La Mariologia Franciscana del siglo XIII

• Autores: José María Salvador González
• Directores de la Tesis: Enrique Cantera Montenegro (dir. tes.)
• Lectura: En la UNED. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia ( España ) en 2024
• Idioma: español
• Número de páginas: 338
• Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Javier Vergara Ciordia (presid.), Manuel Lázaro Pulido (secret.), Piotr Roszak (voc.)
• Programa de doctorado: Programa de Doctorado en Historia e Historia del Arte y Territorio por la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
• Materias:
  • Historia
  • Ciencias de las artes y las letras
  • Filosofía
• Enlaces
  • Tesis en acceso abierto en: e-spacio
• Resumen

  • In this doctoral thesis we seek to shed light on the contributions that the teachers of the Franciscan School of the 13th century proposed regarding the main Mariological problems that at that time were hotly debated within the Church. Among such problems, the most notable are whether the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, and whether she was assumed body and soul into heaven a few days after her death. Other Mariological problems faced by the Franciscan thinkers of the thirteenth century are that of the eventual omniperfection of the Virgin's virtues, that of her presumed status as Queen of Heaven, and that of her possible role as a merciful intercessor of humanity before its divine Son Christ.

    We have divided this Thesis into two large parts and a concluding epilogue. The First Part consists of two introductory chapters, the first of which deals with the formulation of the problem, the state of the matter, the general and specific objectives, and the theoretical-methodological framework. Chapter 2 presents a brief outline of the basic biographical data and the ariological writings of the main teachers of the Franciscan School of the 13th century, which is examined in the context of the Mariological problems debated up to that period.

    The Second Part, composed of four chapters, constitutes the core of the Doctoral Thesis, dedicated as it is to exposing the contributions that each Franciscan teacher under study presented to the main Mariological issues debated at that time.

    In Chapter 3 we present the arguments of each of the nine Franciscan thinkers who rejected the belief in the immaculate conception of Mary: those nine authors are, in chronological order, Saint Anthony of Padua, Jean de La Rochelle, Alexander of Hales, Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, Conrad of Saxony, Bartolomeo da Bologna, Pietro di Giovanni Olivi, Servasanto da Faenza and Matteo d'Acquasparta.

    Chapter 4 studies, however, the reasoning alleged by the three British Franciscan teachers of the 13th century who defended the thesis of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, namely, Robert Grosseteste, William of Ware and John Duns Scot.

    In Chapter 5 we present the demonstrations that, with implicit unanimity, the Franciscan Mariologists studied provided to affirm the assumption of the Virgin Mary body and soul to heaven.

    Chapter 6 develops the practically concordant evidence with which the aforementioned Franciscan thinkers defended the omniperfection of Mary's virtues, her status as heavenly Queen of angels and saints, and her decisive function as mediator and intercessor of humanity before its divine Son.

    In the Epilogue we recapitulate the essential conclusions that we have been able to draw after the analysis of the arguments adduced by each Franciscan teacher regarding the problems discussed, especially the issues regarding the immaculate conception of the Virgin and her corporal assumption to heaven, without forgetting the questions about the omniperfection of Mary's virtues, her heavenly royalty and her power as a universal mediator in favor of humanity. Finally, we have recorded the abundant References, both to the Primary Sources and the secondary Bibliography.

    Expanding even further the development of this Summary, we present below the data that we find most outstanding.

    In Chapter 1 of the First Part we address the problem and its theoretical approach. In the Statement of the problem we gave an account of the statements that the Church was establishing and consolidating about the Virgin Mary since the first centuries of our era. We said that from an initial discretion about the personality and role of Mary in the history of salvation, we moved rather quickly to increasingly strict theses about the privileged status of the Virgin above other human beings. In fact, several heresies that arose in the East about the person of Jesus Christ and, consequently, about that of his mother Mary motivated the Church to celebrate several Ecumenical Councils, which defined and consolidated certain complementary Christological and Mariological dogmas. In this sense, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Ephesus (431) established the fundamental Christological and Mariological dogmas. When the Council of Nicaea proclaimed as a dogma that in the one person of Christ two distinct natures subsist hypostatically and indissolubly united, the divine and the human, it also implicitly affirmed the divine motherhood of Mary. A little more than a century later the Council of Ephesus (431) ratified as dogma that the Virgin Mary is the true mother of God (Theotókos), and not only the mother of the man Jesus (anthropotókos). (anthropotókos).

    We further specify that this first Mariological dogma of the divine maternity of Mary was soon complemented by that which divine maternity was carried out in a virginal way, and then with the third Mariological dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and that, however, Two important Mariological theses remained unresolved at that time, that of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and that of her Assumption in body and soul to heaven, which will be the subject of ardent debates within Christianity for more than a millennium.

    We also indicate that other Mariological theses, such as the total holiness (tota sancta, gratia plena) of Mary, her Celestial Kingship and her universal Mediation in favor of humanity, without becoming official dogmas of the Church, were generally affirmed as beliefs. accepted by many sectors of Christianity in the form of devotions and liturgical festivals.

    We also warned that we would delimit our research according to the following limitations: restricting ourselves from the outset to the field of Mariology, we would analyze the approaches of fourteen conspicuous teachers of the Franciscan School of the 13th century on the two main Mariological problems still unsolved, the possible immaculate conception of Mary. and her alleged bodily assumption into heaven, as well as on three other Marian themes of less relevance, such as the omniperfection of Mary's virtues, her status as Queen of Heaven, and her role as mediator of humanity before her divine Son.

    Starting from this background, the general objective of the Doctoral Thesis is to specify in primary sources whether, and to what extent, each of the fourteen Franciscan thinkers of the 13th century under study contributed to one or the other of the two essential Mariological dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, as well as some of the three "minor" Marian issues, trying to shed light on the eventual novelty of such individual contributions. We also set five specific objectives, focused essentially on the recording and analysis of the original writings of each Franciscan teacher of reference, with a view to specifying the novelty and emphasis of the personal contributions of each of them to one or another of the five Mariological theses under scrutiny.

