Saint Augustine Was Mistaken

Saint Augustine said Mary is a member of the Church.  […]  But the Virgin is the Queen Mother, the Queen of Heaven and earth.  Hence, Mary is the Queen of the Church.  But a queen is not a subject, for no one is subject to themselves, only to someone greater.  Hence, Mary is not a member of the Church, for She is its Queen.  Therefore, Saint Augustine was wrong.

 

There are two closely related analogies/models for the Church in play here: the Mystical Body and the Kingdom of God.  Logically, the Mystical Body is “enclosed” within the Kingdom in the sense that the Mystical Body “unfolds” into the Kingdom when the additional relationship of Kingship is considered.

The syllogism deals with the boundary of the two analogies, particularly with respects to Mary.  The assertion is that grace brings the Mystical Body analogy to its breaking point, whereupon it makes more sense to view the Blessed Mother in terms of Queenship.  There are two reasons that back this assertion, which too are closely related.

 

The first reason is based on the “membership equation.”  Saint Augustine made the argument that the Church is greater than Mary because Mary is a member, albeit “the most eminent member.”  This is based on the principle that a member is not greater than the whole.  Expressed in mathematics, the equation is x < x + y (also y < x + y as it should hold for any member).

Before considering Mary, let us apply this metaphysical precept to a simple set with only two members: God and the created order.  Measuring greatness via the greatness function G(), the equation becomes: G(God) < G(God) + G(Universe)

Of course, creation adds nothing to God’s greatness.  In other words, the “less than” is actually an “equals.”  The actual relationship is: G(God) = G(God) + G(Universe).

The precept is invalid here because of a form of self-inclusion: the source of greatness is being measured with an object of that source.  God created the universe.  Hence, the universe’s existence, and thus its greatness, depend entirely upon God, its source.

The Mystical Body analogy is nearly the same as the preceding example.  The result is also the same, and for the same reason, the head of the Church is God: G(Head) = G(Body) + G(Head)

With these exceptions in mind, let us now consider Mary.  Provided the whole/part principle holds, as Augustine contended, the equation is G(Mary) < G(Church) = G(Mary) + G(Others)

But there is another principle at work here: whatever is true of Jesus is generally true for Mary, in a subordinate sense or to a lesser degree.  The question becomes, which principle will predominate?  To answer that, more precision is required than generic “greatness”.

A creature has no greatness on its own.  The greatness conferred is its closeness (degree of union) with its Creator.  In a word, it is the measure of its grace.  Thus, the greatness function for creatures is the grace function, which for brevity, will be represented with the same notation of G().

It is considered theological certain that Mary’s initial grace was greater than the final grace of any other creature.  This was maintained for centuries before its reiteration by Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus.  And in terms of Heavenly glory, no one questions that Mary is greater than all of the Angels and Saints combined.  This demonstrates that G(Mary) is greater than G(Others) but the membership equation remains intact.  However, already, its validity is approaching an academic degree as the comparison relationship is probably much greater, not simply greater.

We now enter a territory where the teaching of the Magisterium is not as clear cut.  Pius IX did write in Ineffabilis Deus, regarding Mary’s greatness, that “outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending [it] fully.”  Hence, the ordinary teaching of Magisterium does seems to be that Mary is transcendental with respects to all other creatures.  In addition, Pius XII quotes St. John Damascene in his encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam: "Limitless is the difference between God's servants and His Mother."  But this is phrased as “And St. John Damascene goes so far as to say” so the degree that Pius XII made the statement his own isn’t crystal clear.  This is an important caveat.

Part of the syllogism is based on Mary’s grace being infinitely greater than the sum of all others.  In theology, limitless and infinite are generally synonyms.  When limitless is applied in its proper sense, the membership equation reduces to G(Mary) = G(Church)  And in terms mathematics, applying calculus’ concept of the limit yields same result.

Another analogy from mathematics is pertinent here, cardinality.  Cardinality measures the number of members in a set.  Mathematical infinity theory, discovered in 19th century, demonstrates the existence of a hierarchy of infinities.  The smallest infinity is the counting numbers (integers), followed by the real numbers, and on and on.  There is no greatest infinity.

While reality (which ultimately is God) transcends math and logic, these elements of reason do not contradict it, and indeed express it, to a limited degree.  From that, it is reasonable to consider the existence of hierarchies of grace, related somehow to the infinity hierarchies.  Grace is a character of the soul verses a quantity.  But as G() measures the closeness of a soul to God as it relates to the beatific vision for all eternity, the range of the G() function might well somehow map into the hierarchies of infinities.

