The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

Marian Studies
Volume 1 Article 11
1950
The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

Dominic J. Unger
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies

Part of the Religion Commons
Recommended Citation
Unger, Dominic J. (1950) "The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology," Marian Studies: Vol. 1, Article 11.
Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol1/iss1/11
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marian Library Publications at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marian
Studies by an authorized editor of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu, mschlangen1@udayton.edu.
Unger: The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology
T~E USE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE IN

MARIOLOGY
The Scriptures have always played an important role in
Mariology. In the past, and often even today, the use of
Scripture in Mariology meant explaining the texts of Scripture
that have a Marian content, either all of them or a select group.
The tim~ has come when scholars realize that it is necessary
to lay down the principles involved in the explanation of
Marian texts, To cite but two examples, the outstanding Mari-
ologist Father Roschini, in his introductory volume on Mariol-
ogy, treats of the frequency with which Mary is spoken of in
the Bible, of the various senses in which she is revealed there,
of the probative value of these senses, and of the mode in
which a doctrine may be revealed in a given passage. 1 Santiago
Al'ameda, O.S.B., in a long article on both Scripture and tradi-
tion as sources of Mariology, speaks of the importance of
Scripture for the Mariologist and of its use by him. 2
True, these principles scarcely differ from those given in
treatises on hermeneutics of Scripture and on the sources of
theology. They have, however, a. special application in Mariol-
ogy. And today there is a particular need for insisting on these
principles. The modern era has been styled the era of Mary.
There is a gigantic movement on foot toward increasing devo-
tion to Mary. This has received a forceful impetus from Pius
· XII's interest in Marian doctrines and devotion. · But such
I1
devotion to Mary always needs to be properly orientated in
the genuine sources of revelation if it is to remain sound.3 •
•il Accordingly, we shall treat in order the following, illustrating
\I 1 G. M. Roschini, O.S.M., Mariologia (Romae: 1947) 1, 54-67.
i' 2 Santiago Alameda, O.S.B., La Mariologia y las fuentes de la revelacion,
I in Estudios Marianas 1 (1942), 41-71.
I 3 Ibid., p. 68.
67
iI·
IPublished by eCommons, 1950 1
'
Marian Studies, Vol. 1 [1950], Art. 11
68 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology
the principles by Marian' texts where possible: I. The presence

of Mary in Scripture and the need of Scripture in Mariology.
II. The senses in which Mary might be spoken of in the Sacred
Text. II. The criteria for finding the genuine sense of a given
passage. IV. The styles of presentation.
I. THE PRESENCE oF MARY IN ScRIPTURE AND THE

NEED OF ScRIPTURE IN MARIOLOGY
Together with· Christ, Mary is the center of the Divine

Scriptures. "Together with Christ," because it is realiy for the
sake of Christ and under Him that she is center at all. That
Christ is the center of the Bible,. also of the Old Testament,
can be assumed as sufficiently proved elsewhere. 4 That Mary
is the center can be proved fr9~. ·the extrinsic argument of
authority and from the intrinsic.~rgume.J,lt that she is the final
scope and object of the Scriptures, spoken of often in them;
and we can show the propriety c{.this from the fact that she is
the Co-redemptrix and Mediatdx together with Christ.
Much as the ancient Chri~tian writers delighted in speak-
ing of Christ as the center of the Bible, they seem not to have
mentioned this in regard to Mary. Still we can gather their
mind on the matter from the fact that they saw Mary pre-
dicted not only literally in a number of passages but in many
types as well. Their glorious praises of Mary are clothed in
the typical language of the Scriptures. Pope Pius IX put this
fact in crystal form in his Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, in these
words:
This illustrious and singular triumph of the Virgin, together with
·her .most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every
stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable a,'bundance and greatness of
aU heavenly .graces, virtues and privileges-these the Fathers saw in
4 Roschini, op. cit., pp. 55-57; L. C. Fillion, S;S., Study of the Bible (New
York: Kenedy, 1926), 26-36; idem, The Life of Christ, 3 vols. (St. Louis:
Herder, 1928), 1, 209-224.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol1/iss1/11 2
The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 69
t!ha:t ark of Noe, which was built by divine command and esc'aped
entirely safe and sound ·from the common shipwreck of the whole
world (Gen. vi. 9); also in that ladder which Jacob saw reaching
from earth to heaven, by whose rungs the angels of God ascended
and descended, and! on whose top the Lord Himself leaned (Gen. xxviii.
12-13); also in that bush which Moses saw in the holy place burn-
ing on all sides, but which was not only not consumed nor injured
in any way but grew green and blossomed beautifully (Ex. iii. 1-3);
also in that impregnable tower before the enemy, from whicll hung
a thousand bucklers and a;Il the armor of the strong (Cant. iv. 12);
also in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with divine
splendors, is full of t!he glory of God (3 Kings viii. 10-11); and in
very many other types of this kind. By them the Fathers have
j handed down the tradition that exalted things have been signally
•.~ '! predicted of the Mother of God and of her spotless innocence and
holiness which was never subject to any blemish. . . . Hence, the
jj Fathers have never ceased ·to call the Mother of God the lily among
thorns, or the earth entirely intact, virginal, undefiled, immaculate,
l [ ever~blessed and .free from all corruption of sin, from which was
111
1 formed the New Adam; or the flawless, brightest and most pleasant
l
·~· paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God .
Himself and protected against all snares of the poisonous Serpent;
!,,j or the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted;
or the fountain ever dear and sealed by the power of the Holy
Spirit; or the most divine temple; or the treasure of immortality;
I or the one and only daughter not of death but of life, the child not
5
I of anger but of grace.
I Pope Pius X wrote in a similar strain:
~ Hence, almost every time that the Scriptures prophesy of "the
grace that was to appear among us" ( Cf. Tit. ii. 11), the Redeemer
of mankind is associated with His Mother. The Lamb, the Ruler of
the earth, will be sent-'but from the rock of the desert; the flower
will blossom-but from the root of Jesse.... Noah, when shut up
5 Mary Immaculate: The Bull "lnejjablis Deus," trans!. and annotated by
Dominic J. Unger (Paterson, N. J.: .St. Anthony Guild Press, 1946), pp. 11-12
and 14.
Published by eCommons, 1950 3

in the ark of salvation; Abraham, when prevented from slaying his

son; Jacob, when seeing the ·ladder and the angels who were ascend-
ing and descending it; Moses, when amazed at the sight of the
bush that burned but was not consumed; David, when he danced
and sang while escor·ting the ark of God; Elias, when he looked at
the little cloud that rose out of the sea-all l:!hese thought of Mary.
Why, after Christ we find in Mary the end of the Law and the ful-
fillment of the figures and oracles.6
From the Scholastic age we have the concise and pregnant
statement of St. Bernard of Toledo:
To conclude briefly, ·concerning her, and ·because of her, and on
account of her, was all the Scripture made; on account of her the
entire world was made; and she is full of God's grace, and through
her man was redeemed, l:!he Word was made flesh, God was made
lowly, and man was made sublime. 7
Secondly, from the intrinsic argument of the Scriptures them-
selves it is clear that Mary is their center, because, next to Christ,
she is the final scope of the Scriptures and ~s the most important
object in them. Mary is the final scope. St. Paul said, "Christ is
the consummation (telos) of the Law (Rom. x. 4). Pius X applied
l:!hat to Mary when he wrote: "Why, after Christ we find in Mary
the end of the Law and the fulfillment of the figures and oracles." 8
We saw how St. Bernard of Toledo worded the idea very succinctly
and correctly: "Concerning her, and because of her, and on account
of her, was all the Scripture made."
This truth is verified in the Scriptures themselves inas-

much as Mary, with Christ, is the center of Sacred History.
All Sacred History before their coming leads up to them and
after their coming looks back to them, or should we say, up
n Mary M ediatrix: Encyclical Letter "Ad diem illum," transl. and anno-
tated by Dominic J. Unger (Paterson, N. J.: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1948),
p. 15.
7 St. Bernard of Toledo, In Salve Regina, sermo 3, n. 2 (ML. 184, 1069
D). Modern authors are treating this subject ex projesso, cL Roschini, op.
cit., p. 58.
8 Mary Mediatrix, op. cit., p. 5.
to them. They are the golden and silver threads that hold to-
' history of the Old and of
gether, in a beautiful pattern, t!?.e
the New Israel. They put unity and meaning into what would
otherwise be but fragmentary history of an ancient people.
This fact is summarized in tpe genealogies of Matthew
(i. 1-17) and of Luke (iii. 2.3-38), even though neither might
be giving the genealogy of Mary, because both lead up to the
birth of Jesus from Mary.
After Christ Mary is the most important object of the
Scriptures. They speak of her as having been in the eternal
plan of God; they manifest her in the prophecies of the Old
Dispensation; they describe her in the history of the New. It
is not the scope of this paper to explain all the passages of
Scripture that might deal with Mary. We shall merely indi-
cate the main ones: Gen. iii. 15; Is. vii. 14, xi. 1; Mich. v. 2-3;
Jer. xxxi. 22 (which is disputed); Prov. viii. 22-31; Eccl.
xxiv. 5; Cant.; Ps. 44. Besides these there are numerous types
as indicated in the citations of Pius IX and X. In the New
Testament there is especially the infancy section in Luke 1-2
and Matthew 1-2; then, in the public life of Jesus, there are
John ii. 1-10; Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Matt. xii. 46-50;
Mark iii. 31-35; Luke viii. 19-21, xi. 27; John xix. 25-27;
Acts i. 14. In St. Paul we have Rom. i. 3, ix. 5; Gal. iv. 4;
and in the Apoc. xii. 1 ff.
It was quite proper for Mary to be mentioned so in the
Scriptures. Since Jesus was to be born of her as Virgin Mother,
a unique and miraculous event, we might expect that the Scrip-
tures which tell of Jesus would also tell of His Mother, be-
cause mother and child are inseparable. Further, since the
Lord's Mother was destined to be His consort in the salvation
and glorification of mankind, we have all the more reason for
expecting that she would be presented in the Scriptures asso-
ciated in that work with her Son. 9
9 Cf. Roschini, op. dt., p. 58.

,..
72 · The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology
It follows necessarily, then, that God's Word is the pri-

mary constitutive source of Mariology, just as of all theology.
What Leo XIII prescribed for theology holds equally for
Mariology:
It is most desira;ble and necessary that the use of the Divine

