Introduction: From Theory to the Pews

In the life of the Church, a tension often exists between the precision of theology—specifically, authentic doctrinal criticism rooted in Scriptural study—and the lived piety of the faithful. For many, this reality can be particularly jarring. My own journey in the Catholic Church revealed a profound disconnect between the insights of the Catholic theologians I studied (e.g., Yves Congar, Avery Dulles) and the devotional realities I encountered in the pews.

I came into full communion with the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil on April 11, 2009. My journey to that point was paved by an informal but rigorous discussion group in Colorado, comprised of students from Denver Seminary and the then-fledgling Augustine Institute. These men possessed an immense love for Scripture and a scholarly dedication to hermeneutics that shattered the anti-Catholic stereotypes I had grown up with. Through them, and later through the works of Ressourcement giants like Yves Congar and Avery Cardinal Dulles, I discovered Catholics that loved Sacred Scripture and were dedicated to studying it.

However, as I integrated into the life of local parishes, I encountered a jarring disconnect. While the liturgical reforms of Vatican II had resulted in a staggering increase in the amount of Scripture read at Mass—including a nearly 1,300% increase in Old Testament readings alone—the average faithful seemed largely disengaged from the text. I found that while Marian devotional groups were often the most passionate and well-attended ministries in a parish, rigorous Bible studies were frequently deprioritized or sparsely attended. The homiletics often skimmed the surface of the Gospels while leaving the riches of the Old Testament and the Epistles completely unpacked.

Over time, I began to encounter a form of piety where the devotion to Mary seemed to rival, or even eclipse, the divine invitation to "draw near to the throne of grace with confidence" through Jesus our High Priest, and the reality of the Spirit who "intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words." What is carefully nuanced in apologetic textbooks is often practiced quite differently in the pews: many well-meaning Catholics are no longer merely asking for intercession but are praying to Mary, seeking her aid with the exact language and posture that belongs to the Creator alone.

This disconnect forces us to ask: What is the standard by which we judge our devotions? If the practice of the faith drifts from the source of the faith, how do we correct it? The answer lies in a principle that, while often associated with Protestantism, is firmly rooted in the Catholic tradition.

I. The Standard: Scripture as Norma Normans Non Normata

While the phrase norma normans non normata ("the norm that norms and is not normed") originated in Protestant Scholasticism, several modern Catholic theologians have appropriated it to articulate the Church’s teaching on the unique supremacy of Scripture. This terminology has been increasingly adopted—particularly by those engaged in ecumenical dialogue or the Ressourcement movement—to express that while Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium form an interdependent "network of authority," they are not equal in status. All authentic doctrine must conform to Scriptures. Any reading or application of doctrine that contradicts Scripture must be regarded as a false appropriation of the Church’s teaching. One might say that Scripture, by the very fact that it remains unchanged, becomes something like a fixed point on the horizon that allows doctrinal development and theological speculation to orient themselves so as to stay on course.

Eduardo Echeverria, a contemporary systematic theologian, is perhaps the most explicit in his use of this terminology. He argues that Scripture alone is the norma normans non normata because it is the "supreme norm" that governs the Church's life and teaching. For Echeverria, the Magisterium and Tradition are the norma normata (the "normed norms") because they must always remain faithful to the apostolic witness preserved in the biblical text. He argues that the Church can justify no truth from Scripture alone (avoiding Sola Scriptura in the isolationist sense), but Scripture remains the norma normans because it is the uniquely inspired, "God-breathed" (theopneustos) Word of God. This distinction ensures that the Church does not view herself as the master of the Word, but rather its servant and interpreter. [1]

This theological trajectory was heavily influenced by Yves Congar, O.P., a pivotal figure at Vatican II. Congar frequently used the related term norma normans (the norm that norms) to describe Scripture and norma normata (the norm that is normed) to describe Tradition. He posited that Tradition is not a separate source of revelation but the "living transmission" of the same reality found in Scripture. He maintained that Scripture acts as the critical "norm" against which all later developments in Tradition must be measured to ensure they are not corruptions. His work shifted Catholic theology away from a "two-source" theory toward a "one-source" model where Scripture is the material source for all Catholic dogma, ensuring that Tradition remains in "vibrant continuity" with the Apostolic witness. [2]

Similarly, Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), in his commentary on the Council's documents, emphasized that the canon of Scripture acts as a "binding norm" for the Church. He argued that once the apostolic age closed and the canon was fixed, it became the permanent "mirror" in which the Church must constantly look to correct herself, ensuring she does not drift from the "norm for the church of the beginning." In his view, the Church does not "norm" the Bible; rather, the Bible stands as the "apostolic mirror" that judges the Church in every age to ensure she remains faithful to her origins. [3]

Avery Cardinal Dulles further solidified this understanding in the American context, particularly through his ecumenical work in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues. Dulles frequently acknowledged that for Catholics, Scripture functions as the "remote rule of faith" which norms the "proximate rule" (the Magisterium). He cautioned against a "view from nowhere" that interprets the Bible apart from the Church, but he simultaneously affirmed that the Church’s teaching office is "under" and "normed by" the inspired text of the Bible. This nuance allows Catholics to affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture—that all essential dogmas are contained therein—while rejecting the isolation of the text from the living community of faith. [4]

Henri de Lubac, S.J., a father of the Ressourcement movement, was less concerned with the juridical "ranking" of sources and more concerned with the organic unity of Revelation. However, his work vigorously affirmed that the Church does not possess the Word as a static object but is "possessed by" it. He taught that Scripture is the constitutive norm because it is the fixed objectification of the Apostolic witness. For de Lubac, Tradition is not a supplement to Scripture but the mode in which Scripture remains vital and "actualized" in the community. He famously argued that "the Church is the home of the Word," but emphasized that if the Church were to teach something contrary to the "spirit of the letter" of Scripture, she would cease to be the Church. [5]

