Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians and Consecrated Persons

By Dr. Mark Miravalle

Some of the best minds in Mariology today have collaborated to produce this monumental anthology in honor of Our Lady and in complete fidelity to the Magisterium. Buy this book and make a present of it to your parish priest, the religious sister you know, the seminarian from your diocese, or the consecrated person or educated layperson at your parish. It’s a Mariological “must read,” especially for our priests and seminarians.
–Dr. Scott Hahn
Author and Professor of Theology
Franciscan University of Steubenville

• Language: English
• Publisher: Faith & Family Publications
• Release date: Sep 13, 2013

Book preview

AnthCovfull.jpg

Mariology

A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons




Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., Editor

NIHIL OBSTAT

Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, F.I.

IMPRIMATUR

The Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke,Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri September 15, 2007 Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows

© 2007 Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D.

All rights reserved.

Dedication

To the memory and Mariology of John Paul II

Foreword

On the Solemnity of the Annunciation in 1988, Cardinal William Baum, then prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, wrote a letter to all ordinaries, that is bishops, major religious superiors and their equivalents; to all rectors of diocesan seminaries, and to presidents of theological faculties. Entitled The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation, the letter was inspired by the work of the Second Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which took up the question of the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and its reception over the time since the closing of the Council. One of the fruits of the Synod of Bishops was a renewed emphasis on the study of the four major constitutions of the Council, namely, Sacrosanctum Concilium, On the Sacred Liturgy (December 4, 1963); Lumen Gentium, On the Church (November 21, 1964); Dei Verbum, On Divine Revelation (November 18, 1965); and Gaudium et Spes, On the Church in the Modern World (December 7, 1965). With respect to the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, in particular, special attention was directed to its final chapter, On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church.

The letter of Cardinal Baum was further inspired by the indiction of the Marian Year which began on the Solemnity of Pentecost of 1987 (June 7) and concluded on the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1988. The Servant of God Pope John Paul II announced the Marian Year in his Encyclical Redemptoris Mater, making clear his purpose, namely, to promote a new and more careful reading of what the Council said about the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the mystery of Christ and the of the Church.¹ Redemptoris Mater itself was a most significant contribution towards the realization of the noble and most important goal which Pope John Paul II established for the celebration of the Marian Year.

The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation, issued during the heart of the Marian Year, on the first anniversary of the publication of Redemptoris Mater, reminds us that the promotion of the fuller knowledge of and more fervent devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is the constant work of the Church. It reviews briefly the Church’s perennial teaching regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and her irreplaceable vocation and mission in the mystery of the redemptive Incarnation. Special attention is given to the synthesis of Marian doctrine found in Lumen Gentium, and to the Marian teaching of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, in the time following the close of the Council. It then sets forth directives regarding research in Mariology, the teaching of Mariology, and the contribution of Marian devotion to the pastoral life of the Church, especially to the apostolate of evangelization. The letter concludes by setting forth three essential goals of the formation of seminarians in what pertains to their relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary: 1) the acquisition of a "complete and exact knowledge of the Church’s doctrine regarding the Virgin Mary, in order to identify authentic doctrine and true devotion, and to contemplate the supreme beauty of the glorious Mother of Christ; 2) the development of an authentic love of the Blessed Mother, expressed in genuine forms of devotion and leading to the imitation of the virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and 3) the development of the capacity to communicate such love to the Christian people through speech, writing and example."²

What The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation sets forth for seminary formation applies, mutatis mutandis, to the ongoing formation of priests, the formation of permanent deacons, and the formation of consecrated persons. I refer, for example, to n. 35 of the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, published by the Congregation for Bishops on February 22, 2004; and to n. 68 of the Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests, published by the Congregation for the Clergy on January 31, 1994. Those who are or will be teachers of the faith and guides for others in the life of faith must have both a sound knowledge of the vocation and mission of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the work of our salvation and, as a result, a devoted love of the Mother of God.

The vocation and mission of our Blessed Mother relates to every aspect of our life in Christ, for it is she who brings Christ into the world, through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, and it is she who, by the work of the Holy Spirit, continues to offer Christ to the world in the Church. Rightly, we invoke her with the title, Mother of Divine Grace. Referring to the relationship of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Eucharistic faith and devotion, Pope Benedict XVI declared:

In her we find realized most perfectly the essence of the Church. The Church sees in Mary – Woman of the Eucharist, as she is called by the Servant of God John Paul II – her finest icon, and she contemplates Mary as a singular model of Eucharistic life. … From Mary we must learn to become men and women of the Eucharist and of the Church, and thus to present ourselves, in the words of Saint Paul, holy and blameless before the Lord, even as he wished us to be from the beginning (cf. Col 1:22; Eph 1:4).³

It is the Blessed Virgin Mary who faithfully and lovingly leads us to her divine Son with the maternal counsel, Do whatever he tells you (Jn 2:5). She is the Mother of the Redeemer who, when he was consummating the work of our salvation, gave his Mother to the Church to be her Mother always: Woman, behold your son! … Behold, your mother! (Jn 19:26-27).

Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons is an extraordinarily complete and rich tool for coming to a deeper knowledge of the teaching of the Church on the Blessed Virgin Mary, for growing in Marian devotion and for developing the means of communicating knowledge and love of the Mother of God to others. Dr. Mark Miravalle, the editor, has brought together the contributions of highly competent and gifted authors whose own deep knowledge and devoted love of our Blessed Mother is wonderfully evident in what they have written. All of the mysteries of the life and mission of Mary are treated in depth, in accord with the directives set forth in The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation.

The careful study of the texts of the various authors will aid the reader to achieve the three goals of Marian formation: the integral knowledge of Marian doctrine, growth in authentic and heartfelt Marian devotion, and the development in the capacity to introduce others to Marian teaching and devotion by the way of the various communications media. It is my hope that priests, permanent deacons, seminarians, and consecrated persons will find in this volume a treasured instrument for growth in their own spiritual life and for carrying out the mission of the new evangelization. It is also my hope that it will become a standard textbook in seminaries, programs of diaconal formation and houses of formation of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life. At the same time, I commend the text to all who desire to know more fully and to love more ardently the Mother of God.

