Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please read the attachment. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

While the English style of the manuscript is appropriate for academic writing in the field of theology, there is room for improvement in clarity, sentence structure, and flow to enhance the overall readability and coherence of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading of the article and your helpful review. I have merged the abstract into one paragraph as suggested. Lines 25–64 constitute the “Introduction,” whereas the methodological assumptions described in lines 294–338 contain the summary. For the sake of clarity, I have added the corresponding headings in the text. The contents of the article and the list of references have been adapted to the editorial requirements of Religions. Other suggestions have been aligned with the remaining reviews and incorporated in the text as far as possible and as permitted by the format of the article.

 

Responses to specific questions:

 

1. Objective Mariology strives to avoid defining itself as Christotypical or ecclesiotypical, which is—in most basic terms—the reason for its objectivism. It is simply a theological vision of the Mother of God, the Immaculate Virgin eternally chosen by the Father. Mary is the Creator’s Masterpiece, the Mother of the Redeemer and the Temple of the Paraclete, for She is “full of grace” (Luke 1:28). As such, She is the icon of the redeemed human person, the fulfillment of all salvation history. It is in Her that the salvific action of God and the hope of the redeemed human person can be seen most clearly. This image of the Immaculate Virgin Mother—eternally intended by the Father for His Son—is what an objective Mariology strives to capture.

 

2. An important part of the motion towards “objectivization” in contemporary Catholic Mariology is the return to the legacy of the Franciscan school. A point of fundamental importance to studies on the Virgin Mary is the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God, which is not explained exhaustively within the soteriological discourse—as emphasized more prominently in the Dominican tradition. According to the Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Incarnation had been intended by God the Father from eternity. This view has a very rich interpretational tradition of its own. According to the Subtle Doctor, the Incarnation “is the fulfilment of creation and enables every creature, in Christ and through Christ, to be filled with grace and to praise and glorify God in eternity.” In his mind, the Redemption of the man affected by original sin had taken place through the passion, death and resurrection of the Son of God. Furthermore, he considered the Incarnation to be “the greatest and most beautiful work of the entire history of salvation that it is not conditioned by any contingent fact (Benedict XVI).” Even man’s sin did not affect God’s actions; on the contrary, it was cleansed by these actions—planned from eternity and carried out throughout history.

 

3. The call for constructing an “objective Mariology” presumes that the autonomy of theology as an academic discipline will be preserved and that theological reflection on the Virgin Mary will be objectivized in terms of both form and content. To meet these demands, one must strive to respect the supernatural purpose and sources of theology as such, and strengthen and develop biblical Mariology as well as the reflection of the Church Fathers. Furthermore, there is a need to draw from the rich legacy of the Franciscan school when reflecting on the unity of God’s plan of creation and Redemption in His eternal reasons. Finally, one must not accept a departure from the “hermeneutic of continuity” in the Catholic doctrine on the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Immaculate and Assumed.

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe this is a well-written and well-argued case for an objective Mariology centered on God's revealed plan of redemption. The author makes use of relevant sources from Vatican II, papal teachings (especially John Paul II), and Marian theologians (e.g. Maximilian Kolbe). The author manifests a familiarity with important secondary sources in English, Italian, and Polish. I find the article to be organized and focused. The author displays a sound understanding of  Franciscan Mariology and the importance of the Immaculate Conception.

My only suggestion relates to line 51. I would suggest changing "paper" to either essay or article. A "paper" typically refers to a talk given at a conference or a research text written by  a student (at least in US English).

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading of the article and your helpful review. Your editorial suggestion has been incorporated in the text. I am very grateful for your commitment to fully understand and evaluate the text, and I truly appreciate your input.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the article, the author tries to present Mariology as a backbone for a theological synthesis of fundamental concepts of faith and (history of) salvation. At the same time, the author presents the hitherto known knowledge, both regarding the place of Mariology within theology and with regard to Mary's place in the history of salvation (and God's eternal plan).

Generally speaking, the main thesis stated above could have been more clearly and consistently deepened in the article. One has the impression that the author brings several orienting thought coordinates within which such a Mariology should be elaborated, but he does not offer a concrete, content-consistent proposal of such a Mariology.

Here are some more specific suggestions that the author could take into account:

1) p. 2, l. 62-64:

At the very end of the Introduction, the author mentions some key questions that could be more clearly resolved by an adequate Mariological synthesis of the overall Catholic theology, but he does not mention them later in the article itself: Mary's priestly dignity; Mary as Co-Redemptrix; Creator's eternal reasons and recapitulation.

2) p. 3, l. 97-106: 

The author presents Mary's motherhood as a prediction for a correct realistic understanding of salvation. This thesis can easily be understood as maximalistic and exaggerated, as if the correct understanding of salvation would depend on Mary. The author correctly assumes Mary's "secondary" role in salvation, but again in some places he emphatically places Mary in the theological focus, so that one could get the impression that even the very understanding of the figure of Jesus Christ and his work of salvation depends on her. 

3) p. 7, l. 265-267:

The idea of personalism was only introduced here at the end of this chapter and was not brought into a coherent connection with the previously mentioned characteristics of an objective Mariology. I recommend that the author elaborates on this more deeply.

4) p. 10:

The article lacks the Conclusion as the final part, in which the synthesis of elaborated thoughts is presented.

5) The author first starts from the dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception as a focal point for connecting different theological concepts. Later, however, he often touches on Mary's motherhood, then Mary's virginity, and finally Mary's ascension into heaven. All these four dogmas should be connected in a better way for the goal that the author has set in the article.

6) Maybe the author should check whether the method of citing footnotes corresponds to propositions of the journal "Religions".

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading of the article and your helpful review.

 

1) and 3) Due to the format and premises of the article, it was not possible to address certain important issues which I intend to explore in more detail in further articles. These issues include Mary’s priestly dignity, Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix, the Creator’s eternal reasons, recapitulation, and personalism as a universal system. While my article does not claim to offer an exhaustive treatment of so many comprehensive subjects that deserve to be studied in more detail, it provides a number of references which can serve as a basis for a further exploration of these issues.

 

2) The text adopts a view of objective Mariology that does not in any way detract from the primacy of the role of Christ as the Son of God in the work of Redemption. Mary is His Mother, and Her divine motherhood goes hand in hand with Her virginity, which stems from the grace of the Immaculate Conception—foreseen from all eternity. This truth is the main theme of the article.

 

4) The methodological assumptions described in lines 294–338 contain the summary. These lines contain the most important premises of the text. For the sake of clarity, I have added the corresponding heading in the text.

 

5) The relationship between the different Marian dogmas is described in an indirect manner in the article. This stems from the fact that the article follows the concept of the Franciscan school (i.e., God’s eternal plan).

 

6) The contents of the article and the list of references have been adapted to the editorial requirements of Religions.

 

Other suggestions have been aligned with the remaining reviews and incorporated in the text as far as possible and as permitted by the format of the article.