The spiritual motherhood of Mary

Exegetical study of John 19:25-27

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his Mother and his Mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus, therefore, seeing his Mother and, beside her, the disciple whom he loved, said to his Mother: Woman, behold your son. Then he said to the disciple: Behold your Mother. And from that hour the disciple took her as his own [1]

In our book on the Passion according to the Gospel of John we deal extensively with this scene[2]. We are not going to repeat here everything that we explained in that work. All in all, we will reproduce the essentials and make everything clearer about Jesus’ mother.

1.- Summary of the history of interpretation

It may seem a surprising fact, but the truth is that the Fathers of the Church, as a whole, did not interpret these verses as a revelation of the spiritual motherhood of Mary. Perhaps Origen should be excepted in the introduction to his gospel commentary of John[3]. Unfortunately, his detailed interpretation of the Passion has been lost. We do not know, therefore, how he understood our passage. But since we do not find any echo of his thought in later patristics, it seems that he did not delve much into the topic at hand either.

The patristic texts practically always explain the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the Cross in a moral sense. They see in this scene a sign of Jesus’ filial piety towards his mother, since, before dying, he entrusts her to his beloved disciple. The Fathers did not go any further. It is true, on the other hand, that they never stopped considering Mary as a symbol and ““type” of the Church, as can be seen, for example, in the writings of St. Ephrem and St. Ambrose[4].

It is from the Middle Ages, especially with Rupert of Deutz[5], followed by others, when we begin to speak of the spiritual motherhood of Mary in the interpretation of Jn 19:25-27. In the Renaissance, however, this theme again recedes into the background, although we find echoes of it in spiritual authors. In the exegetical field it has been raised again in our century.

For about fifty years, in fact, a new interest in the spiritual motherhood of Mary has been perceived among exegetes in the interpretation of this pericope. This interest is evident in numerous specialized studies that in recent years have addressed the topic, studies that not only come from Catholic exegetes[6], but also from Protestants[7]. We think in a very special way of the beautiful book by Max Thurian, by Taizé[8]. The theme is also widely present in liturgical texts and pontifical documents[9].

Although the moral interpretation, according to which Jesus acted here driven by a feeling of filial piety, still finds some supporters, many exegetes of our time discover in the scene of Calvary the indication of the universal motherhood of Mary. This evolution in exegesis is due, above all, to modern technical and literary analyses, which not only allow us to better understand the structure of the text, but also to discover the biblical background of this scene and its deep symbolism.

As we said at the beginning, this orientation of interpretation is recent in the history of exegesis. It is one of these cases in which the interpretation of John in the Middle Ages and that carried out by modern exegesis represent an indisputable progress in relation to the interpretation of the Fathers.

2.- Messianic and ecclesiological context of verses 25-27

In the past, these verses were usually considered and interpreted as an isolated entity. Thanks to a better knowledge of the composition of the Fourth Gospel, and also a better understanding of the intimate unity of the events of Calvary, it has become clear that the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the cross (v.25-27) is closely linked to both the verses that immediately precede it (the seamless tunic) and the verses that follow it (“It is finished”). This scene also turns out to be formally parallel to Jn 2.1-11 (the wedding of Cana). Only in this context, both immediate and distant from a great theological scope, both from a messianic and ecclesiological point of view, can the deep meaning of verses 25-27 be understood. The context will clearly show that this scene from Mary and the disciple at the foot of the cross means much more than the filial piety of Jesus towards his mother, and thus the messianic and ecclesiological dimension of the episode will be revealed.

For greater clarity, we will examine this context in three stages.

a) Parallelism with the messianic wedding scene

Most contemporary exegetes admit that there is a relationship between the wedding of Cana and the episode of the Cross, particularly at two points. As in Cana from Galilee, Jesus here addresses his mother using the title “Woman”. This title, as we said regarding Jn 2,11-12, must be read against the background of the Old Testament prophecies about “Daughter of Zion”; It clearly has a messianic significance. It is also at the wedding of Cana where Jesus warns: “Has not my hour (already) come?”, which, as we saw, contains an implicit reference to the hour of his death and his glorification on the cross. It is on the cross where he will generously distribute the “good wine” of the goods of salvation, the fullness of his revelation.

The two scenes form, so to speak, a large inclusion that embraces and contains the public life of Jesus. Saint Augustine already referred to the close link that unites the two pericopes:

“This is the hour to which Jesus was referring when, shortly before changing the water into wine, he said to his mother: “What is between you and me, woman? My hour has not yet arrived.” This hour, which had not yet arrived then and which he had announced, was the hour in which, being ready to die, he had to recognize (as his mother) the one from whom he was born as mortal”[10].

This parallel is important: the messianic meaning of the wedding of Cana implies that the parallel episode of the Cross is also situated in a messianic perspective.

b) Close union with the scene of the “undivided” tunic

The first thing to note is that, by a certain literary device, the two scenes are, so to speak, connected to each other.

We translate very literally:

v.24b The soldiers, on the one hand, did this.

v.25 On the other hand, his Mother and his Mother’s sister were standing next to the cross of Jesus.

Through the use, in the Greek text, of the particles “men… de”, a rare procedure in John, the two pericopes (tunic and the dialogue with Mary) are linked together in a particularly close way.

Tradition has always seen the “undivided” tunic scene as a great symbol of the unity of the Church. What the soldiers No they do, namely: “divide” the tunic of Jesus (John precisely says “divide”, and not “tear”), is seen by the evangelist as the announcement of what is going to be realized in a positive way in the following scene: the new messianic community is constituted in its unity thanks to the Cross[11]. Mary and the disciple are its prefiguration. Having overcome the ancient disunity of Israel, the Daughter of Zion now realizes its unity in the new people of God. This does not mean that the Church will not already know divisions, but, at the moment of their birth, the people of God, overcoming their past divisions, are brought back to unity, in Christ crucified. From the parallelism of the two scenes we can rightly conclude, with Barrett and Feuillet, that they must have fundamentally had the same theological meaning. Barrett aptly writes: “If John’s reference to the undivided tunic of Jesus offers us a symbol of the unity of the Church brought together by his death, here (in the pericope of Mary) we can see an illustration of this unity”[12].

