Conciliar Foundation (LG 56–62) and Patristic Substantiation
A Theological–Apologetic Study in the Light of Contemporary Objections
Rev. J. Geudens
Introduction
Mariological reflection in contemporary theology stands under tension. On the one hand, there is the need to do justice to the rich tradition in which Mary occupies a unique and irreducible place within the saving event; on the other hand, there exists a fear that an overly strong Marian emphasis might obscure the unique mediatorship of Christ or cause theology to drift into devotional exaggeration. This study seeks to offer a balanced, conciliarly grounded and patristically justified exposition of Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation, with particular attention to the three distinct phases of that cooperation.
The point of departure is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council as set forth in Lumen Gentium §§56–62, read in continuity with the patristic tradition (Irenaeus of Lyons, Ephrem the Syrian) and the medieval theological synthesis (Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure). At the same time, explicit attention is given to contemporary theological objections, both from an ecumenical perspective and from internal Catholic reticence.
I. The Preparatory Phase: Obedience and Representativity
1. Conciliar Foundation
In Lumen Gentium 56 Mary is situated within the typology of Eve and Mary. The Council states that by her obedience Mary became a cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. This formulation is theologically careful: it does not speak of a parallel redemption, but of a real cooperation, willed by God, within the one plan of salvation.
2. Patristic Foundation
This line of thought directly echoes the teaching of Irenaeus of Lyons, who characterizes Mary as the new Eve. Where Eve, through disobedience, obstructed salvation, Mary, through her free assent, opens the way for the Incarnation. The causality presupposed here is neither physical nor juridical, but salvation-historical and relational: God wills to bestow salvation in cooperation with human freedom.
Ephrem the Syrian deepens this vision by praising Mary as the place where heaven and earth meet. In his hymns she appears as the womb in which the Word freely chooses to dwell—not by chance, but in response to her pure obedience.
3. Apologetic Interpretation
A frequently voiced objection claims that Mary’s fiat elevates her to a quasi-indispensable link alongside Christ. This objection, however, overlooks the conciliar distinction between source and instrument. Mary is not a cause alongside Christ, but the human place chosen by God in which His initiative becomes fruitful. Her obedience precisely confirms that redemption remains wholly grace, since she compels nothing but receives everything.
II. The Phase of Shared Action: Union with the Sacrifice of Christ
1. Conciliar Core Text
Lumen Gentium 58 constitutes the focal point of Marian teaching. Here the Council speaks of Mary’s profound union with her Son even unto the Cross, where she joined herself with a mother’s heart to His sacrifice. The text deliberately avoids juridical or quantitative language, emphasizing instead the interior dimension of her participation.
2. Patristic and Medieval Elaboration
Ephrem the Syrian describes Mary as the one in whom Simeon’s sword truly penetrates: Christ’s suffering becomes in her an inwardly lived suffering. Bernard of Clairvaux speaks in this context of Mary’s compassio, a compassion so deep that it may be described as a form of spiritual martyrdom.
Bonaventure synthesizes this tradition by stating that on Calvary one sacrifice is accomplished in two hearts. Christ offers Himself in obedience to the Father; Mary offers her motherhood back to God. This movement of offering is not symmetrical, yet it is intrinsically united.
3. Apologetic Response to Objections
The most common contemporary objection holds that any form of participation in Christ’s sacrifice detracts from the uniqueness of His redemptive action. The Council explicitly addresses this objection by stating that Mary’s role adds nothing to the objective value of the sacrifice but is entirely dependent upon it. Her participation is not an addition in merit, but a union in love and obedience.
Here it becomes clear that the alternative is not: either Christ alone, or Christ and Mary, but rather: Christ alone as Redeemer, who freely chooses not to accomplish His redemptive work without human assent and compassion.
III. The Phase of Maternal Fruitfulness: Mary and the Church
1. Conciliar Elaboration
In Lumen Gentium 60–62 Mary’s enduring maternal role in the order of grace is expounded. The Council emphasizes that this role does not obscure the unique mediatorship of Christ, but rather manifests it. Mary’s mediation is wholly derivative and functions within the one mediatorship of Christ.
2. Traditional Line
Already among the Fathers Mary appears as the mother of the living, not merely in a biological, but in a spiritual sense. In the Church she recognizes the continued Body of her Son. Her motherhood thus acquires a universal and eschatological dimension.
3. Contemporary Objections
Modern theology sometimes fears that speaking of an ongoing Marian activity leads to parallel sources of grace. This objection rests on an overly narrow concept of mediation. Mary does not dispense grace as an autonomous agent, but lives entirely in service to the unfolding of Christ’s grace in time.
Status Quaestionis — The Contemporary Debate on Mary’s Cooperation
1. Context of the Debate
The contemporary debate on Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation is marked by a striking tension between dogmatic continuity and pastoral reticence. Since the Second Vatican Council, Mariology has been deliberately embedded within Christology and ecclesiology, in order to avoid any appearance of autonomy or parallel mediation. This choice has led to a more restrained terminology, but not to a substantive reduction of Mary’s role.
2. Internal Catholic Reticence
Within Catholic theology since Vatican II, a certain reserve has existed with regard to strongly soteriologically charged Marian formulations. This reserve is not primarily dogmatic, but hermeneutical and pastoral in nature. There is concern that careless language might obscure the unique and universal mediatorship of Christ or be misunderstood by believers and theologians.
