The Eucharist : the Church in the Heart of Christ, by Daniel Meynen, D.D.

The Eucharist: the Church in the Heart of Christ, it is an action of the Church who goes to Christ and unites herself to him within the most intimate part of his Being, within his very Life, and within his Love. It is therefore the action of the Church who, in the Eucharistic communion in which she is but one with Christ, unites herself to the love of God in order to become, herself, the Love of the men who are her brothers in the world, and thus to become her own Love, to participate in her own sanctification, in her own personal growth in charity as the Body of Christ. And with the passage of time, from Eucharist to Eucharist, from communion to communion, the Church grows and is built up by going to Christ and uniting herself to him, with the very Love of God that she had received on the day of Pentecost and that she continues to receive each time that this great Mystery of Christ and the Church is perpetuated and renewed.

Having entered a Benedictine abbey in France as a postulant on October 2, 1976, I professed my first vows on April 4, 1978. It was in this manner that the grace of my priestly vocation, which I had received on November 11, 1975, began to be inserted into the mission of the Universal Church. On June 29, 1983, I was ordained priest and minister of the Almighty Lord: on that unforgettable day, the grace of my priestly vocation, which had been until then but a personal grace, truly became a grace that was ecclesial, because it was sacramental, through the imposition of the Bishop's hands. But, a dozen years later, on November 25, 1994, I left this French abbey and returned to Belgium. It was, in fact, time for the grace of my priestly vocation to receive an even greater and more open insertion into the mission of the Church. This is what happened through my incardination, as a secular priest, in the diocese of Namur, on November 28, 1997.

Let us go back a little. In September 1981, I had the opportunity to go to Ciney, in Belgium, with several confreres. I did not know at the time that it would be the beginning of my attachment to the diocese of Namur, to which I presently belong. I had, in fact, already read the life of brother Mutien-Marie de Ciney, but once I arrived at Ciney, I had the opportunity to study his autobiographical manuscript. And very soon this brother of the Christian Schools, renowned for his sanctity, became very dear to me. Not only because my visit to Belgium had allowed me to pray at his tomb several times, but also due to the fact that, for twelve years, I had attended a school run by brothers of the same Congregation, and also because, besides the coincidence of November 11 mentioned above, I had received the sacrament of confirmation and renewed my profession of faith on May 15, 1969, that is, on the anniversary of the blessed death of brother Mutien-Marie of Ciney (May 15, 1940). But, even more recently, this dear brother manifested his presence in my life, for May 15, 2002, was the day chosen by Divine Providence for my installation as Titular Canon of the Cathedral Chapter of Saint-Aubain in Namur: truly, Mary, through the intercession of her servant, founded my priestly vocation in the city and diocese of Namur!

Through the intercession of that great Apostle of Mary who was Brother Mutien-Marie of Ciney, the date of November 11, 1975, reminded me, not only of my priestly vocation, but also of my confirmation in the faith. As the sacrament of confirmation is nothing other than baptism in its perfection, I also could not forget this last-mentioned sacrament, which is the source and foundation of all Christian life, and, by that very fact, of all priestly life. I was born on April 2, 1957, and the sacrament of baptism was conferred on me on the twenty-eighth day of the same month; I was given the sole Christian name of Daniel. For me, therefore, this sacrament means two things: a name, Daniel; and a date, April 28. First, the name. Daniel is one of the four great Prophets of the Old Covenant: he announces the victory and triumph of the Kingdom of God over the kingdoms of this world. For the Christians of the New Covenant, Daniel is thus the Prophet of the Eucharist, since, in this sacrament, Christ anticipates his glorious and triumphal return at the end of time. Next, the date. On April 28, the Church celebrates the birth in Heaven of Saint Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort (1716), Doctor of the Church, one of the greatest Apostles of Mary. So to enter, on such a day, into the Church, of which Mary is the type and model, is an unequivocal sign of a calling to the service of Mary.

Today, therefore, I am sure - I firmly believe it to be the case - that my priestly mission is entirely directed towards the Eucharist and towards Mary: towards the Eucharist for Mary, and towards Mary for the Eucharist. But there is more. Since November 11, 1975, reminds me of the one baptism in which all Christians participate, this day causes my memory to be taken over by the Trinitarian Mystery of the One God, whose extension to all of creation constitutes baptism itself. Indeed, Brother Mutien-Marie of Ciney had received the mystical grace of an intimate union with the Trinity, a grace which had developed in him through the hidden and discrete influence of Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, a nun of the Carmelite convent of Dijon (now located in Flavignerot, France). Lastly, it is particularly under the patronage of this very same nun that my priestly mission towards the Eucharist and towards Mary falls within the proper context of the Trinitarian Mystery. And it is indeed so, since my first intimate and personal encounter with Jesus-Eucharist, my first communion, took place on April 19, 1964, anniversary of the first communion of Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity (April 19, 1891).

Hence, within the general perspective of the Trinitarian Mystery, I believe that I have been called to consecrate my priestly life to the Eucharist, because of my baptismal name, and to Mary, because of the date on which I received this name. Now, on one hand, insofar as a name expresses the entire reality of a person - which is, in the course of a human lifetime, specifically immutable - that name possesses a permanent character. On the other hand, as a date determines a precise point in time, which is intrinsically fleeting and elusive, it possesses a transitory character. Thus, I can say that my priestly mission has the Eucharist as its constant and ultimate end; and Mary as a means to this end. In other words, my priestly life must be wholly devoted to Mary in order for it to be entirely consecrated to the Eucharist: I can accomplish my mission towards the Eucharist only if I go through Mary.

After the Incarnation of the Word of Life, after she had become the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mary then also married, not a God, but a man: Joseph, of the house of David. In other words, the Holy Spirit, who is God and who initiates all that is both divine and human, entrusted his Spouse Mary as well as all that She accomplishes to the care and prudence of Saint Joseph. In conclusion, I can say, and I believe without hesitation, that this work, this work of God on the subject of the Eucharist, is the work of Saint Joseph, who carries out the work of Mary under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I am attempting here to explain not only the Eucharist, but also Mary, this study on the Eucharist is nothing other than a gift or present offered to Mary by her Spouse Joseph, guided and illuminated by the Spirit of God.

1. There is a fact that imposes itself upon us: the Eucharist presents itself under the form of food, whether it be solid, like bread, or liquid, like wine; the Eucharist appears to be the perfect sacrament of Christ in person, for he said: My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Jn. 6:55) As such, the Eucharist is destined to be eaten or drunk by the Church, for, without an act of nutrition, food remains absolutely without effect: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (Jn. 6:53) So any adequate study of the Eucharist must discuss, in a proper and exclusive manner, the eating of the Eucharist by the Church, a nutritive and vital act that is commonly called Eucharistic communion: this will be the precise subject of our study. Now, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas - the great Doctor of the incarnate Word - the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of Christ, bears this name (that which expresses its complete reality) because it contains the fullness of grace of the divinity of Christ: «Dicitur Eucharistia, id est bona gratia, quia (...) realiter continet Christum, qui est plenus gratia.» We call it the Eucharist, that is to say, good grace, because (...) it truly contains Christ, who is full of grace. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 73, a. 4, corp.) Thus, insofar as the sole subject of our study is the act of Eucharistic communion, we see that we cannot avoid placing ourselves at first - in the initial phase which these Preliminaries constitute - within the proper domain of the mediation of Mary. The union of Christ-Eucharist and the Church in the act of sacramental communion necessarily relates to the ministry of the Virgin Mary in her unique and exclusive office as the Mediatrix between the grace of the incarnate Word and the free will of every human person.

2. The office of the mediator, considered in its unifying function - which is the case here, since we are discussing the act of Eucharistic communion - intrinsically comprises the role of transmitting goods from one to the other, and this reciprocally: «Conjungit mediator per hoc, quod ea quae unius sunt, defert ad alterum.» The mediator unifies by communicating to one what belongs to the other. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 26, a. 2, corp.) Consequently, the mediation of Maryis necessarily exercised in a double sense: a descending sense, in which the grace of God is transmitted from Christ to the Church, and an ascending sense in which the freedom of man is committed to God, in Christ. The mediation of Mary considered in its descending sense, from Christ to the Church, belongs to the doctrine of the Church that can be considered certain, or quasi-certain. Pope Saint Pius X himself testifies to this: Since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption (...) she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. (Encyclical Ad Diem illum, February 2, 1904 - Latin text in Denzinger, no. 3370). On the other hand, today there still exists an incertitude, or semi-obscurity, concerning the dogmatic weight of the ascending sense of the mediation of Mary. To convince oneself of this, it is sufficient to open the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which declares simply, in a concise manner: The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary (no. 2679), prayer thus being the full and complete expression of human freedom. We see that this text, as beautiful and as precious as it is, does not tell us if the prayer of the Church of which it speaks also includes, intrinsically, that great Prayer of the Church that is the Eucharistic Prayer...