The key text is the comment that John adds to the prophecy of Caiaphas in 11:47-52: “It is fitting that a man die… He (Caiaphas) ​​did not say this about himself, but since he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for his people, and not only for the people, but for gather in one all the children of God who were dispersed.” The Greek formula “hina synagagéi eis hen” is so concise that it is difficult to translate it accurately. The abstract term “unity” is usually used, and it is rendered: “to bring them together in unity.” But the text literally says: “to gather them in one”, in neuter “eis hen”. This “only” place where the dispersed children of God are gathered is probably Jesus itself on the Cross: around it, in it, unity is realized for all those who believe in it and who “look at its open side” (19:37). Specifically – we will return to this later – they are Mary and the disciple that Jesus loved: in their symbolic function, they represent here the whole of the new people of God.

c) Relationship with the following pericope (especially with verse 28)

The English Protestant exegete G. Bampfylde[13] published, a few years ago, a philological study on the construction of the verse of Jn 19,28. The conclusion he reaches (a conclusion that many commentators admit) is that the final proposition, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” must not be related to “Jesus says,” which follows, but to “it was finished,” which immediately precedes it. This means that the fulfillment of the Scriptures does not consist in the fact that Jesus says “I thirst”, but rather that this fulfillment took place in the previous episode, that is, in the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the cross. If this is so, then we should read: “After this (after the preceding scene, namely the dialogue with Mary and John), knowing that everything was already consummated that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, I thirst” (19:28). Therefore, the Scripture was fulfilled in what Jesus said to his mother and the disciple.

The symbolic significance of the episode of the undivided tunic became reality in the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the cross: there, in these two people, was represented the messianic people that God wanted to constitute; There the Church was born. In this way, he fulfilled Jesus until the end (tetelestai) his messianic mission as it was described in Scripture. Now (“already”) he could truly say: “Everything is finished.”

He last messianic act of Jesus is thus described in verses 25-27. This scene, which is at the center of the five episodes of Calvary, constitutes, so to speak, the fulfillment of salvation history. Here, the “hour” of Jesus reaches its fullness. What he carries out here is much more than an act of filial piety towards his mother. In the fullness of his hour he performs the messianic act with which he consummates his work of redemption and manifests his love for us to the extreme. A. Feuillet rightly wrote: “The evangelist, in 19:28, asks us to see in the scene he has just described the peak of the messianic work of Jesus and the supreme manifestation of his saving love”[14].

3.- Interpretation of Jn 19:25-27

a) The words of Jesus

We must further examine these words of Jesus to his Mother: “Woman, behold your son,” and to his disciple: “Behold your mother.” Later we will discuss the final verse 27b, which describes the realization of the last recommendation of Jesus.

One of the achievements of modern exegesis is to have discovered that, in this case, we are dealing with a particular literary genre. The exegetes asked themselves the following question: what genre is it? Some thought – which must be excluded, without a doubt – that it is an adoption formula. But at the beginning of the sixties, the French Carmelite M. de Goedt published an article on this subject that has become classic and has received the approval of practically everyone[15].

The novelty of his interpretation is that it shows that we are here dealing with a technical formula – he calls it a “scheme of revelation” – which is presented no less than four times in the gospel of John (1,21; 1,36; 1,47; 19,25-27). This literary scheme is made up of four elements:

– The people A and B (they can also be more);

– the person Let’s go to person B and

– looking at B, TO declares about B something that in Greek always begins with idou either of: “behold”;

– then follows a title that says, announces or reveals something about person B.

To concretely understand what the author means, let’s start from a really clear parallel case; We refer to 1:36, where it speaks of John Baptist on the banks of the Jordan: “The next day, when John was again with two of his disciples, he looked at Jesus, who was passing by, and said: Behold the Lamb of God.”

The four elements of the revelation scheme are easily distinguished here:

– John with two disciples near the Jordan and Jesus passing by;

– John Bautista look to Jesus,

– and says: Behold…

– the Lamb of God.

With this statement, John Bautista reveals (cf. v. 31) that the passing stranger is the Messiah of Israel.

If we admit that in the scene that takes place at the foot of the cross (v.25-27) the evangelist uses a similar formula, then we must also admit that the words that Jesus addresses to his mother and the disciple are part of a scheme of revelation. They mean, specifically, that Jesus, shortly before dying on the cross, reveals that his mother – as “Woman”, with all the biblical resonance of this word – will also from now on be the mother of the “disciple”, and that this, as representative of all the “disciples” of Jesus, will from now on be the son of his own mother. In other words: it reveals a new dimension of the motherhood of Mary, a spiritual dimension, and a new function of the mother of Jesus in the economy of salvation; but, correlatively, it reveals at the same time that the first task of the disciples will be to be “children of Mary.”

Integrated into the structure of this scheme of revelation, the two titles “mother” and “son” thus indicate a new relationship between the mother of Jesus and the disciple. This is a relationship wanted by Jesus himself in the context of the messianic and ecclesiological event of the Cross. In this regard, we must keep in mind what modern exegesis has made definitively clear, namely, that there is in John a constant tendency to present people in his gospel acting as personifications of a group, and in this sense, as symbols, as “types.” He does so in no way to let them evaporate into a vacuum or into mythology, but rather to show them as representative of a specific group. We see, for example, that in the fourth gospel Jesus’ conversations are almost always established with isolated people[16] and that these individuals then represent a category of men in their relationship with Jesus. The main examples are: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, Mary and Martha (Lazarus’ sisters). Something similar can be said of the two people present at the foot of the Cross. The mother of Jesus and beloved disciple fulfill a representative function here.

b) The disciple that Jesus loved

Tradition has always thought, with great plausibility, that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was the apostle John, “although, no doubt intentionally, he is never mentioned by name in Jn” (TOB); It is as if one wanted to suggest that, at this moment, he is not intervening as an individual person.

The stereotypical and emphatic character of the formula “the disciple who Jesus loved”[17] draws attention to two great Johannine themes: the very condition of disciple and the love from Jesus by the disciple. This expression should not be understood in an exclusive sense, as if it were the only disciple that Jesus loved or a preference that Jesus would have had for this disciple. It is in this sense that F.-M. Braun writes: “The relative proposition hon egapa (that he loved) is less the indication of a love of predilection for the disciple than an explanation that aims to place the disciple in the sphere of agape”[18].