Scriptures should influence the entire science of theology and should
almost ·be its soul. ... Nor will this seem strange to one who con-
siders ·that the Divine Books ought to have so eminent a position
among the sources of revelation that without their assiduous study
and use theology cannot be treated rightly or worthily. 10
Our present Holy Father spoke of it as "the heaven-sent

treasure [that] the Holy Church considers as the most precious
source of doctrine on faith and morals . . . such an excellent
source of Catholic revelation." 11 On this point, then, all Cath-
olic scholars must and do agree-in theory. In practice,
however, some slight the Scriptures at times. In Mariology,
more than in other fields of theology, it is so easy to fall into
sentimentalism. One needs the solid foundation of Holy Writ
to keep the doctrine true and the devotion sound. What super-
ficiality and sentimentalism there is in Marian literature is due
to a great extent to a niggard knowledge and bad use of Scrip-
ture.12
It goes without saying that the Gospels are the principal
Scriptural source for Marian doctrines. It is interesting to
note that the infancy sections, which furnish much of our in-
formation on Mary come at least indirectly from Mary her-
self. In a sense she wrote her autobiography. The story of
Luke was quite probably obtained during the two years that
St. Paul was in prison at Caesarea (ca 57-59 A. o.)~ from
10 Providentissimus Deus (Ench. Bibl. n. 99) ; cf. n. 67: "Praeclarum
catholicae revelationis fontem."
11 Divino aff!ante Spiritu, Sept. 30, 1943 ( A.A.S. 35 [1943] 297 and 300):
the translation is from N.C.W.C., nn. 1 and 4.
12 Cf. Alameda, art. cit., p. 47 f.
where Luke must have made trips through Palestine, espe-

cially to Jerusalem. It was particularly then that he must
have made the careful investigations, in preparation for his
Gospel, of which he speaks in his prologue. Some scholars
are of the opinion that he received the information orally. 13
Perhaps he obtained it from St. John, to whom Mary had been
confided, and who scarcely left Palestine for Ephesus until
after Paul's martyrdom. Mary, as Luke notes three times
(ii. 19, 33, SO), marveled at, and carefully preserved in her
heart, all the things that happened to her and Jesus, and pon-
dered over them. It is not impossible for Luke to have met
Mary herself. She would then have been about eighty years
old. 14 However, tradition has it that she lived only about
1 fifteen years after Christ's death (till about 45-48 A. o.). So
Iperhaps those scholars are more correct who claim the first
1
chapters of Luke have the ear-marks of written documents,
either Aramaic or Hebrew. 15
Matthew's first two chapters, too, came from Mary at least
i indirectly. Some explain it thus. Mary's sister, Mary of
Cleophas (?), was perhaps the first to notice the pregnancy
:of Mary and informed Joseph. He later told her of the angel's
I
message to him. Still later she could have told the story to
!James the Less, her son. Since he became bishop of Jerusa-
·lem,
I
he would have been the logical person to tell Mastthew. 10
:
1
But this seems a round about 'Yay. Mary was with all the
Apostles after the Ascension as their teacher. Matthew could
:very easily have obtained the account from her. Or~ could
·Mary not have given all the Apostles the entire story of Christ's
I 13M. J. Lagrange, O.P., L'Evtingile selon S. Luc, in Etudes Bibliques
(Paris: Gabalda, 1927), p. LXXXIX; H. Simon, C.SS.R.-G. G. Dorado,
'c.SS.R., Novum Testamentum (Taurini: Marietti, 1947), p. 93 f.
I 14 Cf. A. Durand, S.J., L'Enjance de Jesus-Christ (Paris: Beauchesne,
,1908), p. 138; Lagrange, loc. cit.; Alameda, art. cit., p. 54; Simon-Dorado,
loc. cit.
15 Cf. Durand, oijJ. cit., pp. 135-145; Fillion, op. cit., 1, 236-240.
10 Cf. Alameda, art. cit., p. 56.

virginal conception and birth and the early trials, perhaps

through John with whom she lived? Later, from this Apostolic
catechesis Matthew selected what fit his purpose.
PRECIOUS LITTLE
When all the passages of the Scriptures which speak of

Mary are added up, they are not too plentiful. Christians al-
ways longed for more explicit information about their Savior's
Mother and their own. Saintly scholars have commented on
this paucity of information; for instance, St. Thomas of Vil-
lanova 17 and St. Lawrence of BrindisU 8 The Gospels in par-
ticular, where one might expect more, are quite meager. Mark·
barely notices her; Matthew has a few bits of information;
John mentions her twice; Luke has the infancy section and a
few more references to her. A rather small number of texts. So
small, in fact, that some non-Catholics are scandalized and
complain that the Bible speaks little about Mary, and this
little had better been omitted, because it is derogatory; cf.
Matt. xii. 48; John ii. 4; Luke xi. 28.
Of course, we cannot agree with such complaints. Nor can
we accept some other reasons that have been advanced to ex-
plain the dearth of Marian texts. 19 There were those who
17 St. Thomas of Villanova, Concio II, In Festo Nativitatis B.M.V., n. 7
(Augustae Vindelicorum, 1772), pp. 560-561: "Cogitanti mihi ac diu hesitanti,
quid causae sit, quod cum Evangelistae de Joanne Baptista, et allis Apostolis
tam longum fecere tractatum, de Virgine Maria, quae vita et dignitate omnes
antecedit, ita summatim percurrant historiam: cur (inquam) non traditum
est memoriae, quomodo concepta, quomodo nata, quomodo nutrita, quibus
moribus decorata, quibus virtutibus ornata, quid cum filio in 'humanis egerit,
quomodo cum illo conversa sit, quomodo post ejus ascensionem cum Apostolis
vixerit. Magna erant haec, et memoratu digna, et quae cum summa devotione
a fidelibus legeretur, a populis amplecteretur. 0 (inquam), 0 Evangelistae,
quare nos tanto gaudio vestro silentio privastis? Cur haec tam laeta, tam
desiderata, tam jucunda conticuistis?" He goes on to explain that it was
enough for the Evangelists to have said: "De ilia natus est Jesus."
18 St. Lawrence of Brindisi, Mariale, Patavii, 1928, pp. 8-9; 590-591.
19 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 64, who refutes them.
ascribed it to a negligent oversight on the part of the hagiogra-

phers, or to mere chance. Such reasons are incompatible with
the Providence of the principal Author of the Gospels. Others
ascribed it the low esteem the Evangelists are supposed to have
had of Mary. But this reason flatly contradicts the Gospels
which clearly indicate that the Evangelists and early Chris-
tians had a very high esteem of the Mother of Jesus; cf Luke
i. 28, 43, 46-55. Even Matt. xii. 46-50 and Luke xi. 28, are an
implicit, high praise of Mary. Lastly, there is no positive
proof that there was a danger of idolatry in worshiping Mary
if her true dignity had been known too well. The Collyridian
heresy which claimed Mary was a goddess as all the other
goddesses in the pagan cults, cropped up only in the fourth
century, and was certainly not based on a correct concept of
her dignity as Mother of God.
By way of positive reasons, we maintain that the Provi-
dent God actually revealed about the Virgin Mother explicitly
all that He willed to and that was necessary. 20 There was and
is some obscurity; but God intended that: as the centuries
rolled on, the Church would gradually unveil His Masterpiece.
He planted the seed that should slowly sprout and blossom.
Besides, though the passages are comparatively few in num-
ber, they are jam-packed with meaning. How much informa-
tion, for instance, is not packed away in the first glad news of
Gen. iii. 15! It contains all Mariology in a nut-shell. 21 Many
statements were not needed for God to tell us of Mary's dig-
nity and role in the plan of salvation.22 Secondly, on the part
of God, Mary stayed more in the background in this life so
that she might be glorified more in heaven; 23 and, on the other
20 Cf. T. Gallus, S,J., in a review of Roschini's Mariologia, in Verbum

Domini 27 (1948), 186. '
21 Compare what Leo XIII said in general about the obscurity of the
Sc;iptures, in Providentissimus Deus (Ench. Bibl. n. 93).
22 Cf. St. Thomas of Villanova, loc. cit.
23 Cf. St. Lawrence of Brindisi, op. cit., p. 590.

76 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mario~ogy
hand, her· obscurity would be a lesson for us on the vain-

glory of worldly things, as the saints have noted.
On the part of the Sacred Authors there were these rea-
sons. Their writings were all written for special occasions
and/or with a definite scope in mind. The important issue in
the new religion about which they wrote was Christ. His
messiahship and divinity. And so mention of Mary would
be only occasional and at times even incidental, as was called
for by the scope. And even though she was meant to be the
helpmate and consort of the Savior, still she would not be
spoken of too much, because God and the Sacred Writers
accommodated themselves to the conditions of the times, when
women did not have an official position whether in civic or
religious life. 24 We do not wish to insist too much on this
argument, because Christ really willed to exalt womanhood
and manifest her dignity through His Mother.
Another reason could have been that Mary's main tasks
in the life of Jesus was to be mother~ and that a virgin mother.
Both these facts can be stated rather completely in a few
words; and they are too delicate a matter about which to be
profuse. As to Mary's personal and social life, that was quite
hidden and interior. Even Christ's many years of hidden
life were covered by a few strokes of Luke's pen. And Mary's
interior life--well, that is rather difficult to describe~ and in
any case it did not seem to fit the scope of the public work of
Christ, which the Evangelists were describing. It is a fact that
the few times that she did appear in public in her capacity
of Mediatrix and Mother of Christians are recorded by John.
Finally, the Evangelists who wrote while Mary was still alive,
might have passed over in silence her sublime part in the
Gospel, to spare her humility. 25 St. john alone wrote, for cer-
tain, after Mary's death, and he paints her in her office of
Mediatrix and Spiritual Mother. St. Luke also writes to her
24 Cf. Gallus, loc. cit.
25 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 66.
praise, but if she was still alive, he could do so, because he was
writing for a people far removed from where Mary was.
II. THE MARIAN SENSES OF ScRIPTURE
Today practically· every scientific book or article that

proves some Marian doctrine from Scripture becomes involved
in a discussion of the senses in which the passage has been, or
is to be; taken. So we think it advisable to review the mat-
ter of the senses of Scripture, with emphasis on certain points
and illustrations from Marian texts. Precisely at present much
is being written in an attempt to clarify these concepts. 26
A "sense" is a mental concept that 'an author expresses in
a given phrase or sentence. All scholars are agreed that con-
c.epts can be expressed either directly by the words ·or .·i~di~
rectly by the object that the words express·. So they divide tl;J.e
Scriptural senses into two main classes: .the direct and· the. 1n~
direct. The direct sense is more commonly. known the as
literal sense, because it is expressed by the letter
.
of the l
wor:ds·.
•
The indirect sense is also known as the typical sense, and as the
spiritual sense,27 because it is a more profound and hidden
sense. However, the term spiritual sense is broader, including
all but the literal explicit sense.
1. LITERAL SENSES
LITERAL PROPER AND FIGURATIVE SENSES
The literal sense can· be divided in several ways. First,

according as the words convey the concept in their proper
meaning or in a transferred meaning, it can be divided into the
26 Cf. J. Coppens, Les harmonies des deux Testaments, in Nouv. Rev.
Theol. 70 (1948), 799-810; 71 (1949), 3-38; 337-366; 477-496: very interest-
ing and enlightening articles. For a general treatment of the senses see Insti-
tutiones Biblicae (Romae, 1937), pp. 339-359; H. Simon, C.SS.R.-J. Prado,
C.SS.R., Praelectiones Biblicae (Taurini: Marietti, 1938), pp. 195-213.
27 Divino aff!ante Spiritu (A.A.S. 35 [1943], 310 f.; N.C.W.C., nn. 25-27);
; St. Thomas, Quodlibeta, 7, 14, ad 3; 15; Summa 1, 1, art. 10, ad 1.

literal proper and literal figurative. The literal proper sense

is the common and natural sense for expressing an idea: "Be-
hold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son" (Is. vii. 14).
The literal figurative sense is had when the words are not in-
tended to express their proper object but another object to
which the words are transferred: "He shall crush thy head"
(Gen. iii: 15), said of Christ's crushing the power of Satan.
In every figurative sense there is an underlying basic or proper
sense. In the above passage we imply that a serpent's head can
be crushed, thus destroying the serpent. There must be some
similarity, some point in common, at least intentionally, be-
tween the basic and figurative objects or else the figurative
sense would be impossible. The basic sense is not intended for-
mally by the author, only materially, for the sake of conveying
the figurative sense.28 One might speak of an allusion to the
basic object. Compare the fuller and typical sense below, in
which both the basic and the spiritual objects are intended
formally. And since this basic object in the figurative sense
is not intended formally by the author, it is not a strict Scrip-
tural, inspired sense. The knowledge of its existence by the
Holy Spirit and the hagiographer does not make it inspired.
Still one might deduce some revelation from it.
Only recently some authors have attempted an explanation
of Gen. iii. 15 by the figurative or allegorical sense.29 They
claim that Eve must be that woman in some way since she
alone is in the context; still according to tradition Eve is not
intended directly by the Holy Spirit, only Mary is. Conse-
quently, Eve is meant only as the basis for a figure about Mary.
These authors seem to forget that there must be similarity be-
tween Eve and Mary in point of comparison, namely, a woman
28 St. Thomas, Summa 1, 1, 10, ad 3. Cf. Simon-Prado, op. cit., p. 201.