    On this basis, the methodology used in this Doctoral Thesis is essentially based, as already said, on the meticulous critical analysis of the primary sources of the time, especially the Mariological writings of each of the fourteen Franciscan teachers investigated. In this sense, we have thoroughly and systematically analyzed all the writings -almost always in their original Latin source - that each Franciscan thinker of the 13th century produced on the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary and the other three "minor" themes. Furthermore, we systematized the contributions of each of these teachers to one or another of the five beliefs under scrutiny, to determine the originality and emphasis with which each one defended or denied any of the five theses considered. After this first intratextual analysis, the intertextual analysis of the primary sources -by comparing the position of each teacher with those of the other thinkers studied - allowed us to specify the evolution of the five Mariological theses within the Franciscan School of the 13th century. Only after this thorough comparative analysis of the primary sources do we complement the research with secondary bibliography, to reconstruct the generic context of the five issues discussed and as a reference element that could help us confirm or problematize our interpretations on each topic in question.

    We divide Chapter 2 of the First Part into two sections. In the first of them we made a brief presentation of the basic biographical data and the Mariological writings of each of the fourteen Franciscan teachers under study. In the second section we contextualize the Franciscan School of the 13th century within the framework of the Mariology of the period, highlighting the debates held around the two essential and difficult problems already mentioned: the possible exemption from original sin in the conception of the Virgin Mary, and her alleged assumption body and soul into heaven.

    We then dedicate the extensive Second Part to exposing the various opinions that the fourteen reference Franciscan teachers gave more or less explicitly to the five burning Mariological problems investigated. For this reason, we structure this Second Part into four complementary chapters, each one dedicated to a specific issue.

    Chapters 3 and 4 are dedicated to exposing the two antithetical positions taken by Franciscan thinkers regarding the arduous problem of the immaculate conception of Mary. Chapter 3 deals with the responses of the opponents of this Mariological belief, while Chapter 4 deals with the demonstrations of the defenders of the immaculist thesis. As an eloquent and necessary introduction to both chapters, in the first section of Chapter 3 we exposed the doctrinal background that throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages served as the basis for the reconsideration of this burning immaculist question in the 13th century: there we point out the polemics against various heretical currents in the 3rd-5th centuries of our era, the various Ecumenical Councils that established the central Christological and Mariological dogmas, and the opinions formulated on this specific matter by various Fathers of the Church and medieval theologians.

    In the second section of Chapter 3 we exposed the objections and arguments of the Franciscan anti-immaculists to reject the belief in the immaculate conception of Mary. In this sense, together with the relatively sparse denials of Saint Anthony of Padua, Jean de la Rochelle, Conrad of Saxony, Bartolomeo da Bologna and Pietro di Giovanni Ulivi, we exposed in extenso the broad and complex arguments and counter-arguments that Alexander of Hales , Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio and Servasanto da Faenza proposed, following the scholastic method, to reject that the Virgin Mary had been conceived without original sin, with which -in the opinion of such teachers - all human beings are born, except Christ.

    The main arguments that several of the Franciscan teachers under study present against the thesis of the immaculate conception of Mary are the following: 1) The then dominant belief "based since Antiquity on the opinion of Saint Augustine and later on that of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux", according to which the libidinous concupiscence inherent in parental intercourse that produces the conception of human persons corrupts the flesh of the conceived and transmits original sin to him. For the medieval mentality, the conception of a human being -produced through intercourse, driven by libido - necessarily implied that the flesh (body) of the resulting fetus was infected with original sin, which, in turn, contaminated the soul. when this was infused into the body, at the moment of animation. For this reason, for the mentality of the time, every human being, conceived through libidinous intercourse, was inevitably born with original sin. In such circumstances, also the Virgin Mary, conceived naturally through intercourse, must necessarily be contaminated with original sin. This argument, formulated explicitly by Alexander of Hales, San Buenaventura and Matteo d'Acquasparta, is implicitly shared by his other six anti-immaculist colleagues.

    2) Other Franciscan teachers, including Alexander of Hales, adduced as evidence against the immaculate belief the saying of Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians "we are all by nature children of wrath (sin)." And this, according to them, does not exclude Mary.

    3) Others, like Saint Bonaventure, rely on Saint Paul's phrase in his Epistle to the Romans "all have sinned in Adam and need the glory of God." And that also applies to the Virgin Mary.

    4) Some Franciscan thinkers, including Bonaventure and Matteo d'Acquasparta, subscribe as anti-immaculist evidence to the opinions of Saint Augustine, Saint Leo the Great and Saint Bernard, who say that Christ, when he came to save us, found no one free from sin.

    5) Some of these teachers, such as Bonaventure and Matteo d'Acquasparta, fully assume the blunt statement of Saint Augustine: "Christ, who came into the world to take away sins, is the only one who came without sin." 6) As a complement to the previous proof, some Franciscan Mariologists, such as Alexander of Hales, subscribe to the statement of Saint Bernard, when he specifies that only Christ was conceived without original sin, because he was conceived virginally and supernaturally by the work of the Holy Spirit, without intervention. manly.

    7) Others, like Bonaventure, accept as proof against the immaculate belief the testimony of Saint Augustine, when he says that "no one is freed from sins except by faith in the Redeemer," which also applies to the Virgin.

    8) Several of the teachers investigated, especially Alexander of Hales and Saint Bonaventure, maintain that, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not need the redemption of Christ, something completely impossible, since all men need to be redeemed by Christ. .

    9) Matteo d'Acquasparta accepts as anti-immaculate proof the assertion of Saint Anselm, when he unequivocally asserts that Mary was conceived with original sin.

    10) Buenaventura alleges as evidence against the immaculate thesis the idea that Mary's purity, although supreme, is below that of Christ, who lacks all sin, while the Virgin had some sin; and, since she did not have any actual sin, neither mortal nor venial, it can only be admitted that Mary had original sin 11) As a final argument against the belief in the immaculate conception of Mary, Saint Bonaventure maintains that the anti-immaculate opinion is the most common, the most reasonable and the safest, because it agrees with the authority of the saints and with the piety of faith, which believes that Christ died for all of us, including the Virgin.

    However, despite the long list of arguments to reject the belief in Mary's immaculate conception, the nine aforementioned anti-immaculists defend that Mary was sanctified in the womb after being conceived with original sin. According to them, such a statement can be considered in accordance with these four possibilities, explicitly raised by Alexander of Hales, and implicitly contemplated by the other eight anti-immaculist Franciscans: a) First possibility: That Mary was sanctified in her parents before conception.

    Alexander of Hales and Saint Bonaventure raise this hypothesis, but, assuming the reasoning of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in this regard, they completely discard it, because no one can be holy before existing (before being conceived).

    b) Second possibility: That Mary was sanctified at her conception.