Thomas G. Guarino, a contemporary theologian and expert on the thought of Vincent of Lérins, explicitly uses the norma normans non normata terminology to describe the Catholic understanding of the Bible's authority in ecumenical contexts. He argues that the Vincentian canon (that doctrine must be held "everywhere, always, and by all") presupposes that Scripture is the "primary rule." For Guarino, any development of doctrine (Tradition) must be "homogeneous"—it must be the organic growth of the seed found in Scripture, not a mutation or a new species. He asserts that the Bible functions as the ultimate epistemic norm; while the Church provides the authoritative interpretation, the content of the faith is materially sufficient in Scripture alone. [6]

Karl Rahner, S.J. approached this from an existential and historical perspective. He famously defined Scripture as the "crystallization" of the faith of the Apostolic Church. He argued that the "Church of the Beginning" (the Apostolic age) possesses a unique, unrepeatable status. Therefore, the writings of that specific period (Scripture) serve as the norma normans for the "Church of the Future." He posited that while the Church’s consciousness grows, it can never "surpass" the Bible. The Scripture serves as the permanent, tangible "guarantee" that the Church has not lost her identity over centuries of historical change. [7]

These theological insights are formally grounded in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum. The Council Fathers explicitly elevated Scripture to a position of unique supremacy in the life of the Church, declaring that the teaching office is not above the Word of God but serves it. The document famously asserts the "supreme" status of Scripture in governing the Church's faith:

"The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord... She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture." [8]

Furthermore, the Council linked the vitality of theology directly to its scriptural foundation, stating:

"Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation. By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology." [9]

This conciliar teaching supports the nuances provided by the scholars above: Guarino points to Dei Verbum 10 ("This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it") as the critical balance preventing the Church from "creating" truth. Rahner’s theology supports Dei Verbum 11, which affirms the fixed written nature of the text "for the sake of salvation," allowing the Bible to stand as a judge and corrective in every generation.

If Scripture is truly the supreme rule of faith, then it must actively "norm" our devotional practices. We cannot affirm the supremacy of the Word in our dogmatic theology while permitting a devotional culture that drifts unmoored from biblical bounds. It is this authority that compels us to examine and critique the phenomenon of Marian Maximalism—a tendency that, unchecked, risks obscuring the unique mediatorship of Christ.

II. The Phenomenon: The Rise of Marian Maximalism

When the "norming" influence of Scripture is weakened, theology is prone to drift. The rise of Marian Maximalism represents precisely such a drift—a historical development where attributes proper to God the Holy Spirit and Christ the Mediator were gradually transferred to Mary.

The Pneumatological Vacuum and Misattributed Roles 

The historical phenomenon of attributing the functions of the Holy Spirit to Mary offers a compelling example of idolatry understood as the misattribution of divine power. In the first few centuries of the Church, Christian theology understood Mary’s significance within the larger scope of the economy of salvation. This redemption is centered on the mercy of the Father given to us in Christ’s atoning work through the Holy Spirit. In the later centuries, there was an increasing tendency to separate Mary from this larger redemptive context which resulted “in ever more rarified reflections on her privileges, powers, and glories." [10]

Over centuries of Christian development, where a robust understanding of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology) was often neglected, a vacuum was created. Johnson concurs, “Theologians today note how Mary regrettably replaces the Holy Spirit in this divine bestowal of grace.” [11] Into this void migrated the unique roles of the Divine Person, leading to the belief that Mary, a creature, performed actions reserved for God alone. Consequently, she was ascribed titles and duties such as Intercessor, Helper, Advocate, Consoler, and Mediatrix—roles belonging "more primordially to the Paraclete". [12] Further, she was believed to be spiritually present to guide and inspire believers, and even credited with the power to "form Christ" within them. [13] This transfer of function represents the specific theological error of seeking divine power from a created entity.

The Historical Development and the Medieval Compensation 

This trend developed significantly over time as the Church slowly detached Mary from redemptive history and isolated her as a mediator of all graces. [14] This pattern of misattribution intensified during the medieval period. [15]

Marian devotion often grew in proportion to the emphasis placed on God's "transcendent justice," creating a need for a figure of compensating mercy. In this scenario the divine saving quality of mercy found its expression in the womanly figure of Mary, who could be trusted as a mother to understand people's sinful inadequacies, and relied upon as queen to plead their case before her Son, the righteous Judge. [16] While Jesus Christ was acknowledged as gracious Savior, his function of judging frequently overshadowed the quality of his mercy, which in turn was attributed abundantly to Mary. [17]

A Catholic theologian expresses this trend: “The mother of God came to be seen as a particularly potent help to sinners, a heavenly power who because of her maternal heart would take the sinner’s side. Since she was also the mother of the Judge who was bound to honor her with filial piety, she was uniquely positioned to persuade him to save poor sinners.” [18] A voluminous stream of the medieval Church expressed this sentiment as well.

A few samplings of this are below:

• Bernard of Clairvaux: "[God] wills us to have everything through Mary." [19]
   
• Bonaventure: "The Blessed Virgin chose the best part because she was made Queen of Mercy, while her Son remained King of Justice; and mercy is better than justice." [20]
   
• Bernardine of Siena: "Every grace which is communicated to this world has a threefold procession. For from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us, it is dispensed in a most orderly fashion…I do not hesitate to say that she has received a certain jurisdiction over all graces…They are administered through her hands to whom she pleases, when she pleases, as she pleases, and as much as she pleases." [21]
   
• The Franciscan Excess Within the Catholic tradition, two major theological streams came to the forefront during Vatican II: the Marian maximalists (Christotypical group) and the Marian minimalists (Ecclesiotypical group). This dynamic is best understood through the long-standing theological debate between the Franciscan and Dominican orders.

Historically, the Franciscan order has been a primary engine of Marian maximalism, often championing doctrines that highlight Mary's unique privileges and active role in salvation history. This tradition is most famously exemplified in their vigorous defense of the Immaculate Conception, a doctrine championed for centuries by the Franciscan theologian Blessed John Duns Scotus against significant opposition, including from prominent Dominican thinkers.

Scotus argued for Mary's preservation from original sin on the principle of "fittingness" (potuit, decuit, ergo fecit—"God could do it, it was fitting, therefore He did it"), a maximalist line of reasoning that seeks to attribute to Mary the most perfect graces possible. [22] This Franciscan ardor also extended to promoting the titles of Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, viewing Mary not only as a passive recipient of grace but as an active co-operator in the work of redemption. This theological current, flowing from figures like St. Bonaventure and St. Bernardine of Siena, solidified the order's reputation as the foremost proponent of a "high" Mariology that pushed the boundaries of Marian dogma.

St. Alphonsus: The Popular Triumph of the Franciscan Vision

 While St. Alphonsus Liguori was a Redemptorist, not a Franciscan, his work represents the ultimate popular triumph of the Marian maximalism that the Franciscan order championed for centuries. The devotional climax of this Franciscan intellectual project is found in the pages of St. Alphonsus's The Glories of Mary. Liguori's synthesis took the core principles nurtured by the Franciscans out of the realm of scholastic debate and translated them into a powerful, accessible piety that would shape popular Catholicism for generations.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, is renowned for his ardent Marian devotion, which is powerfully articulated in his classic work, The Glories of Mary. His theological position is famously captured in the striking statement: "At the command of Mary all obey, even God." [25] He immediately clarifies that this "command" is not one of coercive authority but the powerful supplication of a mother. To explain this, he approvingly quotes St. Bernardine of Siena, who said, "that all things, even God Himself, are subject to the command of Mary'; meaning, that God hears Mary’s prayers as if they were commands." [26] This dynamic flows from the perfect honor Jesus gives His mother; just as He obeyed her on earth, He now delights in granting her every request in heaven. As St. Alphonsus puts it, "Mary has only to speak, and her Son executes all." [27]

The foundation of Mary's immense power, according to St. Alphonsus, is not her own nature but the grace bestowed upon her. He makes a crucial distinction, stating, "The Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is omnipotent by grace." [28] Her power of intercession is unparalleled because of her unique relationship with God. He reasons, "For if the prayer of a sinner, who is an enemy of God, is powerful with Him, how much more powerful must be the prayer of a Mother, who was His delight, and who carried Him in her womb!" [29] This "omnipotence by grace" is a direct result of Christ's will to exalt His mother.

Consequently, St. Alphonsus sees Mary as the necessary channel through which all divine graces are dispensed to humanity. He asserts that "It is the will of God that all graces should come to us by the hands of Mary." [30] This view elevates her from a passive recipient of grace to an active and essential mediatrix in the order of salvation. Her maternal role becomes so central that he concludes with the stark claim: "He who is without a mother cannot have God for his Father. He who does not have Mary for his Mother does not have God for his Father." [31] This collection of teachings represents a hallmark of Marian maximalism, framing Mary as an incredibly powerful and indispensable figure in the life of every believer.

The Culmination of Maximalist Thought 

This dynamic resulted in Mary assuming full divine prerogatives: as coredemptrix, she merited salvation; as mediatrix, she obtained grace for sinners; and as queen and mother of mercy, she dispensed it herself. In her person she represented ultimate graciousness over against divine severity, making her the recipient of sinners' basic trust and affection. The late-medieval transfer to Mary of Christ's attribute of mercy resulted in her functioning as a female image of the Christological mystery, modeling the soteriological good news through her powerful role as mediatrix and her unfailing compassion and will to save.

The theological distortions were very real, demonstrating how female metaphors for the ultimate saving mystery of the divine were created by a dynamic of compensation for a deficient concept of God.

Jaroslav Pelikan notes this phenomenon: “In both birth and death, therefore, she is different from other people; in both birth and death she resembles her divine Son. More and more, the attributes ascribed to her seem closer to those of Christ than to those of common mortals. She was conceived in a special way, she performs miracle, she intercedes for us, she was assumed into heaven.” [34] Mary had become a new mediator between believers and the harsh Judge, Jesus. Rather than seeing Him as our personal mediator and one who could sympathize with their many saw Him like an Italian mobster who was ruthless and angry and whose only soft spot was for his mother. It was as if Hebrews 4:14-16 had completely disappeared from the tradition:

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."

By the 20th century Mariology was now defined by a set of unspoken rules: “the rule of singularity (Mary is unique); the rule of analogy (in her own way Mary parallels Christ in all things); the rule of eminence (Mary surpasses other Christians in all things so that de Maria numquam satis, which loosely translated means ‘about Mary one can never say enough’); and the rule of suitability”. [35] [36] This last rule, suitability is summarized by Duns Scotus, “potuit, decuit, fecit”, or God ‘could have, should have, and therefore did’ do great things for His mother. [37]

Mary was now a fully developed mediator, not just historically as the vehicle through which the Incarnation of Christ would come but also in the reverse to effect sinful humanity’s return to God. [38] The theologian Peter Damien is a great example of this type of thought: “Just as the Son of God has deigned to descend to us through you, so we also must come to him through you.” [39] This philosophy could be found in the many produced popular images of Mary as the “neck” connecting Christ with His body the Church, along with being depicted as the “aqueduct” through which the graces of Christ flowed like a moving river of water. [40]

The Enduring Legacy 

This intimate connection is further demonstrated by how modern proponents of Marian maximalism, particularly those within the Franciscan intellectual tradition, claim St. Alphonsus as a primary authority. Theologians at institutions like the Franciscan University of Steubenville, who lead the contemporary movement for the dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, consistently use Liguori's work as a foundational text. [33] In this way, the Franciscan embrace and promotion of St. Alphonsus's Mariology serves as a powerful example of their historical role. They see in his work the successful culmination of their own theological heritage—a heritage they continue to advance by championing the very doctrines he so ardently popularized.

III. The Correction: The Church’s Response

The rise of maximalism did not go unchallenged. From the debates of Vatican II to recent magisterial interventions, the Church has sought to correct these excesses by re-centering Mariology on Christ and the Church.

The Dominican Counterpoint and its Climax at Vatican II 

In contrast to the Franciscan school, the Dominican order, while holding a deep and genuine devotion to Mary (especially through the Rosary), has historically adopted a more cautious and Christocentric approach. Following the theological method of their founder, St. Thomas Aquinas, Dominicans have traditionally insisted that all Marian doctrines must be explicitly and rigorously grounded in their relationship to Christology. Aquinas himself held reservations about the Immaculate Conception, fearing it might detract from Christ's unique role as the universal savior who redeemed all of humanity, including his own mother. [23] This led to a long-standing theological debate between the two orders, often characterized as the Scotists (Franciscans) versus the Thomists (Dominicans).

This dynamic resurfaced during the Second Vatican Council. The preparatory commission, heavily influenced by theologians from Roman universities like the Lateran (known for its Franciscan-inspired maximalist tendencies), initially proposed a separate dogmatic schema on Mary. However, a majority of the council fathers, influenced by the arguments of Christ-centered Dominican theologians such as Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Jérôme Hamer, as well as foundational thinkers like Dominique Chenu and Marie-Joseph Nicolas, who all built upon the theological method of St. Thomas Aquinas, ultimately voted to integrate the treatment of Mary into the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. [24]

This pivotal decision was seen as a victory for the more "minimalist" or moderate, Christocentric view, deliberately stepping back from defining new Marian dogmas and instead emphasizing Mary's role as the model and mother of the Church.

The 20th Century Debate 

These historical trends toward Marian maximalism eventually came to a head in the modern era, leading to significant theological debate. During the 1950's, leading up to Vatican II, a split among theologians started to occur. [41] On one side was the marian “maximalist” or “christotypical” group that saw Mary "as an altogether special creature whose privileges paralleled those of Christ." [42] [43] They desired to see Mary defined as Mediatrix of All Graces. [44] [45] The other group, labeled “ecclesiotypical,” sought to counter this trend and was based on a biblical, liturgical and ecumenical renewal movement along with a zeal for the Patristics. [46]

Theologians in this ecclesiotypical camp worked to ensure Mary was situated within the company of the redeemed. [47] Their Mariology was based on Mary as an ideal disciple who was herself a recipient of grace amidst the community of the faithful. Some of these theologians, including prominent figures like Yves Congar, Heribert Mühlen, J. M. R. Tillard, & Avery Dulles even favored the removal of the anathemas attached to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. [48] Yves Congar articulated the tension:

"I am aware of the drama that has accompanied me all my life: the need to fight, for the sake of the Gospel and the Apostolic faith, against the Mediterranean and Irish development and proliferation of a Mariology that does not proceed from Revelation, but is sustained by Pontifical texts." [49]

Tavard cites Cardinal Koenig, the debate leader of the ecclesiotypical group, arguing that attributes given to Mary originally applied to the Church:

"Historically the devotion that is expressed in the litanies of Loreto ‘originated in the consideration of the Church as Mother. All the attributes of this litany, before being predicated of the Blessed were applied to the Church.’ In other words, Konig adopted the principle of ecclesio-typical Mariology. Using allegorical interpretation, they [Speaking of the Christotypical group] have applied to Mary biblical texts and images that were intended of Christ. It is the church that is mother of the faithful. The notion that Mary is also Mother of the Church is based on allegories that do not fit the modern way of reading Scripture." [50]

Despite the efforts of some Catholic theologians to situate Mary within the company of the redeemed, the underlying issues persisted. There also seemed to be a complete lack of development regarding the Holy Spirit, which left the door open for continual false attributions to be made to Mary that should be made to the Holy Spirit. Years later, another setback was to be had with Pope John Paul II's marian encyclical Redemptoris Mater in 1987 that harkened back to the days of the christotypical group. John Paul II wrote:

"Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her son and humankind in the reality of their wants, needs, and sufferings. She puts herself ‘in the middle,’ not as an outsider but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her son the needs of humankind, and in fact she ‘has the right’ to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of an intercession.” [51]

The 2025 Doctrinal Note: Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix

This long-standing theological tension between the "Christotypical" (maximalist) and "Ecclesiotypical" (moderate) views, which climaxed at Vatican II and continued through later pontificates, received its most direct modern clarification in late 2025. In the Doctrinal Note Mater Populi Fidelis ("Mother of the Faithful People of God"), [52] the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) issued a definitive caution against the very titles championed by the maximalist tradition. The document explicitly confronts proposals for new Marian dogmas, concluding that "it would not be appropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix to define Mary’s cooperation” in Christ’s work of salvation. [53] The DDF explained its reasoning clearly: "‘This [Co-redemptrix] title,’ the Note explains, ‘risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith.’" [54] To provide a firm scriptural anchor for this correction, the Note quotes Peter from the Acts of the Apostles, stating: "‘[T]here is salvation in no one else,’ but Jesus, ‘for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’" [55] This 2025 declaration powerfully reinforces the prior judgments of both Pope Francis and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who had similarly warned the title was confusing and departed from scriptural language. [56]

Furthermore, Mater Populi Fidelis effectively dismantles the maximalist concept of "Mediatrix of all graces" by reaffirming the absolute "unique mediation of Christ." "‘Strictly speaking,’ the Note continues, ‘we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from that of the incarnate Son of God.’" [57] The DDF insists this is a non-negotiable, foundational doctrine. "‘Therefore,’ the Note goes on to say, ‘we must always recall, and never obscure, the Christian conviction that ‘must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith’ regarding “the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Savior, who through the event of his incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment, and which has in him its fullness and center.”" [58] By clarifying that Mary’s powerful role is one of "manifold intercession"—a "sharing in one source" [59]—and re-centering her primary title as "Mother of the Faithful People of God," the DDF authoritatively affirms the ecclesiotypical, Christ-centered Mariology that your chapter argues is the corrective to historical maximalist excesses.

The Remaining Issue: The Holy Spirit and "Succour" 

While this 2025 Doctrinal Note represents a significant and welcome corrective, its focus remains primarily on titles that risk usurping the unique Christological roles of Redeemer and Mediator. A crucial area that still awaits similar authoritative clarification concerns the misattribution of roles and attributes belonging either to the Holy Spirit or to Christ himself. As this chapter has argued, a "pneumatological vacuum" in popular piety led to Mary being ascribed titles such as "Our Advocate," "Consoler," and "Counselor"—roles which are proper to the Third Person of the Trinity. In parallel, titles like "Mother of Mercy" and "Hope of the Poor" emerged from the very dynamic of compensation your chapter details. The popular title "Our Lady of Perpetual Succour" (Perpetual Help) is perhaps the most striking example, as "succour" (help) is a ministry biblically and overwhelmingly assigned to the Godhead.