29E.g., J. F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., Le Mystere de Marie selon le Protevangile
et I' Apocalypse (Paris: Vrin, 1949), 192 pp.; T. Gallus, S.J., Senstts allegorico-
dogmaticus, sensus litteralis Protoevangelii (Gen. iii. 15), in Verbum Domini 27
(1949), 33-43.
who is at total enmity with Satan, which tradition denies unani-

mously for Eve. And if they take woman and the animal ser-
pent in the natural order as enemies, they are introducing
something ridiculous into the solemn text. In inverse order,
others speak of an allusion to Mary in· Apoc. xii. 1 ; namely,
Mary is supposed to be the woman as a figUre of the Church,
about whom alone the Holy Spirit wished to make an asser-
tion.30
LITERAL ExcLUSIVE AND INCLUSIVE
There is a second way of dividing the literal sense. God

is the principal author of the Scriptures Who can foreknow the
future; in fact, He sees all things as present. He can, there-
fore, by one and the same words, intend several objects which
are similar and differ only in degree of perfection. There can,
therefore, be a literal exclusive sense and a literal inclusive
sense. Both of these may be either proper or figurative.
In the literal exclusive sense only ·one object is intended.
"Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son" (Is. vii. 14),
refers only to Mary and that in a literal sense. This one object
can, of course, include more members, but all must be equal.
This would be the case in any universal statement: aBeatus vir
qui timet Dominum." For the rest, the concept and existence
of the literal exclusive sense causes no difficulty, even in pro-
phetic passages, if we admit the possibility of prophecy .
. .The literal inclusive sense, also known as the fuller or emi-
nent sense, can be defined as the Scriptural sense which, by
the intention of at least the principal author, formally and lit-
erally expresses not only a basic object but also a second
object, which, though distinct from the basic object, is similar
I
. and related to it. 31 By way of explanation, the principal au-
\ 30 Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., An AUttsion to Mary in the Apocalypse,

in Theological Studies 10 (1949), 565-573, a study of Cardinal Newman's
'interpretation.
31 See Institutiones Biblicae, pp. 354 f.; Coppens,· art. cit., especially 71

80 The: rJ.se; of Sacred Scripture in Mariology
thor, at least, intends~ both objects formally, and so this fuller

sense differs from the figurative o~; allegorical s~pse, in .which
the figurative object alone. is ..intended foq.nally. 1 ~he fuller
sense is a literal sense, because t)le words tll.e!ll~elves directly
express not only the basic object but also ,.the fuJler.object. At
least the principal author sees both objects directly ~hrough the
words. In this the fuller sense differs f~9m. the typical sense,
in which the words express directly only the basic objects, and
this in turn reflects the typical object. .
To illustrate, in Ps. viii. 7: uGloria et honore coronasti
eum" was intended in the literal sense of the ideal'm~n in para-
dise, but in a more complete serise of the Ideal Man, Christ.
In contrast, "Not a bone of him. shall you break" (Ex. xii. 46),
refers literally only to the bask object, the hi.mb eaten by the
Jews at the Passover. B'ut indi~eotly, 'through this basic ob-
ject, it refers to the Paschal Lamb, Christ (John xix. 36).
The basic and fuller objects mus't be similar, else both could
not be expressed by the same words in the literal sense. This
is, ·'then, not a case ·of pluriliteralism; of a double literal sense,
in· the technical meaning of that word, beeause in pluriliteral-
ism the same words' express two or more objects that are dis-
parate; e. g., lege meaning "by the law" and "read" (impera-
tive) in the same passage. The fact of such pluriliteralism in
the Bible is commonly denied, and even the possibility is denied
by some authors. 32 On the other hand, the basic and fuller
objects are 'not identical in eyery respect. If they were, we
wou~d have a universal concept, not a fuller sense. It is im-
(1949), 3-38, with the up-to-date bibliography; P. de Ambroggi, Il sensa

lectterale pieno nelle divine Scrit.ture, ily La Scuola Cattolica 60 (1932, n. 2),
296-312.
32 Cf. lnstitutiones Biblicae,· pp. 344-350: ·Recently Antonine De Guglielmo,
O.F.M., Dan. v. 25-An Example of a Double Literal Sense, in Cath. Bibl.
Quart. 11, 1949, 202-206,"claimed to have found a genuine case of pluriliteralism
inthe third ·Word' (paras) 'of the handwriting on the wall, as referring, by a
double play on words, to the division (parisath) of the empire and its sub-
jection .to the Persians. (prs) .
portant to realize that the basic and fuller objects must be

similar in point of comparison; but they need not be similar in
other respects. For instance, the woman of Gen. iii. 15 can-
not be Eve as basic object and Mary as fuller object, because
according to the unanimous tradition Eve and Mary are not
similar, but total opposites, in the point of comparison, which
is absolute enmity against, and complete victory over, Satan.
This similarity, however, is not based solely on the Divine
Author's intention of considering the bas~c and fuller objects
related, as is the case in the typical sense. No, the basic object
has an intrinsic relation to the fuller object. And the relation
is either in the physical order of causality (e.g., Abraham's
seed in general to Christ, the Seed), or in the moral order, inas-
much as both belong to the same moral person (the prophets
to Christ, the Prophet). In both cases there is a kind of ger-
minal development: the basic object gradually unfolds or
evolves into the fuller object. Moreover, this intrinsic relation
is based on exemplary and final causality. Usually the fuller
object is the exemplar and final cause of the basic object (e.g.,
Christ the King, of King Solomon in 2 Sam. vii. 14). But,
contrariwise, the basic object may be the exemplar and final
cause of the fuller object (e.g., In create Wisdom of Incarnate
Wisdom in Prov. viii. 22-31; and Mary of the Church in Apoc.
xii. 1-18.
Since the final cause is more perfeet than the means, it is
the final cause that verifies the words more perfectly. And since
the fuller object is not always the final cause, it is not true that
the second object of the fuller sense is always the more perfect,
and that for this reason we speak of a fuller sense. The term
fuller sense is justified by the fact that the second object,
though less perfect, gives to the words an additional, more com-
plete, meaning.
The second object may be included in the basic object in
various ways, thus begetting various species of the inclusive

or fuller sense. First, the basic object may be a collective con-

cept including an individual or another collection. For exam-
ple, the seed of Abraham (Gen. xxii. 18) has as basic object
the posterity of Abraham, in whic~ is included Christ as the
very prominent Seed of Abraham and Savior of the rest ( cp.
Gal. iii. 16; iv. 4). Israel of the Old Law is the bride in Can-
ticle, including in the fuller sense the Church. Many exegetes
and theologians admit this kind of fuller sense in practice in
their explanations of the blessings of Abraham.33 Secondly,
the basic object can be a common noun referring to a class
of individuals and including one very special member. For
example, the prophet that is promised in Deut. xviii. 18 is
most likely all the prophets but includes in a very special way
the Prophet, Christ. Thirdly, the basic object can be an indi-
vidual, expressed by a common or proper noun, that includes
another individual or a collection. For instance, the ideal
man of Ps. viii. includes Christ the Ideal Man; the king of
2 Sam. vii. 14 is Solomon including Christ; the woman of Apoc.
xii. 1 is Mary including the Church.
Fourthly, there seem to be cases of the fuller sense that
are not covered altogether by the three classes above. At times
some notes are added in the description of the basic object
which do not fit the basic object at all, but only the fuller
object. There is, in other words, a commingling, a compene-
tration, of the two objects in the one description. Hence the
term compenetrative sense. This is possible and is not an
abuse of language, because God, in His eternal act sees all the
notes of both objects in the same picture and His prophet, too,
can see them in the one vision. So the compenetrative sense
33 Cf. Coppens, art. cit., 71 (1949), p. 29: he, too, gives three kinds of
f~ller sense, but according to a different basis. His historico-typical sense
seems to be equivalent to our first kind. D. Buzy, S.C.J., Un probleme
d'hermweutique sacree: sens plural, plenier et mystique, in Annee Theol. 5
(1944), 385-408, also admits this class of fuller sense; it is his "comprehensive
fuller sense."
differs from the simple fuller sense inasmuch as in the latter

the notes given are all true first of the basic object, then of
the second object, literally; whereas in the compenetrative
sense some notes are not true of the basic object at all. The
compenetrative sense has been admitted by many authors. 34
Already St. Thomas expressed the principle involved thus:
" ... inseruntur quaedam quae excedunt conditionem illius rei
gestae, ut animus elevetur ad figuratum. 35 And it seems the
principle must be admitted. However, the existence of this
sense in a given passage must be duly proved. Often there
might seem to be a case of it, whereas it is really the literal
exclusiv,e sense with some figurative expressions; e.g., Ps. xliv.;
cix.; ii.; Is. vii. 14.
The second object of the fuller sense may be Christ or
Mary or the Church or any element in the Church. Its basic
object is usually in the Old Testament with its fulfillment in
the New. But the basic object may be in the New as well.
Usually the fuller object is separated from the basic in time;
but that does not seem to be essential. Both may be contem-
porary, or practically so, e.g., Mary and the Church in
Apoc. xii.
The fuller sense exists "by the intention of at least the
principal author." This is of utmost importance. The fuller
sense is not a mere accommodation of a later author; it exists
in the basic passage from the time it was first written. 36 Nei-
ther is it a new sense that is put into an old passage by re-
working it; nor is it merely new light thrown on a text by
3 4 Cf. Cuthbert Lattey, S.J., The Emmanuel Prophecy: Isaias 7: 14, in

Cath. Bibl. Quart. 8 (1946), 369-376; idem, The term "ha alm~' in Is. vii. 14,
in Cath. Bibl. Quart. 9 (1947), 147-154; John Schildenberger, O.S.B., Weissa-
gung 1md Erjiillung, in Biblica 24 (1943), 107-124; 205-230; Coppens, art. cit.,
71 (1949), 28 f., who makes this his first kind of fuller sense, but weakest.
35 St. Thomas, Introd. in Psalm.os. '
36 Coppens, art. cit., 71, 1949, 26.

84 The ·use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology
new discoveries, historic or theologic, as if it were not even

objective revelation. 37
There are those who question the existence of the fuller
sense as a genuine Scripture sense, because the human author
does not seem to have had knowledge of it. 38 On the other
hand, many scholars invoke it as a Scripture sense for Marian
passages. So it is necessary to argue the point more fully. We
hope to prove from· Leo XIII and from tradition that the
fuller sense really exists as a genuine Scripture sense, and we
shall show by theological reasons that it is compatible with
the concept of inspiration. Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus
Deus, wrote as follows:
For, with the Holy Spirit as author, the words of the Bible are
made ·to contain many things that completely surpass the penetrat-
ing power (vim aciemque) df the human mind, namely, divine mys-
teries and many other matters related to them; and this is sometimes
done lby a kind of fuller and more hidden sense (ampliore quadam
et reconditiore sententia) than the letter seems to express and the
rules of hermeneutics seem to point out. 30 ·
The Pope is not speaking of the accommodated sense but

of a strict Scriptural sense, which, namely, has "the Holy
Spirit as author." Besides, he treats of the accommodated
sense a few paragraphs later. 40 Nor is he speaking of the
typical sense, because he says the words of the Bible them-
selves express this sense, and he treats of the typical sense in
the next sentence. If he says "than the letter seems to ex-
press," he is not denying that the letter expresses it but assert-
37Ibid., 27-28..
38R. Bierberg, Does Sacred Scripture Have a Sensus Plenior?, in Cath.
Bibl. Quart. 10 (1949), 182-195. Coppens does not seem to be sure of himself
on this point; cf. pp. 17-22; 494: it seems he would classify it as typical as
soon as the Sacred Author is not aware of the fuller object.
39 Cf. Ench. Bibl., n. 93.
40 Ibid., n. 97.
ing that only at first sight it would seem not to express it.
Moreover, he does not mean that this sense escapes all rules
of hermeneutics, because then it could not be known at all.
It escapes merely the rational criteria. Nor is he speaking of
the implicit or consequent sense, because there is question
here of the mode in which these are fuller, not. of the con-
tentsY
Tradition is quite in favor of the fuiler sense as a Scriptural
sense. Though -the ancient writers did not use the term "fuller"
sense, or had perhaps no special term for it at all, they were
aware of its existence and applied it very often in interpreta-
tions. St. Jerome has a number of passages in which he clearly
admits it.
This seems to be partly fulfilled under Zorobabel and Esdras;
but the fullness of the prophecy refers to the time of Christ. 42
Manifestly the future restitution of the people of Israel is pre-
dicted, which was literally fulfilled partially under Zorobabel and
Josue the high priest and Esdras; but according to the spiritual
meaning the restitution to be achieved in Christ more truly and
perfectly is described. 43 Even though they (Pss. xliv.. and lxxi.)
exceed the happiness and powers of Solomon since they belong to
the prophecy about Christ and the Church, they are. nevertheless
in the historical sense wr·itten about Solomon. 44
St. John Chrysostom unmistakably and precisely explains
Ps. viii. of Christ in the fuller sense. In his commentary on
41 Benedict XV, Spirit1es Paraclitus (Ench. Bibl., n. 499), having spoken oi

the literal sense and the patristic allegoric or accommodated sense, added:
" . . . ad plenum ex Sacris Libris sensum eruendum, breviter exponemus."
Then he continued by explaining the literal and the spiritual sense. So by "full
sense" he meant the literal plus the spiritual, and not the technical "fuller
sense." Of course, he does not exclude the "fuller sense" either. Again, Pius
XII, Divino affiante Spiritu (A.A.S. cit., p. 311), treats of the literal sense and
the spiritual sense. His spiritual sense is that which "prefigures," and so is the
typical sense, as also Father Vaccari explains (Periodica 33 (1944), 124).
42Jn Jerem. 31: 23 (ML. 24, 1069).
43Jn Jere,;.. 16: 14f. (ML. 24, 953).
44 In Ecclesiasten (ML 25, 712).

