The bottom line is Marian theology as presented by the RCC is wrought from poor exegesis. Hey, no one is perfect right? Well except God, right? Ahh, herein lies the paradox, in the RCC view no one is perfect unless you’re God or of course the Pope (at least in terms of dogma and doctrine).
So when a Pope utters a sentence it becomes impossible to redact, or else the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Here’s some exegesis, a little more on point:
We know Mary needed saving because no one sees the Father except through Christ (with no exceptions) – even Catholic dogma does not deny this. Somehow this fact isn’t followed to its logical conclusion. That is, what do we need saving from? The answer of course is sin.
So then what should be the role of Mary? If it is partner then is that role more analogous to the mother of David, the queen mother of Israel? Or as partner to Christ as Eve was to Adam? There’s a marked difference between these two depictions. The first keeps the role of Mary in a temporal context, while the latter creates a role as a mediatrix or co-redeemer. Drawing a parallel between Mary and the mother of David negates the idea queen of heaven, while the depiction Mary, as the New Eve does not.
Look at 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The split we see here is that no longer is the woman saved by her connection to the man, but rather through child rearing. No longer can her relevance be framed as bride, but as mother (in the economy of salvation). Adam allowed himself to be swayed by the woman, while Christ overcame the infirmities of the flesh inherited by his mother. When we keep the focus on Christ as sole redeemer the exegesis is clear. Mary describes herself as a bondservant, a depiction formerly associated with Hagar. Elizabeth is old and barren (as was Sarah) but still becomes pregnant with John the Baptist (the new Elijah). So the typology of Mary as Eve, and helper is fallacious. Rather the proper role of Mary is as bondservant. This role negates any notion of mediatrix or co-redeemer when understood properly.
Another important fact is why Mary was in a unique position to mother the Messiah. Joseph enjoyed kinship in the Davidic line, however, he was a descendant of Jehoiakim (who was a king of Israel cursed by God for burning a scroll written by Jeremiah). The curse was that none of his children would sit on the throne of David. Mary was also a descendant of David; however, legal title passes through the line of the father, while blood relation is passed down maternally (under Jewish law). So we see the uniqueness of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, which of course was a divine design. Joseph could pass legal title to the throne of David, but due to the curse could not pass blood title. Mary could offer blood lineage but could not pass legal title.
Through Mary Jesus inherited a blood or “flesh” identity as Israel. Jesus embodied both Israel of the flesh and Israel of the promise (as fulfillment of that promise). He came to make the two one by destroying with His flesh the law (a sign of the Old Covenant). We learn this in Ephesians 2:14-15. Making from the two one new man (referring to Jacob & Esau, as representative of the Israel of the flesh & of the promise). The older shall serve the younger (see Romans 9:12, Genesis 25:23).
When we look at Rev. 12 we see the same dichotomy. In Rev. 12:1 we see “the woman” (Mary) clothed with the sun . . . and a crown of twelve stars on her head (representing the twelve tribes of Israel). Now turn to Rev. 21:23, the “city” (who Paul at Galatians 4:26 describes as “our mother”) does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because it is illuminated by the glory of God. The city (the New Jerusalem) is also depicted as the “bride of the Lamb” in Rev. 21:9 (of course the Lamb is Christ).
Here we see the disengagement between the “Israel of the promise” and the “Israel of the flesh.” The bondservant, Mary, as Hagar represents the children of the flesh. She is depicted as a queen mother, however, her queenship is not of heaven, but rather of Israel. Not Israel of the promise, but rather Israel of the flesh (as was the mother of king David).
We see further evidence of this distinction in Galatians 4. When Paul describes Christ as the “New Adam” he is referring to the resurrected Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). Mary just as the Apostles failed to understand the constant references Christ made to His impending death and resurrection until He was actually resurrected. As it tells us in Matthew 12, it is not Jesus’ earthly family who will counted as His mother, brothers, or sisters; but rather the faithful, yet another indication of the disengagement I’m referring to. We also see this at the wedding ceremony in Cana, where Mary is concerned with the temporal needs of the wedding guests for more wine, while Christ is concerned with something completely different.
What happens when we juxtapose the role of Mary into a “queen of heaven”? Check out Jeremiah 7:18.