Grateful to Dr. Mark Miravalle and his collaborators in the writing of Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, let us pray, through the intercession of the Mother of Divine Grace, that their work will lead to a deeper knowledge of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the mystery of Christ and of his Church. Let us also pray that their work will inspire a renewed devotion to the Mother of God who is also the Mother of the Church.

—The Most Reverend Raymond Leo Burke

Archbishop of St. Louis

August 15, 2007

Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

---

¹ Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptoris Mater, On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church, March 25, 1987, n. 48.

² Congregation for Catholic Education, The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation, March 25, 1988, Vatican City State: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989, pp. 21-22, n. 34.

³ Pope Benedict XVI, post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, On the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission, February 22, 2007, n. 96

Editor’s Introduction

If the place occupied by Mary has been essential to the equilibrium of the Faith, today it is urgent, as in few other epochs of Church history, to rediscover that place. … Yes, it is necessary to go back to Mary if we want to return to that truth about Jesus Christ, truth about the Church and truth about man that John Paul II proposed as a program to the whole of Christianity.¹

—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Mariology, by its very nature, cannot be studied in isolation. The concept of mother presupposes the concept of child, and in this case, the reality of a son. Mariology connaturally leads to Christology, as the study of the Mother of Jesus presupposes and calls forth a deeper knowledge and assent to the truths about Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God and of Mary.

Mariology also organically springs forth into Ecclesiology, since anyone who is spiritually united to Jesus through baptism and filial adoption has also, in a particular way, received the Mother of Jesus as his or her own spiritual mother. This Mother offers an immaculate human model of Christian discipleship to Jesus for the entire People of God, and at the same time intercedes as a mother in the order of grace for her Son’s disciples who seek to respond to the Lord’s invitation to Christian holiness with their own personal fiat of faith.

If Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was correct in directing the entire Church to the program of Pope John Paul II in returning to the whole truth about Mary in order to ensure authentic Christology and Ecclesiology (not to mention anthropology), how much more quintessential is this call for renewed Mariology from the last two pontiffs for today’s clergy, seminarians, and consecrated persons?

While this text is certainly not intended to exclude the laity in any manner, its principal goal is to offer clergy, seminarians, and consecrated persons a solid foundation in a contemporary Mariology that appreciates and builds upon the Church’s rich Tradition, and also embodies the inspired Mariological contributions from the Second Vatican Council, the recent Papal Magisterium, and the fruitful postconciliar Mariological developments.

The specific thrust of this anthology is to provide a guide in classical and current Mariology for ongoing clergy and religious education and formation, seminary instruction, and the edification of consecrated persons, all of who possess a special call to benefit fully from a greater knowledge and love of the Mother of the Lord. The international team of renowned contributors to this volume, who collectively represent an extensive number of publications in Mariology (as well as national and international theological societies and honorary associations), sought to author their individual chapters with the specific intention of providing a theologically scientific treatment of their particular topic for clergy and religious, the consecrated, and those in formation, but within the designated framework and style indicative of present Mariological literature (rather than a more manualist or textbook approach). The individual articles fall within the following four general categories: I. Mary in Scripture and the Early Church; II. Marian Dogmas (as defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium); III. Marian Doctrine (as taught by the Ordinary Magisterium); and IV. Marian Liturgy and Devotion.

That Mariology cannot appropriately be studied in isolation and must always be seen in complete subordination to the whole truth about Jesus Christ should not, on the other hand, prevent a dynamic investigation into the revealed truth about Our Lady which should intrinsically foster a generous love for that Mother given from the crucified Lord as a personal gift to each one of us (cf. Jn 19:25-27). The testimony of the former Cardinal Ratzinger as to the present efficacy of Marian truth and devotion for the protection of Christian faith, coupled with his admonition for any who might consider Mariology as no longer necessary for one’s own theological approach, remain a helpful reminder:

In Mary, as figure and archetype, the Church herself finds her own visage as Mother and cannot degenerate into the complexity of a party, an organization or a pressure group in the service of human interests, even the noblest. If Mary no longer finds a place in many theologies and ecclesiologies, the reason is obvious: they have reduced faith to an abstraction. And an abstraction does not need a Mother.²

May the celebrated truth and love of Mary, Mother of the Church, sanctify and renew with the abundant gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit the lives of bishops, priests, deacons, and consecrated persons, and all those in formation for these anointed vocations at the service of the Lord Jesus, as providentially designed and called forth by God, the eternal Father of all mankind.

—The Editor

---

¹ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press (English Edition), pp. 105-106.

² Ratzinger and Messori, The Ratzinger Report, p. 108.

I. Mary in Scripture and the Early Church

The Mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Old Testament


Fr. Stefano Manelli, F.I.

If Holy Scripture, from an inter-testamental perspective, is the birthplace of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the history of salvation, one must also add that the Old Testament was this unique creature’s first land of birth in the world.

But most accurately, the origins of the Blessed Virgin Mary are transcendent, from eternity, in the "one and the same decree" of the Incarnation of the Word, universal Savior and Redeemer,¹ about whom numerous pages of Old Testament revelation speak. For us this revelation constitutes the original source of the creative and saving plan of God.

To know the homeland of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is in fact enough to know the Mariological texts of the Old Testament, reading them as they are read in the Church,² according to the norms of biblical-theological exegesis, i.e., in the light of Christ and of the Church,³ to find in them what is called Mariology in its roots. Such Mariology in the New Testament and in the Tradition originating with the apostles and developing in the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit (Dei Verbum 8) has come to full maturity in its historical-theological realization.⁴

For a still more solid Mariological reading of the Old Testament, summary explanations of the criteria used by the Magisterium of the Church for assessing the meaning of the Old Testament texts⁵ have been formulated, particularly in relation to what is considered the hebraica veritas.⁶

In fact, on the basis of directives and norms of the Pontifical Biblical Commission found in the recent document: The Jewish People and its Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, it appears firmly established that Mariology, or more exactly the mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is found

in the texts of the Old Testament explicitly and clearly. The genuine content of every revealed datum finds its realization in Jesus (21, 6). As a consequence only the Christian in the light of Christ and of the Church discovers that surplus of meaning hidden in them (Ibid.). Without this surplus of meaning, which is accessible only to him who reads the Scriptures in the light of Christ and of the Church, every other interpretation cannot help but be reductive and indeed misrepresent the genuine and real content of revealed truth.

