But who is the woman?
The most straightforward reading
identifies her simply as Eve, the first women, whose offspring would ultimately
produce the Redeemer. . . . What should we make of this text? At minimum,
Genesis 3:15 establishes a pattern that runs throughout Scripture: God’s work
of redemption involves human cooperation. Adam and Eve’s disobedience required
human obedience to reverse it. (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent
Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 3, 4)
The Scriptural Argument:
Biblical Minimalism as Biblical Faithfulness
Dr. Maria Cristina Bartolomei:
The Biblical Scholar’s Defense
Professor Bartolomei, in her November
5 press conference remarks and subsequent article in L’Osservatore Romano (November
10, 2025), articulated the scriptural case for the doctrine:
“When we examine Sacred Scripture
with modern exegetical methods—attending to liturgy genre, historical context,
and authorial intent—we find modest Mariology, nor maximalist. The Gospels present
Mary primarily as model believer; she hears God’s word and keeps it (Luke
11:28). She ponders mysteries in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51). She obeys God’s will
(Luke 1:38). She stands faithfully at the Cross (John 19:25). This is exemplary
discipleship, not cosmic mediation.”
Bartolomei addressed specific
texts:
Genesis 3:15
“The ‘protoevangelium’ is legitimately
read as prophecy of redemption. But identifying the ‘woman’ specifically with
Mary requires theological elaboration beyond what the text itself says. The
original context suggests the woman is Eve or her descendants collectively.
Reading Mary into Genesis 3:15 is typological interpretation—valid but not
literal exegesis. We cannot build dogmatic formulations on typology alone.”
Luke 1:38 (Mary’s Fiat)**
“Mary’s ‘let it be done to me
according to your word’ expresses perfect receptivity to grace. She consents
freely to God’s plan. But consent is not causation. She permits the
Incarnation; she doesn’t produce it. The Holy Spirit overshadows her (Luke
1:35)—she is recipient, not agent. Her cooperation is essential in God’s chosen
plan, but it’s the cooperation of reception, not accomplishment.”
John 19:25-27 (Mary at the
Cross)
“John places Mary at Calvary,
faithful when others fled, Jesus entrusts her to the beloved disciple and vice
versa, establishing spiritual motherhood. But the text doesn’t say Mary ‘offered’
Jesus to the Father. It doesn’t attribute salvific causality to her presence or
suffering. She is there—present, faithful, suffering. But presence isn’t causation.
Deriving ‘co-redemption’ from this text requires importing concepts the text
doesn’t contain.”
The Maximalist Response
Maximalist scholars like Dr. Mark
Miravalle (Franciscan University) countered that Bartolomei’s exegesis was
reductionist:
“Professor Bartolomei applies
historical-critical method rigorously—too rigorously. She reads Scripture as if
the literal-historical sense exhausts its meaning. But Catholic hermeneutics
affirms spiritual senses: allegorical, moral, anagogical. The Fathers
unanimously read Genesis 3:15 as prophesying Mary’s cooperation. Are we wiser
than they? Exegesis must be informed by Tradition, not by naked
historical-critical reading.”
Bartolomei’s Rejoinder
In subsequent interviews,
Bartolomei clarified:
“I don’t reject spiritual senses or typological reading. I affirm them. But we must distinguish what Scripture clearly teaches from what later theology develops from Scripture. ‘Co-redemptrix’ isn’t clearly taught in Scripture—that’s simply factual. This doesn’t make it false, but it does mean we should be cautious about making it central to faith or defining it as a dogma. Not everything true is equally central.” (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 275-76; the book is a discussion about the debates resulting from Mater Populi Fidelis, November 11, 2025)
