University of DaytoneCommons

Marian Reprints Marian Library Publications

11-1962

094 - The New EveFrank Duff

Follow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_reprints

Part of the Religion Commons

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 MarianReprints by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu, mschlangen1@udayton.edu.

Recommended CitationDuff, Frank, "094 - The New Eve" (1962). Marian Reprints. Paper 82.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_reprints/82

About the Author

Frank Duff is the founder and international president of the Legion of Mary, with Headquarters in Dublin, Ireland. In December, 1956, he came to the United States for the first time to receive the seventh annual Marianist Award, given by the University of Dayton in recognition of his outstanding work in the Marian apostolate.

Mr. Duff, a gradulate of Blackrock College, Dublin, started the Legion in 1921 with fifteen members. It is now established in every part of the world, and continues to enjoy a phenomenal growth.

Many of Mr. Duff's writings have been published in the official Legion magazine, Maria Legionis, and he is also the author of the recently pub­lished The Spirit of the Legion of Mary, and co-author of Souls at Stake.

This study is taken from the article " The New Eve" in Maria Legionis 13 (March, 1960), p. 1-5.

The MARIAN LIBRARY STUDIES is published monthly eight times a year, October through May, with ecclesia stical approval, by the Marian Library of the University of Dayton. All chapges of address, renewals, and new subscriptions should be sent to the circulation office located at the Marian Library, University of Dayton, Dayton 9, Ohio. Second-class postage paid at Dayton, Ohio. Subscription price is $2.00 a year. Printed by Marianist Press, Dayton 30, Ohio.

I t

I

f

"THE NEW EVE"

Frank Duff

It is Catholic teaching that Mary was part of the original idea of the Holy Trinity for mankind; that she was viewed at the same time as Our Lord Himself. The two destinies were thus interwined from before the ages. That had to be because of the nature of God's plan of Redemption. He foresaw the Fall and also He prepared for the uplifting. The way in which He proposed to accomplish it was the way in which it has been enacted, i.e. through a woman. That woman was to bring forth Him who would save the world. In thinking of the Redeem­er, the Mother had to be thought of and in a human sense, first, because she was to be His Mother. Actually the plan went farther than that. It would have been possible to arrange that a woman would bring Our Lord into the world, and yet playa comparatively small part. That is, it could have been that she would have a child and yet know little about who He was or what was going to happen. Such is the normal Protestant assess­ment of Our Lady. They have to admit - because it is Scriptural - that she was Mother of the Redeemer. But after that they think it necessary to diminish her.

If it were the case that she had been brought in on that plane of mini­mum co-operation, then indeed she would have the dignity of being the Mother of One who was God and the Redeemer, but that would have fallen far short of the heights intended. The Holy Trinity planned for her a unique destiny. The Incarnation would be entrusted to her decision and then to her charge. She would be asked if she would receive the Saviour of mankind. If she. refused, the Redemption would not take place. This is a thought staggering to confront.

But even before that she would be vitally active. Her prayer for the coming of the Messiah was to be the main instrument of drawing Him down. It must be realised that when Our Lady prayed, it was a prayer such as had never been heard before. For she was the first absolutely sinless creature who had ever lived. She was the being of all beings most dear to God. She was the Immaculate Conception. All that He could give to her, He gave. All that she could receive, she received. She was perfectly united to Him; she was, as the Angel's message said, "filled with the Holy Ghost." Her will was one with that of God Himself; her prayer was irresistible, and from her earliest days that prayer was a petition for the coming of the Redeemer. Long before she knew that she was to be the means of that coming, her soul had stood erect before God pleading for the salvation of the world.

2 THE NEW EVE

Of course that potent prayer was coupled in the mind of God with all the other prayers that would be said for Redemption. Still hers was supreme; it was worth all the others put together; it was the powerful magnet that attracted Redemption.

The great founder of St. Sulpice, Olier, makes a quaint assertion: that such was the efficacy of her prayer that it lovingly compelled God to advance the time of the Saviour so that He came some years before it had been ordained.