    This possibility is also rejected by the reference teachers, for the following reasons: - All of them implicitly, and especially Alexander of Hales and Saint Bonaventure, who formulate it explicitly, subscribe to Saint Bernard's thesis, when he states that Mary cannot be holy at her conception, due to the libido inherent in the intercourse of her parents.

    - Alexander of Hales complements this first argument, pointing out that at conception sanctification and original sin derived from libidinous intercourse cannot coexist at the same time.

    - Alexander of Hales adds as proof the fact that only Christ has the prerogative of having been conceived without sin, since, being already holy as God before his human conception, he was holy as a man at his conception because he was conceived virginally, without manly contest, by the work of the Holy Spirit.

    c) Third possibility: That Mary was sanctified after conception, but before the animation of the body by the soul.

    All anti-immaculist Franciscans also rule out this third possibility, each alleging various complementary reasons, some of which we can now underline: - Alexander of Hales, Saint Bonaventure and Matteo d'Acquasparta deny such an eventuality, because sanctification corresponds to the immortal soul, not to the corruptible flesh (body).

    - Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure and Matteo d'Acquasparta complement this first reasoning, by pointing out that before its animation the flesh (body) without a soul is corruptible and is not susceptible to sanctification, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit that can only be in the soul; nor is it susceptible of glorification in the resurrection, since, without a soul, the body would not have been born and, therefore, could not be resurrected.

    - Saint Bonaventure completes his argument in this regard by ensuring that the flesh of the Virgin could not be sanctified before her animation, since that would mean that such sanctification would occur in one of the following two possible ways: a) either the flesh of Mary It would be sanctified by the grace existing in its soul, which is impossible, since the flesh cannot be sanctified before the creation of the soul, which is what can be sanctified by grace; b) either Mary's flesh would be sanctified by the grace existing in the souls of her parents, which is also impossible, since sanctification is not transmitted to the child by the parents, who only provide the body, but not the soul.

    d) Fourth possibility: That Mary was sanctified after the animation of the body by the soul, but before being born.

    All of the anti-immaculist Franciscan Mariologists mentioned unrestrictedly subscribe to this fourth option, each of them alleging quite similar evidence. We can highlight here as the most commonly offered tests by these thinkers the following: - If, according to the Scriptures, the prophet Jeremiah and Saint John the Baptist were sanctified in the wombs of their mothers, with even greater reason Mary, whose holiness is far superior to that of Jeremiah and the Baptist, should have been sanctified in the womb maternal. This argument, initially formulated by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, is embraced, among others, by Alexander of Hales, Jean de la Rochelle, Saint Bonaventure and Conrad of Saxony.

    - Saint Bonaventure, and Servasanto da Faenza, among others, unreservedly assume the thesis of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, when he affirms that the Virgin was holy before she was born.

    - Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure and Servasanto da Faenza, among several of the Franciscans investigated, enthusiastically welcomed the ruling of Saint Anselm, indicating that it was appropriate for Christ to be conceived by a very pure mother, with such supreme purity that it was impossible to think that there was another greater purity below God. This implies that Mary has the exclusive privilege of having been sanctified before being born.

    - As proof to confirm this third possibility, several of the aforementioned Franciscan teachers, among whom Saint Bonaventure stands out, propose the fact that the Church celebrates the liturgical feast of the Birth of Mary (not that of her conception): It would not be, in fact , neither fair nor reasonable to celebrate that religious festival if the birth of the Virgin had not been holy.

    In Chapter 4 we have explained in detail the trivial and complex reasoning with which - following the structure of arguments and counter-arguments characteristic of the methodology of the scholastics - the British Franciscan teachers Robert Grosseteste, William of Ware and John Duns Scot They became champions of the immaculate thesis. In this regard, after presenting the rather discreet contributions of Robert Grosseteste on the matter, we carefully explain the well-articulated arguments constructed by William of Ware and, above all, John Duns Scot to defend the thesis of the immaculate conception of Mary. We specified at the time that this immaculist thesis will be the one that, ultimately, will be triumphant seven and a half centuries later, when Pope Pius IX will declare it dogma of the Church with the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus.

    Robert Grosseteste, William of Ware and John Duns Scot defend the belief in the immaculate conception of Mary with a set of evidence, several of them taken from Church Fathers and various saints, while others are specifically developed by one of the three teachers mentioned. . Here is the main evidence in favor of the immaculist thesis: They present, at the outset, the following five authoritative arguments: 1) Accepting the sentence of Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Romans "If the root is holy, the branches are also holy", the three mentioned thinkers deduce that the sanctity of the parents Joachim and Anna (the root) demonstrate the sanctity of the bouquet (Mary). In fact, Mary was conceived not only of holy parents, but also - against all natural expectations - of a barren mother, by special divine intervention.

    2) Assuming the opinion of Saint Anselm, who affirms that it was appropriate for Christ to be conceived by a very pure mother, devoid of all sin, the three aforementioned Franciscans unanimously deduce that, since the Son of God was purity in itself, it was appropriate for him to form for himself a mother as pure as possible, so that he did not limit himself to purifying her a posteriori, but rather to preserve her from the beginning of all impurity.

    3) They also subscribe to the position of Saint Anselm, who emphasizes that God could have created a human being without the slightest sin, and then he would have been purer than Mary, if she had contracted original sin. Assuming this Anselmian saying outright, William of Ware and Duns Scot assure that this would not have been convenient, since a son should honor his mother as much as possible; For this reason, Christ had to do everything possible to honor her mother, granting her to be conceived without original sin.

    4) In turn, the three Franciscan defenders of the immaculist thesis, especially Duns Scot, simply accept the position of Saint Augustine when he states that he does not want to raise any question about Mary about the presence of sins in her.

    5) As a last argument of authority, the Immaculate Franciscans assume the thought of Saint John Damascene when he argues that the honor of mother Mary reverts to the Son. Now, they allege, all honor is due to the Son of the Virgin, especially regarding his immunity from sin; Therefore, if it corresponds to the honor of the Son to have a pure and holy mother, it seems that the Mother of Christ would have to be immune to all sin, both original and current (mortal or venial).

    The three mentioned immaculist Franciscans then complement their reasoning with these five arguments of their own: 1) Grosseteste and William of Ware present as immaculate proof the fact that the Church celebrates the liturgical feast of Mary's birth, which, according to them, would be inappropriate if she had been conceived with original sin.