In view of this the document indicates, in relation to Jewish and more specifically rabbinic hermeneutical rules for interpreting the Old Testament, criteria whereby the very firm link binding Old and New Testaments can be perceived. In such wise a Christian hermeneutic of the Old Testament is set in clear relief, one very different, certainly, from that of Judaism, one nonetheless corresponding to the potential meaning inherent in the texts themselves (n. 64). The potential meaning inherent in the texts themselves can only be grasped by one who reading the Scriptures in the light of Christ and of the Church finds the surplus of meaning enabling him to pass from potential to actual harmonious, consistent realization of that meaning, without recourse to tortured and sometimes downright contradictory reinterpretations.

… It has indeed been remarked that in the final analysis "we Christians, to understand fully the Scripture, not grasping merely the necessarily reductive meaning understood by the Hebrews, but their entire historical-theological content, must always read them not as if still Hebrews under the Old Covenant, blind in relation to the New, but as Christians enlightened by Christ. This is to say, we must read them in the light of Christ and of the Church so as to grasp the entire content, hidden, but historic and real, of Divine Revelation contained in them and made manifest to us. This is, precisely, biblical-theological exegesis, which the document cited also calls theological interpretation, but at the same time fully historical (n. 21).⁷

Now, in an exegetical examination of the Mariological biblical texts of the Old Testament considered as a whole, we discover among the many to be studied a number of prophecies, a group of figures, a notable number of symbols and some other significant texts. In virtue of these one may, without hesitation, affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary has been clearly prophesied, luminously prefigured, and richly symbolized in the books of the Old Testament.⁸

The presence of the mystery and of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the pages of Old Testament biblical revelation is, therefore, well founded, significant and suggestive. And it is just in this way that it has been cultivated in enlightened fashion, from antiquity, by the Fathers, by Tradition, by the Magisterium, by the liturgy and by sacred art, from century to century, during the course of two Christian millennia.⁹ All this confirms ad abundantiam what Vatican II clearly and lucidly teaches about the connatural, unbreakable link between the contents of Sacred Scripture, the contents of Tradition, and the contents of the Magisterium: It is clear, then, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church, in virtue of the wise dispositions of God, are so connected and joined among themselves that no one of them can subsist without the others, and all together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute efficaciously to the salvation of souls (Dei Verbum, 10).

Prophecies

The Woman of the Protoevangelium: Gen 3:15

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seedand her seed; she [ipsa] shall crush your head

This text of Genesis, from the first pages of the Bible, has been justly defined as the Protoevangelium, or first gospel. For in it is revealed the first and most important announcement of the good news of salvation for mankind.¹⁰

After the fall of our first parents into original sin, when realistically it seemed as though everything had been irremediably lost by Adam and Eve for themselves and for their descendants, behold, the intervention of a merciful God who promises them salvation through a New Eve and a New Adam. They will save mankind from the fall, ransoming it at the price of the redemptive sacrifice.

In the person of Mary, in fact, the second Eve will, in no manner, be imprudent and foolish as was the first Eve. The second Eve will be prompt to consecrate herself faithfully to the plan of salvation according to the will of God. The second Adam, then, in the person of Jesus will join to himself the second Eve for the sake of a universal salvation, in contrast with the first Adam who was bound by the sin of the first Eve, seduced by the serpent in Eden.

As the Second Vatican Council affirms, the New Eve, namely Mary of Nazareth, rooted in the will of God by her personal Fiat, consecrated herself totally as Handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under him and with him cooperating in the mystery of redemption (Lumen Gentium, 56). It was precisely she [ipsa] who with the grace of almighty God (Lumen Gentium, 56) and with her immaculate foot (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus) crushed the head of the infernal serpent.

The New Adam, then, Jesus the Christ, in contrast to the first Adam under the influence of the first Eve, who had been tricked and seduced by the serpent tempter, perfectly complied with his mission of universal Redeemer, and accomplished his task with the personal, active cooperation of the New Eve, always united to him as generous, most faithful Co-redemptrix, as Vatican II says, to the very Cross, where in accord with the divine plan she stood … associating herself in her maternal heart with his sacrifice, lovingly consenting to the immolation of him whom she had begotten (Lumen Gentium 58).

From what has been said, it is already perfectly evident that the woman about whom the text of Genesis speaks, can only be Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, taken in the literal sense, which therefore excludes disobedient Eve, a sinner and condemned (Gen 3:16) according to the prophetic-oracular character of the text announcing a future salvation linked to an exceptional future woman. This woman, united with her son in the same enmity with the serpent, will crush the head of the infernal seducer of the first Eve.¹¹

The solemn promise of a woman victorious over the serpent and bearer of the Savior finds no verification in poor Eve, a sinner, who will rather live and die in the obscurity of her days, and who immediately after the divine oracle heard God pronounce these bitter words to her: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee (Gen 3:16).

The most elementary psychology forbids positing any continuity between passages so brusque and opposite to one another. Immediately after speaking solemnly of the plan of victory of the woman with her seed, God speaks of the constant suffering and humiliation in which Eve must live. How is it possible that God could be speaking of the same woman? Nor is it any more admissible the coexistence in Eve herself of a plan of life which would entail contemporaneous development under the standards of victory (Gen 3:15) and of servitude of suffering and of man (Gen 3:16).