In the richness of time the Angel Gabriel presented himself and invited her help by way of consent and motherhood. The Incarnation would only take place if she consented! Of all ideas I suppose that this one is the most extreme. Is it possible that God deliberately made the salvation of all mankind, from the time of Adam to the end of the world, depend on the decision of that young girl? The suggestion is too much for many people. In particular our separated brethren, those habitual doubters, reject it, but reject it foolishly . For after all there is nothing incredible about it if we only think it out. Salvaton was not in peril because God had foreseen that she would agree, and He was able to build on that. Does that take away from Our Lady's part? Surely not! On the contrary would it not increase her merit that God Himself could so completely rely upon her; that when she would hear this greatest of all proposals, she would have no thought but to do His will! No matter what it cost her, her faithful acceptance could be counted on.

Nor is it to be imagined that God forced her will in the slightest. That would be the opposite of the divine idea. The saving scheme was built on the co-operation of those who were to be redeemed. This process was to be initiated and to reach its height in the co-operation of Mary, so that this decision of hers had to possess every element of perfection, inclusive of the unfettered freedom. As man by his own free will wrought his ruin, so must he freely will his restoration.

Another point we must consider: Why was it a meritorious act for her to consent to that motherhood? This really forms a problem, because it was the desire of every Jewish girl that she might be the selected woman. The first prophecy made of Redemption was the celebrated one which is so much quoted in the Handbook, and which is contained in the chain­border of the Tessera. It is the words of Almighty God addressed to Satan: "I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her Seed. She shall crush thy head." (Gen III, 15). That woman was to bring forth the Child who would redeem the world. The constant tradition down through the generations of Israel was that the Redeemer would be born of a woman of their race . Every Jewish maiden prayed with desire that she would be the chosen one. Why, therefore, should there be a heroism in Our Lady's accepting something that every other maiden longed for?

THE NEW EVE 3

Well, the deed was great and its merit was twofold. First, the ordinary Jewish maiden thought that Our Lord would come into the world in the normal way of mankind, Le. through a father and mother. But here is an entirely different thing, that is an entry without a human father , one effected directly by the Holy Spirit. And so it represented an act of faith without equal to believe the Angel's message. Secondly, and this is vital, Our Lady knew that she was to bring into the world not merely the Eternal Son but the Redeemer as well. In other words she under­stood that her Son would not be merely the occasion of joy and glory to her, but of such torture of spirit as would stir Holy Simeon to prophesy it ("Thy own soul a sword shall pierce") in the same breath as he fore­told the tribulations of Jesus Himself (St. Luke II 34, 35). Such that the Church applies to her the exclamations of Scripture: "Come and see if there is any sorrow like unto my sorrow Mighty it is as the ocean." She knew that He was not going to be an earthly king as the ordinary Jews expected, but a Redeemer according to what we now know, and according to what the more enlightened Jews were able to reason out from the prophecies of the Old Testament.

If the Old Testament be studied attentively, it will be seen that it was not merely a triumphant figure that was being told of but a man of sorrows, the most abject of men; wounded for our inquities and bruised for our sins; as it were a leper; one struck by God and afficted (Isaias 53, 3-5); a worm and no man; the reproach of men and the outcast of the people (Ps. XXI, 7); rejected, crucified. This is in Holy Writ for all to read.

The Jews read it and the thoughtful ones among them were able to discern what was at stake. It is absolutely certain that Our Lady saw far more clearly than they. She knew that she was being asked to devote her Child to that unutterable fate; to offer Him in sacrifice, to destroy that unparalleled :person. And this for the sake of an indifferent and unthankful race.

Looking at that sacrifice from now, even we with all our coarseness of perception can see how great it was. But remember that our thinking is not as hers. Her intellect was most clear and her soul most delicate. She understood things in a way that we cannot. Even when we have long reflected, we are still but on the surface. Finally we can only throw ourselves back on what the Church and our reason tell us: that Our Lady's response to the Angel's invitation was a supreme act of faith , heroism and sacrifice, immeasurably beyond any other ever performed.

But why would God thus place salvation in her hands? What is the purpose at stake? Could not Our Lord come on earth and pay the price of Redemption without incorporating in the scheme this degree of de­pendence on Mary? What is the idea of introducing her in this extraor­dinarily possessive way? The answer lies in God's Will that mankind

4 THE NEW EVE

should co-oper ate in its own salvation. It was not His plan to treat man as one would treat a baby into whose m outh nourishment is placed; which has everything done for it. God's principle was to treat man as responsible; to call on Him to pay as much as possible of his own ransom; to invite him to play the fullest part in the total affair of salvation. For instance, in the way that you Legionaries are trying to do . Not only are you striving after your own salvation but you are seeking to bring it to every other soul. Having honoured that principle during life, or as St. Paul puts it - worked out your own salvation - the earthly excellence will merge into a higher glory in heaven. You have not been as that helpless baby sucking a bottle; you have been a grown-up person, a full Christian, a fighter with the Lord. You have taken part in His battles and you have suffered His wounds. Surely, as He promised, you will sit at His right hand and reign with Him!