    2) Grosseteste alleges as proof that between being born with sin from a corrupt mother and being born without sin from an incorrupt mother there must exist a third possibility: either being born with sin from an incorrupt mother " which is impossible, since the libidinous concupiscence present in conception is the cause of original sin"or being born without sin from a corrupt mother, which is also not possible. Therefore, the Virgin Mary was born without original sin.

    3) William of Ware adduces this complex reasoning as an argument: even though the body mass of the Virgin, derived from the paternal semen, inherited from him a condition of contamination - which in other human beings causes them to contract original sin, by uniting their soul with that mass of contaminated flesh"since this condition of disease does not coincide with the substance of the flesh (the body), but is its fault, God was able to preserve the mass of Mary's flesh from the contamination derived from the condition of disease: this is because the body of the Virgin had to be formed with that mass of flesh, so that her mass of flesh would not be contaminated by her parents when providing the semen.

    4) Duns Scot, in turn, argues that before God grace is equivalent to original justice, such that the soul that possesses grace does not have original sin. Thus, God was able to infuse Mary's soul with her absolute grace from the first moment of her conception, and, therefore, at that same moment Mary's soul would not have had original sin. And, even if in that first instant there was the corruption of Mary's flesh, this did not necessarily determine the corruption of her soul. In fact, it cannot be excluded that the Virgin's flesh was purified before the infusion of the soul, so that it would not become contaminated with the soul.

    5) Duns Scot complements this proof by specifying that at the moment of conception of Mary's nature her sanctification would have occurred, not due to an existing guilt (which was not present in her), but due to a guilt that should have been present, if grace had not been infused into the soul of the Virgin at the very moment of being conceived. And this is what happened in effect: God infused full grace into Mary's soul at the very moment of her conception, preventing her from being contaminated with original sin when she was conceived.

    In Chapter 5 we have studied the no less debated problem of the alleged assumption of the Virgin Mary body and soul to heaven. In the first section of said chapter we briefly summarized the main textual antecedents of the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. In this regard, we first present the biblical passages from the Old and New Testaments with which numerous Church Fathers and medieval and modern theologians base their doctrinal reasoning to prove that the Virgin Mary was truly assumed body and soul into heaven. the few days after his death. Among these passages from the Old Testament, some stand out from Genesis, Exodus, the book of Isaiah, the Psalms and the Song of Songs. Among the passages of the New Testament, the teachers of Christian doctrine assume two events narrated by Saint Luke in his Gospel, as well as the amazing story of the Apocalypse about the woman in labor who fights against the diabolical dragon.

    Next, we expand on the consideration of the apocryphal writings that, with greater or lesser fantasy, relate the details of Mary's death, burial, resurrection and assumption into heaven. In this sense, we record the list of the main apocryphal writings, which, due to the topic they deal with, are usually called Assumptionist apocrypha.

    In the third section of that first Chapter we explained the patristic and theological background of the Assumptionist belief, mentioning the names and writings of the Christian teachers of the East and West who defended the thesis of the assumption of Mary body and soul to heaven. Thus, among the Eastern Fathers who dealt with this matter we mention Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Timothy of Jerusalem, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, Severian of Gabala, Timothy of Jerusalem, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Chrysippus of Jerusalem, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Jacob of Sarugh, Saint Modest of Jerusalem, John of Thessalonica, Saint Germanus of Constantinople, Saint Andrew of Crete, Saint Cosmas the Melody, Theodore Studita, Saint John Damascene, Saint Joseph the Hymnographer , Jorge de Nicomedia, Simeón Metafrastes, Juan el Geometer, Juan Eucaíta and Miguel Glykas. Among the Latin Fathers and theologians who defended the Assumptionist belief before the 13th century we point out Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint Isidore of Seville, Saint Bede the Venerable, Saint Fulbert of Chartres, Saint Peter Damian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury. , Peter Abelard, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugues de Saint-Victor, Saint Amadeus of Lausanne, Richard de Saint-Victor, Philippe de Harveng, Pierre de Celle, Saint Martin of León, Pierre de Blois, Guillaume d'Auvergne, Vincent de Beauvais, and, especially, the cryptic author Peudo-Agustín (perhaps identifiable with Ratramne de Corbie).

    We then said that the 13th century appears to be the period of greatest momentum in favor of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, thanks, above all, to the brilliant contributions of the writers of the Franciscan School. We also point out that, along with the apocryphal writings and the testimonies of the Church Fathers and medieval theologians, another antecedent that contributed to the consolidation of the Assumptionist doctrine is the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin, which some Churches already celebrated in the 5th century, and which spread very intensely in the East since the 6th century.

    In the second section of Chapter 5 we consider the arguments and reflections that the Franciscan teachers Saint Anthony of Padua, Jean de la Rochelle, Alexander of Hales, Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, and Conrad of Saxony made on the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. , Bartolomeo da Bologna, Matteo d'Acquasparta, Servasanto da Faenza, William of Ware and John Duns Scot. Now, to make the contributions of each of the mentioned authors on the topic under scrutiny more illustrative, instead of exposing in chronological sequence the complete approach of each of them, we have integrated the partial contributions of each one around one or another of these six doctrinal cores: 1) Death of Mary 2) Incorruption of the body of Mary 3) Resurrection of Mary 4) Assumption of Mary body and soul to heaven 5) Exaltation of Mary by the angels and saints 6) Enthronement of Mary at the right hand of Christ Regarding the first of the issues considered, we express that the death of the Virgin does not constitute a problem for any of the Franciscan Mariologists under study, since all of them consider it a fait accompli, although some do not affirm it explicitly. However, Saint Anthony of Padua, Saint Bonaventure, Bartolomeo da Bologna, Matteo d'Acquasparta and John Duns Scot offer theoretical reflections on this event. Saint Anthony of Padua assures that, even though she was the mother of God, Mary could and should share the common destiny of other mortals, namely, the need to die. Saint Bonaventure categorically affirms that the Virgin necessarily had to die and suffer, for two essential reasons: first, because it was not convenient or decent for Mary to have been immortal, when her son Christ was mortal and died; and second because Mary's death and passivity were a consequence of the crime of original sin, with which she was contaminated when she was conceived. Bartolomeo da Bologna confirms that Mary died, because death is a necessary natural condition of the human being. John Duns Scot also unequivocally admits the fact of the death of the Virgin, since the biblical sentence of Genesis "you are dust and to dust you shall return" is so general that not even Christ or Mary were excluded from it.