Hebr. ii. 5-10 he says that "these words, even though spoken
of common human nature, are never.theless principally (kyri-
6teron) appropriate in Christ according to the flesh." 45 Fur-
thermore, according to the thorough study of Father Vaccari, 46
the Antiochian Fathers admitted the fuller sense in their doc-
trine about theoria. Moreover, all the Fathers who tell us
that wisdom in Prov. viii. 22-31 is not only Increate Wisdom
but also Incarnate Wisaom, are using the fuller sense, because
there can be no question here of a typical sense. See especially
St. Athanasius. 47
St. Thomas certainly applied the fuller sense to Ps. viii.,
both in his commentary on the Psalm and on Hebr. ii. 5-10.
He writes: "Licet totum genus humanum visitaverit, specialiter
tamen ilium hominem assumptum in unitate hypostasis." 48
From then on, and especially in more modern times, the exist-
ence of the fuller sense as a true sense of Scripture has been
held quite commonly. 49 Special mention must be given to the
Professors of the Biblical Institute of Rome who espouse it
for Ps. viii., and as a possible sense for Ps. xv., in the intro-
ductory notes to these Psalms in the new Latin Psalter. It is
certain, then, from this universal use, confirmed by the Pope's
pronouncement, that the fuller sense is a genuine, inspired,
Scripture sense.
4uMG. 63, 38.

46 A. Vaccari, S.J ., La "theoria" mlla scuola esegetica di Antiochia, in
Biblica 1 (1920), 3-36. Coppens agrees with Vaccari, cf. art. cit., 71 (1949),
21 f.
47 Cf. Dominic J. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., A Special AsPect of Athansian
Soteriolog)•, in Franciscan Studies 6 (1946), 35-39.
48 St. Thomas, In Epist. S. Pauli (Opera Omnia, Parrnae 1862), In Hebr.
2: 6, lect. 2. In his excellent article on The Place of Holy Scripture m the
Theology of St. Thomas (Thomist 10 (1947), 398-422), J. van der Ploeg, O.P.,
shows how St. Thomas, in his idea of a double literal sense, was a follower of
the Antiochian theoria (p. 416).
49 P. de Ambroggi, art. cit.; with bibliography; A. Fernandez, S.J., lnstitu-
tiones Biblicae, pp. 354-355; Coppens, art. cit., especially the second installment
in 71 (1949), 3-38.
Those who deny this, do so because they claim it does not

satisfy the concept of inspiration. At first sight the objection
seems sound. However,' we can show that a sense can be in-
spired even though only the principal author has knowledge
of it. First, we must hold that the typical sense is a truly in-
spired sense precisely because the Holy Spirit, the principal
author, intended it, and even though he alone intended it. In
this respect Pius XII wrote in Divino afflante Spiritu:
Not all spiritual sense is excluded from the Sacred Scrip-
ture. For what was said and done in the Old Testament was or-
dained and disposed by God with such consummate wisdom, that
things past prefigured in a spiritual way those that were to come
under the new dispensation .of grace. Wherefore, the exegete, just
as he must search out and expound the literal meaning of the words,
intended and expressed by the sacred author, so also must he do
likewise for the spiritual sense, provided it is clea.rly intended by
God. For God alone could have known t~is spiritual meaning and
have revealed it. 50
By spiritual sense the Pope means the typical sense, accord-

ing to Father Vaccari, 51 because he speaks of things prefigur-
ing the Messianic sense. It is an inspired, a Scriptural sense,
because it is "clearly intended by God," and is "a sense of
Sacred Scripture." So, a pari, if the typical sense is Scriptural
and inspired because intended by God, the fuller sense is, too.
Secondly, the doctrines formally implicitly contained in
Scrip~ure (e:g., the Immaculate Conception in Gen. iii. 15)
are considered as belonging to the inspired revelation by the
Church. But no one will hold that the hagiographer was al-
ways aware of all such implicit senses. So again, a pari, the
fuller sense is inspired revelation even though only the Divine
Author was explicitly aware of it.
It is, therefore, for us neither to deny the existence of the
50 Pius XII, A.A.S. 35 {1943), 311.
51Periodica 33 (1944), 124.

literal fuller sense nor to discard the concept of inspiration,

but to try to reconcile the two. And even if we for the present
cannot see how to reconcile them, we must hold fast to both
facts. Now, according to Leo XIII's definition of inspiration,
'the human author must write all ·and only what the Holy
Spirit wants him to. 52 And such a passage is, then, inspired
entirely with all its concepts, even though he does not com-
prehend all of the hidden concepts. In other words, he may
not deviate from the mind of the Holy Spirit, but he need not
exhaust it either. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit is the
author of everything that the sacred writer asserts, enuntiates
and insinuates, according to the Pontifical Biblical Commis-
sion.53 But from this it does not follow that the human author
had to have an adequate knowledge of all the concepts for-
mally contained in the passage. 54 He is still instrumental
author of all those concepts intended by the Divine Author.
The Divine Author did not express any concepts except through
the words written by the instrumental author. St. Thomas,
when treating of prophecy, laid down this principle: "in pro-
phetic revelation the mind of the prophet is moved by the Holy
Spirit as an instrument that is defective in relation to the prin-
cipal agent . . . (and) because the mind of the prophet is a de-
fective instrument, even the true prophets did not cognize
all that the Holy Spirit intended in their visions and words." 55
Authors have generally applied this saine principle to the case
of the fuller sense. 56
52 Cf. Providentissimus Deus (Ench. Bibl .. n. 110).

r.a Cf. Pont. Comm. Bibl. 18 Jun. 1915: " ... omne id, quod hagiographus
asserit, enuntiat, insinuat, retineri debet assertum, enuntiatum, insinuatum a
Spiritu Sancto" (Ench. Bibl., n. 433).
54 Fernandez, loc. cit.; P. Straeter, S.J., Katholische Marienkmtde (Pader-
born: Schoeningh 1947), 1, 16; Aug. Bea, S.J., ibid., p. 55 f.
55 Sttmma, 2-2, 17.3, 4.
56 C: Pesch, S.J., De Inspiratione (Friburgi B.: Herder 1925) nn. 499-501;
Aug. Bea, S.J., De ScriPturae Sacrae Inspiratione (Romae 1935) 55 f.; Coppens,
· art. cit., 71 (1949), 17.
So even though the human author would not have had a

knowledge of the fuller object, it would still be inspired. This
is. not an abuse of language, because even among men words
and their concepts have a certain amount of elasticity; they
have more meaning for some than for others. An author may
express a truth that will be better understood by others, and
though he does not grasp all those hidden concepts, he would
not deny them either if disclosed to him. 57
As a matter of faot, it seems certain that the hagiographer
was often privileged with the knowledge of the fuller sense.
And really there was no reason for withholding this in general
on the score of being too perfect a knowledge for those times,
After all, God communicated the knowledge of the exclusive
Messianic passages. In particular cases God withheld the
knowledge of the fuller sense with the intention of having it
unveiled gradually. 58 The Antiochian writers believed the
hagiographers had this knowledge, and they explained it by
the theoria. Father Vaccari sums up the theoria under four
points: it always supposes the literal sense; it presents to the
mind a second object; the literal basic object is related to the
second as something less to something greater; both objects
are seen together by the prophet, though in a different man-
ner.59 Lastly, it seems to be the mind of tradition in explain-
ing some passages, as Ps .. viii., that the psalmist foresaw the
fuller object.
Someone might admit that the fuller sense is Scriptural but
object that it does not differ from the typical sense.60 True,
!even those who admit the fuller sense,, find it difficult at times
J to decide in a given passage whether it contains a typical or
a fuller sense. But the close relation between the two does not
1
argue identity. A doubt could exist only in the cases where
57 Cf. Coppens, ibid., pp. 22 f.
58 Cf. ibid., p. 14.
59 Vaccari, art. cit., Biblica, 1 (1920), 3-36.
60 Cf. Bierberg, art. cit., p. 188.

90 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mafiology
an individual concept includes an individual, or a collective

includes a collection. Consult below on the typical sense. The
cases where a collective or common noun includes an indi-
vidual are clearly not to be taken in a typical sense. Besides,
in all cases of the fuller sense, theoretically, the words them-
selves express the fuller object; not so in the typical sense.
So they should not be confused.
PROBATIVE VALUE
Since we have finished the analysis of the literal senses,

we might ask what their probative value is. The literal ex-
clusive sense, whet~er proper or figurative, has probative
value independently of any other text, because it expresses
only one object and that literally. But the literal inclusive
sense must always be proved first by further revelation. It is
a kind of hidden sense and cannot be divined from the text
itself. Since the basic object is already present,- our mind
would never suspect another object. So there must be a new
revelation to inform us of this fuller sense. But tpen the gen-
eral truth of the fuller sense will be known first through the
new revelation. Still, it seems, the fuller sense can give us
details that are not given later. For instance, if Gen. iii. 15
were true of Mary in the fuller sense, further revelation would
point out that the text is Marian, but her complete victory
over Satan would be foretold more clearly and distinctly in
Gen. iii. 15 than elsewhere in the Bible.
2. THE TYPICAL SENSE

The typical sense is had when an object (person, thing,
action, called the type), of which the words are literally, di-
rectly true, and which has its own reason for existence, refers,
by positive divine iJ,1tention to another object (person, thing,
action, called the aJ?-titype), with which it has some similarity;
that is, the words refer to the second object indirectly, figura-
tively.
To explain, the basic object of the typical passage must
be a real, historic object that has its own reason for existing;
e.g., the manna (Ex. xvi.). This historic reality of the basic
object, which is formally intended by uhe author, distinguishes
the typical sense from the figurative sense, in which only the I
figurative object is intended formally. If the object is real, but
exists merely for the sake of being a type, we have a species
of the typical sense called the symbolic sense ( cf. e.g., Is. xx.
2; Jer. xiii. 1-11).
In the typical- sense the words express the typical object
only indirectly. Literally they e~ress only the basic object,
which in turn images the typical object. This can be done in
two ways: the words can fit the anti type either figuratively,
or properly. When they fit the antitype figuratively,
we should like to call it a figurative typical sense; e.g., the
description of the manna as a type of the Eucharist; or of the
paschal lamb, of Christ. When the words fit the antitype in
the proper sense, we would call it the proper typical sense;
e.g., Melchisedech as a type of Christ the Priest.
Some scholars seem doubtful about this last case, and won-
der whether it is really not a fuller sense. 61 Or at least they are
not certain about the differentiating principle. The distinguish-
ing point is certainly not the knowledge of the hagiographer,
inasmuch as it would be a fuller sense when the hagiographer
cognized the second object, but a typical sense when he did
not. 62 For in that case even the figurative typical sense could
be a fuller sense, but no one would ever class such as a fuller
sense. Nor can the theoretic distinction, namely, that in the
fuller sense the words directly touch the second object, where-
as in the typical sense only indirectly, be of help, because the
61Cf. Coppens, art. cit., 71 (1949), 360.
62A. M. Dubarle, O.P., Le sens spirituel de l'Ecriture, in Rev. de scien.
phu. et theol. 31 (1947), 41-72; Coppens, loc. cit.