3. In order that it might one day be possible for the mediation of Mary, understood in both its senses, to be defined as a dogma of the faith, this point of doctrine must be clarified and explained in even greater depth: this is the goal we propose for these Preliminaries. Moreover, the attentive reader will have discovered in the title of this book - The Eucharist: the Church in the Heart of Christ - an expression of the ascending movement of the Church towards the Heart of Christ through Mary Mediatrix. To nourish herself of the Eucharist, the Church must place her hand upon the consecrated bread and wine, thus entrusting her freedom, through the mediation of Mary, to the merciful Love of the Heart of Jesus... But before dealing with this matter, we would like to provide in this introduction a brief doctrinal synthesis of the mediation of Mary, as well as a succinct account of the historical evolution, in the continuity of thought, of the greatest of the dogmas lived in the Church.

4. All of the doctrinal content of the mediation of Mary is summarized under the subtitle that we have given this book: How the Church offers herself to the Father, in Christ, with the Holy Spirit, for Mary Mediatrix. That is, the communion of offering - realized in prayer - of Christ and the Church, sacramentally united in Eucharistic communion, is accomplished in an indissociable manner for both the eternal Father, source of the Spirit of Love, and Mary Mediatrix, Spouse of the Holy Spirit. This subtitle includes two indissociable principles, which we will have the opportunity to develop throughout the course of this book. The first principle is that the prayer of the Christian believer, insofar as it is united to the great Eucharistic Prayer of the Liturgy, is the unique and particular means through which the human person can completely offer himself, and principally his freedom, to God: when the Church goes toward Christ, when she goes into the Heart of Christ, the Church offers herself to God, in Christ, exchanging Love for Love with the Holy Spirit. The second principle is that, given that what defines a mediator is to be at the exact midpoint between the two elements of the mediation, the mediating element cannot exist except in virtue of the existence of the extremes it unites: when we draw a straight line on a piece of paper, we go from one end of the line all the way to the other, passing through the line's midpoint, but we cannot know precisely what the line's midpoint is until after we have drawn the entire line, from one end to the other; in summary, for every mediator of the corporeal order, the midpoint wholly depends on the union of the extreme points. Within the framework of research into the ascending sense of the mediation of Mary - that is, in the case of the Church going toward Christ-Eucharist through Mary Mediatrix - the notion of the mediator of the corporeal order is absolutely fundamental and essential: it is through the intermediary of Mary considered as a mediator of the corporeal order that the Church can place her hand upon the Eucharist, in a spiritual act of offering to the Father, in the Holy Spirit.

5. Thus, the essence of the mediation of Mary is contained in two complementary notions: one, of the corporeal order, which consists in the fact that the two extreme elements of the mediation of Mary, who are Christ and the Church, give birth, through their mutual and reciprocal union, to the mediating term or midpoint, who is Mary Mediatrix; and the other, of the spiritual order, which consists in the fact that the mediating element, or Mary Mediatrix, in virtue of her mediating and unifying action, gives birth to the conjunct and simultaneous union of the extremes of her mediation, who are Christ - and in Him, the Father in the Holy Spirit - and the Church. Let us note that these two notions of the mediation of Mary, one of the corporeal order and the other of the spiritual order, are not only complementary, but also indissociable from each other, since, the Eucharist being a food, this sacrament is necessarily eaten by the whole human person, that is, the human person considered simultaneously and inseparably as body and soul. This is why, when we shall consider the corporeal aspect of the mediation of Mary, the spiritual aspect will also be discussed, necessarily and conjointly, at that time; and the same will also be true when we shall consider the spiritual aspect of the mediation of Mary, when the corporeal aspect will also make an appearance, although from a different point of view and following a different approach.

6. In order to show the reader the continuity in time of the mediation of Mary, understood in the double sense described above (see no. 5), we shall cite several authors, diverse in their functions within the Church and in the spiritual experiences that they have undergone. We shall begin with contemporary personages (twentieth century) and then go back in time until we reach the sixteenth century; although Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (eighteenth century), whom we shall quote, cites Saint Bernard (twelfth century), we, however, shall not go back beyond the Protestant era, that is to say, the time when Martin Luther manifested his doubt and incomprehension vis-à-vis the attitude of the Christian who invokes Mary, ut Beatam Virginem colat mediatricem loco Christi, such that he honors the Blessed Virgin mediatrix in the place of Christ (Martin Luther, letter of August 19, 1523, to the Chapter of the Church of Wittenberg - Werke, Briefwechsel, 3. Band, nr 648, 45); indeed, it is usually only after a doctrine of the Church is contradicted or questioned that it begins to achieve, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, its full progress and its perfect development. Let us point out that the authors cited below may at certain times emphasize one aspect of the mediation of Mary, and at other times the other aspect; but at all times in a unity of thought.

7. It would be impossible to begin this Marian retrospective without first citing the most recent of those authors who are entirely devoted to Mary and to her son Jesus: Pope John Paul II, to whom, moreover, this book is dedicated. Numerous are the discourses and other writings that this worthy Successor of Peter has dedicated to Mary. Of these, one must mention first the encyclical Dominum et vivificantem (The Lord, the giver of life) on the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and of the world (May 18, 1986); but especially the encyclical that is its sequel, entitled Redemptoris Mater (The Mother of the Redeemer), on the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the pilgrim Church (March 25, 1987). However, to celebrate with Mary the twenty-fifth year of his Pontificate, John Paul II wanted to consecrate to the Mother of Jesus a year of the Rosary, from October 2002 to October 2003. During this Marian year, a Pope who is wholly devoted to the cause of Mary said the following: Mary «gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger» (Lk. 2:7). This is the icon of Christmas: a tiny newborn child, whom the hands of a woman wrap in poor cloths and lay in a manger. Who could imagine that this little human being is the «Son of the Most High» (Lk. 1:32)? Only she, his Mother, knows the truth and guards its mystery. On this night we too can join in her gaze and so recognize in this Child the human face of God. We too - the men and women of the third millennium - are able to encounter Christ and to gaze upon him through the eyes of Mary. (H.H. John Paul II, Homily for the Midnight Mass of Christmas 2002) To look through the eyes of Mary, to join in her gaze in order to know and to recognize God in Jesus! This is a very beautiful synthesis of the mediation of Mary considered in its principal act, of the corporeal order: namely, the Nativity of the Lord, as we shall see in the course of these Preliminaries (see Chapter Two).

8. A Pole like Pope John Paul II, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, one of the most recent theologians of the mediation of Mary, and also one of the best known, expresses his thought in the following manner: The Mediatrix of all graces is Mary. It is towards her that we go, like children to their mother. (Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Conference - no date - in L'Immaculée révèle l'Esprit-Saint (The Immaculate Lady Reveals the Holy Spirit), p. 69) He explains this in the following manner: Certainly the source of all good, both in the natural plane and in the supernatural (grace), is God the Father who acts at all times through the Son and the Holy Spirit: that is, the Most Holy Trinity. Truly, the only Mediator with the Father is the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, God and man, through whom all the homage that we pay to God is transformed from human to divine, and thus acquires an infinite value and becomes worthy of the majesty of the Father. Truly, we love the Father in the Son, Jesus Christ, and we should give Him all our love so that the Father may receive all our love in Him and through Him. However, it is true that none of our actions, not even the holiest of them, are without stain, and if we wish them to be pure and immaculate when we offer them to the Lord Jesus, we must give them directly to the Immaculate Lady in order for her to make them her own property and to give them as such to her Son. It is only then that they shall be without stain, immaculate. In receiving an infinite value through the divinity of Jesus, they shall glorify God the Father. (Letter to Brother Matthew Spolitakiewicz, October 10, 1935, in L'Immaculée révèle l'Esprit-Saint (The Immaculate Lady Reveals the Holy Spirit), p. 71).

9. Around 1920, a Belgian religious, brother Mutien-Marie of Ciney, of the Christian Schools, the nephew of Saint Mutien-Marie of Malonne, wrote the following sentences as spiritual resolutions: My vocation is love!... love for Mary! (...) I shall imitate God in his love for Mary: the Most Holy Trinity has done everything to glorify Mary. I shall love Mary through Jesus Christ in Holy Communion. I shall love Mary through My Three. I shall be the Jesus of Mary, loving Mary only through Jesus!... I shall be the love of the Most Holy Trinity for Mary, loving Mary only through My Three. (Complete unedited autobiographical manuscript, p. 111 - not to be confused with the Excerpts from which we shall reproduce a passage below). Speaking of Holy Communion for the glorification of Mary, the same brother explains: Holy Communion, practiced in this manner, would thus have the glorification of God as its goal, by reminding Jesus and Mary of their mutual love and by perpetuating, in a manner of speaking, Jesus' life of loving Mary, his Mother (...) Of course, this is not to say that Jesus should be a means to loving Mary, that the Creator should be a means and the creature an end; rather, this is done with the tender intention of pleasing Jesus and Mary, who have placed all of their complaisance in each other. (Excerpts from the autobiography of Brother Mutien-Marie of Ciney, page 76 of the Tournai edition, 1951)

