to explain why there were god­desses could have written this statement with very little change. For indeed, life does have a feminine dimension, indeed a god­dess “sheds light on womanhood as such,” and indeed, it is in the goddess that women find “the secret of living their femininity with dignity...” Even with respect to God the “ministry of women” is indispensable, for femininity is part of the cosmic order. And had this imaginary pagan theologian been asked why the statues of the goddesses look so beautiful and dignified, he/she could have answered: Because we see “in the face of woman the reflection of a beauty which mirrors the loftiest senti­ments of which the human heart is capable...”

The elevation of Mary to queen of heaven completes a long process of clarifying her role in salvation history. Nothing more can be added to her honors. Still unclear, however, is a definition of her image as the feminine aspect of the divine. How this will come about is at present uncertain. I would suggest that in the future greater emphasis will be placed upon the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. Since the Spirit is often identified with Wisdom, with Sophia or Sapientia, this will invite greater concentration on the feminine aspect of the Godhead. Leonardo Boff, a Roman Catholic scholar, provided the most perceptive analysis in this area of Mariology.^[718] He stated his view as follows:

We maintain the hypothesis that the Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of all men and women, realizes the feminine absolutely and eschatologically, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit has made her his temple, sanctuary and tabernacle in so real and genuine a way that she is to be regarded as hypostatically united to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, (p. 93)

“Hypostatic” means absolutely real union. The Greek word ύπόστασις is used in philosophy almost like the word ουσία = substance. In Christian theology this expression was used first in Trinitarian discussions to describe the relationships of the three divine persons, and later in Christological debates to discuss the human and divine natures in Christ.^[719] By adopting this technical term, Boff affirms the divinity of Mary: “Mary’s union with the divinity is of a hypostatic order.” (p. 96). She was united with the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, because she received not only “the effects of the Holy Spirit’s intervention in her life... but... specifically received the very person and godhead of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.” (p. 97) Thus Boff sees in Mary the “divinization of the female” as the male was divinized in Jesus, arguing that: “... it was fitting that God divinize the feminine, because of the equal dignity of masculine and feminine, both of which have the same mission... therefore, God did so assume the feminine, directly, and the masculine, indirectly, in Mary. Potuit, Decuit, Ergo Fecit! God could, it was fitting that he should, and so he did.” (p. 95)

The expression “Potuit, Decuit, Ergo Feci/” as a theological argu­ment can be traced back to William of Ware (second half of the thirteenth century) but is generally attributed to Duns Scotus (died ca.1308) who used similar logic to promote the thesis of Mary’s immaculate conception. Thus in Boffs theology Mary is part of the Trinity, but does not make it into a “Quaternity” as Jung proposed^[720] because she is identical with the Holy Spirit. Indeed, to expand the trinitarian view of God into a “quaternity” by adding Mary to it would be disastrous for Christianity. On the other hand, to re-emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in feminine terms would be, to paraphrase St. Bernard of Clairvaux, quite consistent with “Scripture, tradition and common sense.”^[721]