    On the issue of the incorruption of Mary's body, almost all the Franciscan teachers of the 13th century explicitly subscribe that Mary's body was not corrupted after her death. Such a position is taken by Jean de la Rochelle, Robert Grosseteste, Saint Bonaventure, Conrad of Saxony, Bartolomeo da Bologna, Matteo d'Acquasparta, William of Ware and John Duns Scot. Jean de la Rochelle interprets several biblical texts from the Psalms, an Epistle of Saint Paul, the Apocalypse and Proverbs to demonstrate the incorruptibility of Mary's body. For example, Jean de la Rochelle interprets Saint Paul's statement in his Epistle to the Corinthians "this mortal body will put on immortality and this corruptible body will put on incorruptibility," saying that such a Pauline statement designates the glory of Mary's incorruptibility. .

    In turn, Robert Grosseteste says that the Virgin, when dying, did not suffer the putrefaction of her body, because, just as God the Father granted his divine Son after death to be free from the putrefaction of the flesh, so he also granted that same prerogative to Mary, from whom the flesh of Christ was born.

    For her part, Saint Bonaventure affirms that, just as, when living and conceiving, Mary did not rot with the corruption of concupiscence, so also when she died she did not rot with the pain of becoming ashes; for this privilege was most convenient for the incorrupt viscera of her virginal womb.

    In an analogous way, Conrad of Saxony assures that the body of the Virgin Mary, being the most holy ark of God, was not subjected to the curse of turning into dust, inflicted on man for his sin, but, like the Son of God, he was resurrected before he decayed. The most holy body of Mary was very far from the penalty of being reduced to ashes, since it was convenient that that body not rot, being the most holy ark of God, but that, like her Son, it be resurrected before it rotted.

    On her side, Bartolomeo da Bologna, affirms the incorruptibility of Mary's body, because it, after that of her son Christ, was ordered primarily to glorification among all human bodies. Therefore, among all human bodies and after the body of Christ, the body of Mary had to be preserved from the putrefaction of its members and their conversion into ashes, thus preparing her resurrection and her glorification with respect to the resurrection of the bodies of other human beings.

    On his account, Matteo d'Acquasparta says that, although the soul of the Virgin was separated from her body at death, both soul and body were assumed together to heaven, because Mary's body could not be retained by the chains. of death and corruption. He then adds that, even though no authoritative testimonies are found to support the incorruption of Mary's body, however, this incorruption does not contradict the authority of the Scriptures. Matteo d'Acquasparta even decides to present seven pieces of evidence to demonstrate the incorruption of the Virgin's body after her death.

    At the same time, William of Ware bluntly defends the incorruption of Mary's body, stating that the Virgin Mary after her death, before her body decayed, is piously believed to have been assumed into heaven in body and soul.

    Finally, John Duns Scot assures that, since the human body was modeled on the soul, in the case of Mary her body did not become a corpse when she died, but rather remained still in its substantial body form (forma corporeitatis) at the time of death. waiting for his resurrection. And, just as the separation of body and soul in Christ lasted only three days until he was resurrected, so after her death Mary also preserved intact the substantial form of her body before her prompt resurrection, since her Son Christ, who had preserved from original sin, he also preserved her from the corruption of her body in the tomb.

    Regarding the third Assumptionist topic, that of the resurrection of Mary, there is full consensus among the Franciscan teachers of the 13th century. Saint Anthony of Padua testifies that, just as Christ was resurrected and ascended to the right hand of God the Father, so also Mary, the ark of her sanctification, was resurrected when on the day of the Assumption she was assumed into the heavenly bed.

    Robert Grosseteste asserts that Mary's glorified body, endowed with beauty, agility, impassibility, and endurance, became completely beautiful at the moment of her assumption into heaven; For this reason, the Virgin became completely beautiful in soul and body at that moment.

    Saint Bonaventure, who dedicated four effusive sermons to the Assumption of Mary, did not believe it was necessary to explicitly declare or, even less, formulate any argument to demonstrate the resurrection of the Virgin: he considers it undeniable, as this is an indispensable condition for the Assumption of Mary in body and soul to heaven, a thesis that the Seraphic Doctor fully defends in his four aforementioned sermons.

    For his part, Conrad of Saxony bases his position in favor of the resurrection and corporeal assumption of the Virgin on the teaching of some Fathers of the Church and on the "common belief" of the faithful that, after dying, Mary did not suffered the corruption of the tomb, but was resurrected and assumed into heaven body and soul.

    Bartolomeo da Bologna affirms regarding the possible glorification of the soul and body of Mary that the soul of the Virgin was glorified before her body, with an interval between both glorifications. He then specifies that the probability that Mary's soul was separated from her body can be confirmed by four pieces of evidence: an authoritative argument based on Saint Jerome, divine revelation, some historical accounts and complex reasoning. In the end, Bartolomeo da Bologna concludes that the body of the Virgin could not obtain glory before three days, the time that runs between the death of Christ and his resurrection, but, on the contrary, the glorification of the soul and body of Mary had to occur at the end of a time longer than the three days after which Christ was resurrected.

    In turn, Matteo d'Acquasparta categorically asserts that, as Christ ascended to heaven forty days after being resurrected, Mary was resurrected on the fortieth day after his death, so that, having been glorified in body and soul, she now reigns eternally. like Queen of heaven. The author considers that this is entirely reasonable and coherent for three reasons: first, because of the identity of the flesh of the mother and the Son, since the flesh of the Son was formed from the flesh of Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit; second, and as a consequence of the above, because it would be completely inconvenient for the flesh of Christ, incorrupt, to be assumed into heaven, while that of his mother was corrupted and turned into ashes; third, because of the divine command commanding that the son honor his mother, therefore, in the same way that Christ glorified his mother in the soul, so he also glorified her in the body, preserving her completely from putrefaction and resurrecting her. from the dead to take her up to heaven in body and soul.

    Finally, John Duns Scot maintains that, just as after the death of Christ his soul was separated from the body for three days without being corrupted, and then rejoined it when he was resurrected on the third day, a similar portent happened to Mary: after Dying, she preserved the form of her body separate from the soul intact, uncorrupted, thanks to a dispensation from her Son Christ, before resurrecting a few days later.

    Regarding the fourth aspect of the problem under study, that of Mary having been assumed body and soul into heaven, there is also clear unanimity here among the Franciscan teachers of the 13th century. Even Saint Francis of Assisi himself, founder of the Franciscan Order, accepted with unshakable faith the belief in the corporal Assumption of Mary, without him feeling any need to prove it with rational Jean de la Rochelle considers that certain Old Testament expressions, such as "in a mantle of gold," "cover yourself with the garments of your glory," "with every variety of ornaments," constitute so many metaphors for the incorruptibility of the Virgin Mary and of his subsequent bodily assumption into heaven. In his opinion, the expression "with a golden garment" means the beauty of the glorification of Mary, since the soul is related to the body as the body is to the garment, and therefore it means the glory of immortality.