Thus, there is nothing intrinsically contradictory with the below expression, even with all four values being

.  Albeit, any expression of the greatness of God isn’t truly going to fit on the page.

GRACE(Others) < GRACE(Joseph) < GRACE (Mary) < GREATNESS(God)

The cardinality dimension is speculative, to be sure, and possibly unprovable.  Yet, it remains a real and distinct possibility that Mary’s grace is in a class of its own, as everything else is, which in itself argues in its favor.

In any case, the central point is that the Church isn’t greater than Mary, as Saint Augustine asserted, assuming Pius IX and St. John Damascene (and others) are right.  (Obviously, as all theological propositions are, this is subject to the Magisterium’s judgment.)

 

Let us now consider the second reason backing the claim that grace breaks the Mystical Body analogy.  This is the based on the form of self-inclusion relative to the Mystical Body.  Regarding God, there is the self-inclusion associated with Jesus being the source of the created order.  Regarding Mary, there is the self-inclusion in the order of grace.

As Mediatrix of All Grace, Mary is the source of all grace for the members of the body.  She is not ultimate source, but Mary is the immediate source from the relative perspective of the body.  In other words, it is a self-inclusion to include Mary within the body.

The traditional solution that partly solves this problem is from Saint Bernard, in the 12th century.  Namely, Mary is the neck through which all grace flows, from the head to the body.  This resolves the self-inclusion if the neck is considered separate from the head and body.  Though the traditional interpretation doesn’t go that far, namely, the neck remains a member.  Yet, in this image, the neck is connected to both, though subordinate to the head but above the body.

Let us now examine the limits of Mary being a “source.”  First note that being the source isn’t the principle of Mary’s grace, as if grace flowing through Her somehow adds to Her grace.  Her role as Mediatrix began after entering Heaven, after the opportunity to merit ceased.

Also, it wasn’t necessary for Mary’s grace to be greater than the total grace to be distributed.  Rather, it was appropriate to be such, arguably for being Mediatrix alone, but ultimately everything is based on Her being chosen to be the Mother of God.

All grace given to mankind is credited to the Mediatrix, but the scope is for those on earth.  The beatific vision is the immediate vision of God with no intermediary, so Mary’s role as Mediatrix is completed for those in Heaven.  Yet, all grace, includes all grace before the Assumption, is included.  However, the grace distributed before Mary’s active role is only appropriated to Her.  It is not as if the Blessed Mother was acting as Mediatrix before being born.

So while exhaustive in including all grace (apparently including Her own), Mary’s self-inclusion is limited to time, as well as being a subordinate source.  In contrast, Jesus is an absolute source.  However, logical sanity prohibits self-inclusion, implying that Mary isn’t a member of the Church, which itself is a contradiction.

 

At this point, the Mystical Body will be explored more deeply.  The starting point is that Jesus is the head of the body, and that the body is the Church (Colossians 1:18).  This is a mixed metaphor that has two parallel meanings.  The first is the body is a “set” of members where the “head” is the ruler over the members.  In the second, the members are allegorical parts of a human body (eyes, ears, etc) (Corinthians 12:12-31).  But Saint Paul doesn’t say that the head is Jesus.

What is confusing about this language is that the body intrinsically has a head: the head is part of the body like all of the other parts.  So separating the head from the body only makes sense with the first meaning, but not with the second.  To round out this confusing terminology, “Christ and his Church thus together make up the ‘whole Christ’ (Christus totus).  The Church is one with Christ.” (CCC 795)

This is a bit confusing because so much is going with this extremely rich mystery.  There are many dimensions that need to be taken all together.  But one thing is clear: Christ is not a member of the Church, but rather a member of the “whole Christ” within the perspective of the Mystical Body.  Fittingly, the Catechism immediately “contradicts” that by stating “The Church is one with Christ.”

From the preceding self-inclusion considerations, it is only logical that Christ isn’t a member of the Church.  But there is the apparent contradiction that Mary also isn’t a member.  So to resolve the second contradiction, how about contradicting the first?  Specifically, what would happen if Christ was actually a member of the body, of the Church?

To accomplish this, a new type of membership is needed, which will be called self-including membership.  A self-including member is member that all of the other members depend upon for their membership.  With this definition, Jesus is a self-including member of the Church.

Note that self-including membership is actually the logical description of the Incarnation.  For with this great mystery, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity enters creation itself, Who is the source of creation.  In other words, Jesus is a member of creation where all other parts of creation absolutely depend upon Him for their own membership, that is, for their own existence.

