The mariology of Gerhard Müller

The Work of Gerhard Müller on the Virgin Mary

In his work, titled in German *Geboren von der Jungfrau Maria? Eine theologische Deutung* (Born of the Virgin Mary? A Theological Interpretation), the author, a professor of dogmatic theology at Munich University, tackles with theological intelligence the serious question of Jesus’ birth from Mary. Müller, and he emphasizes this from the outset, knows that the topic under scrutiny touches intimately the dogma of Christ, true God and true Man. True God: “Paul and John know, as shown by the concept of preexistence, a mode of divine existence of Jesus as Son or Logos of God already before his sending into the world and, therefore, ‘before’ his earthly mode of existence.” True Man: as Man who came to us by the power of the Spirit and through the extraordinary generative act by which he assumes from Mary humanity, “not in the mode of sexual generation, but in the mode of the creative, redemptive assumption and, therefore, the absolute metaphysical constitution of the human being of Jesus without mediation, as a second cause, of a human generative act. Therefore, the human being of Jesus exists exclusively thanks to the presence of God’s revelation in his Spirit, which is God Himself.”

The study, articulated and profound, aims to offer an intellectually honest and contemporary contribution to bring to light the dignity and salvific relevance of the *Natus ex Maria Virgine* (Born of the Virgin Mary), softening the tones of a debate that has become heated and controversial.Controversies about the Virgin BirthIt is well known that the challenge to the Christological truth has its roots in the early stages of faith. Already in the Gospel account of Matthew, there are apologetic elements that suggest a harsh polemic between the early Christian community and Jewish environments. This polemic was later joined by pagans (Celso, Julian the Apostate, etc.), and then by heretics of Marcionite, Gnostic, Ebionite, and Adocist origin. The controversy, thanks to the doctrine of the Fathers and the teachings of the first great Councils, remained quiet for a long time, only to erupt again in the 16th century with the Socinians, who firmly rejected the virgin birth of Christ, considering it contrary to reason: “With the emerging mechanical conception of the world, observes Müller, the virgin birth of Jesus seemed more and more a detached miracle from nature, by which the omnipotence of God had arbitrarily intervened in the course of the world machine.”With the Enlightenment, the dogma of the virgin birth of Christ becomes a target of scorn: it is claimed to be an expression of the deep scientific and historical ignorance of the Church. In this highly unfavourable context to faith and Christian thought, “scientific” explanations emerge, i.e., new interpretations of psychological, mythological, hermeneutical, historical-religious orders, aimed at concealing and rectifying the obsolete, supernaturalistic-dogmatic culture of Roman Catholicism. Thus, Feuerbach denounces the inconsistency of scientific knowledge in antiquity, which had led the very evangelists to a mythological interpretation of the events related to the origin, person, and ministry of Jesus. Years earlier, D. F. Strauss, under the influence of rationalist criticism of the “miracle” and Kant’s moralist interpretation of Christianity, had discarded the virgin birth as “the most striking deviation from all natural laws.”Interpreting biblical texts through the categories of deep psychology, the German theologian Drewermann sees in the Gospels an illustration of an archetypal model present in the collective unconscious of humanity, so that the accounts of the birth in Matthew and Luke are legends almost mythical. Jesus, as a man, is said to have been conceived and born like any other man: extraordinary would not be his origin, but his life. It is precisely to explain this that the evangelists would have used the concept of “virginal birth,” taking it from ancient oriental narratives about real births. Consequently, the perpetual virginity of Mary would lack any real foundation: they would be mythical symbols of a “new birth” and a “new generation,” linked to the Egyptian myth of the pharaoh, son of the sun.A Deepening of MariologyAfter presenting these and other modern and contemporary objections, and alluding to the vast historical-critical, hermeneutical, and semantic issues that current interpretation of the dogma must submit to, so that nothing is lost of its congruence and consistency of faith, Müller focuses on the most properly mariological aspect: the spiritual and corporal virginity of Mary is the tangible and real sign that the man-God Jesus of Nazareth cannot be a mere result of the “potentialities of the creature.” Furthermore, the virginity of the Mother of the Lord has a wide theological spectrum (Trinitarian and ecclesiological relationship), theologal (Marian typology of faith) and anthropological to explore and indicate.The “virginitas ante partum”The concept of the “virginitas ante partum” (virginity before birth) is addressed by the German theologian, considering the profession of faith, recent theological debates (the value of human sexuality, the relationship between the world’s image and faith’s hermeneutics), comparative religions, evangelical systematic theology, and the controversial yet significant contribution of historical-critical exegesis. The resurrection of Christ as the origin of faith and as the principle of development in the synoptic Christology of the Holy Spirit. The birth of Jesus from the Virgin as an essential