10. In her own way, which is wholly interior, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, a Carmelite religious of Dijon, expresses how she conceives - similarly, even almost identically - the life of praise and offering to both the Most Holy Trinity and Mary: In the heaven of our soul, let us be praise of glory to the Holy Trinity, praise of love to our immaculate Mother. (Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, Souvenirs (Memories), p. 117) And the anonymous author of the Memories adds, a little later: Sister Elizabeth's belonging to the three divine Persons increased her tender devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin and gave her, as it were, a more intimate connection of grace with she who, according to her expression, was the great praise of glory to the Holy Trinity. Her soul is so simple, its movements are so profound, said Sister Elizabeth, 'that we cannot detect them; she seems to reproduce on earth that life which is that of the divine Being: the simple Being; she is also so transparent, so luminous, that we might take her for light: and yet she is but the mirror of the sun of justice. (ibid. p. 139) And elsewhere, in a letter to a recently ordained priest, it pleased Blessed Elizabeth to compare that minister of Christ - the sole Mediator - with Mary, priest and mediatrix of divine grace: With the Virgin, you can sing your Magnificat and thrill in God your Savior, for the Almighty does great things in you and his mercy is eternal... Like Mary, keep all these things in your heart, and keep your heart close to hers, for this sacerdotal Virgin is also the Mother of the divine Grace... (ibid. p. 143)

11. Of a completely different nature, although possessing as much warmth, is the following testimony: The [idea of the Mother of God] is perfectly distinct from [that of God incarnate], and does not interfere with it. He is God made low, she is a woman made high. (...) He who charges us with making Mary a divinity, is thereby denying the divinity of Jesus. Such a man does not know what divinity is. Our Lord cannot pray for us, as a creature prays, as Mary prays; He cannot inspire those feelings which a creature inspires. To her belongs, as being a creature, a natural claim on our sympathy and familiarity, in that she is nothing else than our fellow. (...) We look at her without any fear, any remorse, any consciousness that she is able to read us, judge us, punish us. Our heart yearns towards that pure Virgin, that gentle Mother, and our congratulations follow her, as she rises from Nazareth and Ephesus, through the choir of angels, to her throne on high, so weak, yet so strong; so delicate, yet so glorious; so modest and yet so mighty. She has sketched for us her own portrait in the Magnificat. He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaid; for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. (John Henry Cardinal Newman, excerpts from a Letter addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on the Occasion of His Eirenicon of 1864)

12. On the night of July 18 or 19, 1830, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to a French nun, a Daughter of Charity: Saint Catherine Labouré. In this apparition, it was Mary who, through her gestures more than her words, described herself as Mediatrix of grace and of offering between Christ and the Church. This is what a biographer of the saint reports to us:Catherine communicates the interior command just as it is given to her; it principally concerns the altar: Now, for two years I have felt some urgency to tell you to build or have erected an altar dedicated to the Blessed Virgin in the very place where she appeared. But above all, this altar must include a statue of the Blessed Virgin, just as she had seen her, in that place. She insists on a detail that she had never before mentioned: Our Lady held a ball in her hands, which represented the globe. She held her hands at waist-height, in a very natural manner, her eyes raised to Heaven (...) It is a look of imploration and a gesture of offering for this world: her children whom she loves to protect. Here her face was very beautiful. I could never describe it; and then, all of a sudden, I noticed rings on her fingers, covered in precious stones, some more beautiful than the others, some larger and others smaller, and shining out from them were rays of light, some of which were more beautiful than the others (...) The voice led her to understand that we do not hope enough: The jewels which do not shine with light are the graces that people neglect to ask of me (...) Catherine herself had specified, in the April 10 autograph (...) The Virgin offered the globe to Our Lord. This is impossible to put into words. It would be impossible for me to express it. (René Laurentin, Vie authentique de Catherine Labouré (Authentic Life of Catherine Labouré), pages 184 and 268)

13. The great prophet and interpreter of Mary Mediatrix is, without doubt, Saint Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort. Although all of his teaching is very useful and precious, we shall nevertheless restrict ourselves to quoting a short passage, the one that seemed to us to be the most important. Saint Louis-Marie recommends that we perform all our actions - of which the most excellent is certainly Eucharistic communion - THROUGH MARY, WITH MARY, IN MARY, AND FOR MARY, in order that they might be more perfectly performed through Jesus Christ, with Jesus Christ, in Jesus and for Jesus. (Traité de la vraie dévotion à la Sainte Vierge (Treatise on the True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin), no. 257) He develops this as follows: All our actions must be performed for Mary. For as we have wholly placed ourselves in her service, it is right that we do everything for her like a valet, a servant and a slave; not, of course, because we consider her the final end of this service, which is Jesus Christ alone, but rather because she is our proximate end, our mysterious intermediary, and the easy way for us to go to him. (ibid. no. 265) And he concludes: GLORY TO JESUS IN MARY! GLORY TO MARY IN JESUS! GLORY TO GOD ALONE! (ibid.)

14. Living in the same period as Saint Louis-Marie is another great Doctor: Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. Citing an ancient author (no reference given), he tells us: Saint Bernard exhorts us to always have recourse to this heavenly Mother, because her prayers are certainly heard by her Son: Have recourse to Mary, I tell you without hesitation, the Son shall certainly hear his mother's prayer. And he adds: My little children, it is she who is the ladder of sinners; it is she who is my greatest confidence; in her is all my reason for hope. The saint calls her the ladder because, as we can climb to the third rung of a ladder only if we first set our foot on the lowest rung, in the same way we do not reach God except by way of Jesus Christ, and we do not reach Jesus Christ except by way of Mary. (Le grand moyen de la prière (The Great Way of Prayer), ch. 1, no. 27) And he continues on the same subject: Other doctors speak in conformity with Saint Bernard's sentiment (...) Saint Bernardine of Siena says in a certain place (...): Through the Virgin, the vital graces are transfused from the head, Christ, into his mystical body. From the instant when the Virgin Mary conceived in her womb the divine Word, she obtained, if I dare to say it in this manner, a certain jurisdiction over any temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, no creature shall obtain from God a grace which does not belong to the distribution made by this tender Mother (...) Saint Bonaventure writes thus: The whole of the divine nature having been enclosed within the womb of the Virgin, I do not hesitate to say that this virgin has obtained a certain jurisdiction over all the graces which flow from it. In her womb, as in a divine lake, the rivers of all graces find their source. (ibid.)

15. To conclude, here is the testimony of a Spanish Jesuit, Venerable Luis de la Puente, who lived in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Since our loss has its origin in a man and a woman, Providence wanted our salvation to also have its origin in a man and a woman; principally through Jesus Christ, who is our head, our sole mediator, and the Father of the world to come, and also through his blessed Mother. All men may address either of them with confidence, as they would address their Father and Mother. For the intention of Our Lord, in choosing Mary as his mother, was that she would also be the Mother and advocate of sinners; and that if sinners, through a natural enough fear, would not dare to turn to him for help, because he is not only a man like them and their advocate, but also their God and their judge, they would be able to turn to Mary, who is not to be their judge, but only their advocate, mediatrix, and Mother (...) I give you thanks, o Eternal Father, for having given us a Father and Mother of the same nature as ourselves, through whose intercession we are sure to be able to arrange our reconciliation with you. I give thanks to you as well, o divine Word, for wanting your Mother to be ours as well, and for wanting her to serve as our mediatrix and to present us before the throne of your mercy, defending us from the rigors of Your justice. (Ven. Fr. Luis de la Puente, Méditations (Meditations), Volume I, 2nd Part, 3rd Meditation - p. 400-401)

16. We have just quoted Venerable Father Luis de la Puente; since we shall have recourse to his learning again in the course of this study, and in order to convince the reader of his great authority in matters of doctrine, here are several facts concerning him and his life: Luis de la Puente, Spanish, was born in Valladolid on November 10, 1554 (...) He was received into the Society of Jesus at the age of twenty (...) His infirmities growing day by day, he was obliged to completely renounce both his post as a teacher of youths and the responsibilities imposed upon him by his Superior. He therefore began to write, offering to the public what he had learned up to that time, which was derived less from the reading of spiritual books than from his own personal experience, the exercise of prayer, and a continuous mortification of his will, his appetites, and his senses (...) He was especially devoted to the Blessed Sacrament. He spent entire nights in profound contemplation, prostrated on the ground before the body of his God and Savior. During the day, he often went to adore him; and it was during such visits that the Holy Spirit enlightened him extraordinarily, and filled his heart with consolations (...) He died in Valladolid, on February 17, 1624 (...) Father de la Puente appeared after his death to several people, radiant with glory (...) He allowed himself to be seen with several marks of the glory he enjoyed, and in particular with the crown of a Doctor of the Church, because he had left to the Church a salutary doctrine, which he had received from the Holy Spirit. (Account of the Life of Father Luis de la Puente, in the Meditations, Volume I - pages I, II and IV)

Principally, we shall see that, if Mary is Mediatrix (which is the case, according to the testimony of Tradition), then Mary exercises her mediation in a strictly corporeal manner; and this she does by means of Holy Scripture, which explicitly states that there is but one mediator, Christ (cf. 1 Tm. 2:5). This comes down to saying that our main purpose shall be to establish that the mediation of Mary is fundamentally realized by means of Holy Scripture, and at the same time by means of Eucharistic communion, this mediation therefore having, in a completely proper manner, a truly corporeal aspect. Lastly, in our conclusion, we shall produce the testimony of three Fathers of the Church in order to confirm and defend with authority all that we will have said, in general, concerning the mediation of Mary understood in its corporeal aspect.