In the fourth gospel, Braun also says, the “disciples” in general are the “friends” of Jesus (cf. 15:13-15). “The disciple whom Jesus loved” therefore represents the disciples of Jesus, who, as such disciples, are welcomed into communion with Christ. This interpretation also appears, on more than one occasion, in the pontifical encyclicals; among others, in those of Leo XIII. Today it is defended by many exegetes, both Catholics and non-Catholics. Thus, for example, M. Dibelius writes that with this formula the evangelist wants to designate “the very “type” of the disciple (…). The beloved disciple is a man of faith, who has no need of proofs (20,8). He is a witness to the mystery of the Cross (19,35) and at the foot of the Cross he becomes the son of the mother of Jesus as a representative of the disciples who, in their relationship with God, have become brothers of Jesus (20,17)”[19]. M. Thurian, in the book cited above, says almost the same thing: “The disciple designated as “the one whom Jesus loved” is, undoubtedly, the personification of the perfect disciple, of the true faithful to Christ, of the believer who has received the Spirit. This is not a question of a special affection of Jesus for one of his apostles, but of a symbolic personification of fidelity to the Lord”[20].

This vision is of great importance for the ecclesiological significance of the scene that takes place at the foot of the Cross. We must keep it in mind when we deal with the function of Mary, because a small problem arises here (Mary and the disciple both represent Church); but, as we will see, it is a problem that is more apparent than real.

c) The mother of Jesus and the new messianic community

We must remember, above all, what we have said before regarding the context, both broader and more immediate, of the scene that takes place next to the Cross: the parallelism with the story of the wedding of Cana and the fact that this scene is placed at the center of the story of the five episodes of Calvary. Because, precisely because of these correlations, the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the Cross has a clearly messianic and ecclesiological significance. Furthermore, we cannot lose sight of the literary genre of the words of Jesus: a scheme of revelation. With all this data in view, we can now better understand the central significance of Jesus’ mother in this scene.

The title “Woman”

As in Cana, Jesus addresses Mary calling her “Woman”, and not “Mother”, as would have been more normal. It would be appropriate to introduce a whole exposition here on the meaning of the title “Woman”, but we will limit ourselves to referring to the previous chapter, where we talked about the “mystery of the weddings”.[21]. If the title “Woman” is interpreted in this sense, namely: as the personification and image of the “Daughter of Zion”, then the messianic and ecclesiological dimension of this title becomes more manifest.

Against this backdrop, as A. Serra correctly explains, we must place some great prophetic texts that speak of the “Daughter of Zion” (Is 60,4-5; 31,344; Bar 4,36-37; 5,5…): the “Daughter of Zion” or the “Mother Zion” calls her children from exile in order to form around her the new people of God on the mountain Zion. John applies this, by transposition, to the mystery of the Cross, and concretizes it in the persons of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the Cross: “Lift up your eyes all around and see: They are all gathered together and come to you, your sons come from afar, and your daughters are brought on their haunches…” (Is 60:4). There is probably a certain literary contact between this text of Isaiah and the revelation formula of Jn 19,26.

If we consider this text from Isaiah or other analogues as a background for the verse of John, then this verse becomes very suggestive indeed. Mary, the “Mother Zion”, realizes here in her concrete and representative person what was announced in the great prophetic tradition. The disciple who becomes her “son” is the personification of the “children of Israel”, who now form around her (the “Mother Zion”) the new people of God on the mountain Zion, on the Cross. The title “Woman” with which Jesus addresses his mother, here even more than in Cana, seems to be the echo of this great prophetic tradition about the “new Zion”, which with some frequency is represented under the symbol of a woman (the “Daughter of Zion”, the “Virgin Israel”, etc.), and this in relation to her messianic and eschatological motherhood.

Along with this Old Testament background, it is of capital importance to also consider some parallel texts from the Johannine writings, which shed abundant light on our verses 25-27. We have, first of all, the text of Jn 16,21, on which Rupert of Deutz expressly relies: “When a woman gives birth, she feels sadness, because her time is coming; but when she has given birth to a son, she no longer remembers the tribulation, because of the joy she has at having a man come into the world.” In this text, Jesus talks about her passion and her death using the image of the pains of childbirth. Between 16.21 and 19.25-27 there are clearly three points of contact: the woman, her motherhood, the time. The image of the woman giving birth is frequent in biblical and Jewish tradition. This woman who gives light is the messianic community, Zion, personified in the “Woman” who stands next to the cross of Jesus. Regarding 16:21, A. Feuillet writes: “Jesus here presupposes the identification of its hour with the hour of Woman (Zion), from which the new people of God represented by his disciples are to be born”[22].

The different literary contacts between the two passages allow us to assume that the evangelist, when writing text 16:21, thought about the hour of Jesus and the “Woman” that Jesus himself gives as a “mother” to the disciple. Because of this function of Mary in the hour of Jesus, verses 25-27 cannot be understood simply in an individual and moral sense. Mary represents a community, or better yet, in it the new messianic people are born and give birth to their children. “In the eyes of Christ, A. Feuillet writes elsewhere, she represents Zion and thus (…) wants to attribute to her the metaphorical and supernatural motherhood that the prophets predicted of Zion”[23].

Another of the parallel passages that must be considered is a text from Apocalipsis (12,1-8). Since we will discuss this text in more detail in the next chapter[24], it will suffice to briefly indicate some points of contact. Whoever the author of Apocalipsis was, the truth is that the book saw the light of day within the scope of the Johannine tradition. Now: in Rev 12 it also speaks – in a messianic context – of a woman who suffers the pains of childbirth. According to most exegetes, the text metaphorically describes the messianic community, the Church. Twice (v.2 and 5) explicit reference is made to Is 66:7, where the messianic Zion who gives birth is described. On the other hand, according to Some authors, this woman also indirectly refers to Mary, the mother of the Messiah, as an image of Church. The parallelism with Jn 19:25-27, where the word “Woman” also appears, is confirmed by the community and ecclesiological function that Mary fulfills together with the Cross.

Personal significance and ecclesiological significance

It would not be correct, however, to interpret the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the cross immediately and exclusively in an ecclesiological sense. Mary and beloved disciple remain, in the end, individual persons who retain their personal function and their own significance in the mystery of salvation. Without a doubt, the mystery becomes broader here, but not to the point of completely volatilizing specific people and turning them into pure symbols. The mother of Jesus retains her maternal function and the disciple that Jesus loved must become, in an increasingly perfect way, a true disciple and the son of Mary. And this is valid both for him and for all the disciples whom he represents. Origen expresses it very well in a famous text, which we referred to at the beginning of this chapter:

“We dare to say that, of all the Scriptures, the gospels are the first fruits and that, among the gospels, these first fruits correspond to the gospel of John, whose meaning no one can understand if they have not bowed down on the chest of Jesus and have not received Mary as a mother at the hands of Jesus. And to be another John, it is necessary to become such that, exactly as John, we come to feel designated by Jesus as being Jesus himself. Because, according to those who have a healthy opinion of her, Mary has no other children than Jesus; when, then, Jesus says to her mother: “Here is your son,” and not: “Here is this man, who is also your son,” it is as if he were saying to her: “Here is your son.” Jesus, whom you have enlightened”. In fact, whoever reaches perfection “no longer lives, it is Christ who lives in him” (cf. Gal 2:20) and, since Christ lives in him, it is said of him to Mary: “Behold your son”, Christ”[25].