The Council itself, however, provides the criterion for this reserve: not doctrinal denial, but terminological precision. Lumen Gentium 60–62 explicitly emphasizes that Mary’s maternal task adds nothing to the objective redemptive act of Christ, but rather allows it to shine forth. The problem therefore lies not in the doctrine, but in its articulation.
3. Ecumenical Sensitivities
A second important factor in the debate is the ecumenical perspective. In dialogue with the Reformation, Mariology is often experienced as the most vulnerable point of Catholic theology. Fear of compromising solus Christus has led to Marian cooperation being interpreted almost exclusively in an exemplary sense.
Such a reduction, however, fails to do justice to both Scripture and the Early Tradition. The very patristic sources shared in ecumenical dialogues—especially Irenaeus and Ephrem—speak explicitly of Mary’s real, though derivative, place in the saving economy. A correct understanding of her cooperation thus constitutes not an obstacle, but a potential bridge.
4. Contemporary Theological Reappraisal
In recent decades, a cautious reappraisal has become visible, in which Mariology is reread within relational and Trinitarian frameworks. Mary appears not as a competing figure alongside Christ, but as the most transparent embodiment of what grace can accomplish in a human being. Her cooperation is understood as paradigmatic for the Church itself: receptive, cooperative, and fruitful.
5. Concluding Assessment
The present status of the question may thus be summarized as follows: the debate does not concern the reality of Mary’s cooperation, but its expression. Vatican II did not introduce a rupture with tradition, but set a norm of theological sobriety and precision. When this conciliar rule is respected, Mary’s unique role can be professed without dogmatic overreach and without reduction.
Excursus — Why Vatican II Defined No New Title but Preserved the Content
1. Historical and Conciliar Context
During the preparations for the Second Vatican Council, an explicit dogmatic definition of Mary’s role in the work of redemption was genuinely under consideration. Within the conciliar commissions there was broad recognition of the traditional teaching on her unique and real cooperation. Nevertheless, a conscious decision was ultimately made not to define a new title dogmatically.
This decision should not be interpreted as doctrinal hesitation, but as an ecclesiologically and pastorally motivated choice. The Council operated in a context in which both internal Catholic clarification and external ecumenical openness were deemed necessary.
2. Theological Motives
Vatican II chose not to treat Mary in isolation, but to situate her strictly within the mystery of Christ and the Church. A new title would inevitably have acquired its own dogmatic focus, whereas the Council sought to respect the ordering of truths (hierarchia veritatum).
By preserving the content while maintaining sober terminology, the Council ensured that Mary’s cooperation
– remained fully dependent on Christ,
– could not be interpreted as a parallel cause of salvation,
– and could only be understood within the one saving event.
3. Continuity, Not Rupture
The decision not to define a new title therefore signifies no break with preceding tradition, but a conscious form of dogmatic self-restraint. Lumen Gentium 56–62 contains materially everything that tradition teaches about Mary’s unique role, but formulates it relationally and Christologically, not titularly.
This conciliar strategy confirms that dogmatic truth is not preserved solely through terminological definition, but also—and sometimes more fittingly—through contextual and integrative formulation.
Synthesis and Conclusion
Mary as an Ecclesiological Model
The Marian teaching of Lumen Gentium reaches its full meaning when read ecclesiologically. Mary is not merely an individual, but the type and initial form of the Church. What is realized personally in her is continued collectively in the Church.
As Mary received in faith and obedience prior to the Incarnation, so the Church receives the Word in proclamation and sacrament. As Mary stood beneath the Cross united in love with the sacrifice of her Son, so the Church stands in every Eucharist in the same posture of receptive self-giving. As Mary, after Pentecost, exercised maternal care for the growth of the Body of Christ, so the Church is called to spiritual fruitfulness in the world.
Mary’s cooperation is therefore not an exception alongside the Church, but its purest prefiguration. In her, the Church sees what it is and is called to become: bride who receives, mother who gives birth, and servant who lives entirely from grace.
For this very reason, Mary’s unique place is not a threat to the Church, but its measure. She preserves the Church from activism without receptivity and from institutionalism without love. Her path shows that salvation always precedes human effort, and that true fruitfulness is possible only in obedient communion with Christ.
In this light, Mary’s cooperation can be professed without reserve: not as competition with Christ, but as the most perfect realization of what the Church itself is called to be in Him.
The conciliar and patristic tradition makes clear that Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation is not a later addition, but belongs to the inner logic of God’s Incarnation. She cooperates before the Incarnation through obedience, during the drama of redemption through union with the sacrifice, and after Easter through maternal care for the Church.
Contemporary objections are convincingly answered when one holds fast to the fundamental conciliar rule: Mary never stands alongside Christ as an equal, but always under Him and with Him, in complete dependence. Precisely in this way she becomes the most transparent figure of what grace can accomplish in a human being.
Footnotes
Cf. The Catholic Church, Doctrine and Apologetics, ed. Prof. D. Bont and Dr. C.F. Pauwels O.P., N.V. Zonnewende Kortrijk / Het Spectrum Utrecht, Vol. I, Books 1–13, pp. 575–579.
Bibliography (selected)
• Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium. AAS 57 (1965).
• Irenaeus of Lyons. Adversus Haereses. SC 211.
• Ephrem the Syrian. Hymni. CSCO.
• Bernard of Clairvaux. Opera. PL 183.
• Bonaventure. Opera Omnia. Quaracchi.
• Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, §§52–69.
• Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses.
• Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity.
• Bernard of Clairvaux, Homiliae super Missus est.
• Bonaventure, Lignum Vitae and Commentary on the Sentences.
Smakt, 25 January 2026