element for faith in Him. Regarding the consistency of the real and theological conception of the Son of God from the Virgin Mary, Müller concludes synthetically: “The miracle of the conception of man Jesus from the Virgin Mary is an implicit moment of the broader event and the miracle of God’s presence in man Jesus, which the community recognizes as its Messiah. It is, in any case, the miracle in which a human being, Mary, was actually enabled to give the world God.”A biological verification of this event, absolutely novel and unpredictable, is neither possible nor required. The incomparable conception of Mary cannot be described as “anti-natural.” On the contrary, it would be contrary to the nature of the natural act of generation, by which the creaturely existence that constitutes a person is essentially determined, for God to cause a material substrate to emerge from which His own existence “slips away.”The “Virginitas in Partu”The “virginitas in partu” (virginity in childbirth) proclaims the absence of suffering during childbirth and the miraculous reconstitution of Mary’s womb after the birth of the Son of God. This doctrine is commonly supported by the patristic tradition and the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, although the various testimonies of the Church’s teaching should be evaluated differently, case by case, regarding their importance, their enunciative intent, and their final binding character.It is very difficult, observes Müller, to describe fully the “corporeal integrity” of the Mother of God within the phenomenon of childbirth, because the “unique physiological definitions cannot be the substance of the statement of faith, but rather elements through which the reality of “virginity at childbirth” must be designated as a reality that can only be grasped through faith.” This doctrine, far from being an exclusive product of the ascetic ideal of virginity, is the mature fruit of the Church’s ancient Christological development regarding the integrity of the divine and human nature of the “Logos” in the question of the hypostatic union. Within this doctrinal context, the statement of the virgin motherhood of the “Panaghia” arises, develops, deepens, and is sanctioned. Mary “is not in this process a biological stage of passage, but she herself is characterized as a person by her personal relationship with the incarnate Logos. Therefore, the doctrine of the hypostatic union is linked to the affirmation of Mary as the Mother of God (“Theotokos”) and must also be expressed linguistically in the light of this reality. From this emerges the central mariological statement of Mary as the Virgin Mother of God. Mary is not a physical instrument, but a person.”The virgin childbirth of the “Theotokos” should not be denied or minimized in its formal contents, but it must be read, interpreted, and embraced as a sign of the historical-salvific time inaugurated by the Son of God. “A reality of the new world of redemption that presents itself through Christ.” The birth of the Messiah and the childbirth of Mary are a divine novelty that affirms the admirable nearness of the event and the divine Person in the spirit and flesh of the Virgin. They are not an arbitrary withdrawal of the Child and Mother from nature and human solidarity. Mary’s freedom from pain and her intact integrity despite the truth and reality of childbirth have a meaning that points to the typological-patristic exegesis of Isaiah 66:7-10, where, in strongly figurative language, the sudden, sovereign, and prodigious irruption of eschatological salvation in Jerusalem is narrated: “Before she felt pain, she gave birth; before her pangs came, she delivered a son. Who ever heard of such a thing? Who ever witnessed a case like this?”If one reads the event of eschatological salvation in reference to the antithetical parallel Eva-Maria, used by the Fathers to illustrate the “virginitas in partu,” it becomes clear how it favored the “fiat” of the Virgin and caused the effects of divine punishment given to Eve in Genesis 3,16 to “fall” upon her. Indeed, “through her ‘yes’ to the message of the birth of the Redeemer for humanity, Mary’s relationship with Jesus is new and determined in a different way, also, in the act of giving birth. She already stands on the horizon of the new promise of salvation. If here we speak of the miracle of Jesus’ birth, it certainly has nothing to do with miraculous phenomena. Moreover, Mary, even considering the later doctrine of her preservation from original sin due to the merits of Christ, is only in the context of a post-lapsarian world. As for the biblical doctrine of Mary’s following Christ on the cross, the discourse on her preservation from the pains of childbirth must also be interpreted in an eschatological perspective. Also, the patristic interpretation of Ezekiel 44,1-2 applied to Mary expresses a realistic conception of salvation in virginity at childbirth.The faithful, in embracing the dogma of Mary’s true and virgin motherhood, sanctioned by the Church’s Magisterium, must be well aware that “it is not the gynecological details, which in singular cases have been evaluated differently, that determine the content of this faith dogma. But, regarding the content of faith, Mary’s true motherhood must be expressed in such a way that her fundamental relationship with the Son of God who is revealed is not annulled, that is, wounded. Therefore, her childbirth, in the complexity of its personal, spiritual, and corporal aspects, is entirely natural in itself.” The German theologian, referring to the mariological teachings of Karl Rahner, likes to emphasize and