It is important to keep together the personal significance and the ecclesiological significance of Mary motherhood. By becoming the mother of all the disciples of Jesus, Mary becomes the mother of all Church. This title of “Mother of the Church” – we cannot forget it – was attributed to Mary by Pope Paul VI after the Council. It is solidly founded on the passage from John we are examining. There is no contradiction in saying that Mary is, at the same time, image of Church and mother of Church. As an individual, she is the mother of Jesus, and she becomes the mother of all of us, the mother of Church. But her bodily motherhood with respect to Jesus is extended into a spiritual motherhood towards believers and towards Church. And this spiritual motherhood of Mary is the image and form of the motherhood of Church. The motherhood of Mary and the motherhood of Church, inseparably considered, are important for the filial life of believers.

To become children of God, we must become children of Mary and children of Church. His only Son is Jesus, but we become conformed to him if we become children of God and children of Mary. Let us remember once again the text of the prologue (1:12-13), which speaks of the power that we have received to become children of God, according to the model of him who was not begotten by the “will of a man,” but “was born of God.” To the extent that we deepen our faith in him, the only Son of the Father, our life as children of God will grow. What is announced in the prologue finds its fulfillment in the spiritual motherhood of Mary at the foot of the cross: Mary, who, by virtue of the Incarnation, conceived and gave birth bodily to Jesus (in a virginal way), conceives and spiritually gives birth to the disciples of Jesus (also now in a virginal way).

Mother and archetype of the Church

What we have said so far about verses 25-27 allows us to understand that this text of Saint John, with such dense content, contains several elements. next to the Cross, Mary is effectively incorporated into the messianic mission of her Son. It is there represented as the “Mother” of the disciples of Jesus; Thus the function of the “Daughter of Zion” in the Old Testament is extended in it. This function of Mary has both an individual and community character. She is the mother of Jesus and his disciples, but she is also the Consummatio Synagogae, the Ecclesiae sanctae nova inchoatio, the “archetype” of the Church. The new relationships between the “Woman” and the “disciple”, which is established at the foot of the Cross by virtue of the words of Jesus, are the manifestation of the extreme love of Jesus in the moment of his hour” (cf. 13,1). These new relationships constitute the true basis of the unity of the Church.

With this in mind, we can summarize the interpretation of John 19,25-27 as follows.

Mary and the beloved disciple jointly represent the Church: “Recapitulating all these considerations – writes the Protestant exegete R. H. Lightfoot – we clearly see that the mother of the Lord and the beloved disciple, who from this hour takes her “in his company” represent the Church and its members, in the “new creation” that they have received from the Holy Spirit”[26]. Together they personify Church, although in different ways. The disciple that Jesus loved symbolizes the “disciples of Jesus” as such, that is, all believers, and in this sense, the entire Church. Mary, the mother of Jesus, symbolizes Church herself in her maternal role. She is the “type”, the image of the Church and the mother of all believers: “After receiving the title and function of “mother of God”, she receives the title and function of “figure of the Church-mother”. We understand the motherhood of the Church by meditating on the motherhood of Mary, mother of the Lord and mother of the beloved disciple”[27]. The doctrine according to which Mary is the figure of Church is classic throughout Tradition: “Maria-Ecclesia, Ecclesia-Maria; Both names will always be united in the reflection of the Fathers of the Church”[28].

From all this it is clear that the Marian doctrine of John is integrated into its ecclesiology. As we already said before, the entire scene of the Cross in John has a mainly ecclesiological scope; but this must be affirmed above all from the central part of this scene, from the words of Jesus to his mother and his disciple. Thus we can conclude, with A. Feuillet: “…it seems anachronistic to us to maintain that John was able to celebrate a spiritual motherhood of Mary conceived autonomously, without a close relationship with the motherhood of Church (…). If, above all, it is Luke the evangelist who highlights the truly divine motherhood of the Virgin, it is Saint John, without a doubt, who puts the most effort into showing in she the prototype of the Church”[29].

d) Verse 27b

This is of great importance for the fundamental interpretation of the entire Golgotha ​​scene. The translation usual: “And from that hour the disciple received her in his house”, does not exactly reflect the deep meaning of the Greek text: “elaben ho mathétés autén eis ta idía”.

The verb lambano which is used here has three meanings in the gospel of John. When it is a material object, lambano has the active sense of “take”; for example: “then he took the loaves” (6:11). When the verb lambano has as a direct complement a purely spiritual reality, it means in a passive sense: “receive”, for example, when Jesus says to his disciples: “receive the Holy Spirit” (20,22), or in the prologue: “of his fullness we receive all, grace for grace” (1,16).These are two extreme cases: the object of the verb is either a purely material object or an exclusively spiritual reality.

But there is a third case: when the complement of the verb lambano is a living person; Most of the time it is the person of Jesus. In these cases, lambano It cannot be translated as “take” or “receive.” You do not “take” a living person like you take bread or a book, nor do you “receive” it like you receive grace or the Holy Spirit. The Germanic languages ​​do not have any verb that translates this nuance exactly; but Latinas have a great one: in French, it’s accueillir, in Italian, accogliere, in Spanish, welcome. In reality, this verb expresses an attitude of faith, as can be seen in three or four texts in which the verb lambano It is used in this sense and where it is put in relation to the verb “believe.” Specifically, it is always about the person of Jesus, who is “welcomed” with faith or rejected by the disbelief of men. We find a new example, very clear, in the prologue: “He came to his own, but his own they did not receive him (ou parélabon). More to how many they welcomed him (élabon) gave power… to those who believe in his Name…” (1:11-12). In other places in the fourth gospel we also find this same relationship between lambano (with the meaning of welcome) and “believe” (5:43-44; 13:19-20). Here too it is about “welcoming” Jesus. The only occasion in which this verb does not refer to the person of Jesus is precisely in the scene that takes place at the foot of the Cross, where the verb has as its complement Jesus’ mother, Mary.

