I thought I'd share this little gem of knowledge from the professor of my "Creed in History and Theology" class, Fr. Guy Mansini. This may give evidence as to why his class is one of my all-time favorites.

From "An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed" by Fr. Mansini:

Mary and the Church:

“…there is a relation of Mary to Israel and to the Church. In the first place, Mary is a sort of perfect representation of Israel, the one in whom the vocation of Israel is fulfilled. This can be said of our Lord, too. Doubtless, therefore, they are the fulfillment of Israel in different ways. Christ s the fulfillment of Israel according as he is the gent that completes the mission she receives from Go, an eschatological mission realized in history. Mary the fulfillment of Israel according as, in order to complete her mission, Israel must first hear the word of God and receive it into her heart.

“Mary’s representation of Israel passes over into the representation of the Church. In a way, Mary is the Church and the Church is Mary. As Cyril Vollert says, “All the Marian dogmas… converge towards a theological and prayerful contemplation of Mary as the archetype of the Church.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia). This is how Blessed Isaac of Stella (+ c. 1169) put it I the 12^th century:

‘What is said in the inspired Scriptures universally of the virgin mother, the Church, is understood in a singular way o the Virgin Mary, and what is said particularly of the virgin mother Mary is rightly understood in a general way of the virgin mother, the Church. And when either is spoken of, what is said goes for the both together, practically without difference. (Sermon 51, the First Sermon for the Assumption)’

“This is a sort of rule for Catholic speech about the Church and Mary, like the Communication of Idioms for speech about Christ, and the Rule of Athanasius for speech about the persons of the Trinity. As Benedict XVI says, “Mary’s motherhood becomes theologically significant as the ultimate personal concretization of the Church.” (Mary: The Church at the Source, with Hans Urs von Balthasar [San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005], pg. 30)

“Mary is not a mere representation of the Church, however. The Church’s maternity as bringing forth Christians from the laver of baptism really depends on Mary’s maternity relative to Christ. She shares her maternity with the Church so that the Church can bring for Christians in the she brought forth Christ. But she does not share her maternity with the Church in binging for Christ. When we say the Church brings forth Christ, we mean she brings forth Christians, or Christ in Christians. On the other hand, you can say that Mary’s maternity depends on the maternity of the Church n that she is a daughter of Zion, the first Church, and she is brought forth from Israel in order to fulfill the promise to Abraham and his descendents.

“It follows that we can say the same things of both Mary and the Church, as Blessed Isaac says, “practically,” but not completely, “without difference.” What is common to them, according to Yves Congar, is that both bespeak human cooperation in the work of salvation, where the initiative and efficaciousness belong to God in Christ (Christ, Our Lady and the Church, 1957 [French, 1952], pg. 16). Mary cooperated in bringing forth the head; the Church cooperated in bringing forth the members of Christ. Together, they bear the whole Christ. And since the Church is one person with Christ, it follows that Mary is Mother of the Church, as Paul VI taught at the close of the Council. Christians really depend on Mary, because they really depend on Christ, and because the fullness of her grace is a fullness for all other Christians, too. But Christ is not dependent on the Church, but rather the reverse. So again, the Church is our mother, but not Christ’s. She forms Christ in each Christian.”