This is the point of departure, rather, for the logical development of that powerful and fecund antithesis perceived by the first of the early Fathers (St. Justin and St. Irenaeus), and subject of study throughout the following centuries, immediately perceiving the living reality of the contrast between Eve and the woman of Gen 3:15 … as regards their fundamental mission. St. Jerome formulated this concisely when he wrote: Per Evam mors, vitam per Mariam [Through Eve death, life through Mary].¹²

… Now, had God wished Eve as well, or only Eve, to be the triumphant enemy of the serpent, a kind of vindication in reverse, as Fr. Da Fonseca notes, one would hardly understand from what follows, why when speaking to Eve (Gen 3:16-21) God had nothing but words of reproof and chastisement; and that throughout the entire history of redemption there is found not even a minimal allusion to a fact so important. For every time Eve is mentioned, she is described as the cause of our ruin, never as the beginning of our restoration (Sir 25:33; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14).¹³

Nothing, therefore, but an intent for the contradictory or strident polemic, can persuade one to also see Eve in the woman of Gen 3:15. Nothing in the entire life of Eve can have any kind of valid reference to the grandiose saving mission expounded in the Protoevangelium with its two new protagonists: the Messiah and his Mother.¹⁴

It is quite certain, in effect, that under attentive theological analysis Gen 3:15 may really be considered a text so rich in Mariological content as to be, despite its paucity of words, a true and proper mariologia in nuce (Mariology in a nutshell), one in which it is possible to grasp the substance of the person and of the extraordinary mission of Mary as the New Eve aside the New Adam.¹⁵

Nor is it difficult to discover in Gen 3:15, either by induction or deduction, a very great many truths of faith concerning the mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary, expressly formulated and implicitly veiled by the few words of the text of Genesis on which the early Church Fathers and theologians, mystics and saints, scholars and simple faithful have meditated and reflected on over the course of two thousand years, "in lumine fidei, sub ductu Ecclesiae [in the light of faith, under the guidance of the Church]."

The fundamental truths touching the mystery of Mary, in effect, are these: the Immaculate Conception, the divine, messianic, and virginal maternity, the coredemption and universal mediation, the Assumption, and queenship in the Kingdom of heaven. Now, the root of these truths is already found, in seed-form, in the passage of Gen 3:15, as it has thus been read, and is still read, by the Magisterium of the Church, for our guidance and enlightenment along the saving path to be followed by all mankind.

The Immaculate

In particular, and, as it were, on center stage, Gen 3:15 presents the woman as the New Eve, Immaculate, Virgin-Mother, Co-redemptrix.

The New Eve is above all the Immaculate, because she was predestined to be the enemy of Satan, proclaimed as such in relation to the serpent. It is God who speaks thus: I will put enmity between you and the woman. Enmity is opposition. The New Eve, in fact full of grace (cf. Lk 1:26), will be in opposition to the enemy and hostile to sin in her maternal mission of universal salvation.

The New Eve is also the Virgin Mother. She is Mother, because God speaks of her seed, that is, of her son, and of her offspring (in the collective sense: cf. Rev 12:17): I will put enmity … between your seed and her seed. She is Virgin, because there is not even a hint here of a husband of the "woman, who might be the father of the son of the woman." The New Eve is Co-redemptrix as well, because this is implicit in her enmity to Satan, the very same enmity which she shares with her Son, the New Adam, Redeemer in relation to Satan’s seed: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. Such enmity entails hard struggle and victory for the Redeemer and Co-redemptrix against the serpent: "She shall crush your head, while you shall lie in wait for her heel," God said to the serpent.¹⁶

In these words from God, it becomes evident that the New Eve is so united to her Redeemer son, is associated and conjoined with him in the redemptive work in a manner so direct and immediate, that she herself ("ipsa) by the grace and power of her Son, crushes the head of the serpent tempter with her immaculate foot," as written in the papal document Ineffabilis Deus, where this is repeated four times.

In recent times, there has been considerable discussion over the authenticity of the pronoun ipsa in the feminine in Gen 3:15. But the discussion notwithstanding, the feminine ipsa, chosen by St. Jerome, continues to enjoy first place as the preferred translation of the text of Genesis in Church and magisterial Tradition.¹⁷

As frequently observed, the seriousness and competence of St. Jerome cannot but guarantee the validity of the translation in the feminine (ipsa). For it is well known that to assure the most exact translation and most faithful interpretation of Sacred Scripture, St. Jerome, as P.L. Ferrari writes, underscores the importance of a knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic to understand the Scriptures and the superiority of the original text over the Greek Septuagint translation. And as a confirmation of his extremely serious scholarship, St. Jerome himself bought from the Jews the best Hebrew manuscripts for purposes of comparison, using methods of textual criticism to select those readings which seemed to him closest to the original.¹⁸

In regards to this Genesis pronoun translation of St. Jerome in the feminine (ipsa), according to the most recent exegetical study of the biblicist, Settimio Manelli,¹⁹

There is a need, indeed an obligation once again to return to the adoption of the feminine version which has presided over Old Testament biblical study from the days of Philo and Josephus Flavius, i.e., from the first century after Christ. That adoption, moreover, was celebrated in luminous texts of the poet Prudentius, of the apologist Tertullian, of the great teachers, the Fathers of the Church such as St. Ambrose, St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom, cited in his day by Cornelius a Lapide, the great exegete of the seventeenth century, who wrote the Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram (Paris, 1948). He also resolved the problem of the verb in the masculine (yashuph, conteret, or crush) citing the frequent exchange of gender in Hebrew: the masculine being used in place of the feminine and vice-versa, especially when there is present some cause or mystery, as is the case here. … This observation is also confirmed by more recent grammatical studies.²⁰