What is its significance? It certainly does not mean that the disciple “takes” Mary to lead her home. This common interpretation is too material. But it does not mean that the disciple passively “received” it (from whom does he “receive” it?). The object of the verb lambano This is the person from Mary; As in the previous cases, it is a “welcoming in faith”, in the sense of an attitude of faith, of a positive reaction to the will of Jesus. The disciple puts into practice in his own life what Jesus has just asked of him, that is, to become a son of Mary. He must become, in other words, a true believer: a believer with respect to Mary and with respect to Church.

But it is the last three words of the verse that raise the most serious problem: “eis ta idía”, which the Vulgate translates: “in sua”. How are these words to be understood? And how to translate them? There is a version known to everyone: “The disciple took her (or welcomed her) in your company, with which it is understood, ordinarily, in the sense of: in his house. We believe we have demonstrated elsewhere that this translation is inaccurate. But this is a position that has given rise to prolonged debates[30]. Here we cannot do anything other than present a very succinct summary of the interpretation that, in our opinion, requires a detailed analysis of the vocabulary and parallels.

It is true that eis this day It frequently means “at home”, “in your homeland”, etc.; but, in this case, the expression is used always with a verb that describes a material displacement. He goes on a trip and, after a long absence, comes back home. Or, if send to someone to his house. We find some examples in the New Testament; Thus, in Acts 21:6: “…we went up to the ship, turning they to their homes.” But in the scene of the Cross, elaben It does not describe a material displacement. As we have already indicated, this verb means the beginning of an attitude of faith; It is a “movement”, if you will, but a purely spiritual (“welcome”), the first stage of itinerary of faith. It is true that, along with this attitude of faith, there could also have been a physical displacement; but such a displacement is totally outside the perspective of the verse and the entire pericope, which is situated on a properly theological level. However, although this is a spiritual attitude, it is added here eis ta idia. What then is the meaning of these three words? Reference is certainly not made to a house, but to what is “own” to the disciple, as suggested by the repeated use of God in San John (e.g., 10.4). It is necessary to understand eis this day in the sense of a metaphorical appropriation, in relation to the disciple: he welcomed her “as his own, as his” (G. Blaquière). But how to translate this metaphorical meaning? Because the preposition hey has a dynamic meaning in San John; always describes a movement towards the interior (physical or metaphorical).

Cardinal Toledo’s comment[31], which dates from the Renaissance, but refers here to St. Ambrose, will serve as a starting point for the exegesis that we are going to propose. Ambrose, according to Toledo, speaks in this regard of “spiritual goods.” (spiritualia bona) which the disciple had received from Jesus. Toledo summarizes this exegesis of in sua from Jn 19:27b in a beautiful formula: “inter sua spiritualia bona”. In literal translation, this means: “among his spiritual goods” (cf. L. de la Palma: “and he looked at it… as the greatest and best part of his goods… he counted it among his spiritual goods”). Although this expression is somewhat strange in modern languages, it allows us to clearly understand the meaning of the text. In his great trilogy L’Église du Verbe Incarné[32], C. Journet also understands these words in the same way: “He took her (let’s say, rather, he welcomed her) in his privacy”, in his inner life, in his life of faith This interiority of the disciple is nothing other than his willingness to open himself in faith to the last words of Jesus and to put into practice his spiritual testament, becoming the son of Jesus’ mother, welcoming her as his own. mother: From this moment, Jesus’ mother is also his, the disciple “has welcomed her as his own.”

It is also interesting to mention – several authors have also indicated this – that the formula eis this day presents a clear parallel with verse 11 of the prologue. Jesus, when the Incarnation took place, came to his own domains: eis this day. It’s literally the same formula. The “proper domain” of Jesus is not a place, but the people of Israel. The idea of ​​“domain”, of “its possession”, occupies the foreground. This domain is “yours”; It is made up of “their own”, who welcome or do not welcome the Messiah. Here it is also about an attitude of faith (cf. v.12b).

4.- Conclusion: the “Marian face” of the Church

The meaning of “the OT Woman Zion” applies to both Mary and Church. Mary, ““type” of the Church, is a classic theme, which has been echoed by Vatican II; We must address everything that is involved in this issue.

Mary at the foot of the Cross is truly the personification of Church, the Kirche im Ursprung (the “nascent Church”), in the words of J. Ratzinger and H. Urs von Balthasar[33]; This means that we find here an important theological data, both for ecclesiology and for Mariology; This topic has already been the subject of notable studies by some modern theologians. H. Urs von Balthasar, for example, speaks of the “Marian face of the Church”[34] and C. Journet wrote in his great trilogy on the Church: “The entire Church is Marian”[35]. We gladly quote a beautiful text from this work, in which Mary is described as an archetype of Church and as a Wife:

“Mary is presented to us as the shape, that is, as the model and the guy of the Church. Saint Peter asked the presbyters to lead the Church, to be the models, the types of the flock that had been entrusted to them (1 Pet 5:3). In an incomparably higher sense, Mary is the model and type of the Church. She is, within the Church, the way in which the Church perfects herself as a Wife to give herself to the Husband. The more the Church is like the Virgin, the more she becomes a Bride; The more she becomes a Bride, the more she resembles the Bridegroom, and the more she resembles the Bridegroom, the more she resembles God: because these superimposed instances between the Church and God are nothing more than transparencies in which the unique splendor of God is reflected”[36].

In the West, there is a general tendency to see Church only as an organization made up of men, in which, at the level of management and organization, women play a minor role. In reality, its institutional and masculine aspect has been accentuated in a way that is too intense and exclusive, so that the “Marian face”, the “feminine and maternal face”, the mystical aspect of the Church has been obscured. To correct this one-sided perspective based on Scripture, H. Urs von Balthasar offers us an interesting suggestion. Take as a starting point the mysterious text of Jer 31:22: “Return, Virgin of Israel (Virgo Israel); Return to those your cities. How long will you be hesitating, wayward daughter? For God will do a new thing on earth: Woman will look for her husband“[37]. The “Daughter of Zion”, the “Virgin Israel”, in unfaithful times, will seek God, her husband, and will unite with him. From this text, H. Urs von Balthasar shows the place of the woman in the Church. She is the symbol of the Church in her Covenant relationship, in her spousal relationship with God. Only the woman can give the Church This feminine and Marian face. Only the woman can symbolize the Church-Wife.