That responsibility and co-operation is a fundamental idea. God, so to speak, planted it in the Blessed Virgin and caused it to flower from her.

When Redemption was foreseen according to that method, there was the question: Would there ever be a woman who would possess the quality to fit exactly into this divine scheme? God saw in the Blessed Virgin Mary that person. According to His own law He would have to seize on her as an admirable enrichment of the scheme. If a member of the fallen r ace could play that part, it would make Redemption so much more profitable for her and for humanity in whose place she stood. But note that this relation of representative took a higher form. Her Fiat made her Mother of the Mystical Body. In the most real sense she be­came the Mother of all those for whom Jesus Christ would be Redeemer, so that they would be intimately implicated in everything she would do.

Protestants think that our belief in this pivotal place of Mary is a later invention of the Catholic Church. They are fond of looking back through history to the dates yvhen certain feasts or devotions started, then trium­phantly insisting on their modernity. From which they claim that our veneration of the Blessed Virgin is a comparatively recent introduction, certainly no feature of the earlier Church.

Incidentally let me interject that the popular reading of the Bible, on which Protestants base their religion, is definitely a modern practice. For fourteen hundred years of Christianity, the generality of men were unable to read, and the same still applies to most of the world's population.

They err, however, in regarding as an innvoation the Church's teach­ing of Mary's vital role. It is true that certain forms of prayer and be­haviour towards Mary were not there in the beginning, just as within a few years' time new forms will secure acceptance. The present-day organised devotions to Our Lady did not exist in the earlier stages of the Church but grew up as time went on. Things developed similarly in re-

THE NEW EVE 5

gard to Our Blessed Lord Himself. Many of the devotions to Him are recent products. Just as originally there was no Litany of Loreto, neither was there a Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus nor of the Sacred Heart. All these tributes were generated by love which ever seeks new modes of expression.

Of course this does not mean that the early Christians were by com­parison defective in their attitude either towards Our Lord or towards Our Lady. But when they turned to them, they did it in their own less worked-out fashion. The later expressive devotions had not been elabor­ated. Needless to say, a Christian did not go to his local Church once a week for the up-to-date Marian devotions. But even though unaided by the progressive clarification of doctrine, he knew Mary to have been essential to the Redemption, and he would try to signify his gratitude and love.

Can this be proved? The answer is that we can prove it, and that the proof is simple and decisive. I try to give it to you.

When that wonderful figure, Cardinal Newman, was digging into antiquity in order to find what place Our Lady had occupied in the teaching of the very early Church, he satisfied himself that the belief in her role was specially represented by the doctrine of the New Eve. This analogy was the most ancient possible. It was not a product of the tenth century, nor of the eighth nor of the fifth , nor of the third; it was ab­solutely of the first age. This description of Our Lady as the New or Second Eve is first found in the teachings of St. Justin, who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. Unquestionably the disciple got the idea from his master, and it is equally certain that neither the master nor the disciple would be out on their own in that respect. They typified the thought of the Apostles. Thus the idea of Our Lady as the New Eve was part of the roots of the Church. It was primary in the Christian faith.

St. Paul speaks of Our Lord as the New Adam. He does not mention the New Eve, but that parallel could not have been absent from his mind. The structure of the brain being what it is, no one could think of Adam without Eve, nor of the New Adam without the New Eve. This is made absolutely inevitable by reason of the fact that the First Prophecy (Gen. III, 15) spoke of the woman who with her Seed would repair the Fall. St. Paul was not less intelligent than we are .

That theme asserted itself ever after. It soon became a proverb. St. Jerome (about 300 A.D.) quotes it : "Death through Eve; life through Mary." St. Augustine (about 400 A.D.) dwells on the same: "Death through a woman; life through a woman."