question is precisely whether, when the words fit both objects

in the proper sense, e.g., the priesthood of Melchisedech and
Christ, they must express the second object directly, or whether
they can express it only indirectly. So it seems the true dis-
tinguishing point is whether there is a germinal relation be-
tween the basic and second object or not. If there is, we nave
a fuller sense; if there is not, we have a typical sense. The
case of Melchisedech seems clear. Though the words fit both
him and Christ in the proper sense, no one would consider this
a case of the fuller sense. And the precise reason seems to be
because there is no germinal relation between the two. There
is only similarity intended by God. In contrast, between
Solomon and Christ as kings there is a germinal relation, not
merely a similarity, which is founded in the fact that both
belong to the same royal line, which will be perfected in Christ.
Only by positive divine intention does the type image the
antitype. They are similar, but there is no intrinsic relation
that would connect the two; the relation is entirely extrinsic,
established by the divine intention. So if this divine inten-
tion is lacking, there is no true Scripture type, only an ac-
commodation, according to the express teaching of Pius XII. 63
Whether the antitype was intended also by the hagiographer
depends on whether he had it revealed to him or not.
The type and antitype must have some similarity. In the
proper typical sense the similarity is in the proper sense. In
the figurative typical sense, it is metaphorical. The anti-
type need not be similar in all respects. St. Jerome wrote
of this:
Qui ex par.te typi fuerunt Domini Salvatoris, non omnia, quae
fecisse narrantur, in typo ejus fecisse credenda sunt. Typis enim
partem indicat: quod ~i totum praecedat in typo, jam non est typus,
sed histor:iae veritas appellanda est. 64
63 Pius XII, loc. cit.
64 In Os. 2: 1-2 (ML. 25, 916).
The Use of Sacre4 Scripture in Mariology 93
But it is essential that the type be similar· :to· the anti type
in the point(s) of comparison, which is (are), namely, dis-
closed by the later revelation of the antitype itself. For in-
stance, since Matthew argues from Is. vii. 14 to the virginal
conception of the Savior, virginal conception is precisely the
point of comparison, and if there is to be any value to his
argument, supposing a typical sense, the historic type of the
virgin of Is. vii. 14 would have to be a virgin while mother.
And such a woman has not been revealed.
However, it is true that notes may be added in the de-
scription of the type which fit only the antitype, and then we
have a compenetrative typical sense, similar to the compene-
. trative fuller sense. But here, too, we must not jump to con-
clusions and think that .when there are notes that fit only the
antitype, we have the· compenetr·ative typical sense.· No, it
may be the exclusive literal sense with some things described
in literal figurative language, as in Pss. ii. cix. xliv .
.St. Paul in Rom. v. 14 ·called Adam the.type of Christ and
then proceeded to explain .. by describing Adam as the exact
opposite of Christ. Ever ·since, Christian writers and scholars
have admitted typology ':by· opposition. In: other words, the
type and antitype are not similar but direct opposites .. What
is. said historically in· the Old Testament is literally -true of
the type, but, by divine intention, the exact opposite is true
of. the anti type. Now :this parallel between Adam and G::hrist
tradition, from the beginning and unanimously;'':applied to
Eve and Mary, and drewdt out in beautiful and striking con-
trasts:·. St. Justin began ~.it and St. Irenaeus perpetuated -iU 5
In this' matter, however;··it is necessary to guard against an
erroneous application; for instance, to claim that Eve is the
type of Mary by opposition according to tradition, and then
,,._;·,.~.~5 St. Justin, Dialogus wm Tryphone, n. 100 (MG. 6, 710-712); St. Irenaeus,
I Adversus haereses 3, 22, 4; 5, 19, 1 (MG. 7, 958; 1175 f: Harvey 2, 123 f.;
I 375 f.); cf.Dominic ]. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., S. lrenaeus magister noster in in-
terpretando Protoevangelio, in Verbum Domini 27 (1949), 28-32.

to conclude that Eve is the woman of Gen. iii. 15 as type of

Mary, 66 is objectively absolute nonsense, because Eve would
then have to verify the words historically, namely, she
would have to be completely victorious over Satan; but Mary
would be the direct opposite, vanquished by Satan. Yes, the
Fathers did speak of Eve as the type of Mary by opposition,
but not in verse 15 alone. Mary ·alone is the woman of Gen.
iii. 15 as the total opposite of Eve in the rest of the chapter.
That, and that alone, is the traditional explanation which was
implied already by St. Justin and expressly taught by St.
Irenaeus. 67
What is the object of the typical sense? Must the type
be in the Old Testament and the antitype in the New? Some
authors imply or even state tha:t the typical object must al-
ways be Christ. They, of course, extend the meaning of
Christ to include the Church and elements in the Church. 68
That seems to be stretching the point. The typical object
should always, and always will, be Christian; but it need not
be directly Chri~tologic. 69 Besides, the antitype need not
be fulfilled. in the New Testament era, that is, prior to the
descent of the Holy Spirit. 70 There can be types even after
that; as, for instance, the fall of Jerusalem as a type. of the
end of the world. There are types in the Apocalypse that are
gradually being realized. So types can be eschatologic, as
those are called that are to be fulfilled at the end of time
and in heaven. Tradition has for a long time distinguished
three classes of typology because of three kinds of objects:
the Messianic, referring to the Messias on earth; the anagogic
(better called the eschatologic), referring to the end of the
66Cf. Ceuppens, O.P., De Protoevangelio (Romae 1932), p. 49.

67Cf. note 65.
68 Cf. J. Danielou, S.J., Les divers sens de l'Ecriture dans la tradition
chretienne primitive, in Ephem. theol. Lovan. 24 (1948), 119-126.
oo Coppens, art. cit., p. 355.
70 Cf. loc. cit.
world and beyond; the tropologic (better called ~oral), re-

ferring to moral practice.71 \
God intended the typical relation, and at time~1 he may

have revealed this to the hagiographer. How did others come
to this knowledge? How do we recognize types? . God has
to reveal them explicitly somewhere in the founts of revelation,
Scripture or tradition. There seem to be cases, however, in
which the type can be recognized without an explicit revela-
tion; namely, if it is revealed implicitly in another type that
has been revealed explicitly. 72 For instance, when the whole
is revealed as a type, it seems that.the parts are at times also
revealed as types: 73 since the tabernacle is revealed as a
type in Hebr. viii., parts of the tabernacle may be revealed
as types too. But this principle is. to be applied yery cau-
tiously. In general, only those types should be accepted that
't can be proved by the strictest application of the criteria f<:>r
!interpreting Scripture. 74 .
f That there are Marian types in Scripture cannot . b~

doubted. True, there are none revealed in the New Testa-
1ment.
I
But tradition, too, is a criterion of interpretation; and
if tradition is unanimous in telling us of a type of Mary. as
'intended by the Holy Spirit, that must be true. 75 According
I
to tradition there are a nice number of Marian types. 76 We
1
I
should, however, not-
exaggerate their number, as the Middle
Ages did. The advice of Pius XII should be sacred here:
71 Ibid., pp. 353-354.

72 Cf. Patrizi, S.J ., De interpretatione, p. 194, cited by Coppens, art. cit.,
71 (1949), 356.
73 Cf. Patrizi, loc. cit.
74 Coppens, ibid., 357-359.
Cf. Aug. Bea, S.J., Das Marie11bild des Alten Brmdes, in Katlzolische
75
Marienkunde, op. cit., p. 39 f. . . ..
\ 76 See the quotations from Pius IX and Pius X in the beginning of this
paper. -

96 The Use oj-Sacred_Scripture·in Mariology
only where. it can be proved that God intended the typical

sense should we accept it. 77
· The· typical sense has. the same dignity, on the part of
God, as does the literal sense; He is the author of both. How-
ever, since the typical sense cannot be known from the words
and must be gathered from a future revelation, explicit or im-
plicit, it does not form an .independent argument for a doc-
trine. The doctrine will be known before the type is known. 78
3. THE EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT SENSES
Another way of dividing the senses of Scripture is based

on the logical relation which concepts have to explicitly in-
spired concepts: hence, the explicit and the implicit sense.
The explicit sense is a concept which the words explicitly· ex-
press; e. g., the a:bsolute enmity and complete victory of the
Woman in Gen. iii. 15 . . But let it be noted that not every
formal explicit sense is obvious to us and easily recognized by
us. By the words "This is my body," Christ, according to the
Council of Tr.ent, expressly and clearly testified that he 'would
give His Body to the disciples (Denz. 874). Still much argu-
mentation was needed to demonstrate it to Protestants. So
"formally explicitly expressed or revealed" should not be con-
fused with immediate knowledge of that on our part. 70
The implicit sense is a concept contained implicitly in
another. And this may be either formally or virtually. A
concept is contained formally if it is equivalently the same
thing as the explicit concept, and it. is such if no strict, de-
ductive,. reasoning process is needed to derive it. The major
is the revealed concept; but the minor is merely an analysis
of the terms. There are various modes in which the implicit
77Pius XII, Di~•ino affiante Spiritu, loc. cit.

78Cf. St. Thomas, Quodlibeta, 7, art. 14; Summa, 1, 1, 10, ad. 1.
70 Reginald M. Schultes, O.P., lntroductio in historiam dogmatum (Parisiis:
Lethieleux 1922), pp. 179-182. ·
The Use ·of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 97
concept can be contained in ·the expliCit. Authors do not

I agree in· the enumeration of them. Some claim there· is ·an
I . . . • •
:indefinite· number of modes; as many as there are ways m
jwhich one concept can be implicitly in another ..80 They· aU
agree pretty well on the following. ·
1· First mode, the implicit ·~oncept is equivalent to the entire
explicit concept, as the defined is equivalent to the definition.
1
I
And this is known by a simple analysis of the terms. For
instance,· the Church is infallible, but infallibility means in-
1ability to err in matters of faith and morals; therefore. Here,
'too, belongs the simple expository syllogism in which the
1
· ma:jor as well as the minor is a singular, not a universal, prop.:.
1
osition; e: g., Mary gave birth to Jesus, but Mary is a virgin
b,oth"er; therefore a virgin in other gave birth to Jesus.
I ..s:c~nd mode, the i.mplicit concep.t .is ~uivalently ·t~e s~e
·as an znseparable part of ·the exphcit concept; the Implicit
boncept
I
is contained
.
in the.
explicit as part in the •
a
whole.
The "whole" in question may be logical, physical, or meta~
bhysical. The logical whole is a universal proposition, in
which is contained any particular proposition. 81 For example,
God wills all men to. be saved ( 1 Tim. ii. 4)' but Paul is
I . -- . • . . • . •
a
man; therefore. Here IS an example of a physical part m a
I • . . . .
~hole: Christ was a perfect man, but a perfect man has an
i'ntellect and will; therefore. An example in Mariology is· tlie
Assumption Geri. iii. 15': Th~ whole, namely, complete vic-
1 • • • 0 • ~ • • •
tory of Mary, together With Christ, IS revealed in the Proto-

~vangelium; but Christ's complete victory includes immediate
tesurrection and glorification; therefore also Mary's. 82
Thfrd mode, the impliCit concept .is formally equivalent
so Ibid., p. 174.
Loc. cit.
81 · : · ··
82 R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., De definibilitate Assumptionis B. Mariae
Virginis, in Angelicum, 22 (1945), 66-72; id., L'AssumPtion est-elle jormelle-
1he11t revelt!e de ja~o11 implicite, in' Doctor Communis, Acta ... Pont. Acad.
Rom. S. Thomae Aquinatis, 1 (1948), 28-63. · .. '

to the explicit when it has an inseparable relation, positive or

negative, to it. For example, a relative term is revealed in
its correlative: It is revealed that John is Mary's son; so it
is also revealed that Mary is John's mother. The opposite
of a contradictory proposition is revealed in the contradictory
proposition: Mary is no longer dead; therefore she is alive.
Some would add the case of an inseparable cause as revealed
in its effect: 83 \Because it is revealed that Christ had both
human and divine actions, it is revealed, too, that He has
both a human and a divine nature.
Fourth mode, an implicit concept arrived at by the syn-
thetic syllogism, namely, by the enumeration of all the parts
that form the whole. For instance, there are Three Divine
Persons because it is revealed that the Father ·is God and
the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God.
Fifth mode, when both the premises are revealed, the
conclusion is formally implicitly revealed. For example, for
every salutary act we need Christ's grace (John xv. 5), but
faith is a salutary act (Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29); therefore.
It ·is well to note, with Michel,84 that the formal equivalency
is known in some cases very easily; but in other cases it
takes a long process of evolution in tradition, aided finally
by the Church, before we come to the knowledge of it. The
divinely guided trad·ition may be needed to assure us of such
an implicit sense; but the sense is there from the beginning,
having been intended by the Holy Spirit.
Some call the fuller sense an implicit sense,85 and the
formal implicit sense a fuller, 86 or even the only possible fuller
sense. 87 As far as words go, these terms could be_interchanged,
83 Schultes, loc. cit.