    For his part, Robert Grosseteste expresses that, in the transmigration of her mortal life, Mary received full beauty in intelligence and affectivity, in order to be able to eternally contemplate this same eternal light and all other realities in eternal light. .

    For his part, Saint Bonaventure proposes as an essential reason for Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven her "perfect happiness", in the sense that, for Mary's happiness to be perfect in her assumption, it is necessary that she be glorified not only her soul but also his body. In this sense, the Seraphic Doctor points out that the allusion in the Song of Songs to the woman who rises from the desert, distilling delights and leaning on her beloved, means the special way of perfection of Mary in heaven, a perfection that is only possible Yes it is also physically.

    In turn, Conrad of Saxony exposes a series of reasons to prove the assumption of Mary body and soul to heaven, where she is exalted as heavenly queen. According to one of these tests, the Assumed Virgin is seen prefigured in the Queen of Sheba, who, to meet King Solomon, entered Jerusalem with a large entourage of people and camels loaded with aromas, gold and precious stones. In that figure Conrad sees the excellence, power, wealth and dignity of Mary as she is triumphantly assumed into the heavenly Jerusalem.

    Bartolomeo da Bologna maintains that just as Christ, after dying, descended into hell and, after resurrecting on the third day, ascended to heaven only after forty days had passed, so also Mary's soul deferred her assumption to heaven until the fortieth day. , when his body was resurrected; and then, her soul united again to her resurrected body, Mary was assumed into heaven simultaneously with her body and her soul united to her. Bartolomeo da Bologna concludes that it is very possible that the soul was glorified first, and forty days later the body, when the soul was resurrected and united to it, so that Mary was then assumed into heaven in body and soul, and exalted there. above all angels.

    For his part, Matteo d'Acquasparta defends that, by the fullness of her grace, the Virgin Mary was elevated to heaven not only with her soul, but also with her body, so that, after being resurrected and after her soul resumed her body, she was glorified together in her soul and in her body with the assumption, and that is why she now reigns in heaven with the stole of immortality. In this order of ideas, our author assures that affirming the assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven, although no authority supports it, far from contradicting the truth of the Holy Scriptures, agrees with them, and many reasons incline us to believe that God "could" have done it and "it was expedient" for him to do it. In fact, Matteo d'Acquasparta broadly explains seven reasons why God made the bodily assumption of the Virgin into heaven possible.

    In turn, Servasanto da Faenza affirms that Mary was assumed into heaven in soul and body by her divine motherhood and by the fullness of her grace. In his judgment, the fullness of divinity that dwelt bodily in Christ also dwelt bodily in Mary; in fact, the divinity dwelt in the soul of Christ, and his soul dwelt in her body, and the body of Christ dwelt in that of the Virgin. In this way -Servasanto concludes - the biblical phrase "he who created me lived in my tabernacle" is fulfilled, since God the Son, who lived bodily in the tabernacle of the Virgin, made his mother live bodily in her heavenly tabernacle.

    Finally, William of Ware clearly defends the bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven, asserting that it is piously believed that the Virgin, after dying, was assumed into heaven with her body before her putrefaction..

    Regarding the fifth Assumptionist topic, the exaltation of Mary in heaven above the angels and saints, a similar unanimity of opinion is observed among the Franciscan thinkers of the 13th century.

    Saint Anthony of Padua, for example, maintains that the great dignity of the Virgin lies in having deserved to be the Mother of whom she is the beauty of the angels and the vision of all the saints. The author complements this idea by ensuring that the place where the Lord's feet rested is the Virgin Mary, from whom she received human nature, and whom he has glorified today by exalting her above the choirs of angels.

    Jean de la Rochelle expresses that today Christ assumed his Mother in eternal glory, and, upon coming to receive her in heaven, He was accompanied by seven choirs of angels and by the other inhabitants of the heavenly paradise, namely, the patriarchs, the apostles, the martyrs, the doctors, the confessors and the virgins.

    For his part, Saint Bonaventure points out in one of his sermons on the Assumption that Mary, upon being assumed into heaven, has the hierarchies of angels and men subject to her, for which she is elevated above the angelic hierarchy and above the human hierarchy. In another sermon with the same theme, Bonaventure affirms that, upon being assumed into heaven as a glorious Empress, Mary is sublimated by God above all the inhabitants of heaven and asserts herself in an excellent way as a noble Lady due to her perfect beauty, her nobility. super excellent and the clarity of his wisdom. In another passage of this sermon the Seraphic Doctor continues proclaiming the exaltation of the Virgin in heaven, by ensuring that she is noble for the excellence of her dignity above all the saints, since, being the Mother of the heavenly Emperor, she is the most noble of all creatures and has been deservedly placed on a sublime throne at the right hand of her Son.

    In turn, Conrad of Saxony confirms that Mary at her Assumption entered glory as the Queen of heaven, endowed with the riches of her innumerable merits, thus surpassing all the angels in glory: by being assumed into heaven, Mary surpasses the riches of the virgins, the confessors, the martyrs, the apostles, the prophets, the patriarchs and the angels, for she is the first of the virgins, the mirror of the confessors, the rose of the martyrs, the record of the apostles , the oracle of the prophets, the daughter of the patriarchs and the queen of the angels. In another sermon on the Assumption, Conrad of Saxony reiterates that the Virgin is our Queen clothed with a variety of merits in the stole of her soul; For this reason, we must consider the varied stole of our Queen, with the lily candor of the virgins, with the reddish pink color of the martyrs, with the splendor of the angels, with the candid white of virginity, the red of charity and the brilliance of truth.

    In relation to the sixth Assumptionist topic, the enthronement of Mary at the right hand of Christ, there is also a practical unanimity of opinion among the Franciscan Mariologists of the 13th century. Saint Anthony of Padua affirms in a sermon on the Assumption that the Virgin is the solid and complete throne of glory on which Jesus Christ - who is the glory and the wise Son of the Father, and Wisdom herself - sat when he took of it human flesh. Therefore, the Virgin was the throne of glory, that is, of Jesus Christ, who is the glory from above.