It has been contended that those early writers did not see all nor in­tend all that has been subsequently read into that analogy. That sugges­tion is uncomplimentary to those great minds of antiquity. They seized at once on the New Eve comparison. They had all relevant information.

6 THE NEW EVE

Why should they be less discerning than those who came after them? The conclusions which we draw from that comparison are not forced ones. They are unescapable. Do they not grow naturally out of the fact that Redemption reversed the details of the Fall and that Eve's part was a type of Mary's function? No, we do not see too much, but too little - as in all divine things.

Such being the antiquity and the status of the doctrine of the New Eve, it is imperative that we understand it. You know how mankind fell. Our First Parents co-operated to commit sin and to drag down their progeny with them. But God's love could not allow that to be the last chapter. So at the very moment of the brewing of the poison He was preparing the remedy, which was Redemption. It could not come at once because - to put it in our human way - God had to wait until the Blessed Virgin would be born. We may think: Why not bring her into the world quickly - immediately? We may be sure that God would have done so if it were possible according to His ways. But evidently there had to be some sort of growth or process or maturing in humanity to render it possible for the Blessed Virgin to be produced. For that fullness of time (as Scripture terms it) we - and God - had to wait.

God modelled Redemption upon the lines of the Fall. As the Fathers of the Church, and every teacher in the Church, have put it, He made Redemption exactly reverse the Fall. Everything that was in the Fall He took and turned it backwards. It is as if somebody comes at you with a gun to kill you and you manage to get hold of the weapon and use it against the assailant.

Though Eve sinned first, still it was not in Eve that mankind fell but in Adam. Adam was the single source and the head of the human race . Eve herself was taken physically out of him. (Gen. II, 23). It was his be­haviour that was going to ruin mankind. If Eve alone had fallen, and Adam had not, mankind would not have been involved in her fall. Yet it was because Eve enticed Adam into sin that Adam sinned and mankind fell.

The part of Eve was crucial. The serpent approached her and won her over. Eve then caused Adam to fall. It was in Adam that men fell. But the Scriptural insistence on the agency of Eve in the transaction can convey no other meaning than that Adam would not have fallen but for her. Eve is exhibed as the mediatrix of the Fall and of the fatal conse­quences which issued from it.

The parallel between those circumstances and the Redemption is so complete that it is evident that the one was patterned upon the other; that God intended the Redemption to be a detailed reversal of the Fall; that the Redemption was to be what it has been styled: The Divine Revenge.

•

THE NEW EVE 7

In the restoration the New Adam and the New Eve reverse the part that Adam and Eve played in the original tragedy. Mary was drawn spiritually out of Jesus through the Immaculate Conception, that is by the application to her of His future merits. The Angel comes to her as the serpent came to Eve - on the same day of the week, it is said - and he proposes the remedial plan. She believes the good message as Eve believed the evil one. She accepts what is proposed to her. She draws Christ down upon the earth and commits Him to His mission which is terribly consummated on Calvary. And there she stands, herself almost dead, but unfainting, unfaltering, offering her Seed in the sacrifice which crushed the head of the serpent, as was promised ages before in the Garden of Eden.

Mankind arose in Christ and not in Mary. It was Our Lord who re­deemed us by His life and His death. But it would not have happened except for Mary. We must minutely analyse this tremendous parallel. Its importance cannot be over-estimated. For in the operation of Eve in the Fall we have a Biblical blue-print or detailed diagram of the part played by Mary in salvation. The Fall was the first Type in the Old Testament. Those types were in the Old Testament what the parables w ere in the New Testament. It would be incorrect to regard them as being no more than picturesque images. They were sketches of the future Jesus and Mary, each containing some fragment of doctrine, so that when all of them are put together, the result is startling as a picture of what was to come.

As remarked in a previous article on Capharnaum, a type will be sur­passed by the reality for which it stands. But at the same time, the type and the reality will be in harmonious proportion with each other.

Each item of Satan's triumph was taken and turned against him in the Divine Revenge. Therefore each detail of the Fall has its bearing on the Restoration. The parallel shows the New Eve precisely reversing the harm wrought by the old Eve. Moreover, Mary's agency did not end on Calvary, any more than Eve's did in the Garden. After the catastrophe Adam and Eve proceeded to have children to whom they passed on their fallen, sinful condition. Adam's dependence on Eve for the procreation and upbringing of those children was absolute. And without her he could not. have passed on the effects of his own fall. The same position is realised by the New Adam and the New Eve. According to Catholic teaching, Jesus - the New Adam - does not have spiritual offspring nor transmit the benefits of Redemption without the co-operation of Mary. Just as she joined with him in the process of Redem ption from the first until He breathed out His life on Calvary, so she was joined with Him ever after to distribute the treasures of Redemption.