The Incarnation is intrinsically connected to Christ and His Church: it is central to it.  Thus, the later must have the same logical foundation.  From this is follows that Jesus truly is a self-including member of the Church, in an essential way.

It should be pointed out that Christ must be a member of the body.  Membership means being a part of, that is, participating in the Church, in some way.  The scriptural language of head doesn’t exclude membership.  Rather, it portrays that Christ’s membership is in an entirely different category from the regular members, a category infinity higher.  This very simple language lucidly makes clear that the head is “separate” from the body in terms of regular membership, but implicitly it is defining a category.

However, self-including membership is greater than headship.  For example, a ruler of country is the head, but not necessarily (and almost never) a self-including member.  Regarding Jesus, though, the two concepts are basically equivalent since Christ is the absolute self-including member.  There are nuances per what is immediately suggested.  But nothing new is being implied by the term, outside of the perspective.

But this logical construct does better capture, by placing Him squarely within the body, that the head is integral to body, as it is naturally anatomically, and logically.  At the same time, and more importantly, it also somewhat captures the Indwelling nature of God: that Christ permeates all of the members of the Church, uniting them.  In this respects, it is a more accurate, more complete expression of the underlying reality.

However, Scripture’s language is perfect for the general reader.  The way it transparently blurs membership into headship is quite masterful.  But this is only a partial image.  Theologians need to join various passages to glean the “full” picture.

Almost always, self-inclusion is logical nonsense.  The logic behind the Incarnation is very counterintuitive.  But God designed His creation with this precisely in mind.  The contradictory aspect of self-inclusion naturally keeps it from human thinking, and its obtuseness kept it out Scripture.

Yet, the only difference here is that of perspective.  The scriptural is the “outside” view whereas the self-including is the “inside” view.  But both models are only abstractions.  The mystical body isn’t “concrete,” it is real, but it is “mystical.”  And these two abstraction are essentially the same.  The “whole Christ” becomes the body from the inside perspective because He is “already” within as the head, and so forth.  However, the self-including perspective does brings into full relief that headship is all about category, not membership.

Let us now return to the problem regarding Mary’s membership.  And again, consider the principle of what is true of Jesus is generally true for Mary.  So, is Mary a self-including member of the Church?  Yes, in the order of grace as outlined above, and in a subordinate sense as expected.  Specially, all of the regular members depend on Mary for their membership as grace is the founding principle of the Church, which is union with God.

This fully resolves the apparent contradiction regarding Mary, and reveals that the neck analogy is actually a substantive subcategory.  For a self-including member is still a member, but it is an exceptional form of membership: a different category.

 

A few points related to the proposed Final Marian Dogma are worth mentioning.  The titles Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Grace and Advocate fortify the concept of Mary being a “source” which hereto has only been discussed in reference to Mary’s role as Mediatrix of All Grace.

But the Woman’s role as Co-Redemptrix at the foot of the Cross raises being the immediate source (relative) to the realm of the actual source because of Her unique active participation in obtaining the grace merited by Christ.  Finally, Her role as Advocate brings this full circle as She pleads on our behalf to obtain grace.

The Mother “pleading” is actual a self-inclusion when greatness is measured in terms of “sending” petitions.  The Virgin is the immediate “receptacle,” even when petitions are not directly addressed through Her.  This is because Mary obtains all grace for us: Her mediation is universal.

It is also worth stressing that era of peace hinges on the Dogma, per message from the Amsterdam apparitions: “Once the dogma, the final dogma in Marian history, has been proclaimed, the Lady of All Nations will grant peace, true peace, to the world.”

 

As previously described, grace in a certain sense “breaks” the Mystical Body analogy from the traditional perspective, though self-including membership restores its integrity.  Though it is from these two singularities of exceptional membership that the Kingdom of God analogy unfolds: wherein the membership of the Two Hearts now becoming co-natural: King and Queen.

The point of the syllogism is that Mary is not a regular member.  To be sure, the subcategory of subordinate self-including membership is infinitely lower than the category of absolute self-including membership.  But the pre-eminent qualifier used by Saint Augustine is lacking.  The difference is evidently a question of category, not simply quality, where the category is manifestly foundational.

Of course, one could always say that Mary is the pre-eminent member of the Church (excluding Jesus as a member), with the Virgin being a self-including member in the order of grace (being the relative source of grace with Jesus being the actual source).  While that could be simplified, a much simpler expression is to say that Mary is the Queen of the Church, something that a seven year old can immediately grasp.