The Holy Spirit as "Succour"

The most direct alignment is with the Holy Spirit's primary role as the Paraclete (from the Greek Parakletos).

Definition: This word is explicitly translated as "Helper," "Advocate," or "Comforter." This is the literal definition of "succour."

Biblical Basis (John 14:16): Jesus promises, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper (Parakletos), to be with you forever." (Helper = Succour; Forever = Perpetual).

Biblical Basis (Romans 8:26): "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us..." This is a perfect description of providing "succour" in our time of need. This role of a divine, indwelling, and perpetual helper is the unique and central ministry of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

Jesus Christ as "Succour"

The title also aligns directly with Christ's role as our High Priest and the one who provides saving help.

Definition: Jesus is the one who "ran to help" (the root of succurrere) by becoming incarnate and dying for us.

Biblical Basis (Hebrews 4:16): This is the very passage you cited in your chapter. "Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." That "help" is "succour."

Biblical Basis (Matthew 28:20): Jesus's final promise is one of perpetual presence and aid: "...and surely I am with you always [perpetually], to the very end of the age."

In this dynamic of compensation, these divine attributes were functionally transferred to Mary. One can hope that this recent document, having decisively restored the unique honors of Christ, signals a willingness from the DDF to, in the future, address this parallel and pastorally damaging issue, thereby fully restoring the distinct and proper roles of both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

IV. The Dogmatic Rebuttal: Idolatry and Christology

Beyond the official corrections of the Magisterium, the maximalist position faces insurmountable obstacles when subjected to rigorous theological and dogmatic analysis. The central error is not just one of emphasis, but of ontology—confusing the creature with the Creator.

The Nature of the Error as Idolatry

When analyzed against established theological frameworks, these displaced functions—from the medieval period through the debates of Vatican II and recent encyclicals—touch upon the very nature of God’s unique, incommunicable attributes championed by Bruce Ware. [60] The Holy Spirit's role in sanctification—providing infallible guidance, acting as the Consoler, and exercising causality in forming the life of Christ within the believer—is an expression of Perfect Wisdom, Absolute Reliability, and divine immanence. [61] These are aspects of God’s sovereignty that cannot be delegated to a dependent creature. [62] The theological error occurs when the ultimate source of these powers is sought in the woman Mary, rather than in the God whose action she merely reflects or participates in. Idolatry, in this precise sense, is the mistake of seeking the inherent, self-sufficient causality of the Spirit from a being who is, by nature, contingent.

Furthermore, from a Thomistic perspective, this misattribution elevates a radically dependent creature to an ontologically absurd status. The Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo maintains that Mary, for all her sanctity, remains a created being, "completely dependent upon its Creator for its existence". The power to dispense grace, to form Christ in souls, or to act as the ultimate Advocate are functions of Divine Causality belonging to the Pure Act (God).

To credit Mary with Divinity or Divine powers —whether the creative power of the Father, the salvific authority of the Son, or the sanctifying causality of the Holy Spirit—is to deny the fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creature. While theologians may have intended for Mary to function as a "visible sign" of the Spirit's work, the historical result in popular piety was often the elevation of Mary to the source of that power, making the attribution of these divine roles a prime example of the precise definition of idolatry: looking to a created creature for the inherent, self-sufficient power of the Divine. [63]

Dogmatic Critique: Nicaea, Chalcedon, and the Impossibility of Maximalist Claims 

The fundamental errors of Marian maximalism are not merely issues of emphasis but contradict the foundational dogmatic definitions of the Church. The thesis remains: Any concept of absolute, immediate, and necessary efficacy for Marian intercession is ontologically impossible, as it contradicts the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) regarding the Divine Nature and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) regarding the Hypostatic Union.

The Foundational Framework: Chalcedon T

he Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) provides the essential theological framework to rebut the idea that Mary's motherhood grants her quasi-authoritative influence over Jesus' divine functioning. The key lies in Chalcedon's insistence that Christ's two natures are united "without confusion" and "without change." [64]

First, it's vital to understand what the Council of Chalcedon proclaimed. Facing heresies that either split Christ into two persons (Nestorianism) or blended His natures into one hybrid nature (Eutychianism), the council fathers defined the hypostatic union with careful precision. [65] They taught that Jesus Christ is one divine Person (hypostasis) who exists in two natures—a divine nature and a human nature. [66] The four bolded adverbs below are the "four fences" of Christology. [67]

"[These two natures are united] in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ... acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved..." [68]

For this rebuttal, the first two—without confusion (asynchetos) and without change (atreptos)—are the most critical. [69] In short, while Mary is the mother of the divine Person of Jesus, her maternal relationship and any associated authority pertain strictly to His human nature, not His divine nature. [70] To suggest otherwise is to create the very "confusion" of natures that the Council explicitly condemned.

Applying "Without Confusion" to Mary's Role 

Arguments supporting maximalist views, such as the Franciscan argument described, particularly from Duns Scotus, correctly emphasize the "without division" and "without separation" aspects—the two natures are forever perfectly integrated in the one person of Christ. However, this view overextends this truth to the point that it violates the "without confusion" clause.

Mary's Motherhood Pertains to the Human Nature

Mary is rightly called the Theotokos (the God-bearer) because the child she bore is, in person, the Second Person of the Trinity. [71] She is the mother of a divine Person. However, she is His mother according to His human nature. [72] Her maternity does not originate or have any bearing on His divine nature, which is eternally begotten of the Father. [73] Her maternal authority, therefore, is a property of her relationship to His humanity. During his earthly life, this meant He was subject to her as a human son (Luke 2:51), but this filial submission is a property of His human nature, which He voluntarily assumed.

"Without Confusion" Preserves the Properties of Each Nature

The Chalcedonian creed is explicit: "the property of each nature being preserved."

Properties of the divine nature include omnipotence, omniscience, sovereignty, and being the object of worship and the source of all grace and authority. [74]

Properties of the human nature include having a human body and soul, learning, growing, suffering, and having human relationships, including filial obligation to a mother. To suggest that Mary's human maternal role gives her a "quasi-authoritative role" over Jesus' divine actions is to confuse the natures. It implies that a property of the human nature (filial obligation) can influence or command a property of the divine nature (sovereign will). This is precisely the theological error Chalcedon guards against. The divine will of the Son, which is one will with the Father and the Spirit, is not subject to any created being, including His own mother.

The Communication of Properties (Communicatio Idiomatum) is Misapplied

Theologians who support this maximalist view often subtly misapply the doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum. [75]

Correct application: This doctrine means we can attribute the properties of either nature to the one Person of Christ. We can say "God died on the cross" because the Person who died was God, even though He died according to His human nature.

Incorrect application: The doctrine does not mean we can transfer the properties of one nature to the other nature. Jesus' human mind did not become omniscient, and His divine nature did not become subject to suffering. Likewise, His divine will did not become subject to His human mother's authority. The maximalist argument makes this leap. It takes the unity of the Person and incorrectly uses it to justify transferring the relationship of the human nature (son of Mary) into a commanding principle over the divine nature's operations.

Analyzing the Maximalist Defenses 

We can now analyze the common defenses of Marian maximalism using this dogmatic framework established by Nicaea and Chalcedon.

The Defense of "Perfect Conformity" and the Misuse of the Lumen Gloriae

The Argument

Mary’s will is perfectly conformed to the Divine Will; she only desires what God already desires. Therefore, Jesus cannot refuse her without refusing His own will. [76] The mechanism for this is the Beatific Vision: "...the light of glory which permits our faculties to contemplate God and to enjoy him directly. What that implies is we can see all things in God who is omniscient... She sees all her children in God." [77]

The Rebuttal

This defense fails because it relies on an interpretation of the Beatific Vision that necessitates the communication of an incommunicable Divine attribute (Comprehensive Omniscience) to a creature. [78]

The Violation of Chalcedon: Confusion of Natures

The Council of Chalcedon mandates that natures (Divine and Human) are distinct and united "inconfusedly," with the "property of each nature being preserved." The property of a created intellect (even glorified) is finitude. The property of the Divine Intellect is infinity (Omniscience). [79] For the "Perfect Conformity" defense to guarantee infallible intercession, Mary must not only know the needs of her children, but she must also know the eternal, immutable counsel of God concerning those needs, including all contingencies and the eternal reasons for God's decrees. This level of knowledge is Absolute Omniscience. [80] To assert that Mary, by virtue of the lumen gloriae, knows "all things in God" exhaustively is to attribute a Divine property to her human nature. This is a divinization of the creature and a direct confusion of the natures, violating Chalcedon.

The Violation of Nicaea: Divine Simplicity and Incommunicable Attributes

The Council of Nicaea establishes the absolute uniqueness and infinity of the Divine Substance. This defense misinterprets the nature of the Beatific Vision by confusing Vision with Comprehension. [81]

Vision vs. Comprehension: The blessed see the Divine Essence (Vision). However, they do not comprehend it infinitely. Comprehension means knowing an object as fully as it is knowable. A finite mind cannot encompass the Infinite. The lumen gloriae elevates the human intellect; it does not infinite-ize it.

Divine Simplicity: In God, His Essence, His Will, and His Knowledge are identical (Divine Simplicity). To possess God's knowledge exhaustively (Omniscience) is to possess the Divine Essence in its infinity. This is ontologically impossible for any creature. Omniscience is an incommunicable attribute. The argument that the lumen gloriae communicates this attribute fundamentally misunderstands the Creator/Creature distinction mandated by Nicaea.

The Failure of the Premise

Since Absolute Omniscience is impossible for a creature, the premise that Mary's will is always exhaustively aligned with God's positive will in advance of His sovereign action fails. The possibility remains that Mary, acting from her profound but finite knowledge, could present a request that may not align with the infinite wisdom of the Divine Will in a specific circumstance. If this possibility exists, the Divine Will must retain the sovereign freedom to refuse.

The Defense of the Fifth Commandment and the "Functional Quaternity"

The Argument

Jesus perfectly fulfills the Fifth Commandment (Honor your father and mother). This perfect honor necessitates that He grant all her requests. [82]

The Rebuttal

This confuses the moral perfection of Christ's humanity with the ontological freedom of His Divinity and introduces a severe Christological imbalance.

The Confusion of Natures (Violation of Chalcedon)

The Fifth Commandment governs human relationships. The argument takes a dynamic of human morality and imposes it as a metaphysical absolute that binds the Divine Will. This confuses the operation of Christ's human will (obedient to the Law) with the operation of His Divine Will (the source of the Law).

The Violation of Divine Sovereignty (Nicaea)

The Divine Will is inherently free from necessity. If the Commandment necessitates the Divine Will's acquiescence, the Divine Will is subordinated to a created structure. [83] The Creator cannot be bound by His own law in a manner that compromises His essential freedom.

Christ's Subordination to the Father vs. a Functional Quaternity

The assertion rooted in the thought of figures like St. Alphonsus Liguori—that the Son receives His mother's requests "as commands"—creates a significant theological tension when contrasted with Christ's own testimony in the Gospels. [84] Throughout His ministry, Jesus repeatedly and unequivocally states that His will is perfectly and exclusively subordinate to the will of God the Father. [85] He makes it clear that He does not act on His own authority but only in perfect obedience to the Father who sent Him. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus declares:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise" (John 5:19).

"I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me" (John 5:30).

"I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me... for I always do what is pleasing to him" (John 8:28-29). These passages establish a foundational principle of Christology: the Son’s will is uniquely and singularly oriented toward the Father's. [86] There is no other will, human or angelic, that holds a similar "commanding" influence over Him. The maximalist position, as articulated by figures like St. Alphonsus, introduces a secondary source of authority over Christ. [87] By suggesting that Mary, by virtue of her maternal role, has a will that Jesus receives as a command, it functionally places her will in a position analogous to the Father's. [88] While proponents of this view would never claim Mary is ontologically divine, this functional elevation creates what can be described as a "functional Quaternity." [89] It implies a divine economy where not only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operate, but also a fourth figure whose maternal will has a unique and binding claim on the Son. This functionally positions Mary as a quasi-divine participant in the inner life of the Godhead, a role that runs contrary to Jesus' explicit statements about His exclusive obedience to the Father's will.

Mary Queen of Heaven? Use of the Gebirah (Queen Mother) Typology

The Argument

Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven, possessing infallible intercessory authority analogous to the Davidic Gebirah (1 Kings 2). [90]

The Rebuttal

This elevates typology above ontology and misreads the biblical type.

Typology vs. Ontology: Typology illustrates; it does not establish ontological necessity. [91] To impose the structure of the human Davidic Kingdom as an absolute constraint on the Divine Kingdom is to confuse the human and the divine (Chalcedon).

The Failure of the Biblical Type (1 Kings 2): King Solomon honored his mother, Bathsheba, yet vehemently denied her request for Adonijah. The type itself confirms the King's absolute freedom to refuse, irrespective of honor. [92]

Jesus Cannot Refuse Mary? Wedding at Cana (John 2)

The Argument

Jesus accedes to Mary's request even when initially reluctant ("My hour has not yet come"), demonstrating her power to alter Divine timing. [93]

The Rebuttal

This interpretation violates the immutability of the Divine Will. [94]

Violation of Immutability (Nicaea/Chalcedon): The "hour" is determined by the eternal, immutable Divine Will. [95] To suggest a human request compelled the Divine Will to alter this timing is to suggest the Divine Nature is mutable and contingent—a violation of Nicaea and the Chalcedonian requirement that the Divine properties are preserved "unchangeably." [96]

The Assertion of the Hegemonikon: Christ's response (John 2:4) asserts the priority of the Divine Will (the hegemonikon or ruling principle) over human familial relationships in the execution of His mission. [97]

The Defense of "Covenantal Arrangement"

The Argument

God is absolutely free, and in His freedom, He has sovereignly chosen to bind Himself to honor Mary by granting all her requests. [98]

The Rebuttal

This violates the Nicene doctrine of Divine Immutability and the essential nature of Divine Sovereignty.

Violation of Nature: God cannot establish an arrangement that contradicts His own Nature. [99] Absolute sovereignty and freedom from necessity are essential attributes. [100] God cannot render the Uncreated Will necessarily contingent upon a created will. To do so would be for God to change His nature (violating Immutability) or cease to be God.

The Logical Necessity

The arguments defending the assertion that Jesus immediately grants all of Mary's desires, including the sophisticated appeal to the lumen gloriae, fail when subjected to the ontological definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. The appeal to the lumen gloriae requires attributing comprehensive omniscience to a creature, which is a confusion of natures (Chalcedon) and a violation of the Creator/Creature distinction (Nicaea). The overall assertion, regardless of motivation (honor or obedience), requires the imposition of necessity upon the Creator by the creature.

The logical necessity is absolute: To maintain the assertion requires compromising the essential Divine attributes of sovereignty, immutability, omniscience, and absolute freedom (Nicaea), and confusing the distinct properties of the Divine and Human natures (Chalcedon). Therefore, the Franciscan/Liguorian assertion, in its absolute form, is dogmatically impossible.

Conclusions: Restoring the Primacy of the Holy Spirit and the Perfections of Christ

In conclusion, Mary is addressed with titles such as intercessor, mediatrix, co-redemptrix, helper, advocate, mediator of all graces, defender, consoler, counselor. It seems rather obvious from the witness of Sacred Scripture that these titles belong to the Holy Spirit and its operations and energies within the Trinity. [101] Tradition should be read in union with Scripture not in such a way where it runs counter to the very main themes of Scripture itself. When the latter happens, tradition is not interpreting Scripture but instead it is essentially doing an “end run” around Scripture and ignoring it.

So it is the Holy Spirit and not Mary that is the source of all life, including the Church. See now Edward Schillebeeckx, a father of Vatican II:

"In the light of what for me is now a clear new look (though of course it is old in Christianity), it is not Mary but the Holy Spirit who is ‘the mother of all believers’, the true ‘mother of the church’. For if we look deeper into our Christian tradition of faith, then we discover that even before ecclesiological titles of honor (e.g. the church as the “ark of the covenant”, the “seat of wisdom”, the “gates of David”, the “refuge of sinners”, the comforter of the oppressed”, etc.) are by mariological transference also bestowed on Miriam, the mother of Jesus (see the Litany of Our Lady), these ecclesiological titles of honor were themselves also transferred from even more original Christian honorific titles for the Holy Spirit – the primal source of all ecclesiological and subsequently mariological transferences." [102]

Furthermore, the historical dynamic of compensation—seeking maternal comfort in Mary due to a deficient view of God—is unnecessary when the nature of the Triune God, revealed in Christ, is properly understood:

• God's Nature is the Source: Both Carson's and McGrath's perspectives lead to the conclusion that the Triune God is the ultimate source and archetype of all perfect qualities found in both masculinity and femininity. [103]
   
• Jesus is Fully God: As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ is fully God. He possesses the divine nature in its entirety. His incarnation as a human male does not diminish or limit the fullness of His divine character.
   
• Jesus Possesses Maternal Perfections: Therefore, Jesus, in His divine nature, possesses the very archetype of maternal love, nurture, and compassion. [104] The love of a mother is a created reflection of a perfection that resides fully and infinitely in Him.
   
• Mary's Qualities Reflect Jesus': Consequently, Mary, as a created human being, does not possess any maternal virtue that is not already present in a more perfect and ultimate form in her son and Savior, Jesus Christ. Her motherhood, though beautiful and unique, is a finite reflection of an infinite perfection that originates in and is fully embodied by God.

This specific theological distortion—transferring the Holy Spirit's primary roles to Mary as a compensation for a deficient view of God—is a profound symptom of a much larger methodological error. It demonstrates how unbiblical, philosophical frameworks can be imported into theology, leading to pastoral conclusions that obscure, rather than reveal, the fullness of God and the goodness of His design.

Having identified this pattern of distortion—where a deficient understanding of God’s nature leads to unbiblical compensations—the necessary corrective is to return to the central, unifying principle of God's revealed law and created order. If the error is a failure to grasp the fullness of God, the solution is to re-center our theology on the very essence of His character and the primary ethic He commands. This ethic, which fulfills all law and animates all virtues, is rightly ordered love.

End Notes:

[1] Eduardo Echeverria, Revelation, History, and Truth: A Hermeneutics of Dogma (New York: Peter Lang, 2018), 125–28; see also Eduardo Echeverria, "The Spirit versus the Letter: Responding to a False View of Doctrinal Development," Catholic World Report, November 4, 2019.

[2] Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, trans. Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 409–10.

[3] Joseph Ratzinger, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 192–93.

[4] Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 196–99; Avery Dulles, "Scripture: The Soul of Theology," First Things, November 1996.

[5] Henri de Lubac, Scripture in the Tradition, trans. Luke O’Neill (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2000), 12–15; see also Henri de Lubac, The Splendor of the Church, trans. Michael Mason (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 174–76.

[6] Thomas G. Guarino, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 7–9, 118–20; Thomas G. Guarino, "Tradition and the Normativity of Scripture," in Evangelicals and Catholics Together at Twenty, ed. Timothy George and Thomas G. Guarino (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2015), 55–58.

[7] Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 370–76; Karl Rahner, "The Inspiration of the Bible," in Inquiries (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 23–25.

[8] Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation], November 18, 1965, sec. 21, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975).

[9] Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, sec. 24.

[10] Elizabeth A. Johnson, Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints (New York, NY: Continuum, 2003), 114.

[11] Elizabeth A. Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 121.

[12] Elizabeth A. Johnson, "Mary and the Female Face of God," Theological Studies 50 (1989): 511.

[13] Johnson, "Mary and the Female Face of God," 511.

[14] Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), chap. 10.

[15] Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries.

[16] Johnson, "Mary and the Female Face of God," 512.

[17] Johnson, "Mary and the Female Face of God," 512.

[18] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 232.

[19] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 121.

[20] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 121.

[21] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 121.

[22] Peter Fehlner, "John Duns Scotus: The Franciscan Doctor of the Immaculate Conception," in Mary at the Foot of the Cross, IV: The Marian-Franciscan Connection in the Thought of John Duns Scotus (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2004), 11-14.

[23] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 27, Art. 2.

[24] Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak, eds., History of Vatican II, Vol. 3: The Mature Council (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), 185–97.

[25] Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, ed. Eugene Grimm (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1887), Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 1.

[26] Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 1.

[27] Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 1.

[28] Ibid., Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 1.

[29] Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 1.

[30] Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 1, Introduction.

[31] Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 1.

[32] Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, Discourse 1.

[33] Dr. Mark Miravalle, a key figure in this movement and a professor at Franciscan University, frequently cites St. Alphonsus as a "doctrinal source" for the dogma of Coredemptrix in his extensive writings on the subject.

[34] Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York, NY: Abingdon Press, 1959), 137.

[35] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 123.

[36] Michael C. O'Connor, "Theotokos: The Mother of God," in The Oxford Handbook of Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 98.

[37] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 123.

[38] Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries, 136–37.

[39] Johnson, Truly Our Sister, 120.

[40] Ibid.

[41] George H. Tavard, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1996), 197.

[42] Avery Dulles, "Mary Since Vatican II: Decline and Recovery," Marian Studies 53, no. 1 (2002): 9-11.

[43] Tavard, Thousand Faces, 197–200.

[44] Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. “Paths To Doctrinal Agreement: Ten Theses” Theological Studies 47, No. 1 (1986): 40.

[45] Tavard, Thousand Faces, 197–200.

[46] Tavard, Thousand Faces, 197–200.

[47] Tavard, Thousand Faces, 197–200.

[48] Dulles, “Paths To Doctrinal Agreement," 40.

[49] Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 108.

[50] Tavard, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary, 203.

[51] John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater: On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim Church, The Holy See (accessed May 10, 2010).

[52] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mater Populi Fidelis: Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary's Cooperation in the Work of Salvation (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2025), sec. 1.

[53] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, sec. 22.

[54] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, sec. 22.

[55] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, sec. 22.

[56] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, secs. 19-21.

[57] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, sec. 27.

[58] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, sec. 27.

[59] DDF, Mater Populi Fidelis, sec. 28.

[60] Bruce Ware, God's Greater Glory, 68–71.

[61] Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, trans. David Smith (New York: Herder & Herder/Crossroad, 1997), 155–58.

[62] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 107.

[63] Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 256.

[64] Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990).

[65] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 226–77.

[66] Pelikan, Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 226–77.

[67] Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998), 173.

[68] Council of Chalcedon: DS 302.

[69] Macleod, Person of Christ, 173.

[70] Macleod, Person of Christ, 173.

[71] Pelikan, Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 226–77.

[72] Macleod, Person of Christ, 173.

[73] Macleod, Person of Christ, 173.

[74] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 68–71.

[75] Karl Rahner, Mary, Mother of the Lord, trans. W. J. O’Hara (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 55–59.

[76] More Pints With Aquinas, "How Can Mary Hear Prayers if She's NOT Omniscient? (Fr. Josémaría)," YouTube video, 1:30, August 27, 2025.

[77] More Pints With Aquinas, "How Can Mary Hear Prayers..."

[78] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 68–71.

[79] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Q.12, Art.7-8.

[80] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Q.12, Art.7-8.

[81] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Q.12, Art.7-8.

[82] St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 2000), 170.

[83] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 107.

[84] Liguori, Glories of Mary, 170.

[85] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 251.

[86] Carson, Gospel According to John, 251.

[87] Liguori, Glories of Mary, 170.

[88] Leonardo Boff, The Maternal Face of God: The Feminine and Its Religious Expressions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 218.

[89] Boff, Maternal Face of God, 218.

[90] Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God (New York: Image, 2006), 75.

[91] Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Τύπος Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 403.

[92] Paul S. Evans, 1 & 2 Kings, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2021), 104.

[93] Liguori, Glories of Mary, 236.

[94] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 70.

[95] Carson, Gospel According to John, 170.

[96] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 70.

[97] Carson, Gospel According to John, 170.

[98] Mark Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993), 45.

[99] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 70, 107.

[100] Ware, God's Greater Glory, 70, 107.

[101] Johnson, "Mary and the Female Face of God," 511.

[102] Rev. Father Edward Schillebeeckx and Professor Catherina Halkes, Mary: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1993), 28, 29.

[103] D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 17; Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed. (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017), 188.

[104] Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 185.