In a somewhat allegorical way the same theme can be applied to the scene of Mary and the disciple at the foot of the Cross. A “Woman” and a man remain next to the Cross of Jesus, in a typological representation function. Let us think for a moment about other words that Jesus could have pronounced on this occasion: words different from those we find in Jn 19,26-27, similar to those of the mission speech of the Risen Lord in the Synoptics (cf. Mt. 28,29-30; Mc 16,15-18); He could have told Mary, for example, to observe everything that the apostle ordered him to do (cf. Mt. 28:20) in the name of Jesus himself. But we found none of this! Who is the main figure here, the one who has the most important role? It is not the disciple, but the “Woman”: Mary. As for the “disciple that Jesus loved”, the only mission he receives is to have Mary as his mother. His first task is not to go preach the gospel, but to become a “son” of Mary. For him and everyone else, it is more important to be a believer than an apostle. The apostolic mission will be entrusted to him later, after the Resurrection (Jn 20,21; 21,20-23). But being the son of Mary and the Church-mother is the first and most fundamental aspect of his entire Christian existence. And this is fully valid both for the successor of Peter, for bishops and priests, and for any believer. Playing a little with words, we can say: being incorporated as children of God into the mystery of the Church, our mother, is more essential than exercising a ministry in the Church. In Calvary, at the moment when Church is born in these two people, in this woman and in this man who symbolize Church, the words of Jesus are of crucial importance for their mutual relationship. It is not yet a question of sending the disciple on an apostolic mission, nor of entrusting him with the task of proclaiming the Good News and teaching, but of a prior invitation to become a “son” of Mary, “son” of the Church, that is, a true believer in the Church. And – as we read in the prologue – those who believe will become children of God and brothers of Jesus, becoming children of Mary and children of Church.

Here again the providential significance of the constitution is highlighted. Lumen gentium of Vatican II, which describes Church as “God’s people”, and not, simply, as a diversely articulated organization. The structure of the Church is certainly necessary, and the hierarchy of the Church is important; but it does not constitute its deepest essence. The essence of the Church, which is the Daughter of Zion, It is to be the people of God, who live in a Covenant relationship with Christ, and in it, with God. These reflections do nothing other than prolong the theology of Jn 19:25-27.

What then, according to this interpretation, is the place of women in Church? The ideas of H. Urs von Balthasar regarding the double face of Church agree perfectly, in our opinion, with the ecclesiology of John, which twice presents the mother of Jesus as “Woman”. There is, on the one hand, the Petrine and institutional aspect, which H. Urs von Balthasar frames in what he calls “the apostolic channel”[38]; but there is also, on the other hand, the Marian and feminine aspect of the Church. This latter approach is, to a large extent, an acquisition of contemporary ecclesiology[39]. Both aspects are of essential importance for a balanced, biblically grounded theology of Church.

The symbolism of the “Daughter of Zion” is the most fundamental biblical data of this Marian aspect of the Church. It agrees perfectly with the ecclesiology of John, which is in essence a theology of the Covenant relationship. On the symbolic level, the Church, like Mary, is the Woman” who is in a relationship of Covenant with her Husband, Christ. This is the basic structure of the Church as the Wife of Christ and Mother of the people of God; as Vatican II clearly teaches, the Church is this in the first place As the “people of God” and “Wife of Christ”, the Church must be interpreted biblically against the background of the theology of the Covenant. Now, this is precisely where the Marian dimension of the Church is also located. A dialectical relationship between the two faces of the Church is thus revealed, the Marian face and the Petrine face. Alliance; they are two faces of the same reality. But the Marian face expresses the most interior and profound aspect of the mystery of the Church.

H. de Lubac has gathered numerous texts from tradition that speak of the maternal function of the Church[40]. Fundamentally, Church is our “mother”. Because? Because it is to her that we owe being born to supernatural life. It is our mother, Church, who makes us discover Christ. It is our mother, the Church, who has given birth to us as Christians. It is our mother, the Church, who has instructed us in the faith. Thanks to Church, our mother, we become children of God. Although some of its representatives may inspire us with aversion and make us suffer, these feelings have nothing to do with the fundamental reality of Church. The maternal aspect of Church has a perfect parallel with everything a mother does for her child: conceive him, give birth to him, educate him, make him grow, establish himself and mature in the family circle; All of this applies to Church and Mary. It is surprising to see how the two figures, Church and Mary, are identified here, so to speak. Mary is truly the “supreme realization of Church” (C. Journet).

From a biblical point of view, the fundamental significance of the mystery of Mary is found, therefore, in her spousal and maternal function: she is mother of Jesus and mother of the disciples; but in her relationship with Christ another aspect is added, her function as Wife: she, “Woman”, Daughter of Zion is the Wife of Christ, as we have seen before. It is still strange that there are so many theologians who still hesitate to affirm it. How can Mary, they wonder, be both the mother of Jesus and his Wife? It is evident that this is only possible on two different levels. As an individual, she is the mother of Jesus; but by virtue of the place she occupies in the mission of Jesus and her symbolic and representative function as “Daughter of Zion”, Mary is also his wife and his collaborator in the work of salvation. Let us not hesitate to accept this truth, for it is clearly contained in Scripture. What we have just said about Mary can be applied analogically to Church, which is also Wife and Mother, as Isaac de Stella vigorously emphasizes in a beautiful page that we have previously reproduced[41].

Before concluding, let us pause for a moment on another significant text, authored by the German commentator Gerhoh von Reichersberg (12th century). It happily completes the formula of the Middle Ages, which we have cited[42], and perfectly summarizes what we are saying. According to medieval authors, Mary is, in a way, the fulfillment of the hope of the Old Testament, but it is also the first realization of the people of God of the New Covenant. Mary is thus oriented in two opposite directions. It is the meeting point of the Synagogue and the Church. The orientation towards the past is expressed in medieval formulas: Figure Synagogae and Consummatio Synagogae; but in Gerhoh von Reichersberg’s text these two conflicting orientations are presented together.- “Fuit ac permanet… Blessed virgo Maria… consummatio Synagogae (…); et Ecclesiae sanctae nova inchoatio”, that is, “The blessed Virgin Mary was and remains the fulfillment of the Synagogue (…); and it is the new beginning of the holy Church.”