This is the plan of universal redemption signaled, on the one hand, by the complete victory of Christ and of Mary with the crushing of the head of the infernal serpent, and on the other hand by the insidiousness of the serpent, who will present himself as having won an apparent victory on Calvary, based on the Passion and death of Christ the Redeemer, and on the compassion and mystical death of Mary Co-redemptrix.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, then, in Gen 3:15, is presented as being associated with the entire redemptive work of Christ, united to him by a strict and indissoluble bond, according to the expression found in Lumen Gentium 53, supplying a cooperation so direct and immediate that she herself (ipsa), with her "immaculate foot," will crush the head of the serpent, by the power of her divine Son, becoming the universal Mother,²¹ the true Mother of all the living.²²

The first Fathers of the Church have presented this redemptive plan as a plan of recirculation, or of reversal, or of recapitulation, with the double antithesis Adam-Christ, Eve-Mary, i.e., with the two couples placed in diametrical opposition: Adam-Eve is the first couple, the evil-bearing couple who brought about the ruin of the entire human race through the joint fall of Adam, sinner, and Eve, co-sinner; instead, Christ-Mary is the second couple, the couple bearing the blessing of universal salvation through the joint action of the Redeemer, Christ and Co-redemptrix, Mary.²³

This interpretation of the redemptive plan formulated in Gen 3:15 has been infallibly guaranteed by Pope Pius IX, with the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus concerning the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception,²⁴ and by Pope Pius XII with the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, regarding the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, soul and body into heaven.²⁵

According to Ineffabilis Deus, in fact, on the basis of the constant faith of the Church with its roots in biblical revelation and its organic development in Tradition by the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers,²⁶ by the liturgy, by the sensus fidelium of the people of God, and by sacred art, the truth of the Immaculate Conception has developed over the nearly two millennia of Christianity "in lumine fidei, sub ductu Ecclesiae," to be finally crowned with the dogmatic definition solemnly proclaimed by the Pope, Bl. Pius IX, in Rome, December 8, 1854, to the exultant jubilation of the entire Church.

The truth of the Immaculate Conception, in effect, is truly linked "in radice" (in its roots) to the Protoevangelium, Gen 3:15, where clearly and openly, as Ineffabilis Deus affirms, the Redeemer and his Mother are foretold, both involved in the identical "enmities" with the serpent, whose head will be crushed by the foot of the Mother, through the power of her Son.²⁷

In summation, according to the exegesis of the Pontifical Magisterium, the woman of the victorious struggle with the serpent of Eden is precisely the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate, and not Eve. This exegesis stands in perfect continuity with the constant or traditional interpretation of the Church,²⁸ as the biblicist, Settimio Cipriani, expressly writes, affirming that one may maintain as exegetically based the ‘Mariological’ interpretation of the passage, one traditional in Christian exegesis.²⁹ This Mariological interpretation of Gen 3:15 has been consistently present in the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. Pope John Paul II, for example, in his homily for the feast of the Nativity of Mary, spoke decisively as follows: This very child, still so tiny and fragile, is the ‘woman’ of the first announcement of the future redemption, opposed by God to the serpent tempter: ‘I will put enmities between thee and the woman.’³⁰

Seen concisely as a whole, the teaching of the Church on the Mariological sense of Gen 3:15 must be acknowledged as the keystone of the truth of faith concerning the Immaculate Conception, in relation not only to the person of the Virgin Mary, but also to her mission as Mother Co-redemptrix and Mother of the Church,³¹ and to her final exaltation with her Assumption into heaven, there crowned Queen Mother beside her Son, universal King.³²

The Virgin-Mother: Isaiah 7:10-14

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. And he said,

"Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men,

that you weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and shall call his name Emmanuel."

Historically, this passage of the Prophet Isaiah, 7:10-14, describes the dramatic conditions in which Ahaz, king of the House of Judah, found himself, as he ran the risk of being annihilated by the kings of Syria and Israel.

The prophet Isaiah, therefore, sought to encourage the king, Ahaz, not to lose heart and to turn to God and ask for a sign to safeguard the line of David, from whom must be born the awaited Messiah.

But the king refused to obey the prophet and ask a sign of God, and thought rather to seek help from the Assyrians. Then Isaiah, indignant, prophesied the fall of the kingdom of Judah on the one hand, while on the other foretold the stupendous sign guaranteeing the descent of the Messiah from the House of David: He foretold that a "virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, God with us, who would enjoy the divine attributes of Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Is 9:6).

The Emmanuel, the Virgin-Mother

The two extraordinary personalities contained within the prophecy of Isaiah are: 1. the Emmanuel, or Jesus Christ, the Messiah, Savior; 2. the pregnant Virgin giving birth, or Mary, the Virgin-Mother of Jesus.

This is the content of the prophecy of Isaiah according to biblical-theological exegesis, that is to say according to the practically unanimous and perennial interpretation both of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of East and West, of the constant Magisterium of the Church, and of the liturgy and sacred art throughout two millennia of Christian faith.³³

The unshakable foundation for this interpretation of the text, the only true one, is given inerrantly and infallibly by the Evangelist Matthew, who, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, has presented this passage of the prophet Isaiah as a prophecy literally and integrally realized in Jesus, the divine Messiah, and in the Virgin Mary, made Mother of God by the working of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18).

In fact, the Evangelist Matthew describes St. Joseph as anxious over the mystery of his virgin spouse’s maternity and is thinking of "divorcing her in secret (Mt 1:19). But behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’" (Mt 1:20-21).³⁴

As St. Matthew explains, in this event is expressly realized what was "said by the Lord according to the prophecy of Isaiah on the Virgin-Mother of the Emmanuel, the divine Messiah descending from the House of David. St. Matthew writes: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ (which means, God with us)" (Mt 1:22-23).