This is not to say that her part was equal to His. He is God; she is a creature; and there is an infinity between those two conditions. But such

8 THE NEW EVE

as her part was, it was made necessary. She was to the New Adam no less than what Eve was described by God as being, i.e. the helper of Adam and like unto him (Gen. II, 18). The magnitude of Mary's mission is to be gauged (though insufficiently) from Eve's capital share in the original disintegration and its sequels and the immensity of her holiness is defined by that likening of her to Jesus.

Such is the doctrine of the New Eve, than which nothing could be earlier, more sweeping in its scope, more magnificent in its implications. With its infant breath Christianity is found talking in the accents of ad­vanced Mariology. Under many different forms the Church is only teach­ing the same as is contained in that doctrine. You are familiar with those several aspects through your Handbook Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces, dependent on Jesus Christ, the principal, essential Mediator. Or she is the Mother of the Mystical Body while He is its Divine Head. Or she is the Mother of Divine Grace while He is the Source of grace. Or she is the Co-Redemptrix, subordinate to the sole Redeemer. The idea throughout is the same; it is only like dressing someone up in different clothes. Mary was made by the Holy Trinity to be the perpetual partner of Jesus in His restoration of the lost world.

As Our Lady was up to the time of the Annunciation the representative of all men whom God only regarded through her and after that their true l\1other, so all are bound to acknowledge what she has thus done for them. According to the law of faith, how can one hope to repudiate the means and yet receive the fruit? Adam called his wife the mother of all the living. (Gen. III, 20). The New Adam can bestow that name on His Beloved in a far higher, wider sense. Eve performed the immense office of generating and nurturing her children. Mary exceeds her Type by giving spiritual life; and her family is all mankind. To each individual one she imparts that life of grace, and she nurses each one from cradle to grave.

One of the titles which we are fond of using in the Legion is Virgo Praedicanda, taken from the Litany of Loreto. There it is inadequately translated as Virgin most renowned. But Virgo Praedicanda means the Virgin who must be preached, which is a different idea. It is commend­able to say that Our Lady is most renowned; truly she is that. But the full meaning of the expression is that we must announce her; we must tell the world about her : this Virgin most great: this Virgin most essen­tial: this co-operator in salvation both in its roots and in its fruits : the Woman through whom Our Lord came on earth and without whom He would not have come - the New Eve beside the New Adam.

MARIAN LIBRARY STUDIES

(SACK ISSUES AVA ILA BLE FROM THE MARIAN LI BRARY _ UNIVERSITY O F DAYTON)

1. MARY'S PLACE IN OUR LlFE_T. J. Jorgensen, S.J. 2 . THE MEANING OF MARY-l ois Schumacher

LITANY FOR OUR TIMES-Robert t . Reynolds

3 . MARY AND THE APQSTOLATE_ fmiJ N evbe", S.M . 4. THE IMITATION OF MARY-Placid Huaull , S.M . S. MARY, ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN_lo wre nce fv erett, C.SS .R. 6. FATIMA-IN BATTlE ARRAY-Joseph Agi us, 0 .1'. 7. MEN, MARY, AND MANLINESS-Ed Willock 8. MARY, CONCEIVED WITHOUT SIN-Froncis Conn e ll, C.SS.R. 9 . RUSSIA AND THE IMMACULATE HEART- Pius XII

10 . MARY , OUR INSPIRATION TO ACTION-Roberl Knopp , S.M . 11 . SIGN IN THE HEAVENS-Jomes O'MClnon y, O.F.M .Cop. 12. SOUL OF MARIAN DEVOTION_Edmund Bo umeis ter, S.M . 13 . THE A SSUMPTION AND THE MODERN WORLD-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen 14. MOTHER AND HElPMATE OF CHRI ST- Jomes Egon, O .P. 15. M ARY, PATRONESS OF CATHOliC ACTION-John J. Griffin 16. THE MYSTERY OF MARY_Emil N eubert, S.M . 17. TH E BLESSED VIRGIN IN TH E lITURGY---Cli fford Howe ll, S.J. 18. OUR LA DY OF RU SSI A---CCltherine de Hueck Doher ty 19. THE W ITNESS OF OUR LADY_ Archbishop AlbCln Goodier, S.J. 20. FULGENS CORONA- Pi us XII 21. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION A ND THE U.S.- Ro lph Ohlmonn, O .F.M . 22 . THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