18. The goal of these Preliminaries dedicated to the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect is the study and investigation of the different aspects and the principal characteristics of the role carried out by Mary when she guides and leads the Church, by way of mediation, to the bosom of the Trinity, where she already is in a manner that is completely personal and characteristic of her, that is to say in a way that is first and perfect, since she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 53) In other words, one must consider Mary to be aiding, in accordance with the Divine Will, both the Trinity and the Church; for, insofar as she is Mediatrix between Christ and the Church, Mary allows, through her efficacious aid, the union of the Trinity and the Church in Christ: The salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 60)

19. To say that Mary, in Christ, is the mediatrix between the Trinity and the Church, and to say that, by this very fact, Mary allows, through her aid, the union of the Trinity and the Church in Christ, necessarily supposes, on one hand, that Mary is in the Trinity and in the Church, and on the other hand, that the Trinity and the Church are in Mary. So, concerning the first of these two propositions, Saint Maximilian Kolbe expressly teaches, speaking of Mary in the Trinity: She is a creature so exalted that one of the Fathers does not hesitate to say she is 'the complement of the Holy Trinity. (Letter to Brother Salezy Mikolajczyk, July 28, 1935, in L'Immaculée révèle l'Esprit-Saint (The Immaculate Lady Reveals the Holy Spirit), p. 51; in fact, Saint Hesychius of Jerusalem says that Mary Mediatrix is OLON TES TRIADOS TO PLEROMA: the total complement of the Trinity; Patrologia Graeca 93, 1461) Later, Saint Maximilian Kolbe developed his thought by saying: She, inserted into the love of the Most Holy Trinity, becomes from the first moment of her existence, and forever, the complement of the Holy Trinity. (Sur l'Immaculée Conception (On the Immaculate Conception), February 17, 1941, ibid., p.50) And speaking of Mary in the Church, he declares: The Immaculate Lady knows all and guides all. One must consent to her guiding us from good to better, and it is she, through us, who shall do the most for the salvation of souls, winning them to herself and thus to the Heart of Jesus. (Letter to Brother Salezy Mikolajczyk, December 28, 1934, ibid., p. 113-114) This is something he had already expressed in a different way some time before: Let us open to her our heart and our soul and our body and our all, without reservation and without limit; let us wholly consecrate ourselves to her in order to become her servants, her sons, her unconditional property; so that we might, in a way, become her, living, speaking, and acting in this world. (Letter to the Clerics of the Order, February 28, 1933, ibid., p. 113)

20. Concerning the second proposition, namely that the Trinity and the Church are in Mary, Saint Maximilian Kolbe tells us, first, with regard to the presence of the Holy Trinity in Mary: «The Lord is with thee!» Truly, God is always with her, and in such a close and perfect way. Is she not like a part of the Holy Trinity? God the Father is her Father, the Son of God is her Son, the Holy Spirit is her Spouse! And, wherever she goes, she brings with her all of the Holy Trinity (...) Wherever she is absent, God, Jesus is absent as well; and wherever she is, the Holy Trinity is there also. (Meditation, April 14, 1933, ibid., p. 50) Second, concerning the presence of the Church in Mary, he does not hesitate to expressly declare: One must entrust oneself to the Immaculate Lady, she is completely divine. One must completely strip oneself of oneself, and keep nothing for oneself, absolutely nothing: it is necessary that she do everything. (Conference, February 17, 1938, ibid., p. 114-115) And he develops this last point in the following manner: To achieve this, we must live in her soul, think with her thoughts, etc., in order that there might be no difference between our ways of seeing, just as there is no difference between her desires and the Will of God. (Conference, November 24, 1938, ibid., p. 115)

21. To the testimony of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, let us add, first, that of the Venerable Father Luis de la Puente. Speaking of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, he exclaims, Oh! what pleasure it was for the Most Holy Trinity to see this Virgin, so accomplished in all kinds of virtues! The Eternal Father gloried in having brought into the world a daughter so worthy of him. The divine Word joyfully esteemed such beauty and grace in she who would be his Mother. The Holy Spirit was delighted to have found such a spouse. In a word, the three Persons took possession of this saintly soul, and there established their residence. (Meditations - Volume I - Part II - Meditation III, p. 409) And he continues, on the subject of the nativity of Mary: If many rejoiced in the birth of Saint John, because he was the precursor of Jesus Christ, then how much more should the entire world rejoice in the birth of Mary, whom God destined to be his own Mother? This consideration should produce a holy joy in our hearts, and rouse us to praise God and to congratulate the Most Holy Trinity for this beloved Virgin who has come into the world; the Father, because a daughter has been born to him; the Son, because a Mother has been born to him; and the Holy Spirit, because a spouse has been born to him. O admirable Trinity, may the birth of this girl, who is so dear to You, be a thousand times blessed! Impart upon me the same feelings of joy that You give to so many others on this happy day, for Mary was born for my sake as much as for the sake of everyone else. (ibid., Meditation IV, p. 410-411) Next, to summarize all of the Church's Tradition on this subject, down to the present day, let us cite Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater on the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the pilgrim Church. The Successor of Peter presents the role of Mary Mediatrix between the Holy Trinity, where Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and the Church, in which Mary occupies the first place, in the following manner: On the day of Pentecost (...), begins that journey of faith, the Church's pilgrimage through the history of individuals and peoples. We know that at the beginning of this journey Mary is present. We see her in the midst of the Apostles in the Upper Room, prayerfully imploring the gift of the Spirit. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 59) In a sense her journey of faith is longer. The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God, offering 'the full submission of intellect and will...and freely assenting to the truth revealed by him,' indeed abandoning herself totally to God through'the obedience of faith, (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 5) whereby she replied to the angel: Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word. (Lk. 1:38) The journey of faith made by Mary, whom we see praying in the Upper Room, is thus longer than that of the others gathered there: Mary goes before them, leads the way for them. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 63) (H.H. John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, no. 26) And a little later, the Pope adds: From the very first moment, the Church looked at Mary through Jesus, just as she looked at Jesus through Mary. (ibidem)

22. Insofar as Mary, considered in the Holy Trinity, exercises, in Christ, the office of mediatrix between the Holy Trinity and the Church; and if we consider not the Persons - the Trinity and the Church - who are set in relation to each other through Mary's mediation, but the gift - which is grace - that Mary has the obligation of transmitting from the Holy Trinity - in Christ - to the Church; then we can say that Mary has no higher or more worthy function than that of transmitting to the Church, in Christ, all of the Mystery that is the Holy Trinity itself, that is to say, the Mystery proper to the one and triune Divinity, which is, of its very nature, uncreated Grace. In other words, Mary Mediatrix in the Holy Trinity reveals to the Church this same divine Trinity of which, in a certain way, she is a part. So, in Rome, on April 12, 1947, during an apparition to a Protestant Christian, Bruno Cornacchiola, Mary clearly proclaimed that she is, forever, Mediatrix of the Mystery of the one and triune God in Christ, saying, I am She who is in the divine Trinity. I am the VIRGIN OF REVELATION. (cf. Msgr. Fausto Rossi, La Vierge de la Révélation (The Virgin of Revelation), p. 18) But what is also important to note is that Mary, in the course of this same apparition, addressed words to that Christian which were maternal and full of strength and encouragement in order to help him in his conversion to the sovereign Good which is the one and triune God; thus, after the above words, she said to him, You persecute me; stop immediately! Enter into the chosen flock, the celestial court on Earth. The promise of God is, and remains, immutable: the nine Fridays of the Sacred Heart, which you had observed in order to please your faithful wife before you began following the path of error, have saved you! (ibid.) So here we find a first principle, wholly contained within the title of our Preliminaries: Mary in the Trinity, for the Church.

23. If we suppose that Mary is a mediatrix between God - in Christ - and the Church, this is the same as considering the mediation of Mary to be the means through which God, one and triune, reveals himself to the Church: Mary Mediatrix is then She through whom the Mystery of the Holy Trinity is transmitted, by mode of revelation, to the Church, in Christ. Now, for his part, Christ is also a mediator between God, whom he is himself, and the Church: Christ is he who reveals God to the Church, according to the teaching of Vatican II, which declares that Christ (...) is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation. (Dei Verbum, no. 2) Thus, according to our supposition, we are in the presence of two mediators: Christ and Mary. These two mediators are essentially different and distinct from each other, for Christ and Mary are both persons, and one's person is, intrinsically, totally incommunicable. In addition, Christ is a mediator in a primary or principal manner, since he possesses both a divine and a human nature, while Mary possesses only a human nature. Thus, according to the testimony of Tradition, there certainly exist two mediators, who are the two persons, distinct and incommunicable, of Christ and Mary, Christ being the principal mediator, and Mary being the secondary mediator. Now, opposed to all this, at least in appearance, is the following passage from Scripture, which declares through Saint Paul, There is but one God, and one sole mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. (1 Tm. 2:5) So we must introduce a notion will allow us to reconcile these two affirmations: that of Tradition, which teaches that there are two mediators, Christ and Mary; and that of Scripture, which declares that there is but a single mediator: Christ. Now, the notion that allows such a reconciliation can be none other than that of mystery, that is, that which surpasses created reason, for only the notion of mystery can allow the reconciliation of the fact that a single reality can, at the same time and under the same relation, be one and double, or even one and multiple. Consequently, if Mary is truly mediatrix (and this is what we intend to demonstrate), then this can only be so in a mystical or mysterious way.

24. The mediation of Mary is of the mystical order; Mary is Mediatrix if we consider her as a Mystery with respect to Christ-Mediator. Now, as we have just established, this mystery of the Mediation of Mary rests entirely on the notion of the person - there are two mediators because Christ and Mary are two different and distinct persons. Therefore, as man is essentially composed of a spiritual soul and an organic and material body, it follows that the mediation of Mary - if we consider Mary as a Mystery - necessarily possesses two absolutely essential aspects: one spiritual, the other corporeal. But, concerning the spiritual aspect of the Mediation of Mary, as what is spiritual is simple and one, we are intrinsically reduced to considering solely the unique mediation of Christ, with which the mediation of Mary is then confused in its spiritual aspect. This is what Saint Paul brings to the fore when he associates the oneness of God, who is spirit (Jn. 4:24), with the oneness of the Mediator, who is Christ (see 1 Tm. 2:5 as cited in no. 23). Consequently, by the process of elimination, we can conclude from the above that it is solely the corporeal aspect of the mediation of Mary that allows us to consider Mary as the Mediatrix - in a mystical way - with, and in union with, Christ-Mediator.

25. Mary Mediatrix, considered in a mystical manner, and thus, by that very fact, in her union with Christ-Mediator, cannot be conceived of as Mediatrix except according to the corporeal aspect of her mediation. Now, concerning Christ-Mediator - always in the first place, since he is God - Saint Paul calls him, mystically, and in a corporeal manner, the head of the body, of the Church (Col. 1:18), and even the head of every man (1 Cor. 11:3). Thus, as Mary Mediatrix is necessarily different and distinct from Christ-Mediator, we can call Mary Mediatrix, in a mystical and corporeal manner, only in reference to that part of the human person that is not the head; that is, in reference to all that is strictly the body: Mary Mediatrix is therefore mystically, in a corporeal manner, the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). But the notion of the body of Christ, in virtue of the multiple and compound aspect of the human body, necessarily refers not to a single person, Mary Mediatrix, but rather to many, as Saint Paul confirms when he says, We, though many, form but one body. (1 Cor. 10:17) It thus follows that Mary Mediatrix, insofar as she is mystically called the body of Christ, must be considered as one of the members of the Church, as a simple member of the faithful, to whom the following words of the Apostle apply, No man has hated his own flesh; on the contrary, each nourishes it and takes care of it, just as Christ does for the Church, since we are the members of his body. (Eph. 5:29-30)

26. In accordance with the corporeal aspect of her mediation, Mary Mediatrix must be considered as a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. This amounts to saying that, insofar as the proper function of Mary Mediatrix consists in revealing to the Church all of the Mystery of God, one and triune, in Christ, Mary Mediatrix exercises the office of Mediatrix in her own behalf: Mary, a simple member of the mystical Body of Christ, reveals to herself, by way of mediation, the entire Mystery of the Holy Trinity. And this cannot be accomplished except in and through the sacramental act of Eucharistic communion. In accordance with the corporeal aspect of the mediation of Christ and of Mary, understood in a mystical sense, Christ and Mary are corporeally distinct and different from each other: Christ is the Head, and Mary is the Body. It is thus in Eucharistic communion, in which, on one hand, Christ, acting as the Head in deciding his own mode of existence, is present under the corporeal appearances of bread and wine; and, on the other hand, Mary, acting corporeally in the eating of the sacrament, manifests her ordinary existence as a human person. Furthermore, Christ-Eucharist necessarily being passive if we consider him as real food (Jn. 6:55) and as real drink (ibid.), we must say that it is truly Mary who acts when she places her hand upon the sacrament in order to bring it to her mouth and thus be nourished by it: therefore it is truly Mary who, in virtue of the divine Will manifested by the institution of the Eucharist under the form of food or drink, reveals to herself, in a sacramental manner, the Word of God incarnate in Christ. In other words, in Eucharistic communion, Mary, through her human action, allows God, one and triune, to reveal himself sacramentally to her.

27. The corporeal aspect of the mediation of Mary consists, for Mary, in revealing to herself the Mystery of the Holy Trinity through the sacramental action of Eucharistic communion. Now, first, since all that concerns the divinity is essentially characterized by the notion of fullness, it follows that Mary, in receiving the Eucharist, carries out her office of mediatrix in a mode of qualitative fullness, that is, a fullness relative to the object of her mediation, which is the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. Second, Mary, in receiving the Eucharist, carries out her office of mediatrix in a mode of quantitative fullness, that is, a fullness relative to the totality of the proper subjects of her mediation. Indeed, we know that, in order to receive the Divinity in Eucharistic communion, it is necessary to be agreeable to God: one must possess the divine gift of sanctifying grace. Now, on one hand, the mediation of Mary - as Mystery - is founded on the notion of the person (see no. 23); and, on the other hand, the proper name of Mary, that is, the expression of all of her person, is full of grace (Lk. 1:28). Consequently, with respect to the subject of her mediation - that is, every human person called to belong to the Body of Christ, which is the Church - Mary exercises this same mediation according to a mode of quantitative fullness: because she is personally full of grace, Mary is the mediatrix between Christ, who is God, and each and every one of the persons who make up the Church. Finally, all of this allows us to say that, when, in virtue of her fullness of grace, Mary receives the Eucharist, she does so, necessarily and directly, as mediatrix, in Christ, between the Holy Trinity and the Church considered in all her fullness, or considered in terms of the totality of the elect of God in Christ; and that, by this very fact, it is only in an indirect manner that Mary receives the Eucharist in order to reveal to herself - insofar as she is a simple member of the Church - all of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. In other words, Mary, in receiving the Eucharist in virtue of her fullness of grace, carries out her office of mediatrix in a mode of qualitative and quantitative fullness, that is, a fullness in relation to both the object and the totality of the proper subjects of her mediation.

28. In receiving the Eucharist, Mary sacramentally, in an absolutely full manner, qualitatively as well as quantitatively, carries out the office of her mediation, which is to reveal to the Church, in Christ, all of the Mystery of God, one and triune. But as, on one hand, Christ-Mediator is He whose living human body, visible and material, serves as the intermediary and the means through which the Church is able to see the invisible God (Col. 1:15), which Christ himself expressly declared, saying: No one comes to the Father except through me (...) He who has seen me, has seen the Father (Jn. 14:6,9); and as, on the other hand, the sacrament of the Eucharist, insomuch as it truly contains the bread of God (Jn. 6:33) made flesh (Jn. 1:14), is called, and truly is, under the sacramental species, the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16); we may conclude, from the foregoing, that Mary Mediatrix reveals to the Church the Mystery of the Holy Trinity by means of the sacramental Body of Christ, just as Christ-Mediator accomplishes the same action by means of his personal and historical Body. So here is a second principle, wholly contained within the subtitle of our Preliminaries: The corporeal aspect of the mediation of Mary.

30. Given that we are discussing the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect (see nos. 24 and 28), the Trinitarian Revelation of God, with respect to the Eucharist, and concerning Mary Mediatrix, cannot be found elsewhere than in Holy Scripture, which is the corporeal aspect of divine Revelation, or the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 9) Now, in Holy Scripture, in verse 57 of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John, we find, in a single sentence, God's Revelation of himself as Trinity and, in a mutual relation, the explicit Revelation of the Mystery of Eucharistic Communion. Therefore, this verse of Holy Scripture (Jn. 6:57) can be offered as a sure foundation for the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect. But, by that very fact, that is to say, given that this scriptural passage deals implicitly with the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect (since it possesses all its proper characteristics), we must necessarily read and understand this text by means of essentially human notions, that is, not directly as being the Word of God, simple and unique (because it is spiritual), but rather as being humanly - because corporeally - the words of God (Jn. 3:34 - cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 4), which are always multiple in themselves.

31. If we have chosen the text of John 6:57 (which we shall analyze in detail below), it is because it fully corresponds to the proper characteristics of the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect (see nos. 29 and 30). On one hand, the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect possesses the following characteristics: the first, which is absolutely essential, is its corporeal dimension; the second, which relates to the way it is exercised, is that it is accomplished by way of Eucharistic communion; the third, which relates to its object, is that it allows the Most Holy Trinity to reveal itself in person. On the other hand, the scriptural passage of John 6:57 possesses the following characteristics: the first is its corporeal dimension, since it is a written text; the second is that this text uses the means of Eucharistic communion to speak to us, since it describes the communion of life, by mode of nutrition, between Christ and the Church; the third is that it allows the Most Holy Trinity to reveal itself to the reader, since it describes the comparison between the divine Trinitarian Life and Eucharistic communion. So, based on all this, given that Holy Scripture, since it contains the words of God (Jn. 3:34 - see no. 30), is fully included and comprised within the Eucharistic mystery, which is that of the unique Word of God communicated to man, we can say that Holy Scripture in general, and the passage of John 6:57 in particular, is the exclusive corporeal means - which is parallel to the mystery of the Eucharist and included in it - through which Mary Mediatrix reveals to the Church, in Christ, the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. By this very fact, in virtue of the two senses of the mediation of Mary, if the passage of John 6:57 comes from God through Mary, then it must likewise be read and interpreted by the Church by means of, and through the intermediary of, Mary.

32. As we have just noted (see no. 31), the object of the mediation of Mary is the Holy Trinity itself. This means that Mary is mediatrix, by mode of revelation, between the Holy Trinity and the Church. But, as we have seen that Mary reveals to herself, by means of Eucharistic communion, all the Mystery of the Holy Trinity (see no. 26); and in virtue of the relation of inclusion between Holy Scripture and the Eucharistic mystery (see no. 31); we can also say that Mary, by means of Holy Scripture, reveals to herself the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, a Mystery contained, not directly in the unique Word of God, but rather indirectly in the multiple words of God which comprise Holy Scripture. In other words, with respect to the object of her mediation, Mary is mediatrix between the Holy Trinity and herself. Now, on one hand, Mary, as mediatrix, is She who is in the Divine Trinity: Mary cannot be mediatrix between the Holy Trinity and herself except if she belongs, in a certain way, to the Holy Trinity (see no. 19). On the other hand, the Holy Trinity, as the object of the mediation of Mary between this same Holy Trinity and the very person of Mary, is the One who is in Mary; that is, the Holy Trinity, revealed in Christ by means of Holy Scripture, which is composed of multiple divine words, is in every human person who freely welcomes into himself this Revelation, as the Lord confirms, saying: If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (Jn. 14:23) Furthermore, as we are discussing the mediation of Mary exercised by means of Holy Scripture, and as this same Holy Scripture is, intrinsically, solely corporeal and material - since it is of the order of signs - we must consider the mediation of Mary to be exercised, in the present case of Revelation by means of Holy Scripture, solely in a corporeal manner. In other words, Mary Mediatrix, although being - by mode of mediation - in corporeal and spiritual communion with the Holy Trinity by means of the Eucharistic mystery, is nonetheless, in this case, only in corporeal communion with this same mystery of the Holy Trinity; by this very fact, Mary, in the act of Revelation by means of Holy Scripture, cannot and must not be considered other than according to her body, and not according to her whole person, that is to say both body and soul. Consequently, from all the foregoing, we can easily conclude, first, that that which is solely corporeal - that is, Mary - is in that which is solely spiritual - that is, God - and second, that that which is solely spiritual - God - is in that which is solely corporeal - Mary. By this very fact, we can say that, considered as mediatrix between the Holy Trinity and the Church, Mary, who possesses a body, is similar to God, who is spirit (Jn. 4:24): she is the new Eve, who was created, along with Adam, in the likeness of God (Gen. 5:1).

33. In John 6:57, God-Trinity reveals himself to the Church through Mary Mediatrix. Now, we have just seen that, as mediatrix between the Holy Trinity - in Christ - and the Church, Mary is similar to God-Trinity. Thus, when God-Trinity reveals himself, he cannot - because he wills it to be so - fail to reveal, by that very fact, the human person of Mary who is similar to him: the Revelation of God-Trinity, in Holy Scripture, is absolutely inseparable from the Revelation of Mary Mediatrix, and this in a manner that is simple and one, in virtue of the simple character of the divinity, which is always first in what concerns the fact of Revelation. But as Mary is not similar to God-Trinity except insofar as she is mediatrix, that is to say the intermediary between the Holy Trinity and the Church, we must clearly affirm that, when God-Trinity reveals himself in Holy Scripture, Mary Mediatrix, as a human person similar to God-Trinity, serves as a point of comparison and an obligatory way of passage for the reading and interpretation, in union with the Spirit of God, of the Trinitarian Revelation of John 6:57. Consequently, as a principle, we can conclude that, when God reveals himself as the Trinity in John 6:57, one cannot fail to apply to the divine notions contained in this text all of the fully human notions which directly relate to these same divine notions. This means that we must necessarily compare the Trinitarian life - which is essentially one and triple, one in divine essence, and triple in persons - to human life - which is also, and is alone, one and triple, because it is one and multiple, one in its spiritual soul sanctified by grace, and multiple in its animal, organic, and material body. This is our third principle - a consequence of the first two (see nos. 22 and 28) - which will allow us to analyze the scriptural passage of John 6:57 in detail.

34. The scriptural passage of John 6:57 contains the words of Christ himself: as this is the case, this text is the expression of the Word of God addressed to men through the intermediary of Christ in person. But inasmuch as the Church reads the words of John 6:57 by means of the inspired book called the Bible, or Holy Scripture, it is also, at the same time, the Word of God addressed to men through the intermediary of Mary Mediatrix, since, first, the writer of this text is Saint John, one of the members of the Church, and second, the Church receives all Trinitarian Revelation of the exclusively corporeal order - that is, by way of Holy Scripture - through the intermediary of Mary Mediatrix (see no. 31). Thus, as, on one hand, Mary Mediatrix, within the context of her mediation with regard to Holy Scripture, must be considered solely according to her body; and as, on the other hand, that which is exclusively corporeal is necessarily composite and multiple; it follows that the passage of John 6:57, considered as the Word of God addressed to men through the intermediary of Mary Mediatrix, cannot - inasmuch as it is a Trinitarian Revelation revealing Mary Mediatrix (see no. 33) - fail to have several (at least two) written versions of the unique Word of God revealed by Christ. In other words, the scriptural passage of John 6:57, although having but a single human formulation in the spirit of Christ who is God, nonetheless necessarily possesses at least two different formulations, written by a man - in this case Saint John - guided in the faith by the Spirit of God. By this very fact, in our interpretation of John 6:57 through the intermediary of Mary Mediatrix, we shall have to take into account the various expressions that we may encounter in the different versions or translations of Holy Scripture.

35. In the Bible de Maredsous (Bible of Maredsous), we find the following French translation: Tout comme le Père, qui m'a envoyé, est vivant, et comme je vis par le Père, ainsi celui qui me mange vivra par moi. (Just as the Father, who sent me, is living, and as I live through the Father, in the same way he who eats me shall live through me.) (Jn. 6:57 - Bible de Maredsous, 1990 edition - This version of the Bible was produced by the monks of the Abbey of Maredsous, in Belgium, with the collaboration of the monks of the Abbey of Hautecombe, in France.) This first translation, with regard to the first clause of this sentence, places the accent on the Life of the Father and of the Son in the Holy Spirit; it is thus similar to that given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where we read: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. (no. 1391) The second translation is that of the Latin Vulgate. Saint Jerome translates the original Greek in the following way: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem; et qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me. (Jn. 6:58 - In the Latin Vulgate, verse 57 is numbered 58) This second translation gives a different sense to the first clause of the sentence: here the accent is placed on the mission of the Son by the Father, a mission accomplished with relation to the divine Trinitarian Life; thus, this second translation closely resembles that given by the French Litugical Lectionary, in which it is written: De même que le Père, qui est vivant, m'a envoyé, et que moi je vis par le Père, de même aussi celui qui me mangera vivra par moi. (Just as the Father, who is living, has sent me, and as I live through the Father, likewise he who will eat me shall live through me.) (One must nonetheless note a difference between this last translation and the text of the Vulgate, for the verb manducat must be translated by the present tense eat, and not by the future tense will eat.) Thus, the scriptural passage of John 6:57, with regard to the first clause of the sentence, is clearly seen to be the revelation of the Father and of the Son acting in a Trinitarian manner (the Holy Spirit being implied when we speak of the Father and the Son together), and this revelation may be described in two related ways: either the Father and the Son, in Heaven as on the earth to which this same Son was sent, live in relation to each other in the unity of the Holy Spirit (as is said in the conclusion of the Collect of the Mass); or the Father sends his Son while remaining united to Him by the bond of Life, which is that of the life-giving Spirit (Credo).

36. If we compare and explain the text of John 6:57 with the help of concepts proper to the human person, that is, if we compare divine Trinitarian life to human life, which is at once both spiritual and corporeal, then we shall see that the two different ways in which the action of the Father and of the Son described in John 6:57 is expressed harmonize with each other and are united in an absolutely simple manner, and this in virtue of the very notion of the human person, which is simply similar to the knowing subject - that is, us - and to the known object, which is God (see nos. 32 and 33). Thus, our purpose below shall be to show that the act of life of the Father and of the Son in the Holy Spirit, an act of life considered ad extra, that is to say from the point of view of Revelation, is absolutely the same reality as that which is accomplished when the Father sends his Son, the bearer of the Holy Spirit, into the world. Thus, although God's act of life - since it is eternal - is unique in itself, whether we consider it ad intra or ad extra (the act of God ad intra is the act of God in itself; the act of God ad extra is the act of God outside itself), nevertheless, if we base ourselves on the similarity that exists between God and the human person, a similarity that attains its fullness in the hypostasis of Christ, then the act of life of God is an act of generation, if we consider it ad intra: it is similar to the act of a woman who conceives within herself a child in her conjugal relation with a man. So this is an act through which the Father, in the Spirit whom he himself is by his very nature (cf. Jn. 4:24), begets his Son, the Word of life (1 Jn. 1:1); in other words, the act of life of God ad intra consists in the generation of the divine Word - one, eternal and indivisible - as it is written: You are my son, today I have begotten you. (Ps. 2:7) But, according to the same comparison with the human person, the act of life of God is also, and at the same time - since it is an absolutely unique act - an act of birth or of bringing into the world, if we consider it ad extra: in this case it is similar to the act through which a woman brings into the world, and into the light of day, the child she had held hidden within herself during the time of her pregnancy. Thus, the act of life of God considered from the viewpoint of birth is nothing other than the act, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, which consists in the sending into the world of the Son by the Father; in other words, the Word hidden in the secret of the Spirit of the Father is then unveiled and manifested to the world in this same Holy Spirit borne by the Son, by the Order and the mission of the Father, according to what Saint Paul wrote: When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman. (Gal. 4:4)

Moreover, this is confirmed by the fact that baptism - the sacrament of initiation into the shared divine Life - is called the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1213), but also the sacrament that "signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5)." (ibid. no. 1215) Lastly, it seems clear that the act of divine life described in John 6:57, inasmuch as it is an act that is divinely revealed ad extra, must be considered as an act of birth, or of bringing into the world; and that, by this very fact, in virtue of the necessary comparison between divine life and human life (see no. 33), the two translations of John 6:57 quoted above (see no. 35) express, each in its own way, a single unique reality, namely the very Life of God-Trinity.

37. The scriptural passage of John 6:57, with regard to the first clause of this sentence, is a revelation of the act of divine life considered as an act of birth or of bringing into the world, that is to say, as an act equivalent to the sending of the Son by the Father in a common life-giving Spirit (Credo) - (see no. 36). Now, these words of John 6:57 are strictly speaking those of Christ, as we have already mentioned (see no. 34). Furthermore, this supposes that, at the moment when Christ pronounced these words of John 6:57, he had already been born of the Virgin Mary, who "brought him into the world" (Lk. 2:7). Therefore, this means that the act of divine life, inasmuch as it is an act of birth, or inasmuch as it is an act of life revealed to the world by means of Holy Scripture, necessarily and wholly depends on the act of the human birth of Christ. But, as, on one hand, the act of revelation of divine life realized through the words of John 6:57, inasmuch as they are the words of Christ, is - intrinsically - a divine act, an act of the Word of God incarnate; and as, on the other hand, the act of the human birth of Christ is an essentially corporeal act, and thus an act that is exclusively human, accomplished by Mary, Mother of Christ; it must be affirmed, jointly with - although contrary to - what we have just said, that the act of the human birth of Christ necessarily and wholly depends on the act of divine life, or the act of birth, which constitutes the revelation accomplished by the words of John 6:57, since all that is essentially human fully depends on all that is essentially divine. Consequently, from the foregoing, it is easy to conclude - always in virtue of the principle that God is first, and the creature is second - that when Christ, who is God, accomplishes the act of revelation of divine life, that is to say, an act of divine life by mode of birth, he also accomplishes at the same time the human act of his birth into the world through Mary, and this in a mystical manner, since it is realized through the intermediary of a second mediator united to him, who is unique (see no. 23). So Christ, the fullness of all Revelation, brings to perfection the words of the Psalmist, which state: He spoke, and it was done. (Ps. 32:9 and 148:5, according to the Vulgate). Finally, according to the analysis we have just done, it seems clear that verse 57 of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John can be used as a sure and absolute scriptural basis for the mediation of Mary in its corporeal aspect, since it expresses and realizes all of the principal act of this mediation.

38. We have just concluded our commentary by pointing out the fact that the principal act of the mediation of Mary resides in the Mystery of the Nativity of Christ considered as the act through which, in a manner that is one with and indissociable from this same act, the Church receives the Revelation of all of the Trinitarian Mystery in a corporeal mode (see no. 37). Now, it is not evident that, of all the Mysteries of Christ lived by Mary, that of the birth of the Lord according to the flesh would be the principal one. But, if we were to show that, in this same Mystery of the Nativity, Mary, ever Virgin, appears clothed in the very power of the Almighty, then it would be clear that the Mystery of the birth of Christ is the principal act in which and through which the mediation of Mary is exercised. This is what we propose to do below.

39. The conclusion of our scriptural analysis (see no. 37) obliges us to consider the Mystery of the Nativity in association - this association being simple and one, since it is divine in origin - with the Trinitarian Revelation accomplished by Christ in John 6:57. As the act of Christ's birth according to the flesh is a fundamentally human act, the conclusion we have just stated can also be expressed thus: to the divine act of the Revelation that Christ accomplishes in John 6:57 must necessarily be associated, in a manner that is one and indissociable, an act that is properly human, of the same order as the aforementioned divine act, that is to say an act of human or natural revelation. In other words, in its union with Christ's act of divine Revelation in John 6:57, the act of the nativity of this same Christ accomplished by Mary must be considered, intrinsically, as an act of natural revelation, bringing human nature in all its fullness into the world and into the knowledge of all nations. This consists in the application in act of the following principle: Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully reveals man to man himself. (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 22) But, in virtue of the fact that Christ acts in conformity with his own words, as the Psalmist says: He spoke, and it was done. (Ps. 32:9 - 148:5) - (see no. 37), it follows that the association, simple and one, between the act of divine Revelation and the act of human revelation corresponds to the association, also simple and one, between divine words and human words, and, by this very fact, between the divine Spirit and the human spirit in the proper and exclusive context of Revelation. In other words, there cannot be Revelation considered as such unless we associate, in a manner that is one and indissociable, the Wisdom of God and the philosophy of man. This is why, given that the scriptural passage of John 6:57 is fundamental with respect to the mediation of Mary, we must set down the capital rule that the concept of Mary Mediatrix cannot fail to be the fruit of the association, simple and one, of divine Revelation and human philosophy operating together.

40. In this association, simple and one, between divine Revelation and human philosophy, the latter is first and fundamental, while divine revelation is second, that is to say dependent on human philosophy. Indeed, human philosophy being altogether relative to the human birth of Christ (see no. 39), it follows of itself that human philosophy precedes divine Revelation, just as the human birth of Christ naturally precedes his public ministry carried out in the Trinitarian Revelation of John 6:57. Furthermore, human philosophy, because it is altogether relative to the human birth of Christ, which is an exclusively corporeal act, must be considered as a science, one not of unity but rather of multiplicity with respect to the fact of Revelation. Inversely, divine Revelation, which has as its source and origin the Word of the one God, possesses in itself the very character of unity: the Logos, in its act of Revelation, is the maker of unity par excellence. Consequently, concerning the concept of Mary Mediatrix, it is a certainty that the arguments of human philosophy will ceaselessly divide the concept without ever succeeding in grasping it in its full unity; and that, by this very fact, it can only be through the ulterior intervention of divine Revelation - in this case the inspired text of John 6:57 - that the concept of Mary Mediatrix can aspire to be fully grasped in a unity of thought. It is thus that, in the case of our interpretative conclusion concerning John 6:57 stated above (see no. 38), the two premises of the argument - namely, first, the dependence of the act of divine life by mode of birth, or seen from the perspective of Revelation, vis-a-vis the act of the human birth of Christ; and second, the inverse dependence of the act of the human birth of Christ vis-a-vis the act of divine life by mode of birth - these two premises were found to be irremediably separated from each other by essentially different philosophical concepts. Saint Thomas Aquinas testifies to this when he speaks in the following terms of the first premise founded on the proper concept of the person: «Propter identitatem, quae in divinis est inter naturam, et hypostasim, quandoque natura ponitur pro persona, vel hypostasi, et secundum hoc dicit Augustinus naturam divinam esse conceptam, et natam ; quia scilicet persona Filii est concepta, et nata secundum humanam naturam.» Due to the identity that exists in divine things between nature and hypostasis, sometimes the word 'nature' is used instead of 'person'; and it is in this sense that Saint Augustine says that divine nature was conceived and born, since, of course, the person of the Son was conceived and born according to human nature. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 35, a. 1, ad 1) Similarly, concerning the second premise founded on the proper concept of nature, Saint Thomas tells us: «In Christo sunt duae naturae, divina scilicet et humana : quarum unam accepit ab aeterno a Patre, alteram accepit temporaliter a matre ; et ideo necesse est attribuere Christo duas nativitates, unam qua aeternaliter natus est a Patre, aliam qua temporaliter natus est a matre.» In Christ there are two natures, namely the divine and the human: one he received, from all eternity, from his Father, and the other he received, in time, from his mother; and this is why it is necessary to attribute to Christ two births, one by which he is born eternally from his Father, and the other by which he is born temporally from his mother. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 35, a. 2, corp.) But, as we have seen (see no. 37), if we place each of the two premises into a direct relation with the text of John 6:57, considered as divine Revelation accomplished by Christ in person, then the union, simple and one, of these two premises is achieved, and the concept of Mary Mediatrix is fully grasped through this association of divine Wisdom and human philosophy.