In the interpretation of St. Matthew we find, then, the clarity of that divinely inspired exegesis, at once literal and spiritual, historical and theological, which for nearly two millennia has been sustained firmly and consistently by the unanimous and constant Tradition of the Church which sees in the prophecy of Isaiah Mary exclusively, the virgin who conceives and gives birth virginally to the Emmanuel, the Son of God and Messiah, Jesus Christ.³⁵

At the very beginning of the Church some commentators from the Jewish tradition who were openly contesting the Christian faith immediately set themselves against St. Matthew’s brilliant interpretation of Isaiah 7:10-14. According to them, the prophecy, in substance, could be effectively reduced to the prevision of a son conceived normally: not by a virgin, but by the wife of King Ahaz, already pregnant with Hezekiah.³⁶ This son, even though a good man, was hardly a king with divine attributes. To the contrary, he was a disappointment,³⁷ a king whom the prophet Isaiah himself accused of inconsideration and imprudence.³⁸

This interpretation sought to destroy the entire extraordinary content of the prophecy of Isaiah, denying both the miracle of the virgin birth, and the divine messianic character of the Son of the Virgin Mother. That meant, in effect, to strike at the heart of the prophecy of Isaiah. This interpretation of the Jews against that of the Christians was immediately battled by St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nn. 66, 68, 71, 77), was refuted by St. Jerome (Commentary on Isaiah, PL 24, 111 ff.), came to be marginalized, and was never more considered by patristic exegesis and by the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.

Recently, however, some scholars have desired to resurrect this erroneous interpretation, proposing it anew by way of reformulations, the fruit of analyses and counter-analyses apparently rich in nuances of thought, of contradictory transitions from the real to the unreal, of utopian travels from the historical to the mythological.³⁹ Still other scholars, including Catholic, propose interpretations of this passage of Isaiah denying its exclusive messianic-Mariological content. Their hypotheses, referring the prophecy to other persons as well as Jesus and Mary, rest on an indirect, oblique, typical sense, but all things said, seriously compromise both the sign which is the virgin-birth and the human-divine reality of the Emmanuel.⁴⁰

Mattioli perceptively writes that these are positions supported only by a "modern exegesis rationalistic in character," one repudiating the unanimous faith and exegetical tradition of the Church over the course of two millennia of history and doctrine.⁴¹

The Virgin-Birth

The most delicate and precious point of Isaiah’s prophecy concerns the virginal conception and virginal birth of the Mother of the Emmanuel. In it is enclosed the object of the perennial faith of the Church in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Mary’s virginity in soul and body remained ever integral, before, during and after the miraculous birth of Jesus. Ceuppens summarized, with utmost clarity and precision, the conclusion of his accurate and profound study: With regard to Mariological doctrine we may conclude thus: the dogma of our faith in the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, both in the conception and in the birth of her divine Son, has been foretold in this prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.⁴²

The term "virgin in the Hebrew text is expressed by the word ’almah, which has the generic meaning of girl, one who normally is an intact virgin (cf. Gen 24:16, 43), as A. Vaccari explains: the Jews before Christ understood this word in the precise sense of virgin, as the Greek translator [of the LXX] who employed the specific term ‘parthenos’ [virgin],⁴³ and the primitive Christian Church (Mt 1:20-25) both testify."⁴⁴

The special sign offered to the king by Isaiah on behalf of God is precisely this: the pregnant virgin, i.e., the virgin who conceives her son while remaining a virgin, and the virgin giving birth, i.e., the pregnant virgin who brings the child to light, while still remaining a virgin. The first, like the second, is a miracle. The message of the prophet Isaiah is just this: in the conception and in the act of giving birth, the Mother of the Emmanuel is always "the virgin."⁴⁵

As a conclusive confirmation, it is sufficient to cite two authoritative testimonies, one of St. Ambrose and the other of Lumen Gentium. St. Ambrose writes: This is the virgin who conceives in her womb, the virgin who gives birth to her son. Thus it is written: ‘Behold the virgin will conceive in her womb and bear a son’ (Is 7: 14). He did not only say that the virgin would conceive, but also that the virgin would give birth.⁴⁶ The Second Vatican Council teaches: This is the virgin who will conceive and will bear her son, whose name will be Emmanuel.⁴⁷

The Emmanuel

In Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. 8:8-10; 9:5-6; 11:1-5) and in the Gospel text of St. Luke on the Annunciation of the Angel to Mary (Lk 1:31-33), the attributes of the Son of the Virgin are extraordinary properties which really make of him the true "God with us." Divine attributes are indeed involved, described in transcendental terms such as these: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Son of the Most High, Son of God, he to whom the Lord God will give … the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

It is important to observe how the entire discourse on the Emmanuel, both in the prophet Isaiah and in the Evangelist St. Luke, is exclusively tied to his mother, in the sense that they set in clear relief the absence of a human father of the Emmanuel. From this we must deduce, in regard to the Emmanuel, a transcendent or divine paternity, which at the same time enables us to intuit the divinity of the Emmanuel himself.⁴⁸

Similarly, in regards to the kingship attribute of the Emmanuel in Isaiah’s prophecy and the Gospel account of Luke, no doubts are possible concerning the Davidic descent of the Emmanuel. Because the virgin of Isaiah, realized in Mary, Virgin-Mother of the Emmanuel, is descended from the root of David, his royal descent cannot be other than authentic. She alone, in fact, in virtue of the miracle of the virginal conception, is capable of guaranteeing the birth of Jesus biologically "from the seed of David according to the flesh," as St. Paul writes (Rom 1:3).⁴⁹

It is also important to note the link between the prophecy of Isaiah and that which the prophet Nathan made to David, an oracle containing the promise of an eternal kingdom (cf. 2 Sam 7:8-17), and assuring the stock of Jesse a descendant capable of ruling in time and in eternity. This rule is solely a matter of divine power, and it is this that enables him to rule forever on the throne of David.⁵⁰

* * *

At this point, we may make our own the conclusion of Fr. Ceuppens, who summarizes the essential content of his systematic study on the prophecy of Isaiah:

After examining critically the single text of the prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 identifies in the literal sense the Messiah and his Mother: Mary will conceive and will give birth to her Son without damage to her virginity. She is a virgin in conceiving, she is a virgin in giving birth. The assertion, then, of those claiming that the faith of the Church in the virginal conception and birth of Christ is based on a false version and interpretation of the text of Isaiah, finds no support, is entirely gratuitous and is devoid of scientific foundation.⁵¹

The Woman in Travail: Micah 5:2-3

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,

whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

Therefore he shall give them up until the time when

she who is in travail has brought forth;

then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel.

The prophecy of Micah 5:2-3 came into primary focus when the Magi from the Far East arrived in Jerusalem, guided by a mysterious star. On their arrival in Jerusalem the Magi no longer saw the star and so they made recourse to King Herod to learn the exact place of the birth of the Messiah, according to indications they had received by way of the star. King Herod, quite unaware of any of this, immediately summoned the high priests and scribes to learn what answer he should give to the Magi concerning the place of birth of the Messiah.

The priests and scribes answered by citing precisely the prophecy of Micah 5:2-3 concerning Bethlehem, quoting it word for word, with its rich content pointedly dealing with so many important and significant things of messianic-Mariological value in the strictest sense (cf. Mt 2:3-6).⁵²

The prophecy of Micah, though brief, contains five distinct points: 1) the place of birth of the Messiah, viz., of him who will be the "ruler in Israel; 2) the primary origin of the Messiah: not temporal, but eternal; 3) the exile to which the chosen people were condemned, forced to live dispersed in Babylonia; 4) the sign of the arrival of the Messiah, when the woman who is in travail has brought forth; 5) the fruit of the return from exile when the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel."

In Micah’s prophecy, then, it is expressly said that the messiah who liberates will be born in little Bethlehem in the land of Ephrathah, located a few miles from Jerusalem, birthplace of King David, quite distinct, therefore, from Bethlehem of Galilee, and far more important than the latter.

As regards the origin of the messiah, however, the prophet Micah traces this to the days of old and to ancient days, viz., to the antiquity of the House of David. The Latin version of the Hebrew text, however, does not mention ancient days (as in the Hebrew original), but eternal days, textually "a diebus aeternitatis." According to the Vulgate, in Micah’s prophecy both the ancient, Davidic origin of the Messiah and the eternal, divine origin of the Messiah, that of the man-God, the Word made man, are affirmed.⁵³ The Fathers of the Church, however, although they are unanimous in admitting the messianic sense of Micah’s prophecy, are not unanimous in holding that the phrase eternal days connotes the eternal origin of the Word made flesh in the Virgin Mary.⁵⁴ It is quite legitimate, however, to accept the teaching of those Church Fathers and those eminent biblicists, e.g., A. Vaccari and G.M. Allegra, who maintain the validity of the exegetical interpretation of a diebus aeternitatis in the Latin version of Micah’s prophecy as a genuine reading of the Jewish remote days, and so indicating the divine origin of the Messiah.⁵⁵

Fr. Vaccari, in fact, clearly affirms that the Hebrew expression may include a divine origin (cf. Is 9:5) prior to all time, that is, eternal.⁵⁶ This interpretation accords quite well with the divine origin of Christ. Fr. Allegra states:

With this phrase the prophet [Micah] intends to indicate not only the human origin of the Messiah … but above all an origin transcending the human. This parallels nicely, as close observation reveals, the prophecy about the Emmanuel, where the prophet indicates the divine nature of the Messiah. This prince will be of the family of David and hence will be born in Bethlehem, but will enjoy a more ancient origin: he will in fact be eternally born of God the Father.⁵⁷

When She Who is in Travail has Brought Forth

The most extraordinary point of Micah’s prophecy is linked to a typical, concise hebraism: the woman "in travail has brought forth. The prophet effectively and expressly foretells the Mother, along with the Messiah. He employs an expression from Isaiah’s prophecy which would be very clear and recognizable to the Jewish people: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

Fr. Vaccari teaches the same, when he writes: "With the words has brought forth … Micah certainly refers to the celebrated prophecy concerning the virgin … in Isaiah 7:14, a prophecy which he presupposes is well-known to his contemporaries."⁵⁸ And Luciani confirms this, asserting that the prophet Micah borrows the phrase from Is 7:14, as scholars commonly admit today⁵⁹ … and relives the psychological moment of Isaiah himself, who coined the expression.⁶⁰

To this expression, "when she who is in travail has brought forth, are also linked both the reflections on the remnant of Israel," which through the redemptive work of the Messiah will be brought together in unity,⁶¹ and the reflections bearing on the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. Like Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2, the Protoevangelium presents the Mother alone with her son, that is without a father, which in Micah seems to contain the root of a miraculous birth as well, hence the miracle of the virgin birth which conserves inviolate and integral the virginity of the Mother.⁶²

With particular regard to the value and importance of virginity, it is indeed certain that in the three great messianic-Mariological prophecies of the Old Testament, the Mother always appears a virgin mother. The ‘virginity’ of the Mother forms the radiant background for the annunciation and birth of the Messiah. This is the evident sign that the Messiah is truly a new creation, the new mankind, the beginning of the era of salvation: the redemption.⁶³

For a brief overview of the messianic-Mariological content of the three most important Old Testament prophecies, surely authoritative is the mind of Pope John Paul II, set forth so explicitly in a homily for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

This very child, still so tiny and fragile, is the woman of the first announcement of the future redemption, opposed by God to the serpent tempter: I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; she will crush your head and you shall lie in wait for her heel (Gen 3:15).

This very child is the Virgin who conceived and gave birth to a son, who will be called Emmanuel, which means: God with us (cf. Is 7:14; Mt 1:23).

This very child is the Mother who will give birth in Bethlehem to him who must be the ruler of Israel (cf. Mic 5:1ff.).⁶⁴

Figures of Mary

In the Old Testament, Mary has been prefigured, as well as foretold and prophesied. In the pages of the Old Testament it is not, in fact, infrequent to encounter in female figures, virgins, wives, mothers, and widows, who typify the Blessed Virgin Mary in one way or another, in this or in that virtue. From the totality of all these images one can effectively form a stupendous mosaic of the person and mission of Mary. Here one may verify the reality of that adage according to which what all other women share only partially, Mary instead has entirely in every way and throughout all: "Quod alii in partibus, illa in toto."

Brief reflections on a select group of feminine figures (to which are added two male figures, Abraham and Isaac) will serve to make known the value and the beauty of these biblical types and models of Mary throughout the pages of the Old Testament: acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church and in Tradition, frequently adopted, in ages past and today, for use in celebrations of the sacred liturgy and art.⁶⁵

Eve, the Mother of the Living

Eve was the first woman, and with Adam our first parent at the inception of human history. According to the original plan of God, she should have transmitted to her children a human nature sanctified by grace, by divine filiation. Through the fall into original sin, she instead passed on to each of her offspring that horrible stain which caused the birth of dead children, "children of wrath of God (Eph 2:3). Thus, in fact, Sirach writes: From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die" (Sir 25:24).⁶⁶

In view of the fall into original sin, one may therefore say that Eve has prefigured Mary only in a negative or antithetical sense, becoming effectively a counter-figure of Mary. In fact, Eve was redeemed by Mary, according to St. Irenaeus in his teaching on recirculation of grace.⁶⁷ Thus, the fiat of Eve to the solicitation of the serpent/Satan (Gen 3:1-6) was redeemed by the fiat of Mary to the requests of the Angel Gabriel (Lk 1:30-38). In this way, the personal cooperation of Eve in the fall with Adam into original sin (Gen 3:6) was redeemed by the personal, active and immediate cooperation of Mary in the redemption wrought by Christ.⁶⁸

Sarah, the Wife of Abraham (Gen 17:15-16; 18:9-15)

Sarah was the "free wife of Abraham, in contrast with Hagar, the slave" wife. Sarah was sterile, but became fruitful through an extraordinary intervention of God.⁶⁹

On both points, Sarah prefigures Mary. Mary, in fact, is the "free spouse in the truest sense, because conceived immaculately, without any stain of original sin, the sign of the truest and most serious slavery, because everyone who commits sin, is a slave of sin" (Jn 8:34). Further, Mary is a spouse, not sterile, like Sarah, but virginal, and miraculously becomes Virgin Mother by the work of the Holy Spirit.

In addition, Sarah became mother of Isaac, her only son, who constitutes the old Israel. Mary is the Mother of Jesus, her only Son, who is the "firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29) in order to constitute the new Israel, the Church universal: Sarah is the shadow of the New Covenant sanctioned by God with Abraham and sealed with the blood of the circumcision. The Virgin Mary, instead, is the reality of the New Covenant between God and his people, established by Jesus, who sealed it by his immolation as crucified victim for a mankind to be redeemed."⁷⁰

Rebecca, Spouse of Isaac (Gen 24)

The prefiguration of Mary on the part of Rebecca is linked to many particular events, about which we can here only consider a few of the more significant aspects. In the life of Rebecca, God’s providence that disposed all things so that she might become the wife of Isaac and mother of Jacob, is clearly apparent. At the same time and in a still more evident fashion, one perceives how a special providence ordered events in such a way that Mary became the ever-virginal spouse of St. Joseph, so as to be the virginal Mother of Jesus.

The most important task of Rebecca was that of vesting her son Jacob with the clothes of his brother Esau, so as to obtain from their father Isaac the blessings for himself and his descendants (even though Esau had already sold the privileges of being firstborn to his brother Jacob: cf. Gen 25:31-33). As Roschini explains: Mary, with the consent given to the angel, induced the Word of God to clothe himself with human flesh, taking upon himself our iniquity and offering himself to the eternal Father to obtain an eternal blessing.⁷¹

This last event also manifests that Rebecca, placing herself between father and son, prefigures the role of Mediatrix which Mary will exercise between men and Jesus Christ, for the new Israel.

Miriam, the Sister of Moses (Ex 15: 20-21)

Miriam is the sister of Moses, the liberator of the chosen people from slavery in Egypt, and the sister of Aaron as well, the high priest of the Old Covenant. With Moses (the legislator) and with Aaron (the priest), Miriam was also present in the tent of the assembly, where the Lord came down to speak with them. These relationships prefigure well those between Mary and Jesus, given that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is the divine Legislator and Priest.⁷²

The sister of Moses, moreover, is called prophetess, and it was she who led the chorus of women in the triumphant canticle of Moses after the passage through the Red Sea. But who is more a prophetess than Mary in her sublime canticle, the Magnificat? Ruotolo writes:

The first Mary is introduced as a privileged prophetess by God; the second Mary, the blessed among women, is invoked by the Church as the Queen of Prophets. The first repeats the refrain; with her canticle the second magnifies the greatness of the Omnipotent and prophesizes, in the most literal sense of the term, her future glorification by all human generations.⁷³

Deborah (Judg 4:4-24)

Deborah was the energetic woman who cooperated actively and decisively with Barak in conducting war and in achieving, with the help of another woman warrior, Jael, the triumph over the powerful army of Sisera, thus delivering her people from the assault of the Canaanites.⁷⁴ In particular, Deborah directly prefigures Mary as Co-redemptrix with Christ, because Mary cooperates personally and actively with the Redeemer in accomplishing the work of salvation through universal redemption. Pietrafesa writes: Deborah cooperated in the liberation of Israel from the oppression of Sisara and of Canaan; Mary cooperated with Christ in the deliverance of the entire human race from the slavery of the Devil, meriting and satisfying with him.⁷⁵

Deborah also specifically prefigures Mary as prophetess and mother of mercy in the place known as the palm tree of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel, in the land of Ephraim: it was there, in fact, that the children of Israel went when they were in trouble, to obtain grace and justice. With her canticle, the Magnificat, Mary is the greatest prophetess, and in the Church has always been invoked and venerated as Mother of mercy, maternal and omnipotent Mediatrix and Advocate, Patroness of all graces to be distributed to her children who have recourse to her, confident of being heard.⁷⁶

Ruth, the Moabitess

This humble and generous woman, who had the courage to leave her own country to follow the pious Naomi, her sister-in-law, ended, according to the designs of providence, by becoming the wife of Boaz, and therefore mother