84 A. Michel, Explicite-imPlicite, in Diet. Theol. Cath. 5, 2 {1924) 1870;
cf. Leo XIII, Provid. Deus (Ench. Bibl. n. 93).
85 Simon-Prado, op. cit., pp. 209-213.
86 Coppens, art. cit., 71 (1949), 10 and 344.
87 Bierberg, art. cit., p. 192.
but the realities are quite different. Technically not every

implicit sense is fuller, though every fuller sense is after a
fashion implicit. The implicit concept is contained in the
explicit by a logically necessary relation. The explicit and
implicit concepts belong to, are parts of, numerically the same
subject. The inclusive sense, on the other hand, is contained
in its basic concept by an intrinsic and intentional relation
established by the Divine Author. They are similar concepts,
but belong to numerically different subjects.
For instance, if Deut. xviii. 18 has as basic object the
prophetic institution in general and as fuller object Christ
the Prophet, then it is explicitly revealed and inspired that
the prophets and Christ are the spokesmen of God and should
be consulted by the people; but it is implicitly revealed and
inspired that both are, as prophets, the infallible spokesmen
of God. Or, if in Gen. iii. 15 Mary is meant in the exclusive
sense, it is formally explicitly revealed and inspired that she
is totally victorious over Satan, but implicitly that she is
Immaculate. On the other hand, dato, non concesso, that the
Woman is Mary in the fuller sense, it would be explicitly re-
vealed of Eve and Mary that they are totally victorious over ·
Satan; but formally implicitly that both (! ) are lmmaculate ..
VIRTUALLY IMPLICIT
A concept or conclusion is contained virtually in a revealed

premise if it can be deduced by a strict deductive syllogism,
with the aid of a minor that is known from reason. This the
authors call the consequent sense, because it is a consequence
from a reasoned syllogism. Some, less precisely and some-
what ambiguously; also call the formal implicit a consequent
sense. 88 The consequent sense is known in theology as a
I theological conclusion. There is still much controversy on
· whether the Church can define such a conclusion as a dogma
88 Cf. Coppens, ibid., 338-345.

of divine faith or merely as a dogma of ecclesiastical faith. 89

The consequent sense is not contained formally in the words
of the Holy Spirit, and so was not intended formally by Him.
Consequently, it is usually not regarded as a Scriptural sense.
The fact that God foresaw it and even provided that some
Fathers or theologians should deduce it from the revealed
premise does not make it inspired.90
All admit that, broadly speaking, the consequent sense
can be called God's sense, because He posited the premise
from which He knew the conclusion could and would be de~
duced. 91 That is why Christ (Matt. xxii. 31; Ex. iii. 6) and
St. Paul ( 1 Cor. ix. 7 f; Deut. xxv. 4) make use of the cori.-
seqtient sense and ascribe it to Scripture. But they do not
thereby say that it k formally intended by the Holy Spirit
ih the original passage.
· 4~ THE AccoMMODATED SENSE
... The accommodated sense, th~ugh it cannot be used as a

proof for a doctrine, needs to be discussed because of its fre-
quent use for the Blessed Mother. It is obtained by fitting
the .Scriptural words of a particular object to a numerically
different, though similar, object, which was not intended by
the Sacred Writer. The Scriptural text must already be
about "a particular object," because if the object is in a
universal propositioli, we would have the formal implicit sense;
e. g., Ps. cxi. 1 is formally true of any just man. But there
illtist~ be similarity between the object of the Scriptural pas-
sage and the accommodated object. This similarity must be
·either literal proper or literal figurative. In the former case,
the words literally aiid ~roperly fit the new subject; e. g., state-
.. . .. ~ . " ~ ~. ~ .
The Use of Sacred Scrtpture in Mariology 101
'
ments about the high priest of' the Old Testament accom-
modated to a Pontiff. . In the literal figurative accommoda,-;
tion the words are true in the li\eral proper sense of the orig-
inal, Scriptural, object, but only in a figurative sense of the
accommodated object; e. g., Ps. xviii. 5 in Rom. x. 18.
That it is licit to accommodate the Scriptures is common
doctrine and practice in the ChJrch, based on the practice of
the Apostles themselves. 92 That, in par-ticular, it is licit to
accommodate the Scriptures to Mary is clear: from the uni-
versal practice of ancient and modern writers, and from the
liturgy. It is qui-te proper to ~xtol the glories of Mary by
the phrases .of the Holy Spirit. :B:owever, this· should be done
with caution and moderation, closely following the rules for
all accommodations. Pius XII admonished:
But let them (Catholic exegetes) scrupulously ref.rain from pro-
posing as ·the genuine meaning of Sacred Scripture other figurative
senses. It may indeed be useful, especially in preaching, to illus-
tmte and present the matters of faith and morals by broader use a
of the Sacred Text in the figurative sense, provided this be done
with moderation and restraint; it should, however, never be for-
gotten that this use of the Sacred Scripture is, as it were, extrinsic
to it and accidental, and that, especially in these days, it is not free
from danger, since the faithful, in particular those who a:re wen-·
informed in the sciences sacred and profane, wish to know what
God ·has told us in the Sacred Letters, rather than what an ingenious
orator or writer may suggest by a clever use of the words of
Scripture." 93 ,:; '
These four rules can serve as a guide in the use of \h~

accommodated sense: Rule One: To be licit an accommoda-
tion must be based on formal, not material, similarity. 'The
similarity is formal when the idea, not merely the words, of
the Holy Spirit are similar to the idea of the new object, either
in the proper or figurative sense. Material similarity is based
02 Cf. Ench. Bibl., nn. 97, 337, 499.
93Divino af!lante Spiritu, A.A.S., 35 (1943), 311-3U: N.C.W.C.. n:}7 . .

on a false interpretation, intentional or unintentional, of the

true sense of the Scriptural passage. Such a material ac-
commodation can be irreverent and even blasphemous.
For instance, a preacher, when the feast of the Assump-
tion fell on the 19th Sunday after Pentecost with the Gospel
of the Pharisee and the Publican, used of the Blessed Mother
this verse: "I give thee thanks that I am not like the rest of
men." Another used, "Quaeretur · peccatum illius et non
invenietur" (Ps. ix. 36) for the Immaculate Conception. Even
theologians misuse 3 Kgs. ii. 19 for the intercessory power of
Mary. Though Solomon tells his mother, when .she comes to
ask a favor, "'My mother, ask for I must not turn away thy
face," he actually is irritated when he discovers the intrigue
of his brother.
Rule Two: The accommodated sense can never be used
as a Scriptural proof; it may be used merely to clarify doc-
tdnes and illustrate practices for the glorificp.tion of Mary.
Proof sufficient is the statement of Pius XII just quoted.
Consequently, an accommodation should never be introduced
with the usual formulae for introducing a real Scripture sense.
Rule Three: In t~e choice of the kinds of passages to be
accommodated we. should be guided by the common and best
usage of the.Fathers and theologians.
Rule Four: With regard to the number of the accommoda-
tions we should be sparing today, as the Pope advises. Cer-
tainly, some have in the past made an exaggerated use of
accommodation for M~ry~ _:But perhaps we might be more
liberal in the use of it for Mary since so little is written of
her in the real Scriptural sense. The deficiency qm be made
up somewhat by a sound use of the accommodated sense.
III. THE "CRITERIA FOR FINDING THE TRUE SENSE
After having discussed the various possible kinds of senses

in "Scripture, we must consider the ·criteria for finding the true
The Use ~I Sacred Scripture in Mariology 103
sense in a given passa:ge. ' These criteria are twofold, ra-

tional and theological. As is evident in principle, but not
always observed in practice, before one can speak of finding
the 'sense of the .Holy· Spirit, he must have the words that the
Holy Spirit wrote through ·the inspired writer; that is, he
must have the correct reading. 04 For instance, it is useless
to argue about the spiritual beauty of the Virgin Queen as
if contained explicitly in, "Omnis gloria ejus filiae Regis ab
intus" (Ps. xliv. 14), since the Sacred Author wrote: "Tota
decora ingreditur filia Regis," where the spiritual beauty is
only implied in the figure of a gorgeous garment. Nor will it
do to argue for the Co-redemption through Mary from the
word ips.a of the Vulgate in Gen. iii. 15.
RATIONAL GRITERIA
The rational criteria are twofold, literary and circum-

stantial. The literary criteria are the language (vocabulary
and syntax), . the context (logical . and psychological), the
rhetorical tropes, and the literary styles. The circumstantial
~riteria are the author, occasion, purpose, plan, and the his-
toric, archeologic, and geographic settings. Pius XII, in his
recent encyclical on Scripture, insisted on the necessity of
using these rational criteria. 05
The nature of these criteria and their importance in
Mariology are, I believe, grasped sufficiently by all. I. should
like to emphasize two Of these criteria. First, the context.
A passage must be interpreted in keeping with its context.
So it is important to determine what that context is. Still
the rules of grammar and logic do not always suffice for this.
We must often have recourse to the theological criteria.
And not only the Sacred Author's theology, but all theology
04 Cf. Pius XII, ibid, 306 ff.: N.C.W.C., nn. 14-19.

05 lbid., pp. 305 ff.

must be taken into account. 96 Especially for the Marian texts

is this true since the Old Testament Marian passages are all
prophetic and some in the New are full of mystery. More-
over, it is a general rule, universally accepte<;l, that the same
word in the same context must be given the same meaning
unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary. Still a
prophetic text does not belong to its general context as other
passages· do. The very fact that -a passage is prophetic lifts
it out' of -the context at least somewhat. For instance, it can
be proved solidly that Gen. iii. 14-15 does not belong to the
immediate context in ch. 3.
The second criteria to be emphasized is the purpose. A
passage must be interpreted in keeping with the purpose of
the author, both remote and proximate. But it is necessary
to determine the author's proximate purpose, which may per-
haps be different than
the remote purpose. For instance, in
the Apocalypse John speaks of the victory of the Church,
but that is no absolute guarantee that the woman of Apoc.
xii. 1 ff. is the Church, because John ean and, as I believe,
does speak -there of Mary as the Virgin Mother to whom the
Church is intimately related, and through whom she will
ultimately be victorious.
THEOLOGICAL CRITERIA
The second set of criteria are theological. The Bible is the

inspired book of faith. 97 It teaches doctrines of faith, many
of which are mysteries of the highest order. For this reason
96 Cf. J. Levie, S.J., Les limites de la preuve d'Ecriture Sainte en theologie,

in N01ev. Rev. The.ol. 71 · (1949), 1027; H. Cazelles, La place de la tlteologie
dans l'enseignement de l'Ecriture sainte, in Nouv. Rev. Tlteol. 70 (1948),
1009-1022, esp. 1021.
97 Cf. Pius X, Lamentabili, "Exegeta, si velit utiliter studiis biblicis in-
cumbere, in primis quamlibet praeconceptam opinionem de supernaturali origine
Scripturae Sacrae seponere debet, eamque non aliter interpretari, quam cetera
documenta mere humana" (Enclt. Bibi. n. 196).
The Use of Sacred· Scripture in Mariolo"gy 105
the rational criteria alone do not suffice. 98 . To be a· good

exegete a knowledge of Oriental languages, . history and
archeology, though very useful, and even necessary, is not
enough. 99 A St. Thomas with his meagre knowledge of the
biblical sciences, was' nevertheless an· excellent exegete of' the
theological content. 99 a The need of the theological criteria is
especially pressing when there is question of finding the more
profound Scriptural senses, the literal inclusive and the typ-
ical/00 because these can not be recognized by the eye of
reason alone; they have to be revealed by God.
· The theological criteria can be treated under four heads:
the inerrancy of Scripture, the authentic teacher, the analogy
of faith, the sources. For every Catholic the fundamental
principle of interpretation must be that the· Inspired Book is
absolutely free from error. The concepts. that the Sacred Au~
thors wished to express must be true: '
· Secondly, t::very interpretation must: agree with the authen:.
tic teaching of .the Church.101 The Church must always ac.:
company the Scriptures through the centuries and guide us
in interpreting them. 102 And by authentic teaching we mean
not only the infallible teaching-either of a pope or a council
or the ordinary ma:gisterium-but any declaration of the au2
98 Leo XIII, Provid. Deus (Ench. Bibl., n. 93).