We must ask one last question:As Does the mother of Jesus exercise her role as mother of beloved disciple and, consequently, of all the disciples of Church? The passage of 19:25-27 does not tell us. But here also a close pericope can come to our aid, the one that tells us the episode of the pierced side (19:31-37), which concludes the Johannine story of the passion; The last verse is particularly suggestive: “(They) looked at him whom they pierced” (19:37). But to who designates the pronoun “they”? Almost without a doubt it designates, first of all, the disciple himself (cf. v.35); but the plural “they” must designate the two people present at the foot of the Cross, the mother of Jesus and the disciple; Furthermore, the disciple represents all the disciples, the entire Church[43].

In that look of Mary and the disciples at the open side of Jesus, the mother of Jesus already exercises her role as mother. A new parallel with messianic wedding is thus confirmed. In Cana, Mary told the servers to do whatever Jesus told them. These words were words of the Covenant, as we have already shown; They were intended to guide the servers to Jesus and thus constitute the new people of God. In the same way that Moses at Sinai was the mediator of the Covenant between Yahweh and Israel, so too Mary, according to the account of Cana, exercises the role of mediator in the realization of the Covenant between Jesus and those who serve him. From these last words of Mary in the gospel there emerges a general symbolism of the function of Mary in relation to believers, in relation to Church. Mary and the beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross, with their gaze fixed on the pierced side of Jesus, together form the image of the Church-Wife, oriented towards her Husband, Christ. This is how the prophecy of Caiaphas is fulfilled: Jesus dies “to gather into one all the children of God who were dispersed” (11:52); what Jesus himself had announced is also fulfilled: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all towards me” (12.32). Toward he orients the gaze of Mary and the disciple; toward him, with his side open, and, therefore, towards “the door of life” (Saint Augustine). The deep life of Jesus, the life of his heart, symbolized by the water of the Spirit that comes out On his side, he becomes the life of the Church; the heart of Jesus becomes the heart of Church. The disciple fixes his gaze on Jesus’ heart, but he does so thanks to the gaze of Mary, his mother, in the same way that Mary’s words in Cana guided the servants towards Jesus. In this sense, it can be said, with a long tradition, that Church was born from the pierced side (of the heart) of Jesus[44]. But in this birth of the Church it is Mary that performs the function of mother With her faith and with her gaze fixed on the wound in Jesus’ side, she invites believers, her children, to approach the heart of Jesus, this heart where Church dwells in its mystery:

“When they opened their hearts, (already) he had prepared the dwelling, and opened the door to his Bride. Thus, thanks to him, she was able to enter and he was able to welcome her. Thus she was able to dwell in him and he in her”[45]

Source: Ignacio de la Potterie, Mary in the mystery of the Alliance, BAC, Madrid, 1993, p. 255-281.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

GRADES

[1] We cannot agree with the translation of the last half of the verse as given by the Dutch Willabrord version: “…the disciple received it in his home”. It is usually translated simply: «… he took it in your company” (Bover), which is understood, most of the time, in the same sense (“at home”). But this interpretation does not seem accurate to us. Hence we present a new translation of this v.27b. We will justify it later.

[2] OF THE POTTERIE, The Passion of Jesus selon 1’évangile de Jean. Texte et Esprit (Lire la Bible, 73) (Paris, Cerf, 1986) p.144-167: «La maternité spirituelle de Marie».

[3] ORIGINS, In Ioannem, 1.4 (23): SC 120,71.73.

[4] SAN AMBROSIO, In Lucam, VIII 5 and X 134: PL 15,1700 C and 1838 C.

[5] RUPERTO DE DEUTZ, In Evangelium S. loannis commentariorum libri XIV.- PL 169,789-790. This Benedictine monk was born in Liège (around 1075); He was abbot of Deutz, near Cologne. He is the best commentator on Saint John in the Middle Ages. Here is a passage that concerns us: “… Quia vere ibi… in passione unigeniti omnium nostrum salutem blessed Virgo peperit, plan omnium nostrum mater est (…). Igitur quod de hoc disciple dictum est ab eo, (…) recte et de alio quolibet discipulorum, si praesens adesset, dici potuisset” (790 A-B). Cf. also HUGO DE SAN VICTOR: “Ex hoc articulo ubi dictum est: Ecce mater tua, intelligitur quod Virgo beata non solum Joanni in matrem traditur, imo toti Ecclesiae universisque peccatoribus in matrem assignatur, cum dicitir: “Ecce mater tua”, quoted by LUDOLPH OF SAXON, Vita Jesu Christi, II pars, c.63 (Paris 1865) 664.

[6] Gáchter, Braun, Thyes, Dubarle, De Goedt, Gallus, Kerrigan, Leal, Stanley, Mollat, Feuillet.

[7] Herbert, Hoskyns, Lightfoot, Thurian, Bampfylde.

[8] M. THURIAN, Marie, Mère du Seigneur et Figure de l’Église (Taizé 1962) 212-241. Max Thurian is a Protestant theologian who recently converted to Catholicism.

[9] Cf. the Marian encyclicals of Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII.

[10] SAINT AUGUSTINE, In Ioannem, 119,1: “Haec nimirum (scil. ad Crucem) est illa hora de qua Jesus aquam conversurus iu vinum dixerat matri: ‘Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Nondum venit hora mea.’ “fuet mortaliter natus” (PL 35,1950).

[11] See A. VON SPEYR, Jean: the birth of the Église. Meditation on the chapitres 18-20 (Paris-Namur 1985).

[12] BARRETT, 459.

[13] C. BAMPFYLDE, “John XIX, 28. A Case for a Different Translation.”: NovTest 11 (1969) 247-260.

[14] A. FEUILLET, “Les adieux du Christ à sa mère (Jn 19:25-27) et la maternité spirituelle de Marie”: NRTh 86 (1964) 469-489 (p.474).

[15] M. DE GOEDT, “Un schème de révélation dans le fourtrième Évangile”: NTS 8 (1961-62) 142-150.

[16] It is one of the great differences with the synoptics, in which Jesus, most of the time, addresses his speeches to the crowds of Galilee, who follow him everywhere.

[17] See our article “Le temoin qui demeure: le disciple que Jésus aimait”: bib 67 (1986) 343-359.

[18] F-M. BRAUN, La Mère des fidèles. Essai de théologie johannique, 106-108.

[19] M. DIBELIUS, “Joh XV, 13. Eine Studie zum Traditionsproblem des Johannes-Evangeliums”, in Festgabe A. Deissmann (Tübingen 1927) 178s: “den Typus der Jüngerschaft… Der Lieblinsjünger ist der Mann des Glaubens, der keinem Beweis edarf (20,8), er ist der Zeuge des Mysteriums am Kreuz (19,35) und er wird unter dem Kreuz zum Sohn der Mutter Jesu, d.h. zum Repräsentanten der Jünger, die in ihrer Stellung zu Gott Jesu Brüder (20,17) geworden sind.”

[20] M. THURIAN, Marie, Mère du Seigneur et Figure de l’Église, 237.

[21] Not present in this article.

[22] A. FEUILLET, “Les adieux du Christ à sa mère (Jn 19:25-27) et la maternité spirituelle de Marie”: NRTh 86 (1964) 478.

[23] A. FEUILLET, “L’heure de la femme (Jn 16,21) et l’heure de la mère de Jésus (Jn 19:25-27)”: bib 47 (1966) 370.

[24] See the article on our site.

[25] ORIGINS, In Ioannem, 1.4 (23): SC 120,71.73.

[26] R.H. LIGHTFOOT, St. John’s Gospel. To commentwy, 317: “If,then, we put all these considerations together, it becomes possible that the Lord’s mother and the beloved disciple, who from that hour takes her ‘to his own’, represent the Church and its members, in the ‘new creation’, endowed with the Holy Spirit”

[27] M. THURIAN, Marie, Mère du Seigneur et Figure de l’Église, 241.

[28] Idem., op.cit., 238.

[29] A. FEUILLET, “Les adieux du Christ à sa mère (Jn 19:25-27) et la maternité spirituelle de Marie”, NTRh 86 (1964) 487 et 489.

[30] I. DE LA POTTERIE, “La parole de Jésus ‘Voici ta mère’ et l’accueil du Disciple (Jn 19:27b)”: Sea 36 (1974) 1-39; F. NEIRYNCK, “This day: Jn 19,27 (et 16,32)”: EThL 55 (1977) 357-365; I. DE LA POTTERIE, “”And from this time, the Disciple l’accueillit dans son intimité” (Jn 19:27b)”: Sea 42 (1980) 84-125; F. NEYRYNCK, “La traduction d’un verset johannique: Jn 19:27b”: EThL 57 (1981) 83-106.

[31] Toledo, 16th century Spanish Jesuit and cardinal. His commentary on the gospel of John contains a mine of quotes from Fathers of the Church. It is by far the richest source in this field.

[32] C. JOURNET, L Église de Verbe Incarné, II (Paris 1962) 414. It is a classic work of around 2,000 pages; It is a somewhat scholastic exposition, but in which the author analyzes in great depth the mystery of Church and its relationship with Mary.

[33] J. RATZINGER/H. URS VON BALTHASAR, Maria, Kirche im Ursprung (Herder, 1980).

[34] We quote according to the Italian translation: “Il volto mariano della Chiesa”. Original title: “Die marianische Prägung der Kirche”, in Maria heute ehren (edited by W. Beinert) (Herder, 1977) 263-279.

[35] C. JOURNET, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, II, 428-436; cf p.393: “Marie est la réalisation la purest et la plus intense de l’Église”.

[36] Op. cit., 432-433.

[37] Cf. the note of the French version of the Jerusalem Bible to Jr 31,22: “Le texte, où le verbe Hébreu means ‘entourer’, ‘tourner autour’, ‘rechercher’, expresses the reprise des relations d’amour entre Israël et son Époux Yhavé, cf. Hos 1,2; Is 54,5-8; Ez 16,59-60. The Vulgate in a accentué la portée messianique par la translation: ‘la femme entourera l’homme’, qui evoque la conception virginale du Christ”.

[38] According to H. Urs von Balthasar, the Church rests on four pillars. It is “the apostolic quadrant” formed by the four main figures of the group of apostles: Peter, Paul, John and James, each of whom represents a specific tradition in the Church. Protestants rely mainly on Paul and his doctrine of justification by faith without works (cf., above all, the letters to the Romans and the Galatians). The Orthodox, particularly sensitive to glory and inclined to contemplation, represent the Johannine current. Catholics rally around Peter, their primate, and the institutionalized nature of the Church. There is, finally, Santiago, the man of tradition, the representative of the Church of Jerusalem and of the Judeo-Christians who have remained in the Syrian Church.

[39] Cf. C. Journet, H. Urs von Balthasar, P. Evdokimov and some others.

[40] H. DE LUBAC, Les églises particulières dans l’Église universelle. The motherhood of the Church (Paris, Aubier, 1971) 139-229.

[41] We reproduce it here for our readers (Isaac de Stella was abbot in England and France between the 12th and 13th centuries): “By his divine generation, Christians are one with him (Christ). The Christ alone, the unique and total Christ, is the head and the body. He is the only Son, in heaven, of a only God, and on earth, of one Mother; It is many sons and one Son together. As the head and the members are one Son, being, at the same time, many children, so also Mary and the Church are at the same time one mother and many mothers, one virgin and many virgins. Both are mothers, both are virgins; both conceive by the work of the same Spirit, without contradiction; both give birth to a progeny for the Father, without sin (…). Both are Mother of Christ, but neither of them illuminates everything completely. That is why, in the divinely inspired Scriptures, what is said of the Church virgin-mother in the collective sense (universaliter) must be applied to Mary individually (singulariter), and what is said especially (specialist) of Mary virgin-mother, can be understood in a general way (generalliter) of the Church virgin-mother; and when a text speaks of one or the other, it can apply to both. Furthermore, every believing soul can be considered, under a certain aspect, as the wife of the Word of God, mother of Christ, daughter and sister, virgin and at the same time fruitful. On the other hand, what is said in the collective sense (universaliter) of Church, and especially (specialiter) of Mary, can also be said in the individual sense (singulariter) of each believing soul. This is what the very Wisdom of God teaches us, which is the Word of the Father” (Isaac de Stella, Serm. 51 in Ass. B.M. (PL 194, 1863 A-B).

[42] GERHOH VON REICHERSBERG, Liber de gloria et honore Filii Hominis, 10.1 (PL 194.1105 B).

[43] See our article “Volgeranno lo sguardo a colui che hanno trafitto: Sangue di Christ e oblatività”: CivCatt 137 (1986 III) 105-118.

[44] This theme has become classic, especially in medieval mysticism. It is also at the origin of the devotion to the Heart of Jesus. Cf. the well-known article by S. TROMP “De nativitate Ecclesiae ex Corde Iesu in Cruce”: Greg 13 (1932) 489-527.

[45] Anonymous from the 16th century, cited in J. ALAERTS, gods Tempel zijn wij (Bonheiden 1980) 154 (translated from Dutch)