- Philip Hoelle, S.M . 23. INEFFABILIS DEU S-Pius IX 24. MARY'S APOSTOLIC ROLE IN HISTORY- John To tten, S.M . 2S. A D DIEM ILLUM-Pius X 26. KNOW YOUR MOTHER BETTER : A MARIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Ston ley Math e w s, S.M . 27. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND MARY'S DEATH

- J. B. CCl rol, O .F.M . 28. IMMACULATE MOTHER OF GOD- Jomes Fr Cl ncis Cardinal Mcintyre 29. THE WISDOM OF OUR LADY-Gerold Vonn , O .P. 30. AD CAELI REGIN AM_ Pius XII 31 . OUR LADY AT HOME- Rich Clrd T.A . M urphy, O .P. 32 . THE BRO W N SCAPULAR OF CARMEl-Henry M . Esteve, O . CClrm . 33. MARY 'S ROLE IN THE MYSTI CAL BODY-Thomos A. Ston ley, S.M . 34. MARY A ND THE FULLNESS OF TIME- Jean DCl nielou, S.J. 3S . PROTESTANTISM AND THE MOTHER OF GOO_ Kenneth F. DClugherty, S.A . 36. TH E LEGION OF M ARY-Edward B. Kotter 37. DEVElOP ING A SOUND M ARIAN SP IRITUA lITY_WifliClm G. Most 38 . LAETITIAE SANCTA E- Leo XIII 39. THE MOTHERHOOD OF MARY_Emil N eu bert, S.M . 40. THE HA/L MARY-JClmes G. Shaw 4 1. OUR LADY' S SERENITY-Rono ld A . Knox 42 . OUR LA DY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT_ BishClp Leon J. Suenen, 43 . CHRIST' S DEVOTION TO MARY-'/osep h J. PClnzer, S. M .

. . 44 . MARY, OUR SPIRITUAL MOTHER_Wi/Uom G. Most 45. MARY IN THE EA STERN CHURCH-Stephen C. Gu lClvich 46 . MARY'S MEDI ATION A ND THE POPES-EomCln R. CClrrCl II, O . Corm . 4 7. FILIAL PIETY: MARIA N AND FAMILY-GerCl ld J. Schnepp . S.M . 4B. M ARY AND TH E HI STORY OF WOM EN- E. A . LeonClrd 49. OUR LADY, M ODEL OF FAITH-Jean Ga lOl, S.J. 50. OUR LADY, SY MBOL OF HOPE-Jean Galot, S.J. 5 1. MARY, MODEl OF CHAR ITY-Henri Holstein , S.J. 52. SPIRIT OF THE LEGION OF MARY- Frank Duff 53. THE TIMElESS WOMA N _ Gertrude von Ie Fort 54. M ARY, QUEEN OF THE UNI VERSE-'/omes M . EgCln, O .P.

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: 1 Year (8 Issues) - $2.00

FI e". S ~

~ . !.... '2J:iJ ~j .... all ege BI J 'J Clyo R:Jad

55 . THE LOURDES PILGRIMAGE_Pius XII 56. OUR LA DY OF LOUR DES- BishClp Pierre-Morie Theas 57. ESTHER AND OUR LADY-Ronold A. Knox 58. MARY AND THE THEOlOGIA N S-ThomCls E. Clorke, S.J. 59. EDITH STEIN AND THE MOTHER OF GOD

- Sisler Mo ry Ju lion Boird, R.S.M . 60. BEHOLD THE HANDMA ID OF THE LORD_ Riehord GrClef, C.S .SP . 6 1. LOURDES DOCUMENTS OF BISHOP LAURENCE

- Bishop at Torbes, T845- T870. 62 . THE POPE OF THE VIRGIN MAR Y_Thomas M er tCln, O .C.S.O. 63. DEVOTION TO M ARY IN THE CHURCH-louis Bouyer, Orat. 64 . BEA URAING DOCUMENTS OF BISHOP CHA RUE- BishClp at Nomur 65 . MOTHER OF HIS M A NY BRETHREN- Jean-Herve Nicolos, O.P. M . ST. BERNADETTE AND OUR LADY_M ory Ree d N ewlClnd 67. LOURDES, W ITNESS TO THE MATERNAL SOLICITUDE OF MARY

- Jomes Egon , O.P. 68 . MUNIFI CENTI SS IMUS DEUS-Pius XII 69. IS OUR VENERATION TO OUR LA DY " M A RIOLATRY"?

- FrCl ncis J. Conn ell, C.SS .R. 70 . M ARIAN DOCTRINE OF BENEDICT XV 7 1. 2S YEARS OF BANNEUX_Bishop Louis-Joseph Kerkhol s 72 . WHAT JESUS OWES TO HIS MOTHER _ Ceslo us Spicq, O.P. 73 . - 74. POPE PIUS XII ON SODALITIES 75 . SECOND CONGRESS OF SODALITIES _ World Fe d era tion 76. DEDICATION OF THE NATIONAL SHRINE OF THE IMMACULATE

CONCEPTION _ Docu ments and Sermon s 77. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARIAN DOCTRI NE _ Emil N euberl, S .M . 78 . MARY AND THE CHURCH _ Donal F/anCl gan, D.O. 79 . ON THE NATURE OF THE COREDEMPTIVE MERIT OF THE BLESSED

VIRGIN M ARY - Gabriele Marie Rosch;ni, O .S.M . BO. THE DOGM A OF THE ASSUMPTION IN TH E LIGHT OF THE FIRST

SEVEN ECUMEN ICAL COUNCILS _ Co rdi no I A gogionion 81. THE PROBLEM OF METHOD IN MAR/OLOGY _ Rene Laurentin 82. M ARY, PROTOTYPE AND PERSONI FICATION OF THE CHURCH

- Clement Dillen schneider, C.SS .R. 83. M ARY AND THE PROTESTA NTS - Cordina l Bea, S.J. 84 . GRATA RECORDATIO - Jo hn XXIII o nd FIDENTEM PIUMOUE - Leo XIII 85 . OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE - Coley Taylor 86. MARY AND THE CHURCH - Rene Lauren tin 87. THE M ARIA NIST SPIRIT _ John A. Elbert, S.M . 88. BEA URAING - A THEOLOGICAL STUDY _ Ferno nd Toussaint 89. JUCUNDA SEMPER - Leo XIII 90 . PROTESTANTS, CATHOLICS, A ND MARY - M . J. N ico /as, O.P. 91 . M ARY'S INfLUENCE IN THE DISTRIBUTION Of GRACE _ RCI /ph Doorock, S.M . 92. UBI PRI M UM (IMMACULA TE CONCEPTION) - Pius IX

DE I PARAE VIRGINIS M ARIA E (ASSUMPTION) - Piul XII INTER COM PLURES (STANDA RDS fOR MARIOLOGY) _ Pius XII

PROSPEqUS 1962 - 1963 93. FA TIMA MESSAGES _ Pope Pius XII 94 . THE NEW EVE - Fran k Duff 95 . M OTHER OF THE M YSTI CA L BODY - G. Geenen , O.P. 96. VALUE Of THE EPISCOPAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON BEAU RA ING - Msgr. E. Ronwel 97. THE WORDS OF M ARY'S M AGNifiCAT _ S. Ga rofo lo 9 8. THE MEA NING OF LOURDES _ C. B. Daly 99. SELECTIONS FROM WILLIAM OF NEWBURGH'S COMMENTARY ON THE CANTICLE

Of CANTICLES - J. Gorman, S. M . 100. MARY'S SPIRITU AL M ATERNITY IN RELATION TO NON·CHRISTIA NS - R. l aurenl in

BU LK ORDERS: 5-24 - $.20 25-49 - $.17 50 or more - $. 15

_ . .., .. _-_._---

Lb. ary

D"yt0n 59 , Ohio 100

C" "" ..... ...... _,J ..... 1,. ... ... ............ ... 4-,.,... ...... ...... ,.':,1 ,.4- '"' ,. .. . 4- ...... _ " J.....: ....