90 Cf.· R. Garrigou-Lagrange, art. cik in Doct. Com. pp. 49-50, fn. 25.
ooa Cf. Ch. J, Callan, O.P., The Biblt; in the Summa Theologica of .St.
Thomas Aquinas, in Cath. Bibl. Quart. 9 (1947), 46: "And while it is true
that he based his interpretations and· explanations 'practically all on the Vulgate
text, his understanding and explanation of the fundamental passages are as
sound and unshakable today as when he wrote."
· 100 Ambroggi, art. cit., p. 307 f.
101 Cf. Leo XIII, Provid. Deus (Enclz. Bibl. nn. 93-94) ; Pius X, Lamen-
tabili (Ench. Bibl., nn. 185-186); Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus (Ench. Bibl.,
nn. 484-487); Pius XII, Divino atflante Spiritie, op. Cit., p. 312 f.:· N.C.W.C.,
nn. 28-30. Cf. the very scholarly treatment of this matter by E. Mangenot 'and
J. Riviere, Interpretation de la · S. Ecriture, in Diet. Theol. Catlz. 7, 2 (1927),
2290-2321.
102 Cf. Levie; art. cit., p. 1029.

thentic magisterial office of the Church. This is important

in Mariological texts. There are today too many scholars writ-
ing on Mariological texts and topics who leave the impression
that because a pope's interpretation of a text or doctrine is not _
an infallible pronouncement, it can be rejected without further
ado, and an opposite view defended. Too often have we seen
authors state that Pius IX did not define the Marian sense
of Gen. iii. 15 and then proceed to hold that it is not Marian
at all. Of course, a pope's statement must be understood
according to his own mind, and may be exegetized for that
purpose. But here, too, there can be too much rationalizing
on a matter that is quite clear in itself, except for those who
are opposed to it. For instance, it seems unjustifiable for a
Catholic scholar to reject the spiritual interpretation of John
xix. 26-27 after the popes have, on numerous occasions and in
documents meant for the whole world, said that the spiritual
is the genuine interpretation and has been the constant teach-
ing of the Church. 103 The documents of the popes have not
merely the. value of a private scholar; they have the value
of the· Vicar of Christ who was appointed to teach men the
truth of Christ,· not only by solemn definitions, but also by
less solemn methods. 103" And since the popes have their
Biblical Commission for matters pertaining to Scripture, it
might be well to recall that Pope Benedict XV said that it
is not permitted to esteem lightly the decrees of this Com-
mission or to pass them over in silence or to twist them to
· one's own liking, deceitfully or impudently.104
A third,'very important criterion is the analogy of faith.
Every interpretation, .if true, must harmonize with the rest
103 Cf. Mary Mediatrix, op. cit., pp. 23-24.

10Sa See the excellent remarks of Sylvester O'Brien, O.F.M., Recent Popes
and the Doctrine of the Mediation of Mary, in Clergy Review 22 (1942), 104;
and the fine articles of J. C. Fenton, The Doctrinal A11thority of Papal Encycli-
cals, in The Amer. Eccl. Rev. 121 (1949), 136-150; 210-220.
104 Cf. Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclittts (Ench. Bibl. n. 487).
of revealed truth. This principle is and must be accepted by

·every Catholic exegete as clearly insisted upon by the popes. 105
In this connection there are a few questions that call for
discussion. The first is that a passage must be given the mean-
ing it had in the mind of the Sacred Author at the time he
·wrote it, except in the case of the hidden senses that the Holy
Spirit may not have revealed to him. Consequently, one
should not read later, more devel9ped doctrines into earlier
passages. However, in judging the theologic mind of the·
author one must be guided by the light of the entire synthesis
of Catholic doctrine. 106 Moreover, it is quite legitimate to
use parallel passages of Scripture for proving the meaning of
a text. And one should guard against the abuse of the above
principle by insisting unduly on a gradual evolution of revela-
tion or of its manifestation, where this did not obtain. · That,
as we all know, was at the bottom of the rationalistic errors
of interpretation. There are cases where the eye of reason
alone might discern no more than a very vague primitive
revelation, but the eye of faith can see a rather perfect form
of revelation. There are those who insist in an exaggerated
fashion on the obscurity of primitive prophecies and the neces-
. sity of a gradual evolution in the revelation of the Redeemer. 107
They camouflage the idea with the captivating figure of a seed
gradually sprouting and blossoming into full flower-an idea
that may at times be invoked, but not in the case of Gen. iii. 15.
The genuine tradition of the Church and the declarations of
the popes speak of the Redeemer who "was clearly and openly"
foretold in that prophecy. 108 The same principle is at play in
the question whether Mary at the Annunciation knew that he,r
105 Leo XIII, Provid. Deus (Enc/1. Bibl. n. 94); idem., Litterae Apostolicae,
"Vigilantiae" (Ench. Bibl., n. 136); Pius X, Oat.h against Modernism (Ench.
Bibl., n. 350) ; Mangenot-Riviere, art. cit., 2332-2343. ·
106 Cf. Levie, art. cit., 1027.
107 Cf. Aug. Bea, art. cit., Kathol. Marienkunde 1, 22, 23.
108 Pius IX, Ineffablis Deus, cf. Mary Immawlate, op. cit., p. 10 f.
Published by eCommons, 1950 06530 41

Son.would be Divine. ·Mary was not a primitive pagan or even

a Pharisee that she had to have the divine character of her
Son revealed .to her gradually; she was to be God's Mother.
A second question, connected with the first, is the knowl-
edge that the actors and readers had of the revelation made.
Nowadays, especially in non-Catholic circles, schola;rs insist
that we interpret a text in its historic setting and ascertain
what the first readers or actors understood of it. It was meant
for them; they should have grasped it. This is a sound
principle, if not exaggerated in practice. It does not follow
from that, as even some Catholics seem to imply by their
method of interpreting, that that is all the text was meant to
contain. No, the first readers or hearers, as the Sacred Author
himse~f, did not have to exhaust the meaning of the text. It
is possible that of some exclusive Messianic texts the first
hearers or readers did not catch the Messianic sense at all;
e. g., the Messianic meaning of Is. 53 and perhaps vii. 14
seems to have been missed by the Jews. More so, they did not
have to recognize the fuller or typical or implicit senses. In
particular, in regard to Isaias and the rest of the prophets, we
must hold that they did not always speak for their contem-
poraries in such a way that these could clearly understand
them, but they were predicters of future events. 109 Ordinarily
one speaks and writes to be understood, but God had His
own reasons for following a· different policy. Did not Christ's
hearers miss completely the lesson of some of his parables?
·Further, the actors and readers of the Bible were not
always as ignonint of the meani~g of the text as we might be,
though we be exegetes of the first class. For instance, much
is written about Adam and Eve's knowledge, or ignorance,
about the content of the Protoe~angelium. . Some think that
they were left in rather dense darkness even after the prophecy,
in spite nf the explicit teaching of Pius IX and Pius X to
109 Pont. Bibl. ·Com. Jim. 28, 1908 (Ench. Bibl., n. 289)
the contrary. 110 11his difficulty vanishes if one accepts the

solidly probable and growing opinion that Adam and Eve
had a revelation of the Incarnati_on prior to their fall, in the
s~ate of innocence, as St. Thomas and the majority of Fran-
ciscans hold. 111 With such revelation they had no difficulty
in recognizing the Woman and her Seed. So it is not only licit
but necessary to interpret Messianic passages in the light of
further revelation, to find the full meaning which the Holy
Spirit intended them to have, and how much of that the actors
and readers grasped. '
It is necessary for a Catholic exegete, lastly, to use the
genuine sources of revelation, Scripture and tradition. As ex-
plained above, we must consult parallel passages of Sacred
Scripture. T-ruth is one and no Sacred Writer can contradict
himself or any other writer. Scripture is an authoritative
interpreter of itself; e. g., Matt. i. 23 gives the genuine sense
of Is. vii. 14, and Apoc. xii. 1 ff. throws much light on Gen.
iii. 15.
The tradition of the ancient Christian writers is of the
highest authority when it is at least morally unanimous on a
matter of faith or morals. An interpretation of such a tra-
dition no Catholic may contradict.112 Note well, however,
that when such moral unanimity is lacking, it is false to think
that no argument ~t all can be formed from tradition. 113 In
fact, a majority, though short of moral unanimity, can beget
a certain argument. Pius IX did not use the term consensus
Patrum Ecclesiaeque scriptorum when he said that these saw
in Gen. iii. 15 the Redeemer and His Blessed Mother; but
his whole mode of reasoning makes it quite clear that he meant
110 Cf. Mary Immaculate, loc. cit.; and Mary Mediatrix, op. cit., p. 5.
1 11 Cf. Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap., Franciscan Christology: Absolute and
Universal Primacy of Christ, in Franciscan Studies, 2 (1942), 454-458.
112 Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 4 (Ench. Bibl., n. 47) ; Vatican Council (Ench.
Bibl., n. 63) ; Provid. Deus (Rnch. Bibl. nn. 63, 96).
113 Leo XIII, Provid. Deus (Ench. Bibl., n. 96).

there was a sufficiently large number of them to make a

certain argument. And certainly a few dissenters do not in-
validate an argument from tradition. Moreover, tradition is
something living; it continu~ through the ages. So it is not
necessary to be able to trace tradition by written documents
back to the first centuries. 114 Leo XIII said that the spiritual
interpretation of John xix. 26-27 is the constant tradition of
the Ohurch; 115 but scholars can find a clear written record
of this only from Rupert of Deutz on. 116
The liturgy, too, is a source of theology, and so a source for
interp~eeting Scriptural doctrines. However, since the liturgy
has certainly accommodated passages of Scripture to Mary,
its use of a Scripture text does not by itself constitute an
argument for a Marian Scriptural sense. However, given other
arguments, the liturgical use of the passage can be a very
strong confirmation. Such is the case for the passages from
the Sapiential books and Canticle.117
EXEGETE OR THEOLOGIAN
It is certainly permissible to distinguish between exegetes

and theologians, and between their opinions. The exegete is
a scholar who specializes in the study of Scripture as such,
applying all the sciences that pertain to this study. The theo-
logian is a scholar who specializes in the theological sciences
and uses Scripture as one of the sources of revealed doctrine.
The exegete is interested in all Scripture and in the full mean-
114 Cf. J. C. Fenton, Requisites for an Infallible Pontifical Definition ac-
cording to the Commission of Pope Pitts IX, in The Amer. Eccl. Rev. 115
(1946), 378 f.
115 Leo XIII, Adjutricem populi: Sept 5, 1895: "In Joanne autem, quod
perpetuo sensit Ecclesia, designavit Christus personam humani generis, eorum
imprimis, qui sibi fide adhaeseru~t."
116 Cf. J. Leal, S.J., Beata Virgo omnium spiritualis Mater ex ln. 19: 26-27,
in Verbum Domini, 27 (1949), 65-7.3; Tiburtius Gallus, S.J., "Mulier, ecct
Filius tuus," Verbum Domini, 21 (1941), 289-297.
117 Cf. Aug. Bea, S.J., art. cit., ·xathol . .Marienkunde, 1, pp. 33, 36.
ing and style of a given passage, including the theological

meaning as the choicest fruit of his investigation. The theo-
logian is interested directly only in those texts that have a
theological content, and only in the theological content as a
Scriptural proof for a doctrine. The exegete may be more
expert in handling the rational criteria, but he may not stop
with them; he is obliged to use the theological criteria as well.
In fact, in all his investigations there must be a theological
orientation. 118 The theologian may have more interest in the
theologic criteria, and perhaps more ability in evaluating them,
but he may not overlook the rational criteria, even though he
may rely on the exegete to furnish that fundamental work.
So both have their own field and method. 119 In a sense they
meet in biblical theology, and certainly one and the same
scholar can be both exegete and. theologian.
Does either one have the right of way? As is clear from
the discussion on the criteria, any Catholic scholar, be he
exegete or theologian, who wishes to arrive at the true in-
spired sense of Scripture must use all the pertinent criteria,
and he who can and does handle both the rational and the
theological criteria satisfactorily should have the right of way.
It is wrong to think that simply because the · majority of
exeg,etes hold one interpretation and the majority of theo-
logians hold another, that the exegetes should have the right
of way, inasmuch as they are in their field. When it comes
to theologic content, they are no more in their field than the
118 Cazelles, art. cit., p. 1021, and J. van Ploeg, art. cit., p. 399: "The
exegete tries to determine the sense of Scripture; he opens the seals of the
closed book and tries to make clear what is obscure. In so doing he may use
every human means: philology, history, anthropology, sociology, etc., but his
work is theological." P. 413: "St. Thomas would emphatically deny the mod-
ern saying of some theologians, that (literal) biblical exegesis is no theology,
and the exegete of the Bible no theologian."
119 Cf. Cazelles, art. cit.