    Jean de la Rochelle assures in his fourth sermon on the Assumption that the verse of Psalm 44:10 "At your right hand remains the queen with a mantle of gold, with all variety of ornaments" reflects well the situation of the Virgin in heaven after be assumed; since the expression "The Queen remains" indicates the gift of piety of the Son Christ towards his Mother; The addition "to the right" means the elevation of dignity, since it indicates that it is at the right of the Son of God the Father; and the expression "with a robe of gold" indicates the fullness of Christ's glorification of Mary. Jean de la Rochelle insists on the same idea at another time, expressing that a throne was placed for Mother Mary, who sits at the right hand of the King, according to the biblical saying "The queen is at your right hand", which indicates the preeminence of glory and honor.

    In turn, Saint Bonaventure maintains in his third sermon on the Assumption that the Mother of God was solemnly exalted at her assumption with these four honors: a magnificent departure to meet her, since the King went out to meet his mother; a very sweet reception from her, because he adored her and embraced her; a most dignified enthronement, since they placed the throne of the King's mother; an immediate approach, since she sat to the right of him. In another passage of that sermon, Bonaventure clarifies that the fourth honor granted by God to Mary when she was placed at the right hand of the King obeys three essential reasons: The first is the immediacy of love from heart to heart, in the sense that, not There being no separation between the heart of Mary and that of God, there had to be no separation between the two thrones, that of God the Son and that of his Mother. The second reason is to intercede frequently for sinners, since it is convenient for the intercessor and the reconciler to sit very close to each other, and even coincide ear to ear. The third reason for the royal glorification of Mary next to Christ derives from patriarchy: by patriarchal hierarchy Adam, among men, and Eve, among women, were destined to sit at the right hand of God; but that hierarchy was transferred to Christ and Mary, because, just as Adam and Eve were the destroyers of the human race, Christ and Mary were its repairers.

    For his part, Conrad of Saxony indicates that Mary is the queen who enters before the eternal King of glory, prefigured in the Bible in the queen of Sheba who entered Jerusalem with a multitudinous entourage and with much wealth. Then, after stating that we must recognize Mary as the queen who gave birth to the King of the angels, Conrad of Saxony specifies that the throne of this Queen Mother Mary has been placed not in any of the nine orders of angels, but above all the angelic orders at the right hand of the King of angels, who has enthroned her today on this throne.

    In Chapter 6 we study other Mariological themes that, although of less dogmatic relevance than the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, were approached argumentatively by the Franciscan thinkers of the 13th century. Among the numerous Marian issues treated by one or another author under study, we focus on three outstanding Mariological themes: 1) the omniperfection of Mary's virtues; 2) the status of the Virgin as Queen of Heaven; 3) Mary's condition as mediator of humanity. We specify in this regard that, with practical unanimity, although not always in explicit formulations, they defend the three aforementioned theses.

    In section 1 of Chapter 6, dedicated to the omniperfection of Mary's virtues, we point out that for the Franciscan School as a whole, the Virgin Mary is the Gratia plena, the Tota sancta, since they consider that purity shines in her to the highest degree. , faith, obedience, hope, charity, humility, piety and all other virtues. We also specify that this substantial agreement in general terms gives ample room for each Franciscan teacher to offer specific reflections on this sublimity of the Marian virtues.

    Thus, Saint Anthony of Padua hails Mary saying that there is no woman similar to her, because she is the Daughter and Handmaid of the Supreme King God the Father, mother of God the Son Jesus Christ, and wife of the Holy Spirit. Alexander of Hales thinks that God could have created Mary in a state of grace and a better nature, but as the Mother of God he created her in the highest degree of her grace. For his part, Robert Grosseteste, after affirming that Mary perpetually preserved her virginity and that she lacked stain not only in the soul but even in the members of the body, because she kept her bodily acts immaculate, confirms the preeminence of the Virgin in the virtues of the prudence and faith.

    In turn, Saint Bonaventure maintains that Mary was the clean receptacle of all sanctification, having received the fullness of divine grace before being born. Furthermore, the Seraphic Doctor points out that Mary was a holy woman internally in her soul and externally in her body, and her holiness was so great as to attract everyone to the beauty of holiness. Bonaventure maintains that the Virgin Mary is the tabernacle of God and her sacred vessels (of the tabernacle) are the receptacles of the Virgin's virtues: those vessels were anointed by the Son of God when, sanctifying his Mother, he filled her with grace, and after sanctifying her, he covered her with his shadow and filled her with glory, so that no part of Mary's soul and body remained unfilled by the grace of Divinity.

    For his part, Conrad of Saxony defends several times and in various ways the omniperfection of Mary's virtues. Thus, for example, he affirms that the Virgin is superior to all the saints in the superabundance of merits and in unlimited rewards, and has surpassed all human souls and angels in nature, in grace and in glory. Conrad adds that the Virgin has surpassed in grace all the souls of the saints, not only because she was full of grace, but because she was overflowing with grace, according to the testimony of the archangel Gabriel when he said "Hail, full of grace.-Mary also surpassed all the angels in glory, since she rose completely above the entire human race to the height of the angels, but surpassing them, rising above any celestial creature. Conrad summarizes his opinion on the sublimity of the Virgin's virtues with this precise aphorism: "Truly [Mary] is most beautiful for her virtues: beautiful before men, even more beautiful before the angels, most beautiful before God.- In turn, Matteo d' Acquasparta maintains that the Virgin describes herself in total reference to the Lord by the fullness of her grace, by virtue of which she became a peculiar temple of God. Therefore, God, who chose, adopted and filled Mary with grace, also sanctified her, purified her, admirably adorned her so that she would be a pure, holy and beautiful possession of God. Furthermore, in a sermon on the Assumption, Matteo d'Acquasparta maintains that one of the reasons why God made possible the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven derives from her dignity and her holiness, which were so great that she deserved to be the mother. of the Holy of holies, the Sancta Sanctorum, the bedchamber of God, the throne of God.

    In the second section of Chapter 6, focused on the celestial royalty of Mary, we indicate that regarding the status of Mary as Queen of heaven, a full consensus is observed among the Franciscan Mariologists of the 13th century, who unreservedly recognized the Virgin as Lady. and Heavenly Queen. All of them saw Queen Mary prefigured in the biblical characters of the Queen of Sheba, Bathsheba and Esther. Thus, while Saint Francis of Assisi calls Mary "Holy Lady- and "Most Holy Queen," Saint Anthony of Padua states that the Virgin is the Queen of the angels and deserved to obtain the hundredth fruit granted to virgins, since she is the Virgin. of virgins and superior to all virgins.

    In turn, Jean de la Rochelle declares that the phrase from Psalm 44:10 "The queen remains at your right with a mantle of gold, with all variety of ornaments, -well translates the situation of the Virgin in heaven after being assumed: the expression "The Queen remains - indicates the gift of the Son's mercy towards his Mother; The detail "on the right-means the elevation of her dignity, because she specifies that she is at the right hand of the Son of God the Father; and the expression "with a robe of gold -indicates the fullness of Christ's glorification of Mary.

    Saint Bonaventure confirms on numerous occasions the status of Queen of heaven granted by God the Son to his mother Mary, by affirming that she is Lady and Queen of all creation, and not only of earthly beings, but also of heavenly ones. According to our author, Mary's heavenly royalty is prefigured in the biblical characters of Bathsheba, exalted by her son King Solomon, and Esther, exalted by her husband King Ahasuerus: well, just as Solomon rose up and went to meet her mother Bathsheba to seat her on her throne, thus the Virgin is received at her Assumption by her Son Christ, who, accompanied by the entire heavenly curia of angels, patriarchs, apostles, martyrs, married women, widows and nuns, rose and ran towards He venerated her filially and sat her on his throne.

    For his part, Conrad of Saxony declares that the Mother of the Lord at her assumption entered glory as the Queen of heaven, covered with innumerable merits and escorted by a numerous retinue of angels. Furthermore, Conrad adds that at her assumption Mary was not only covered with graces, but placed on a precious throne at the right hand of her divine Son Jesus, who granted her before God the Father a power that is above that of the angels and saints. .

    Finally, Matteo d'Acquasparta joins the defenders of Mary's heavenly royalty when he asserts: if as a mother the Virgin was most conformed to Christ in her purity, in the same way as regards royal dignity the Mother should not be separated from the Son. , nor the Queen of the King. Therefore, Mary, Mother of Christ, Queen of Heaven, had to be placed by Christ next to Him, glorified bodily in heaven.

    In the third section of Chapter 6, referring to the universal mediation of the Virgin, we also note a clear agreement among the Franciscan Mariologists of the 13th century. Thus, Saint Anthony of Padua urges the sinner to take refuge in the Virgin, because she is a city of refuge, since the mercy of the Lord provided a refuge in the name of Mary for those who had committed murder, even voluntarily. In the opinion of the saint of Padua, Mary is a very strong tower, in which the sinner will take refuge and be saved, since the name of Mary comforts and instills hope in the sinner.

    In turn, Jean de la Rochelle maintains that, when we say "The queen is at the right hand," sinners are given a respite of confidence, since Mary is our advocate, in the same way that her Son is our advocate. lawyer; Thus, sinners have the great confidence of having the Virgin as their advocate before her divine Son, while He is our advocate before God the Father. According to our author, Mary the intercessor is prefigured in the ark of the covenant, on which the mercy seat was placed, in which God, appeased, spoke and gave propitious answers: this ark of the covenant and reconciliation is Mary, who, taken to heaven today, she remains before the face of God to intercede on our behalf. For this reason, Jean de la Rochelle urges the believer to resort to the intercession of the glorified Queen of heaven, convinced that everything she asks for will be obtained, to the point of changing a sentence of the King Judge and revoking his sentence. of death, causing repentance to arise in us.

    For his part, Saint Bonaventure, after expressing that the Virgin Mary is a mediator between us and Christ, in the same way as Christ is between us and God, maintains that the throne where divine grace has its seat is the Virgin Mary, whom we must go with certain hope, as to Mother and queen of mercy, so that, if our heart is established in her love and devotion towards her, we have such confidence before God through her that we are sure of obtaining from him whatever we want. we ask him. Bonaventure assures that Mary was designated as the ladder seen by Jacob, on which God leaned and on which the angels climbed; and the Virgin is the house of God and the door to Heaven, because no one can enter heaven except by passing through Mary as if she were a door. Therefore, just as God came to us through Mary, so it is convenient for us to return to God through her.

    When facing this issue, Conrad of Saxony points out that the Virgin Mary is the seat of divine mercy, the mother of mercy in which everyone finds the solace of mercy; Well, just as we have a most merciful Lord, so we also have a most merciful Lady for all who call on her. Our author specifies that the Virgin Mother of God usually shows four attitudes of mercy towards the faithful: comforting them in their tribulation; help them with their needs; free them from eternal damnation; and remunerate her devotees, after this banishment, with the vision of her Son. In a commentary on the Gospel, Conrad assures that Mary's intercession before God is effective for three reasons: because in the presence of God Mary is beautiful because of her luminous virginity, she is sweet because of her great humility, and she is worthy because of her maternal authority. to the point that one cannot think that God does not hear her. Conrad of Saxony adds that Mary, our Queen, is said to be seated at the right hand of God and to be present at the right hand: she is seated as Queen in heaven, and is present as a helper to help those who are in heaven. world.

    For his part, Giacomo da Milano declares that he only sees mercy in Mary, since she has become Mother of God for the benefit of the poor, she has generated mercy in the world and she has been entrusted with the task of knowing how to feel compassion, to the point of It seems that his only desire is to feel sorry for each other. And she shows herself so eagerly before the poor that she has adopted them as children, with the task of governing them. For this reason, the Virgin is designated as Queen of mercy. At another time our author indicates that Mary is the life that she sustains with divine power, that she obtains with the effectiveness of her prayer and that she directs with divine wisdom and encourages with divine goodness. In the end, Giacomo da Milano asserts that, even knowing that, after the Universal Judge's sentence has been pronounced, there is no possibility of recourse to a higher court, he is nevertheless sure that the Judge will not be able to deny anything to his Mother; For this reason, he is assured that through the Virgin we will obtain the heavenly homeland, since the Virgin will not exempt herself from turning her eyes full of mercy towards us.

    John Duns Scot also emerges as one of the proponents of the Virgin's function as intercessor of humanity. In fact, after stating in one of his theological treatises that "The blessed Virgin has the authority to intercede, not to command," he expands on that idea in another passage, indicating that, in her capacity as guide, Mary had greater charity than any other saint of lesser degree In the Epilogue we have condensed in a tight synthesis the main Conclusions that we believe we can extract from this Doctoral Thesis.

    We finish our work with the References, which include the long lists of Primary Sources and Secondary Bibliography,