deepen the theological interpretation of “virginitas in partu” more than focusing on the glossary and the physicalist problem of the statement, so laden with historical-salvific, eschatological, anthropological, and symbolic meaning.The “virginitas post partum”To fully comprehend the content and theological value of “virginitas post partum,” as the German theologian observes, one must revisit previous reflections on the “fundamental mariological principle” (Mary is the virgin mother of the incarnate Logos) and consider and evaluate the various and opposing exegetical, historical, and theological views regarding “the brothers and sisters of Jesus.” From the espousal relationship between Mary and Joseph. From the expression “father and mother of Jesus” (Luke 2:33, 48). From the controversial formulation in Matthew 1:25. From the probative value of John 19:26… The Magisterium, in its process of deepening in light of the Spirit and the Word, after assessing objections and adhesions, concluded with rigorous logical faith that “Mary was not Mother of the incarnate Logos under a dramatic condition of exception to then lead a normal family life.” “Mary, as the virgin Theotokos, entered into a corresponding, unique in its kind, relationship with God, in such a way that her personal designation as virgin and mother of God should not be limited or even annulled” in her marriage to Joseph.This precision accurately captures the Christological context of the mariological statement, inviting the believer to consider that, beyond justifiable historical guarantees, Mary’s earthly existence was a total and permanent response, spiritual and corporal, to the immeasurable gift of a non-common, transcendent, virgin, and espoused motherhood. A charism undoubtedly unique to her, without subtracting it from the “common” Christian experience.ConclusionThe path traced by Gerhard Ludwig Müller reveals, in multiple aspects, an unequivocally dense and contemporary theological relevance. First, it impresses with the methodological sobriety with which the author addresses a delicate issue often polarized, refusing both the rationalist reduction of the mystery and a merely reactive defense of the dogmatic data. By reconstructing with rigor the ancient and modern controversies regarding the virgin birth, Müller does not simply list objections; he situates, qualifies, and measures them, without prejudice, in the light of historical-critical tools, contemporary hermeneutical questions, and the broader horizon of systematic theology.In this context, the decisive merit of the study lies in repositioning Mary’s virginity within its original Christological context. The virginity before, during, and after childbirth is not treated as a devotional appendage or as a physiological problem to be resolved by empirical descriptions. It is interpreted as a real theological sign, intrinsically linked to the dogma of Christ, true God and true man, and therefore as a linguistic expression of the Church that seeks to safeguard the absolute gratuity of divine initiative in the Incarnation. Müller’s insistence on distinguishing the content of faith from biological or imagistic details prevents the statement from being seized by physicist readings, without, however, emptying it of purely mythical symbolism. Mary’s virginity remains, thus, a reality confessed in faith, whose theological intelligibility is grasped within the salvific economy inaugurated by Christ.From a Mariological perspective, the work clearly shows that Mary cannot be understood as a “station of passage” in the history of salvation. Her affirmation as Theotokos and Virgin Mother of God, inseparable from the development of the doctrine of the hypostatic union, gives Mariology its proper Christological and ecclesiological status. In this perspective, Mary’s spiritual and corporal virginity reveals the uniqueness of her personal relationship with the incarnate Logos and simultaneously illuminates the typology of faith and the vocation of the Church, called to receive the Word in obedience and fertility of the Spirit.Finally, by proposing guiding theses for future Mariology, Müller suggests a path of deepening that does not depart from the dogmatic core but makes it hermeneutically communicable without amputating its theological realism. The proximity to Karl Rahner’s intuitions, far from uniformizing the approach, reinforces the intention of offering faithful thought a intellectually honest and pastorally relevant path, capable of answering, with serenity and consistency, the recurring question about the meaning and scope of Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit and his birth from the ever-Virgin Mary.For the doctrinal framing of contemporary Mariology, Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council constitutes the fundamental conciliar reference on Mary in the life of the Church.Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian theology, Marian apparitions, and the Postgraduate Program in Mariology.Continue your Marian studies: explore our resources on Mariology, Marian theology, and Marian apparitions. Learn about the Master’s program in Mariology at the Locus Mariologicus Institute.To deepen systematic Marian theology and Mary’s place in the faith of the Church, consult the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II.

Graduate Studies in Mariology

Do you want to deepen your formation in Mariology? Get to know the Graduate Program in Mariology from Locus Mariologicus – an academic formation that combines theological rigor, spiritual life, and the living tradition of the Church.

Register or learn more →