41. In the application of the rule by which divine Revelation and human philosophy are associated, in a manner that is simple and one, the primary reference on which one must base oneself is human philosophy (see no. 40). However, on one hand, as the proper notion of philosophy or human revelation proceeds exclusively from the notion of divine Revelation, to which this same human philosophy is united in a manner that is simple and one (indeed, the birth of the God-Man proceeds from the Will of God, who wants to reveal himself - see no. 39); and on the other hand, as the notion of divine Revelation is altogether relative to the life of God fully actualized in the Word of life (1 Jn. 1:1); one must necessarily conclude from the foregoing that, in the application of the aforesaid rule, the basic reference is and must be the philosophy of human life understood in all its fullness, and that, by this very fact, the proper concept of Mary Mediatrix, which is governed by this same rule, cannot be fully grasped except according to this basic reference of the philosophy of human life, and thus, necessarily, without any reference to the notion of death - inasmuch as it is opposed to life - and also, without any reference to the notion of sin - inasmuch as it is a rejection and a refusal of divine Life. Now, according to this basic reference of the philosophy of human life, if the rule of association, simple and one, between divine Revelation and the philosophy of human life applies to the words of Christ which constitute the scriptural passage of John 6:57, this same rule also applies, in an absolutely perfect manner, to the Person of Christ himself inasmuch as he is the first and original author of these same words of John 6:57. Consequently, the following principle may be posited: Christ, the incarnate Word of Life, fits fully, as a person, into the context or basic reference of the philosophy of human life. In other words, the Word of God, the Son who is consubstantial with the Father, incarnated himself in order to reveal and to communicate to men, by mode of fully assumed human life, all the divine Life which is proper to him.

42. In the proper context of the Trinitarian Revelation of John 6:57, let us apply to the Person of Christ himself the rule of association, simple and one, between divine Revelation and the philosophy of human life. As Christ is God and Man, this association attains in him its fullness and perfection, and by this very fact, divine Revelation is perfect and full with respect to the Word of life (1 Jn. 1:1), and likewise, the philosophy of human life is perfect and full with respect to the humanity of Christ. As the philosophy of human life is the basic reference for the application of the aforementioned rule of association, one must begin by considering the perfect philosophical knowledge of the human spirit of Christ with respect to the particular domain of human life. Now, given that the humanity of Christ was assumed by the divine Word with a view to the Trinitarian Revelation to men (see no. 41), one must hold as certain, in virtue of the communication of idioms in the Person of Christ, that the divine Word, from the first instant of his union with the humanity that he assumes, that is to say, from the moment of the conception of Christ according to the flesh, has communicated the proper character of the perfect revelation of himself as a living being. As no being can reveal his own life in a perfect manner unless he knows it intimately, it follows that from the instant of his conception, Christ-Man had perfect philosophical knowledge concerning his own human life in particular; and as Christ is the perfect Man (since he is the One who reveals man to himself - see no. 39), Christ-Man likewise had, from his conception, perfect philosophical knowledge concerning the domain of human life in general. But, at the very instant the Incarnation, the divine Word accomplished for the humanity of Christ all of the raison d'être of this same act of the Incarnation, namely the communication to men of the Trinitarian Mystery of the living God (see no. 41). Consequently, from the instant of his conception, Christ-Man had not only perfect philosophical knowledge of human life, but also perfect supernatural knowledge of the divine Trinitarian Life. This is what Saint John testifies when he says that Christ is full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). However, it must be noted that, with regard to all philosophical knowledge other than that of human life, Christ had acquired it during the course of his life, since it is written: Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man. (Lk. 2:52)

43. Christ-Man, from the time of his conception, had a perfect philosophical knowledge of human life and a perfect supernatural knowledge of Trinitarian life. Now, on one hand, as Christ is the perfect Man, and on the other hand, as man in his perfection had been created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5:1), in other words, as the living human person is similar to the living God in his Trinitarian Mystery (see no. 33), one can say that, in the Person of Christ, the concept of human life and the concept of divine Trinitarian Life find their perfect resemblance and similitude. It then follows that Christ-Man, from the time of his conception, had a perfect philosophical knowledge, not only of human life, but also of the divine Trinitarian Life, and, jointly, a perfect supernatural knowledge, not only of the divine Trinitarian Life, but also of human life as such. By this very fact, at the precise moment of the act of the Trinitarian Revelation of John 6:57, Christ-Man possessed the two types of knowledge of which we have been speaking. Now, philosophically, with regard to Trinitarian life, God - because he is pure act - eternally accomplishes but a single act of life: the act of generation, or the conception of the Word by the Father in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the very moment when Christ-Man, under the inspiration of the Word, humanly utters the words of John 6:57 as Trinitarian Revelation, he cannot fail to think in himself, in his spirit, that God is pure act: it is a fact that is connatural to his person. However, as Trinitarian Revelation ad extra, the words of John 6:57 are in no way an act of divine life by mode of generation, but rather, necessarily, as we have seen above (see no. 36), an act of birth into the world. Furthermore, as Christ speaks the Truth, since he is full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14), that which he says exteriorly in words corresponds to what he thinks interiorly in spirit. Consequently, at the moment he pronounces the words of John 6:57, if Christ philosophically thinks that the act of life of God, as pure act, is an act of generation, then he also simultaneously thinks that the act of life of God is an act of birth, and he does so under the inspiration of the interior Revelation of the divine Word.

By this very fact, on one hand, as the act of generation is intrinsically the first act of life, and as the act of birth is intrinsically the subsequent or second act of life (with respect to the first act of generation); and on the other hand, as the passage from one act of life to another cannot be accomplished without potentiality, or the corresponding passive power; one must say that, in the very act of the Trinitarian Revelation of John 6:57 accomplished under the inspiration of the divine Word, Christ-Man cannot fail to think in his spirit that God-Trinity is passive power, or even that potentiality is proper to the divine Trinitarian Life in its act of Revelation ad extra. Finally, in virtue of the rule of association of divine Revelation and the philosophy of human life, it is clear that, within the proper context of the Trinitarian Revelation of John 6:57, Christ cannot fail to think in his human spirit that God-Trinity, as living Being, is indissociably both act and power, pure act in virtue of the philosophy of human life, and passive power in virtue of the Revelation of the Word of Life himself.

44. The analysis of the scriptural passage of John 6:57 has allowed us to conclude that, with respect to the human spirit of Christ, God is indissociably both act and power if we consider him in his intimate Trinitarian life. But, as the utterance of the words of John 6:57 by Christ, an utterance which is essential to the fact of Revelation, requires the intervention and the aid of the active power of the corporeal organ of the mouth in particular, and of the head in general, it must also be added that the words of Christ in John 6:57 are not only a divine Trinitarian Revelation, but also, at the same time, a Revelation of the divine Omnipotence, insofar as we can understand it through the passage of John 6:57, and one which, consequently, is composed of passive power and of active power, in a manner that is one and indissociable, like the body and soul of a living man: in John 6:57, Christ really and practically manifests the power of his word (Heb. 1:3). This is why Christ had begun his discourse at Capernaum by saying, in speaking of the bread of God (Jn. 6:33): I am the bread of life. (Jn. 6:35) This, in effect, is a Trinitarian Revelation in which Christ speaks of divine Life in the form of food, which corresponds to the divine Life ad extra by mode of the act of birth, or of the second act of life, which can have no relation to the first act of life except by way of the potential means of food, itself conditioned by the power of eating of he who eats. By pronouncing the words I am the bread of life, that is to say by eating them through the active power of his body, Christ renders manifest and public, by mode of birth, the passive power conceived in his human spirit under the inspiration of the Word of Life eternally begotten by the Father.

46. If we have chosen the text of John 6:57 in order to study the mediation of Mary in Holy Scripture, it is because it consists in a Trinitarian Revelation - the proper object of the mediation of Mary - set in direct relation to the sacramental action of Eucharistic communion, which is the proper means placed by Divine Providence at the disposal of Mary for the exercise of her mediation (see nos. 29 and 30). This amounts to saying that the scriptural passage of John 6:57 is the expression - divinely revealed and humanly set down in writing - of the act by which Mary Mediatrix places her hand upon Christ-Eucharist in order to nourish herself with him and thus receive the Trinitarian Revelation fully contained in Christ, the incarnate Word of Life (see no. 26). Now, inasmuch as she is Mediatrix, Mary must necessarily be the first of all the human persons who make up the Mystical Body of Christ: if Mary is Mediatrix - and we have already proven this in our analysis of the text of John 6:57 (see no. 37) - then all necessarily pass through her, and therefore after her - since they are acting in a corporeal manner - to go to Christ-Eucharist and receive from him the Revelation of Trinitarian life. Consequently, in thus acting as the first, or by mode of priority, vis-à-vis the Eucharist, Mary Mediatrix is similar to the person of the Roman Pontiff - the Pope - since, according to Tradition, the Vicar of Christ is the first of all priests, whether they be of the first or the second order (priests of the first order are the bishops, and those of the secon