theologians are. 120 That is why the Church demands today a

degree in theology_ before granting a degree in Scripture, and
insists that Scripture scholars have a command of the entire
field of theology. 121 And for the theological degree she de-
mands a fair ability in Scriptural sciences. 122 In fine, it does
not matter whether a· scholar is an exegete or whether he is
a theologian. The thing that does matter is whether he is
using the criteria he is supposed to, and is using them cor-
rectly. Were not the modernists condemned for making a false
distinction between the critical exegete and the theologian, as
if each had to keep exclusively in a field his own? 123
For exegetes to insist on the rational criteria, to the prac-
tical neglect of the theological criteria, results in what Father
Puzo has rightly branded "minimismo Mariologico" in an
article anent Father Ceuppens' Mariologia Biblica. 124- It is
the spirit which cries, "Be careful, you might give too much
dignity to Mary!" To repeat, the rational criteria are not
sufficient for finding the sense of Scripture. What they yield
in regard to a Marian text is not always all that the Holy
Spirit has intended by it. True, we are not to squeeze things
out of a text that have not been put there by the Spirit of
God. But if the theological criteria disclose a doctrine, we are
not squeezing something out of a text which was not intended
by the Holy Spirit. .,
CRITIC AND MYSTIC
Akin to this point is that of the critic and the mystic. Some
who take an interest in Marian doctrines are styled critics
120 Cf. Felix Puzo, S.J., A prop6sito de una reciente Mariologia biblica, in
Estudios Biblicos, 8 (1949), 239-251, especially p. 250 f. ·
121 Leo XIII, Pro~•id. Deus: "Hujus igitur disciplinae magister hac etiarn
laude fioreat oportet, ut omnern theologiarn egregie teneat" (Ench. Bibl., n. 95).
12!! Cf. Leo XIII, Pro'l!id. Deus (Ench. Bibl., n. 103); Pius X, Litterae
Apostolicae "Quoniarn in re biblica" (Ench. Bibl., n. 165).
123 Cf. Ench. Bibl., nn. 185, 207 f., 245, 260.
124 Puzo, art. cit., pp. 246-251.
arid others mystics these days. The critics are supposedly

more scientific in their approach to the interpretation of a
text or in their defense of a tenet. The mystics are sup-
posedly attracted to a doctrine more by devotion to Mary,
which at times is said to amount to sentimentalism or to an
exaggerated interest in crowning Mary with more dignities. 125
Such distinctions seem unfounded. Those who are real Cath-
olic scholars certainly have also more than an average devo-
tion to Mary and are interested in her honor. Those, on the
other hand, who are seemingly more devout and enthusiastic
in promoting new honors for Mary are certainly not devoid
of all scientific approach. Was Scotus the critic and Bona-
venture the mystic in the controversy on the Immaculate
Conception? Who was capable of analyzing the situation bet-
ter, the enthusiasts for this doctrine or the opponents? Is
one a critic and objective because he can draw distinctions
for the sake of denying a Marian doctrine? Is one a mystic
and subjective for being able to draw fine and correct dis-
tinctions that make an explanation of the Marian doctrine
possible?
Our conclusion must again be that it matters not how much
or how little one's devotion to Mary is when a doctrine is at
stake, but how well one uses the criteria for proving ·the doc-
trine and interpreting a text. It is true, a genuine devotion
to Mary will be a great aid, but in itself it is no criterion of
revealed truth. Mary may, of course, reward devotion to her-
self, unnoticeably perhaps, by guiding the scholar on the right
path. History does seem to bear out the statement that the
so-called mystics and enthusiasts for Marian dignities walked
off with the honors. They won the battle in regard to the
divine maternity, the perpetual virginity, the Immaculate
125 Cf. Rene Laurentin, Un probleme initial de methodologie Mariale, in

Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, M. Hubert du Manoir, S.J. (Paris: Beau-
chesne 1949), pp. 695-706.

Conception, the Assumption, the Mediatrix of all graces. God

does seem to have bestowed on Mary the best of everything,
short of divinity and honors that can belong to her Son alone
by native right.
IV. STYLES OF PRESENTATION
Scriptural texts, when analyzed according to the principles

laid down, can be presented in various styles. Three of thes~
styles are relevant to this paper: Mariologic exegesis, biblical
Mariology, and the Scriptural argument. The matter analyzed
may be presented as a commentary on a text or texts for the
purpose of drawing out their Marian content. This we have
called Mariologic exegesis, for want of a better term, to dis-
tinguish it from general exegesis, which analyzes a text or a
book of Scripture from every angle, and tries to discover all
the facts and truths that might be there. In Mariologic
exegesis one may analyze either one or more texts. When a
group of them, especially all in the Bible, are analyzed, they
are arranged in the order in which they occur in the Bible;
or, at any rate, they are not arranged logically or systemat-
ically according to doctrines. This distinguishes Mariologic
exegesis from biblical Mariology. An example of Mariologic
exegesis is Father Ceuppens' Mariologia Biblica, in spite of its
name, as we shall explain immediately.
Biblical theology is the systematic treatment of revealed
doctrines with Scripture as the one direct source. Since it is
"theology'' it must be an organic whole: it should treat the
matter in a logical order, knit together organically. 126 Since
it is "biblical," Scripture must be the source, and should be
the only direct source. The other sources must be used, but
only indirectly as a proof or confirmation of the Scriptural
doctrine. Moreover, biblical theology looks for only the
theological doctrine in the Scripture texts. So it differs from
126 Cf. Puzo, art. cit., pp. 239-242.
general exegesis and from Mariologic exegesis as described

above. It differs, too, from positive theology inasmuch as the
latter uses all the sources of revelation as coordinate argu-
ments for a doctrine, whereas the former uses Scripture as
the only direct argument, to which, however, the others are
subordinated. Lastly, it differs from a Scriptural argument
in theology inasmuch as the latter can limit itself to one or
several texts for proving a determined doctrine, while biblical
theology uses all available texts and covers a whole tract or
even the entire field of theology. Still, in many cases of the
Scriptural argument, especially when one argues from a group
of texts and tries to show their inter-relation, he has prac-
tically a chapter from biblical theology.
In keeping with this description, biblical Mariology is a
systematic treatment of Mariologic doctrines with Scripture
as the one direct source, and it differs from Mariologic
exegesis just as biblical theology differs from exegesis. And,
though quite laudable in itself, an exegetical analysis of a
group of Marian texts should not be titled biblical Mariology.
True, as Father Puzo suggests, 127 such an exegetical analysis
might be the first of a two part biblical Mariology.
Now . the question is: Can such a biblical Mariology be
made? Is not the con ten~ of Scripture on the Mother of
God so small that it is very difficult or impossible to construct
any kind of satisfactory. system of Marian doctrine out of
Scripture? Tohere is ample material, for instance, for a bib-
lical Christology. But for Mariology? We noted in the
beginning of this paper that, few though the Marian texts
are, they are pregnant with truths and contain practically all
the Marian doctrines. Besides, even though Scripture is the
one direct source, one must always use tradition as an in-
direct source, and thus there will be more than enough mate-
rial to fill books. As an example of the systematic arrange-
127 Ibid., p. 245.

ment of a biblical Mariology we could refer to Bishop

Schaefer's The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture. 128 '
We already indicated the nature of the Scriptural argu-
ment for Marian doctrines and how it differs from biblical
Mariology. We should like to stress that the Scriptural argu-
ment should not. be merely a quotation from Scripture. There
should be added ~he proper analysis to show that the doctrine
of the thesis is really contained in the quotation.
CoNCLUSION
The conclusion, then, of our paper is that since Scripture
must be used as a source of Marian doctrines, because the
Holy Spirit deigned to reveal things about His Immaculate
Spouse through the Sacred Words, we must be well conversant
with the best methods of scholarly exegesis and theology both.
Our motto should be: Only the best in methods for her whom
God Himself made the Best in creation.
DoMINIC]. UNGER, O.F.M.Cap.,
Capuchin College, Washington, D. C.
128 Aloy. Schaefer, trans!. by F. Brossart (New York: Benziger 1913).

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marian Studies

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies

T~E USE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE IN

68 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

the principles by Marian' texts where possible: I. The presence

I. THE PRESENCE oF MARY IN ScRIPTURE AND THE

Together with· Christ, Mary is the center of the Divine

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 69

Published by eCommons, 1950 3

70 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

in the ark of salvation; Abraham, when prevented from slaying his

This truth is verified in the Scriptures themselves inas-

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 71

9 Cf. Roschini, op. dt., p. 58.

Published by eCommons, 1950 5

Marian Studies, Vol. 1 [1950], Art. 11

72 · The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

It follows necessarily, then, that God's Word is the pri-

It is most desira;ble and necessary that the use of the Divine

Our present Holy Father spoke of it as "the heaven-sent

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 73

where Luke must have made trips through Palestine, espe-

Published by eCommons, 1950 7

74 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

virginal conception and birth and the early trials, perhaps

When all the passages of the Scriptures which speak of

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 75

ascribed it to a negligent oversight on the part of the hagiogra-

20 Cf. T. Gallus, S,J., in a review of Roschini's Mariologia, in Verbum

Published by eCommons, 1950 9

76 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mario~ogy

hand, her· obscurity would be a lesson for us on the vain-

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 77

II. THE MARIAN SENSES OF ScRIPTURE

Today practically· every scientific book or article that

The literal sense can· be divided in several ways. First,

Published by eCommons, 1950 11

78 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

literal proper and literal figurative. The literal proper sense

28 St. Thomas, Summa 1, 1, 10, ad 3. Cf. Simon-Prado, op. cit., p. 201.

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 79

who is at total enmity with Satan, which tradition denies unani-

There is a second way of dividing the literal sense. God

\ 30 Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., An AUttsion to Mary in the Apocalypse,

Published by eCommons, 1950 13

80 The: rJ.se; of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

thor, at least, intends~ both objects formally, and so this fuller

(1949), 3-38, with the up-to-date bibliography; P. de Ambroggi, Il sensa

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 81

portant to realize that the basic and fuller objects must be

Published by eCommons, 1950 15

82 The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology

or fuller sense. First, the basic object may be a collective con-

The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology 83

differs from the simple fuller sense inasmuch as in the latter

3 4 Cf. Cuthbert Lattey, S.J., The Emmanuel Prophecy: Isaias 7: 14, in

Published by eCommons, 1950 17

84 The ·use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology