ffianolo1!

lJ
VOLUME 1

EDITED BY

JUNIPER B. CAROL, O.F.M.

THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY

MILWAUKEE
 NIHIL OBSTAT:
JOHN M. A. FllARNS, S.T.D.
Censor librorum
IMPRIMATUR:
+ FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN
Archbishop of New York
July :2.l, 195'4

The nihil obst3t and. impdmatur are official declarations that a

book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal o( mora] error. No implica-
tion is contained. therein that tho e who have granted the nihil
obstat and imprimntur agree with the contents, opinions or
statements expre~sed..

Catholic University of America classifocation number:

(Lynn Classifocation), BQT1003
(Dewey Classifocation) , 232.931

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-6959

COPYRIGHT, 1955, THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY

MADE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 To His Excellency
THE MOST REVEREND JOHN J. WRIGHT, D.D.
Bishop of Worcester
Episcopal Chairman of
The Mariological Society of America
Outstanding Promoter of Marian Studies
This Mariology Set Is Dedicated
With Sentiments of Profound Gratitude
 Prefatory Note

T HE Marian Year proclaimed by Pope Pius XII has seen wide-

spread and intense increase of devotion to the Blessed Mother of
Christ. Programs at home and pilgrimages abroad have focused the
attention of millions on the resplendent ligure of her who is our life,
our sweetness, and our hope in a sense which every Catholic Christian
understands.
The deepening and development of our understanding of the
dogmas respecting the Blessed Mother must necessarily be a principal
accomplishment of the Marian Year if its fruits are to endure and
its purpose is to be achieved. Catholic devotion does not spring from
poetry, but from that love which is born of knowledge. Nil am'l~,1n
nisi prius cognitu-m applies also to the objects of our piety and religious
cult. Neither is devotion nourished, substantially at least, by senti-
ment or emotion; it is made strong by theological science and by the
strict truth which the scholar unfolds for the admiration and the
profit of even the saints, those actual and those to be.
That is why we may properly hail the publication of the present
collection as a major event of the Marian Year, a praiseworthy and
enduring contribution to the observance of the hundredth anniver-
sary of the first of the solemn pronouncements of the Church con-
cerning Mary in these modern times which seem destined to be
dedicated in a special way to her.
The credit for this work, its conception and execution, belongs
in more th an usual degree with dle editor, Father Juniper Carol.
Father Juniper brings unique qualifications of spirit and skill to a
work of editing so ambitious. By ancestry h e is heir to the blood of
pain and therefore lightens his labor with that ardent love for
the Queen of Heaven which has warmed the songs of Spain and
frred the specuJations of her great theologians. By spiritual genealogy
he is a son of the Franciscan family, a kinsman of those friars who,
in every age and lanel, have preached love of Mary tooether with
love for her Son. Out of the blend of these temperamentJ and spirit-
vii
x BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
Madonna secondo la fede e la teologia, written by G. M. Roschini,
O.S.M. 3 English-speaking Catholics should be - actually are - just
as eager to broaden their knowledge concerning the Mother of God
as their brethren in continental Europe. Hence we feel that they,
too, will welcome the publication of a work containing up-to-date,
solid, and authoritative information on the entire field of Marian
theology and cult.
The theological tract known as "Mariology" is vast and complex
indeed, as the reader will gather from a mere perusal of this sym-
posium. T he rich Marian patrimony bequeathed to us as part of
the faith of our fathers, and integrated by not a few biblical texts
and countless patristic, papal, and liturgical documents, constitutes
a varied and almost inexhaustible fund of knowledge. The patient
culling of the Mariological data scattered throughout these "sources"
is the task undertaken in the first volume of the present set. It is
here that both the research-loving scholar and the devout client of
Mary will discover abundant, and perhaps even unsuspected, mate-
rial for study and meditation. Once this necessary foundation has
been laid, the systematic treatment of Our Lady's singular pre-
rogatives will be attempted in a forthcoming volume. And since
an adequate appraisal of Mary's position in the scheme of salvation
has ever prompted her children to express outwardly their inner
sentiments of gratitude and dependence, our project would be
incomplete if it failed to gather in a third volume the multiple
manifestations of Marian cult and devotion as found in the various
spheres of Catholic life. Against the rich background furnished by
this vast panorama, the alluring figure of Our Heavenly Mother
will stand in all its splendor and beauty, giving us an idea, how-
ever faint, of the exalted mission assigned to her by the Almighty.
So much concerning the appropriateness of this publication and
its contents in general. As to the contributors selected for the various
papers, the Editor feels that they need no speCial introduction.
Most of them are seasoned writers in the various branches of the
sacred sciences and all have shown sufficient familiarity with con-
temporary Mariological problems and with the solutions to meet
these problems. TI1e criteria adhered to in the -preparation of their
papers have been detennined with a view to reaching the widest
a Three v,Qlumes so far, published this year (1953) by the Libreria Editrice F.
Feuari, Rome, Imly. A fourth volume has been announced for the near future. This
is by far the be$t, most complete, and most up-to-date set of systematic Mariology
written by a single author.
 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Xl

possible circle of readers. For this reason, while the contributions

are written according to accepted standards of scientific methodology,
their style of presentation is never abstruse or excessively technical.
The symposium, then, is offered, first of all, to the members of the
Catholic clergy, who will find in it not only a refreshing and
stimulating review of their previous theological studies, but likewise
a clear and accurate expose of more recent currents of thought
in the field of Mariology. Second, to the lay members of religious
orders and congregations, to our seminarians, and to the large
group among our Catholic laity, always eager to broaden and deepen
their knowledge of Marian doctrines. Finally, to non-Catholic groups
earnestly seeking the justification for our teaching relative to Our
Blessed Lady. It should prove rather revealing to them, especially
when brought into comparison witb the offensive caricatures of
Marian doctrines drawn at times by some of their less enlightened
coreligiorusts. It should serve as a timely antidote against the
recritninations of such pseudo critics as Dr. Karl Barth who con-
tends that Catholic Mru:iology is, in fact, "a pathological conception
of theological thought," a cancerous growth which ought to be
immediately excised. 4 May we note, with a feeling of relief, that
not all our separated . brethren shru:e the distorted views of this
misguided theologian. lndeed, it is consoling to observe in this con-
nection that among contemporary Protestant scholars there are not
a few engaged in an honest and sincere endeavor to re-evaluate their
fonner position and reconstruct a "non-Roman" Mariology on a
nlore orthodox basis. Witness, for example, tlle commendable work
of Dr. Hans Asmussen in Germany,S the Dialogue SUIT la Vierge,
compiled by Patu Couturier in FraDce,G and the symposium The
Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall in England. 7 Whjle the
net result gathered from these essays of rapprochement is not as yet
totally satisfactory, neverilieless the very effort which inspired them
represents a significant step in the right direction md hence deserving
of our praise. May the pages that follow be of some help to these
and many other sincere non-Cailiolics jn their search for the fullness
4 K. Barth, Die kirkliche Dogmatik, I, 2, Zollikon, 1939, pp. 151-160. Reference
taken from Hugo Rahner, S.]., Die Marienkunde in der lateinischen Patristik, in
Katholische Marienkunde (ed. P. Strater, S.].), Vol. I, Paderbom, 1947, p. 13 8.
6 Maria, die Mutter Gottes, published by Evangelisches Verlagswerk, Stuttgart,
Gennany, 1950.
6 Published by E. Vitte, Paris, 1951.
7 Published by Dacre Press, Westminster, England, 1949.
xii BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
of God's revelation concerning His Immaculate Mother.
On the appearance of this first volume the Editor takes occasion
to expres his heartfelt gratjtude to all who have in any way
assisteu him jn this difficult enterprise. He is particularly. thankful
to I-Tis ExceJ1.en y, the Most Reverend John J. iVright, Bishop of
Worcester, for having enhanced the prestige of this publication by
writing its preface; to the various contributors for their erudite and
highly informative dissertations; and to the publishers for their
valuable co-operation and many courtesies.
REv. DR. J. B. CAROL, O.F.M .
Editor
New York
December 8, I953
 Contents
Prefatory Note vii
By Way of Introduction. ix

MARY IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

by Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm., S.T.D.
I Mother of God 5
II Ever Virgin . 10
III Full of Grace. 14
IV Immaculate 17
V Assumed Into Heaven 24
VI Mediatrix With the Mediator 32
VII Spiritual Mother 40
VIII Queen . 45
A Closing Word 50

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

by Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., S.T.D., S.S.L.
Introduction: "The Mother of Jesus Was There"
I Mary in Prophecy
II Mary in Type .
Conclusion

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

by Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.].
Parentage
Education
Betrothal
Annunciation
Visitation
Joseph's Ordeal
Bethlehem
Presentation and Purification
xiii
XIV CONTENTS
The Magi
The Flight Into Egypt
Return to Nazareth
The Hidden Life .
The Child Jesus in the Temple
Cana 100
The Public Life 102
Beneath the Cross 10 3
The Risen Christ 10 5
The Woman of the Apocalypse 106
Summary 10 7

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

by Walter]. Burghardt, S.]. . 109

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

by Alfred C. Rush, C.SS.R., S.T.D. 156
Exceptional Birth and Early Years of Mary 157
The Virginity of Mary . 158
Mary's Divine Maternity. 162
The Death of Mary 166
The Assumption of Mary ~ 70
The Queenship of Mary 175
The Intercession of Mary 179
Conclusion 182

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

by Very Rev. Cuthbert Gumbinger, O.F.M.Cap., S.T.D. 185
Introduction . 185
I Mary in the Byzantine Liturgy 188
II Mary in the Alexandrian and Ethiopian Liturgies 210
III Mary in the Antiochene Liturgy 224
IV Mary in the Armenian Liturgy 233
V Mary in the Chaldean Liturgy 240

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

by Simeon Daly, O.S.B. .
Introduction .
Liturgy in Relation to Faith
Maternity
Sanctity .
 CONTENTS xv
Virginity 260
Assumption 261
Queenship 26 5
Mediation 26 7
In General 27 1
Feast of the Purification . 27 2
Seven Dolors 273
Visitation 274
Holy Name 274
Presentation 275
Little Office 276
Marian Antiphons 277

OUTLINE HISTORY OF MARIOLOGY IN THE

MIDDLE AGES AND MODERN TIMES
by George W. Shea, S.T.D. . 281

I Medieval Mariology (Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries) 285

II Modern Mariology (Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries) 309
III Contemporary Mariology ( 18 54- 1954) 315

MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

by Aidan Carr, O.F.M.Conv., S.T.D., and
Germain Williams, O.F.M.Conv., S.T.D. . 328
1. Declaration of the Privilege 328
2. Certitude of the Privilege . 332
Adversaries of the Doctrine 333
Tenor of the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" 334
Argument From Scripture 335
Argument From Tradition 344
The Theological Argument 370
The Position of the Blessed Virgin Relative to the Law of
Original Sin . 379
The Immunity of Mary From Concupiscence 386
The Relation of Mary to the State of Original Justice 391

MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

by Salvatore Banana, C.M.F. 395
Definition of Terms 395
Errors 398
Magisterium . 399
xvi CONTENTS
Scripture Proofs
Tradition
Theological Proof
Freedom From Imperfection
Appendix

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

by Richard Kugelman, C.P., S.T.L., S.S.L. 411
The Form of the Name Mary 413
The Etymology of the Name Mary 414
The First Four Centuries A.D. 415
St. Jerome to the Sixteenth Century A.D. 416
The Modern Period. Sixteenth and Subsequent Centuries 418

INDEX OF AUTHORS 425

MARIOLOGY
 Mary in the Documents of
the Magisterium

By EAMON R. CARROLL, O.CARM., S.T.D.

XLL these with one mind continued steadfastly in prayer with the
.L-\.. women and MaIY, the mother of Jeslls, and with his brethren"
(Acts I: I4). Our Lady's last appearance in the historical books of the
New Testament shows her at the very beart of the apostolic band.
"She it was," Pope Pius XII writes, "who through her powerful
prayers obtained the grace that the SpiPt of OUI Divine Redeemer,
already given to the Church on the Cross, should be bestowed thI0ugh
miraculous gifts on the newly founded Hierarchy on Pentecost."1
Before Our Lord ascended into heaven He h ad promised, leThe Advo-
cate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will
teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said
to you" On. 14:26).
The prayerful preparation in the Cenacie for the coming of the
Advocate was not the first time Our Lady haeI awaited His coming.
The I oly Spirit had come upon her in the mystery of the Incarnation
when the Son of God was made man in her virginal womb. She well
knew the Spilit of tlUd1; under His influence the Blessed Virgin's
brilliant mind manifested itself in the Magnifica,t. The many mys-
teries she pondered in her heart were truths that she would confide to
the Church's care.
The presence of Mary in the Gospels is a sign of Christ's presence
- at the Crib, in Cana, on Calvary. Her presen ce before Pentecost
was a sign that the Holy Spirit was at hand. Our Lady's presence
through the history of the Church is still the guarantee that her
divine Son is d1ere. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the
history of Catholic doctrine. The ody of Catholic trot! is a unified
1 Mystici Corporis, in A A S., Vol. 35 , 1943, pp. 247-248; English translation
of the N.C.W .C., No. 107.
I
2 MARIOLOGY
whole. If the divine personahty of Christ is attacked, then lis Mother
is no longer the Mother of God. If the full humanity of the God-
Man is deni d, the true and perfect motherhood of Mary is its
defense. When OUI Lady's God-given plivileges are rejected and
ridiculed, how sadly history shows that her Son SOon fares no better.
A. The Magisterium
Ma.ry in the Documents of the Magisteri1M14 is a gathering of the
principal teachings of the Church about the Blessed Mother of God.~
Christ was not only Priest and King, He was also the divine Teacher.
He conferred all three powers on I-lis Church. The term ·magisterhmt
means the right and office of teaching truths revealed by God with
that supreme authority to which all must assent. The word magis-
teriu,m is used in two ways: first, for the power of teaching; second,
for the persons themselves who possess the teaching authority.
In th present article, only what the Papal magistetiu,m h as taught
about Mill)' will be examjned; this will include the decisions of ecu-
menical councils, i.e., general assemblies to which all the bishops of
the world are invited, with the Pope calling or at least approving the
assembly.
Another necessary distinction is between solemn magi.sterium and
ordinary magisterium. Solemn magisterium refers to definitions given
by General Councils in union with the Pope, or also by the Pope
alone when he speaks ex cathedra. The !-loly Father spe-aks €."(; cathe-
dra (Latin for "fTom the chair," i.e., from St. Peter's Chair, as his
2 The -principal SOLlICes used have been the following: H. Dellziuger et C.
BannwllJ;t, ElIehirid.ia1l s:rmbolon~m, definitianmn et declaratio-nutll (Ie refJ1lS
fidei et marum, ed. 2.7 augmentata a J. B. Umberg (Barcelona, J951); Paul PalmCl;,
S.J., Mary in the DaCl~m.ents af the Chnroh (Westminster, Md., 195'2), with
grateful acknowledgment for maJ1Y useful ideas and uanslations; C. Rosel-liui,
O.S.M., Mariologia, 28 ed. ( Romae, 1947-1948), -particularly Vol. 1. pp, 33-50
on the Marian Doctrine of the Roman Pontiffs; Idem, La Maalln1'l<l nd pen,"-lero
e 11el.l'insegnamen'to ,Ii Pia Xl, in lvtarianum, Vol. 1, 1939, pp. 12'1-J 72j O.
Be.:relOO. S.D.B., Maria nel d01mna cattblieo (Totino, '1,950), pp. 261-32.3 on
the -popes of tlle Ellst hundred years; J. 'Bittremieux, DooJ:rina Mariana LeQni.
XIII (Brugh, !928); idem, ~ Melrina Marial~a Pi'! XI, in Ephemerid,es Thea-
logicllc Lovalti,elLSBS, Vol. H, 1934, pp. 95-101. Besides the Acta Apostolicae
Se,d.is ( 1909- ). Le ElleieUe1w Mariane, ed, A. Tondini (Roma, 1950) (from
lhl;: time of Plus IX to the present) has been usef'1.llj it will be referred to as
TODdiui. G. FjJoW.!~si, S.I., l{l dOttri11l1 Maricma i/ej, Papi ( da Pia IX a Pia XII),
in La Civitira Cattaliea, Vol. 103, 1952, ill, pp. 347-364. is a commentary on
Tondini. The English translations have been talten from many sources, sometimes
with sHght adaptations. Por Pope Leo XIII, the translations a're usually from
The Rosary af Ma,/" ed. by William R. Lawler, O.P, (paterson, N. J., 1944),
cited sim1)ly as Lawler.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 3
successor) when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians
he proposes by his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine of faith or
morals to be believed by the universal Church. 3
The ordinary magisterium includes the teaching of the Papal en-
cyclicals, of the ordinary documents of the Congregations (e.g., the
Congregation of the Holy Office in Rome), and of the body of
bishops. Humani generis, encyclical letter of August 12, 1950, thus
explains the authority of the ordinary magisterium:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters
does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the
Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of
which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me" CLk. 10: 16);
and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters
already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the
Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment
on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that
matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot
be any longer considered a question open to discussion among
theologians. 4

If the Holy Father declares by the extraordinary exercise of his

teaching authority that a certain doctrine is a revealed truth, as
occurred, for example, in 1950 about the Assumption, the truth is
technically known thereafter as a dogma, and the Pope's action
recalled as a dogmatic definition. In such ex cathedra definitions he
is infallible; the Holy Ghost protects him from error.
But even before any solemn definition, it may be clear from the
ordinary magisterium that a doctrine is a truth revealed by God and
forming part of the Deposit of the Faith. Thus, the Assumption was
already a matter of faith before the definition of November I, 1950.
But the Church's proposal of the doctrine, by dogmatic definition,
puts it beyond doubt and discussion. According to Munifocentissimus
Deus:
3 D.B., 1839. On the magisterium, see M. Cordovani, O.P., in the article
Chiesa, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, Vol. 3, eols. 1455-1456 CCitta del Vatieano,
1950).
-~ A.A.S., Vol. 42., 19,0, Jl. ,68; author;i2:ed Vlttican trnnsiatioll . On the
authority of lhe encyclicals, " . J. C. Fenton, Tl1e Religious Asse-n t dw~ to ffle
T eachhlgs of Papal E'ltcycliC4lls in _The America-n EcclerirJstiCllI Beview, Vol.
l2.3, 195°, pp. 59-6,/,; The Doctrinal A9Atnoritry, of l'apal, Encyolicals, fbi,d.., Vol.
12.1, pp. J36-15 0, 2.10-22.0 ; Th e Lesson. of JIH1'n lliu Generis, ·i-bid., Vol I.2.3,
1950, pp. 359-378.
4 MARIOLOGY
From the universal agreement of the Church's ordinaxy teaching
aut110rity we have a certain and finn proof, demonstrating that the
Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven - which surely
no faculty of the human mind couJd know by its own natural powers,
as far as t11e heavenly gloriE.cation of the virginal body of the revcred
Mother of God is concerned - is a truth that has been revealed by
God and consequently something that must be £nnly and faithfully
believed by all the children of the Church. S
The popes issue many kinds of documents: Some are Apostolic
Constitutions (M'u,ni(icent-issimu5 De'l-ts) for example), some are en-
cyclicals addressed to the universal Church, some are radio ;messages
to particular places or to the whole world. Still others are letters to
bishops and superiors of religious QJ:ders. Modern communications
bring the Pope's words, even short addresses to small groups of pil-
grims, to the whole world. Particular or local pronouncements fre-
quently explain more general documents.
B. Deposit of the Faith
The phrase ''Deposit of the Faith" (d.epositum, pdei) , or Simply
the Deposit, means public Revelation, intended by God for all men,
complete and entire, such as it is contained in Holy Scripture and in
divine and apostolic tradition. This Deposit of the Fait11 was closed
with the death of the last Apostle, so that tIle whole content of
truths revealed by God was entrusted to tIle Church before St. Jolm
died. Some of them were written in Scripture, many others were
passed on by word of mouth to subsequent generations. The Church,
called by St. P<\.uJ "the pillar and mainstay of tJle truth" (r Tim.
3: 15), is the custodian of the Deposit of the Faith. As custodian,
it neither adds to nor alters the trudlS revealed once for all in the
Deposit. "The Church," declares Pius XI, "never adds anything to
the sum of truths which are contained at least implicitly in the
revealed deposit which it has received from Goc1."o
But the Church is a living dynami thing, the Mystical Body o£
Christ. And so the unchanging conservation of the Deposit does not
prevent a real progress in the tmderstanding of the contents of the
Deposit by individuals and by the whole Churcl1. This progress is
5 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 756; English of the N.C.W.C. trandatioll by Fr.
Fenton, No. 12. D.B., 1792, says "sive solemni iudkio sive ordinario et unive:rsnl:l
magisterio."
6 A.A.S., Vol. 20, 1928, p. 14. Cf. Giacinto J\meri, O.F.M., Deposito della
Pede, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, Vol. 4, eols. t44:1.-J443 (Citta del Vaticano,
1950); C. Vagaggini, Dogma, ibid., eols. 1799-1804, on the evolution of dogma.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 5
lmown as the development of doctrine. It is a gradual flowering under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whereby doctrines that were but
dimly perceived in early times are now seen as part of the harmonious
pattern of revealed truth. As Newman describes it, 'What the
Church Once had she never has lost.. .. 811 has not c.h anged posses-
sions, but accumulated them." In the course of time, both the
teaching and the taught Church discover, by prayer and study, a
doctrine that has been there beneath the surface all along. In New-
man's words: "Even centuries might pass without the formal expres-
sion of a truth which had been all along the secret life of millions of
souls." At length the Church, infallible interpreter of Revelation,
may judge a doctrine to be part of revealed truth, and by dogmatic
definition or by the ordinary magisterium so declare it.'
In the Gospels Our Lord speaks of the householder who brings
forth ['rom his storeroom things old and new (Mt. 13: 51-52). In like
manner the Church is forever producing [Tom its treasure of revealed
wisdom truths old and. new; the treasury is of inexhaustible richness,
a IeBection of the substantial truth of the Divine Word. s There is
no better example of this development than to survey the Church's
teachings on the Virgin Mary from her divine motherhood to her
coronation as Queen of heaven.

I. MOTHER OF GOD
A. Creeds
After the New T estament. no fonn of early Christian literature
is m ore ancient than the primitive Creeds. By these early symbols
catechumens committed to memory a brief summary of the principal
doctrines of Christianity. The teaching Church, under the guidance
7 On Cardinal Newman's Mariology, and his Essay on the Developmem of
Christian Doctrine, 184 5, which he began as an A:Q.g1ican and £:rushed as a
Catholic, see Francis J. Friedel, S.M., TIm Ma,riology of Cal'tUnal Newman.
(New York, 192.8), especially Pl" 50-87. Newman applied his -principles on
development in the famous Letlter to P11,Sey, 1865, in. defense of the I.mrna.culate
Conception. l-fi~ own summary of JUs views on development with the mrn-
ments of Fr. Perwne, S.J.. ru;e given ill' "The Newman-Perrone Paper on
D evelopment," ed. Rev. T. Lynch. in Gregoria1t1l.1n, Vol. 16, J935, Pl" 402-447.
E. Druwe, S.J., uses Newman's theories in La ' Mediatiofl Universelle cIe M arie,
in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949),
e.g., Pl" 459, 477, 478, 496, 5 1 6. B. Capelle, O .S.B., finds the great Cardinal's
ideas vindicated in the Assumption in Theologie de l'Assomption. d'apres Ia
bulle "M1mificen,ti$Siorn'w; Deus," in Nouvelle revue theoIogique, Vol. 72, 1950,
pp. 1009-102.7, esp. p. 1024 if.
a Corclovani loe. cit.
8 MARIOLOGY
now ettled for all Christianity and for all time. he cornerstone had
been placed by this definition of dogma for the subsequent develop-
ment of Mariology. The intimate bond between the Theoto7ws and
the God-Man was indicative of the trend the developing Mariology
would t1lke. h belief embodied in the term Theotolws was at once
the glory of Mary's divine Maternity and the affirmation that God
Himself became man, the son of Mary, took to Himself a human
nature without prejudice to the tmity of His divine re ·Son. The
Church in ages to come would discover the deeper treasures of the
divine Maternity, for in th· words of Pius XlI "from this sublime
iEce of the Mother of God seem to Row, as it were from a most
limpid. hidden source, all the privileges and graces with which her
soul and life were adorned in such extraordinary manner and
rn.eaSllre. "1.4
Ephesus also sh owed clearly the ~oman Prim.acy. In word and
act the Papa] participation in the Council called by the Emperor was
the i n tervention of the Supreme Pastor. yril, even when he con-
vened the Council, June 22, 43 J, before many of the bishops and
tl-l,e Roman delegates ani ved, did so as "holding the place of the
Bishop of the Church of Rome." The legates on their arrival
demanded and received without question a complete review in a
new assembly of the bishops. Philip the Priest addressed them in
words tha t have become a classic expressi0n of the primacy of
authorhy 0f Peter's successor.1& The Mano10gy of Ephesus can be
aid to come directly from the Supreme Magisterimn of the Church.
Here again a pattern has been set : in the subseguent development
of doctrine about Our Lady, the decision will vcr rest with Rome.
For Philip stated that the Council bad been reunited to carry out
the decisions mad by Rome. The members of tlle Church are
joined to the head, and the blessed Apostle Peter is the head of the
faith and the head of the Apostles. tO

C. After Ephesus
Many popes and councils in the centuries immediately after
Ephesus reaffirmed the divine maternity. The Council of Chalcedon
(fourth ecumenical), 451, made its own the word Theotokos: "as
14 F14lgs71S Corona AAS., Vol. 45, 1953, p. 580.
15 Philip's words are in D.B., 1I2, and were incorporated verbatim at the
fourth session of: the Vatican Council, 1870, D.B., 1824.
1 6 G. "Hardy, art. cit., p. 184, n. 4.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 9
regards His Goclliead, He was begotten of the Father before the
ages, and as regards His manhood He was for us and for our salva-
tion born in these last days of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God."lf
The second Council of Constantinople (fifth ecumenical), 553,
defended the word Th.eotokos against false interpretation. It also
accepted an.d thereby conferred dogmatic value on St. Cyril's anathe-
mas against Nestorius. There is no evidence that these anathemas
were read and approved at the Council of Ephesus itself. The first
anathema concerns the divine Maternity: "If anyone does not confess
that Emmanuel is in LTUth God, and that the holy Virgin is, in
consequence, Theotokos (Mother of God), since she brought forth
according to the flesh the Word of God who has become flesh , let
him be anathema."18

D. Lux veritatis
The outstanding document of modern times on the divine Dlother-
hood is Pius Xl's encyclical commemorating the anniversary of Ephe-
sus, Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.19 L'U·x veritatis reviews the
history of the Nestorian heresy and the events at Ephesus, consider-
ing both the defense of the traditional faid1, and the authoritative
position of the Roman Primacy recognized on that occasion. The
central dogma of the Incarnation - that Christ is tme God and true
man, the divine and human natures existing unconfused in the
hypostatic union (the union of the one divine Person with the
human nature) - is explained. The divine l1aternity i shown as the
corollary of Ohristological doctrine. From this truth dle Pope derives
also the belief that Mary is our spiritual tiother. He concludes by
a double gesture to commemorate the Ephesian anniversary: the
restoration of the mosaic in St. Mary Major of the Theotokos, first
11 D.B. , 148.
lij D.B., JlS, Palmer, p . 11 . D .B. and J>ahner both note that this anathema
was probably not read at Ephesus, on tbe bnsis of Fr. Gallier's research, reported.
in Recherches de science 'reUgje'!~se, VoL 23, 1933, p. 45 IF. Also Nilus a S.
Brocardo, Q.C.D., De m .a:tenlitaLe divil'lfl B. Mariae semper Virginis (Romae,
1944), p. 45. u . ( 60). According to Jonassard, art. cit. p. r35, nos. (56-57), the
divine Miltemity strictly speaking waS. D?t deflDed at Ephesus; nonetheless, ilie
conciliar decisions were the equivalent of a deflnition, even before the approval
of the anathema at the Fiftb Ecumenical Council.
19 AA.S., Vol. 23, 1931, pp. 493-517; in Tondini, pp. 369-406. Cf. A. Luis,
C.SS.R., San Cirilo y Nestorio. Endclica "Lux veritatis," in Estudios Marianos
(Asamblea del ano 1948), Vol. 8 (Madrid, 1949), pp. 325-344; the whole
volume treats the divine Maternity.
10 MARIOLOGY
placed there after the triumph of Ephesus by Pope St. Sixtus III
in 432; and the extension to the universal Church of the feast of the
Divine Maternity on November 21.

II. EVER VIRGIN

The early Creeds n ot only affirm with St. Paul that Christ was
"born of a woman" (Gal. 4 :4); they specif)' "born of the Virgin
Mary." And the Council of Ephesus ~sed St. Cyril's words to state
that the holy Virgin was truly T heohotos, Mother of God. The chal-
lenge to the divine Materni ty h ad sprung from Nestolianism, an
Eastern heresy. The W est was less disturbed by speculative errors.
I ts mOre practical bent manifes ted itself ill a vigorous defense of
Mary's perpetual virginity. Some have asserted that Mary's perpetual
virginity was invented as a spur to asceticism, but such an opinion
is contradicted by the Creeds accepted in tlle East and the W est, an d
is contrary to the Gospels themselves .20 Asceticism, e.g., the resp ct
for clerical celibacy, did play a part in the acknowledgment of Mary's
perpetl.l.a] virginity, but it was not the leading role. It was rather the
part of an agent, working effectively to present to the teaching Church.
an adequ ate formula to state its doctrine precisely. T he Ecclesia
docens, the teaching Church, made the final decision.21
Pope St. Siricius (384-399), on the occasion of a dispu te about
Our Lady's perpetual virginity, intervened in 392 witb a letter to
Anysius, Bishop of 11'lessalonica. The Bishop had taken Bonosus, a
bishop in Illyria, to tas]( for sayin g Our Lady had other children .
. . . you had good reason to be h orrified at the thouob t that another
birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ
was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have
chosen to be born of a virgin if He had ever judged that she would
be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse
the birthp1ace of the Lord's body, that court of the Eternal King. To
assert SUcl1 a view j s to do nothing less than to accept as a basis that
Jewish falseho d wh ich h olds that He could not have been born of
a virgin.22
20 On the value of the Creeds concemiug Mary's virginity, cf. A. Janssens,
De H eel'HjWlIJden van het goddelijk m-oeclerschap, tvveede herziene druk (2nd
edit.), Brussel. 1939, p. I I I if. On the Gospels, d. C. C. Maltindale, S.J.,
Ghrist's Virgin Birt.h. and the Gospel of the Tnfancy (London : Catholic Truth
Society. 1948).
21 Cf. O. Faller, De priorum saeculorum silentio circa Assumptionem B. Mariae
Virginis (Romae, 1946), pp. 74-75 ; Jouassard, art. cit., p. 120.
22 D.B., 91, Palmer, p. 28. On these controversies, cf. Jouassard, art. cit.,
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM II

The attack on Mary's virginity - especially on her virginity after

the birth of Christ - was mo tivated by practical rather than by
dogmatic reasons. Helvidius wished to show that the state of virginity
was no better than marriage, and proposed M ary as an example of
both states - of virginity un til Christ's birth, of the motherhood of a
large family in later life. At Rome Christian asceticism was empha-
sizing the superiority of virginity. The young St. Jerome wrote his
vigorous Adversus Helvidium (Against Helvidius) in ' 383, demon-
strating from Scripture and tradition that Mary was ever a virgin.
That was under Pope Damasus, who died in 384. The enemies of
asceticism reformed their ranks under the ex-monk Jovinian. Pope
Siricius had his clergy examine and condemn their propositions and
excommunicate Jovinian.
When Jovinian fled to the safety of the court at Milan, Pope
Siricius advised the Bishop, St. Ambrose, of the attempt Jovinian
might make to misrepresent true asceticism as Priscillianism, a kind
of Manichaeism with its teaching that the body comes from Satan,
and its condemna tion of m arriage as evil. St. Ambrose, by a clever
coul1terstroke, obtained the expulsion of the Jovinian party by the
civil authorities, on the charge of Manichaeism. Jovinian s denial of
Our Lady's virginity in the actual bringing forth of the Christ Child
was answered by Ambrose.
The Bonosus case next occupied Ambrose's attention. About 390,
this Illyrian bishop, living in an area of Asia Minor where earlier in
the same century even prominent and orthodox preachers had not
considered Mary's virginity after Christ's birth a matter of faith, said
Mary had other children. 2 8 His neighboring bishops condemned him.
Ambrose, appealed to from both sides, suggested to the Council of
Bishops of Illyria the norms by which they migh t defend Mary's
perpetual virginity, the greatest argumen t beiner the demands of the
divine Maternity. The episcopate of TIlyria, under Anysius, to whom
Pope Siricius had written, reaffirmed the condenm ation of Bonosus.
Fifty years later, Monophysitism under Eutyches taught that the
divine and human natures blended so perfectly in Christ that He

p. 106 ff.; Hugh Pope, O.P., T1~e P~rpe/.t(al Virgin ity of Our Blessed Lady,
in Our Blessed Lady (Cambridge S'wtll1l'l.i!r Sc1~ool Lect'ures for I933) (London,
1934), pp. 121-14 1; J.-R. Palanque, Les mel.rOlJoles eccUsiastiques a la fin du
IVe siecle, in Histoire de I."EgHse, eel. Fliche et Martiu, Vol. 3 ( Paris), p. 476 ff.;
Hugh Rahner, Die Marienkunde in der lateinischen Patristik, in KathoUsche
Marienltunde, ed. Paul Strater, S.}., Vol. I ( Paderborn, 1947), p. 146 If.
23 }ouassard, art. cit., pp. 88-90, I I I-I 12.
12 MARIOLOGY
had only a single nature (hence the name: Mono-phusis or "single-
nature"). Against this denial of the true and perfect humanity of
Christ, Pope St. Leo I (440-461) wrote the Archbishop of Constan-
tinople, Flavian, in 449,24 after the following series of events: Euty-
ches concealed his teaching under the mask of opposition to Nesto-
rianism, and even wrote to Pope Leo I in 448. The Pope replied in
praise of Eutyches' zeal, but said be was not well enough informed
about the Eastern controversy. The same year Eutyches was hailed
before an episcopal council under Flavian and, refUSing to retract
his teaching, was condelUl1ed as heretical. Eutyches appealed to Rome,
and accompanied his appeal with a letter from Emperor Theodosius.
Pope Leo wrote back that he'Nas still not well informed on events.
But when the case was laid before him in full he confumed the
judgment against Eutyches.
Meantime the Emperor convened another cOlli.1cil at Constantinople
and the Pope sent three delegates to it, one of them the deacon
Hilru."y, later to become pope himse1f. Among the letters they brought,
dated June, 449, was one to Archbishop Flavian, containina a com-
plete resume of Leo's doctrinal position, since famous as the "Tome
of Pope St. Leo 1." The document reaffirms the truth of two natures
in the one Person of Christ, each with its proper faculties. In the
same tone Our Lady's perpetual virginity- before Christ's birth, in
childbirth, afterward (ante partum, in partu, post partum) - is pre-
sented as the Church's doctrine:
U nquestionably, therefore, He wa s ('.once~ved of the Roly Spirit within
the womb of His Virgin Motber. She brought Him forth without
the loss of virginity, even as she conceived Him without it'> loss....
The Son of God, therefore, came down from H:is heavenly throne
without relinquishing the glory of His Father, and entered this lower
world by way of a new order and a new mode of birth. . . . By way
of a new mode of birth, insofar as virginity inviolate which knew not
the desire of the flesh supplied the material of flesh. From His Mother
the Lord took nature, not sin. Jesus Christ was born from a virgin's
womb, by a miraculous birth. And yet His nature is not on that
account unlike to ours, for He that is true God is also true Man. 25
2<1 D.B. , 143-144, Palmer, pp. 29-31, where Flavian is mistakenly cilled
"Emperor rather than Archbishop. Ba~lgrol.lnd lJistory in G. Bardy, (l Bri,gcmda.ge.
a.lEp,/1ese de le Concile de Chalcedoine, in Histoire de l'P,glise, ca. FHche et
Martin, Vol. 4 (paris, T945), pp. 2.11-2 40 .
gr, D.B. T43-J 44, Palmer, pp. 30-3J . Fr. Palmer gives mo~e of: the tome
than D.B. Leo I is s:uotecl in the encyclicul Se1'l'~pitern~f,S He;", in A.A.S. Vol.
43, 1951I , p. 634, on the occasion of the 1500th arurivcrsary of Chalcedon: "de
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 13
The council met at Constantinople in 449. From the first assembly
it was evjdent that the meeting had been arranged with the conniv-
ance of tlle Emperor for the advantage of Eutyches alone. It well
earned the title Pope Leo later gave it-Iatrocinium, den of thieves.
The Pope's letters were ignored, his legates protesting in vain. Euty-
ches was restored, Flavian charged with heresy and jailed. Emperor
Theodosius died in 450 and was succeeded by Empress Pulcheria.
Both she and her consort, ,M arcian, favored the Faith.
The truly universal council that Pope Leo desired was sum-
moned, and met at Chalcedon, October, 45 I , with over five hundred
bishops present. First the Nicean Creed and St. Cyril's letters to
Nestorius were read, then Pope Leo's tome. When the tome was read,
the assembly accepted it tIDconditionally and enthusiastically: "Be-
hold the faith of the Fathers! the faith of the Apostles! So do we
too, all of us, believe, all who are orthodox believe the same! Anathe-
ma to whoever believes otherwise! Thus through Leo has Peter
spoken!"26
It remained for the first Lateran Council, held in 649 under Pope
St. Martin I, to give the dogmatic definition of the perpetual virginity
of Mary. The occasion was the condemnation of Monothelism, still
another attack on the full reality of Christ's humanity. The heresy
held there was only one will Cmono-thelema) in Christ, namely the
divine will.
If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the
holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the
Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fulness of time, and without
seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit God the Word Himself, who before
all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity
brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate,
let him be condemned. 27
The Lateran canon just quoted expressed the belief of East and
ea Vil:gine de qua est natllS." Chalceclon's own Creed, D,B., 148, is also quoted,
lac. cit., p. 635. l\ouet de Joumel, S.J., E.nchiridicJ1'I PamstiCJH,$, ed. 140 (Friburgi
Drisgoviae, 1947), Nos. 2182-2!B'3, quotes moI'C £rom the tome.
20 H ughes, op. ci.t., Vol. I, }" 316.
21 D.R, 256, Palmer, pp. 31-32. The Latin is: "Can. 3. Si quis secundum
smctos Pattes nOll confitetur p(oprie et secundum vCJ;itatem ',)ei getutricem -s;mc-
tam semperq\lc Virginem et ill1macula tam Mariam, utpote I'J?sum Deum Verbum
specialiter et veraeiter, qui a Dca Patte ante omnia s.~ecuJ. nntlls est, in ultimis
saeculonun absque semine cOI1cepisse ex Spidtu Sancto, Jt incorruptibiliter eam
[eum?] genuisse, inclissolu.b ili permanente et post pm:t um eiusdem virginitate,
condcmnatus sit." (The square brackets are in D.B.)
 MARIOLOGY
West alike; and although the council was not ecumenical, the canon
embodies a true dogma. In 68 I, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the
third to be held at Constantinople, accepted the canon of the Lateran
on Our Lady's virginity without question.
Professions of faith and symbols formulated by later popes contain
the same doctrine: among them, Leo Ill's profession of faith of Nice-
phorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 8 I 1 ;2" Innocent IU's profession
of faith prescribed :for the Waldensians, 1208;30 the lormLlla for the
union of the Greeks of the second Council of Lyons (foUl'teenth
ecumenical) under Gregory X 30 ; and the Council of Florence in the
Decree for the Jacobites, 1441. 31
Paul IV in 1555 thus answered the Unitarians, who denied the
Trinity, the Incarnation, and the virginity of Mary:
In a spirit of paternal severity we are anxious to admonish each and
everyone who has heretofore asserted, taught or believed ... that the
same most Blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the Mother of God or that
she did not always retain the integrity of her virginity, that is, before
birth, during birth, and continuously after birth.. 32

III. FULL OF GRACE

Once the divine M aternity and the perpetual virginity of Mary
had been proposed by the Church's teaching authority as true Cath-
olic doctrine the way was open for further developmen t. Chalcedon
was a stimulant to progress in .Mario]ogy: The docn:ina1 defense of
the true flesh, the full humamty of Chnst, emphaSized more than
ever the importance of the glorious Virgin Mother. Similarly, Chris-
tian writers were inspired to develop the theme of the tender love the
Mother of God had for the Son truly born of her very substance. 83
28 D.B., 314 a, n. (3).
29 Ibid., 422.
30 Ibid., 462 •
31 Ibid., 708 if.
32 Ibid., 993, P almer, l'P' 77-78.
33 On Chalc.edon's influence on subsequent Mariology, d. the articles of H.
Weisweiler, S.]., iu Scho l,a"j;iJ~, Vol. 28, 1953: Das fruhe Marienbild der West-
kirche 'u.tI.tllr dem EinF-uss dB5 Dognuls l'on ChaJc:edon - Die veriiefte Sohal'
d.er Virgo-1VIa:ter G1.ol'iosa pp. 3:11-360, and Die lIerstiir/;:.te Einzeid~1Iu'ltg dss
Z.URe5 der ziirt.llc1~ Hebenden M11·tter, pp. 504-525.
On Mary's sanctity, d. Jouassard, art. cit., pp. 114-n 6, 136-155; E. Du-
blonchy. Marie, in D.T.C. Vol. 9. eols. 2.4 t3-:z.'f2B; P. G. M. Rhodes, 07~T
Lady's El'l dowmet'lts, in Ollr m essed. Lady (Cal'1lhrltlge S11i1mlUt r So1,.oot LiiC:Pllres,
1933) (LondoD , 1934), pp. 174-J.79; J. 1. Cartmell, Our ].Q.J.y 111- Tr,uilitioll
ana. the FClthers, ihid. pp. BGHl4.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 15
For the East the decisions of Ephesus seem to have consecrated
the notion of "ever Virgin" along with "Mother of God." And by the
time of St. Augustine's d ath in 431, the perpetual virginity was also
a pacific possession in the West. The Tome of Pope St. Leo expressed
the common belief about it; and finally the Lateran Council, under
Pope Martin I, defined the perpetual virginity. 10 the light of these
two truths, und r the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Church
would now penetrate into the mystery of Mary's sanctity. First, we
will consider freedom from personal sin through fullness of grace,
Jeaving to the next section freedom from original sin.
Belief in Mary's virginity led to emphasis on her holiness. The
experience of the ascetics first showed the connection between a life
of perpetual virginity and holiness. But still deeper reSection was
needed to appreciate the full treasure of Mary's sanctity, and this
came through reSection on the divine Maternity. From the divine
motherhood l1ad come the awareness of perfect virginity; now Chris-
tian thought saw that God would make His Mother all-perfect, by
gifts of grace beyond compare.
In hjs controversy with PcJagius, who denied original sin and
held the n atural perfectibility of man even without supernatural aid
St. Augustine emphasized the l.miversality of sin. Yet he exempted
Our Lady ir.oID the universal law :
Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom,
out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question
raised on the subject of sin - after all, how do we know what greater
degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her
who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was
without sin - to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we
could bring together into one place all those holy men and women,
while they )jved here, and as}{ them whether they were without sin,
what are we to suppose that they would have replied?34

St. Augustine's opinion is the real attitude of Christian antiquity.

There were occasional Fathers, even after Ephesus, who said Mary
was guilty of the venial sin of vainglory, misinterpreting the Gospel
incidents of her charitable request to Christ at Cana CJn. 2: J-12),
and her presence with those relatives of Our Lord wlo intemll)ted
a sermon in order to speak to Him CMt. 12:47). Newman says of
the harshest of these, St. John Clrrysostom, "his whole passage is as
84 Palmer, pp. 33-34; Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum, No. 1794.
16 MARIOLOGY
much at variance with what we hold, as it is solitary and singular in
the writings of antiquity."S6
The magisterium did not speak on Mary's holiness, her freedom
from even venial sin, until the Council of Trent. Direct attacks on
Our Lady were not among the many points the theologians of Trent
felt pressed to refute. Yet Trent, in its teaching on justification,
1547, under Paul III, refers to Our Lady's freedom from sin as an
exception to the general rule:
If anyone shall say that a man once justified . . . can through the
whole of life avoid all sins, 'even though they be venial, except by a
special privilege of God, as the Church holds to have been the case
with the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema. 3 6
St. Pius V safeguarded this teaching in his condemnation of an
error of Baius in 1567:
Error 73: No one, with the exception of Christ, is without original sin.
Therefore, the Blessed Virgin died because of the sin contracted from
Adam, and all her afHictions in this life, no less than those of the
rest of the just, were the punishment of actual or original sin.51
M ary's holiness was protected again under Alexander VIn in
1690 by the condemnation of the Jans nist opinion that Mary's puri-
fication in the temple showed she needed it:
Error 2 4: The offering which the Blessed Virgin Mary made in the
temple on the day of h er purification with two young turtledoves,
one as a holocaust, the other as a sin offering, is sufficient evidence that
she needed purification, and that Her Son, who was presented, was
also marked with the stain of His Mother, according to the words of
the Law. a8
It is noteworthy that here again the honor of Mother and Son are
a common cause.
BG J. f 1. N ewman, The New Eve, with introduction by P. Radcliffe (Oxford:
Newman Book ~hop, 1952.), p. 57.
38 n .B., 833, Palmer. pp. 76-77. The Latin concerning Our Lady is: "Can.
2.3. Si quis hominem semel justincatum dixerit . . . posse in tora vita pcccata
omnia etiam venilllia vitare, nisi ex spedall Dei ptivilegio, q uema.dmodum de
beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia: A.S." On the value of TIent ill reference to Mary's
privileges, cf. Ernst Bominghaus, S.]., Geschichte der Matienverehl1/tttg seit dem
Tridentinum, in Katholische MaTienkU1ld~, ed . Paul Striiter, Vol. J ( P aderborn,
1947), pp. 333-337·
31 n.B., 1073, Palmer, p. 78.
88 n.B., 1314, Pahner, pp. 78-79.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 17
The recent popes say much in praise of Our Lady's sanctity.
Pius IX will serve as a good example:
He [GDd], therefore, filled her, far more than all the angelic spirits
and all the saints, with an abundance of all heavenly gifts from the
treasury of His divinity, in uch a wonderful manner that she would
always be free from absolutely every stajn of sin, and th3 , all beautiful
and perfect, she tillght display such fullness of innocence and holiness
that under God none greater j known, and which, GDd excepted, no
one can attain even in thought.110
Our Lady's freedom from personal sin has never been d.efined, as
has her lifelong virginity and her freedom from original sin, but it is
nevertheless an article of faith, as Trent states - "as the Church
holds."40 It is a step further to say that Mary could not sin - that
she was confirmed in grace and impeccable (unable to sin). This is
an opinion defended by many theologians, again on the grounds of
her divine motherhood.

IV. IMMACULATE
A. The Beginnings
If the fact that St. Augustine did "not propose to have a single
question raised on the subject of sin in regard to the holy Virgin
Mary out of respect for: the Lord" virtually settled the question of
Mary's freedom from personal sin, the same author's insistence on
the universality of original sin proved a deterrent to the development
of belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception. 41 Although some writings
of Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great would seem to
exempt Mary from originai sin, many more centuries of thought and
prayer were required before the Church would realize that the
Immaculate Conception was among the gifts God provided for His
Mother. And still more centuries would elapse before the supreme
magisterium would solemnly declare the doctrine of Mary's freedom
from original sin to be a revealed truth, i.e., contained in the original
Deposit confided to the Apostles.
Iltllffahilis De11S, Tondini, p. 30. The English ttanslation is from Mary
11"9
Itnmal:l1llate, by D. Unger, O.F.M.Cap. (Paterson, N. J., 1:946), p. 2..
dO Cf. Rosch:i:ni, Mariologio, za ed ., Vol. 3, p. IIO If., for different opinions
of the theologians on the dogmatic value of Trent's words. Also J. A. de Aldama.
S.J., Et vafor dogma£ico de la doct.rina sobre la imJllUnijJail ae pecado venial en
Nuestro Senora, :in Archivo Teol6gico GramlCliflO, Vol. 9, 1946, pp. 53-67.
41 Jounssard. art. cit., p. 151.
 MARIOLOGY
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a classic example
of the development of doctrine.'~2 Theologians distinguish three stages
in the progressive awareness of a r vealed truth not explicitly con-
tained in the sources of revelation. The first stage is implicit accept-
ance, the peliod of tranquil possession. The second stage in the
development of a dogma is the period of discussion and controversy,
during which the precise meaning of the doctrine is clarilied, as
well as its relationship to R velation 311d to other doctrines. In the
third stage, the doctrine is received by tbe entire Chtucll is the
common teaching of the ordinary magjsterium~> or £na11y even
solenmly defined.
In the present case, the first stage was the tranquil acceptance of
the unique graces and privileges of Mary, which, as we now know,
imply the Immaculate Conception. The early Christians accepted
Mary's singular position as Mother of God, as ver a virgin, as all-
holy, as the New Eve. Thereby they implici.tly accepted the Immacu-
late Conception, which is implied by the divine motherhood. During
the first period of undi ·puted acceptance, the lirst liturgical evidences
appear: :feasts of the "Co:nception of St. Anne," hymns, homilies.

B. Period of Discussion
The second phase, that f conl'tov'ersy, b gan with St. Bernard's
Cd. I 153) opposition to the spread of the feast of the Conception of
Mary. The ·controversy raged through the age ef Scholasticism, divid-
ing into two camps the greatest doctors oj: theology, some of them
sajnts and all of them loyal to Our Lady.
C Cf. F. J. Connell, C.SS.R., Hi,ltol'icaI Developllleltl: of the Dogma of the
Im1l1ucu.lllte COIICCpti011., in The American Ecclesiastical Review, VoL 114,
1946, p, 340 If., and the same 81;ticie in S1~"iies 1:/'1. Praise of Olotr Blessea
Mother, ed. J. C. Fenton and E. D. Benard ( Washington, D. C., 19)2), pp.
93-99; T. E. Flynn, The 11'tmllc'lI/ate Conception of O~lr Luiy, in OllT Blessed
Laa,), (Cambridge SU1n1ner School. Lect~j,f(~s, 1933) ( onclon, 1934), pp. 93-1,-6;
X. Le RacheJet, l'r1TiUlCl.IIee Conception, in D.T.C., Vol. 7, cols. 979-I:u8; E.
Druwe, S.J., Kerld.eer o'mtret~t de 01Ihe1ilekte Ontv(mge'it'is il'l MladeI6e1.t1l:>e1L en
Modeme Tiiden., in Verslaghoek der zevenile Mariu7e DagelJ., 1937 ( TongerIoo
1938), pp. III-13' (the whole Volume 7 of Mariale Dagen is on the Immacul.te
Conception); B. A. McKenna, The DQgm(J of the Imm4cmlllte Conception
CWashjngton, D. C., 19:2-9); M. Cabrera, E. Schoe.nstein, C. Mondor, The
Im1nactl/ate COtlceplio,~, in Priestly Strulie (Santa Barbara, Calif.) condensed
in OUT Lady'S Digest Vol. 6, 1951, l'p. 301--32.0 (subtitle: A Frcmciscnn St1~ay);
J. DlI.hr, S.J., 'e'lloh~tio'n tU~ dogme de l'Im.nacl~lee Concept/em, in Nouvelle
ravlle tMologiqlte, Vol. 73, 1951, pp. 1013- 1032; Eriedel. op. cit. , pp. 294-31 1;
A. Wolter O.F.M., TJ~e Theology of the 11Ilmao~rlate Conception in the Llgl1.t
of "ltJeffahilis Deus," in Marian St1r.dies, Vol. ;, 1954, pp. 19- 72.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 19
Many though t it impossible to reconcile freedom from original
sin with the fact th at Mary was born of human parents through
natural generation. Some were against a feast of the conception of
Mary, because they misunderstood it to refer to the active conception ,
namely to the generation of Mary by her parents Joachim and Anne.
In reality, the feast concerned the passive conception of Our Lady,
the union of h er soul and body in her mother's womb. This confusion
of active and passive conception still occurs, just as even C atholics
sometimes confuse M ary's Immaculate Conception with Christ's
Virgin Birth. Other opponents considered an immaculate conception
incompatible with the universality of the Redemption of Cluist. rrhe
Scholastic Doctors of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, e.g., St.
Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, were more commonly
against the belief in a sinless conception . The Franciscan John D uns
Scotus (d. 1308), perhaps under the inHuenc of his confrere, Wil-
liam of Ware (d. 1300), showed that a preservation n:om original sin
by the merits of Christ would be an even more perfect form of
Redemption than to be rescued from alteady contracted sin . B the
mid-fifteenth century the greater number of theologians were in f avor
of the Immaculate Conception and the lihugical celebrations had
widely spread. But still there had been no approval on the part of
the magistel'ium.
A dogmatic decision on Mary's freedom from original sin was
proposed at the Council of Basel, but the definition of 1439 was
invalid because the Council had fallen under the excommunication
of Pope Eugene IV.

C. Decisions From Rome

Pope Sixtus N (1 47 1- 1484), a Franciscan (Conventual), was the
first offiCially to en courage the doctrine.43 His constitution Cum prae-
celsa of 147744 approved and indulgen ced the feast of the Conception
of the Immaculate Virgin:
When, with that deep insight that comes of devout contemplation,
we search and discover the sublime proofs of those merits which
cause the Queen of heaven, the glorious Virgin Mother of God, raised
upon her heavenly throne, to outshine like the morning star all other
43 C. Sericoli, O .F .M., Immaculata B. M. Virginis Conceptio juxta Xysti IV
constitutiones CSibenici et Romae, 1945).
44 Sericoli defends the date of February 27, 1477; see op. cit., pp. 31, 33,
note 22. The constitution is also known as Cum praeexcelsa.
22 MARIOLOGY
Gregory XV] ... in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the
Blessed Virgin, at its creation and infusion into the hody. was endowed
with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin ....51

D. De{tn'ition by Pius IX
It remained for Pius IX to crute the final step. Crowned pope in
1846, he personally signed the decree of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites of September 30, 1847, authorizing a new Mass and Office
of the feast, extending it on February 2, 1849, to the whole wodd.
OUf present Mass and Office is from 1863, also by order of Pius IX.
In 1848 a commission of tbeologians was named to study two ques-
tions: Can the Immaculate Conception be defined as a dogma? and:
Is such a definition opportune? On February 2, 1849, the encyclical
Ubi pri1nu,n1, was sent to the bishops of the world, seeking their
views on the definability.
The replies from the bishops were better than nine tenths (546
out of 603) favorable. Some did not consider the definition then
opportune because of attach on the Church; only four or five were
quite against any dogmatic definjtion. Another commission was
appointed to draw up the Bull of definition; they worl<ed over a
year on it. The document was not only to promulgate the dogma,
but also to include arguments in its favor. It was then submitted to
the cardinals and finally to members of the hierarchy assembled in
Rome from the whole world. T he result of the long process was a
precisel y phrased presentation of the belief of all Catholicism, the
Church learning (Ecclesia discens) as well as u1e teaching Church
(Ecclesia docens).
On December 8, 1854, in the presence of 200 cardinals, arch-
bishops, and bishops, the Holy Father invoked the Holy Spirit, and
then read the words that settled forever all dispute about Our Lady's
privilege:
. . . To the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the glory
and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of
the Catholic faith, and the increase of the Catholic religion, We, by
the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles, Peter
and Paul, and by Our Own, declare, pronounce, an.d define that the
doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
of her Conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the omnipotent
God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of
~l D.B., 1100, Palmer, p. 78.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 23
mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been
revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and constantly believed
by all the faithful. 62
In these words of the dogmatic definition, the Pope is speaking ex
cathedra, that is, by his supreme infallible authority as Vicar of Christ.
The terms are similar to Alexander VII's, yet so carefully chosen that
it is clearly Mary's person, body and soul, that is the subject of the
pr~vilege. From the very first moment of union of soul and body, in
view of the merits of Christ, Mary was kept fTee fmm original sin
by the grace of God - a unique exception to the common lot of
mankind. Moreover, this doctrine is revealed by God; therefore it
belongs to the original Deposit of the Faith. And so the Catholic's
"I believe" :n.ow extends to the privilege of the Immaculate Con-
ception just as truly as it does to the divine motherhood - on the
authOlity of God Himself, who cannot deceive.
The rest of Ineffahilis Deus, the document of the defmition, makes
a worthy setting for the dogmatic defiuition. The various arguments
in the development of belief in the sinless conception of Mary are
cited; dle traditional interpretation of Sacred Scripture, especially of
the Protoeva1'tgeli14,1'/'t CGen. 3: 15), and of the greetings of Gabriel
and Elizabeth CLk 1: 28, 42); the evidence of the liturgy; and fmally
the proximate prepal'ation when with one voice clergy and faithful
entreated the Pope to define with his supreme judgment the Immacu-
late Conception. The bishops had been heard, indeed their advice
had been first sought, but the £nal act was the Pope's alone. 53
Pius IX mentions in lneffabilis Deus some benefits hoped for
from the de£nition: that the "most powerful meruatrix and conciJia-
trix of the whole world" win peace for the Church, "pardon for the
sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation
U~ D.B., 1641, Pulmer, IJP' 86-87, Tondini, p. ~4. The Latin is: " . . . Ad
hODorem SanC!tae et Individuae TIinitatis, ad deeus et OD1RmeutLIm Virginis Deip3rae,
ad exrutationem lidei catholieae et christianae rcligionis augmentum, auetoritnte
Domini nostri Iesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ae Nosb;l\ declars-
mm pronuntiamus et defmimus, dootrinam, qu ae tenet) beatissimarn Virg incrn
Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fl.lisse singulari omnipotentis Dei grati~
et privilegio, intuitu 1l1eritorum Christi I esu Salvatoris hl.lman i generis, ab onmi
originolis eulpR labe pmcservatAm immunem, esse fl Deo revelatam Rtque idclreo
ab omnibus fidelibl.ls fumiter constanterque credendam." Cf. R, Aubert, La pro-
damatiO)l ele l'Immac1.d ee Conception en 1854, in Co/LeotlJ)l81J M:eon.li71.iem;Il., Vol.
36, '95"1, pp, 594-~97; G. Gelmen, a.p., La B~/.l!tI "[n.e{fabiUs De1/ ," il, Made,
Vol. 7, Nov.-Dec., 1953, pp. 4'-43·
63 R. Aubert, Le ponti(lcat de Pie IX (1846-1878), in Histoire de l'Eglise, ed.
F1iche et Martin, Vol. 21 (Paris, 19~2), pp. 278-280.
 MARIOLOGY

B. The Assumption in History

The documents of the magisteri1~m before the reign of Pius XII do
not exhibit any official Papal statement clearly stating Our Lady's
bodily A.,sumption. There has never been any doubt that her soul
is in heaven. For examp1e, Benedict XU autholitatively declared in
1336 that the souls of the saints enjoy the beatific vision.O O Pope Pius
XII's first express mention of Our Lady's presence, body and soul, in
heaven is in the encyclical on the Mystical Body, 1943. Yet, as
Muni(1cent.issimus Deus relates, "Various testimonies, indications and
signs of this common belief of the Church are evident from remote
times down through the curse of the eenturies."6L
What are some of these signs? How have the popes shown their
approval of belief in the Assumption in the history of the Church?
Munificentissimus De'us looks first to the law of prayer (lex oTcmdi),
saying that the sacred liturgy "because it is tlle profession, !.'Ubject
to the snp.reme teaching authority within the ChLtrch, of heavenly
truths, can supply proofs and testil,1lonies of no small value for decid-
ing any individual Ioint of Catholic 10ctrine."o2 Lex orandi, lex
credendi (the law of praying is the law of believing) is an old
motto, based on the close connection between sound doctrine and
true devotion. The Church's care of cult 15 not a merely disciplinary
matter; in approving its liturgy the Church acts infallibly. The official
pIa yers of the Church, particularly the Mass and Divine Office, are
a practiql school of Christian doctrine. The Apostolic See has
used its authority to encourage dle feast of the Asstlmpti.on and to
explain its true sense. Nor does the Pope neglect the Rosary in the
attitude of tlle faithful for he adds, "Nor can we pass over in silence
the fact that in the Rosary of Mary, the recitation of which this
Apostolic See so urgently recommends, there is one mystery proposed
for piotls meditation which, as all know, deals with the Bles ed Vir-
gin's A lmptl n jnto heaven ."qS
Pope St. Sergi us I (687-701) prescIibed the litany or stational
procession to be held on the four Marian feasts: the NativiL)', An-
nunciation , Purification, and Dormition. fH Under Pope St. Adrian I
eo D.B., 530.
81 AAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 757; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 13.
82 AAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 758; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 16.
88 AA.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 758; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 15.
64 AAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 760; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 19.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 27
(772.-795) appears for the .nrst time in the West the titIe "Asswnp-
tion" for the feast earlier called tile "Dormition" or "Falling Asleep"
of Our Lady. The Pope sent Charlemagne the Gregorian Sacramen-
tary, a liturgical book containing the prayer Venera1ll.da, in which
occur the words, "this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered
temporaJ death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of
deat]), who has begotten Thy Son Our Lord incarnate fTom herself."uc
Pope St. Leo IV (847-855), ag<lin according to Mwni(7centissi'I1'£us
Deus) "saw to it that the feast, which was aheady being celebrated
under the title of the Assumption of the Blessed Motller of God,
should be observed in even a more solenm way when he ordered a
vi.gll to be held on the day before it and afterwards prescribed prayers
on the octave day. When this had been done, he decided to take part
llimself in the celebration. . .. " Uti
Pope In1locent IV (1243-1254) counted the Assumption an opin-
ion that could be held or not held, for the Church had not yet
decided. 67 Many theologians were strongly in favor of the doctrine,
among them St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St . .Bona-
venture, Scotus. The Assumption never met the strong scholastic
opposition found in the case of the Immaculate Conception.
Between the twelfth and fifteenth centm:ies a series of gradual
changes in the Mass for the Assumption and its vigil emphasized
more and more the glorious resurrection of Mary; less emphasis was
placed on her death. St. Pius V (1566-1572) removed from the
second nocturn of Matins the lessons wrongly attributed to St. Jer-
ome. These readings, in an excess of prudence against the apocryphal
stories of Mary's death and resurrection, had counseled an attitude of
65 This prayer now occurs as a Collect in the Assumption Mass of the Dominican,
Carmelite, and other rites. Cf. the articles of Dom B. Capelle, o.s.n., L'Orn/soll
"Veneranda" a Ia Messe de I' Assomption, in Ephemerides TheoiogicM Lowmilmses,
Vol. 26, 1950, pp. 354-364; Le te'lIIoignage de lit Litlltgl.e, in Etudes Mar/ales
( A ssoml>tion de Marie, 11), Vol. 7, 1949, PjJ. 35- 62; aud L'Assunzione e III !iburgia,
in Matillll'lltlt, Vol. 15, 1953J pp. 2.'\1- 276.
uO A.A.S., Vol. 42., 1950, p. 760; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 19.
07 Cf. G. Geenen, O.P., L' Assomptio'l1: et les SOt(17et'lIins P01·~Ufes. FaLts, doc~l"
11'IIfflts et textes, in A"gelicT.I.m, Vol. 27, '1950, pp. 327- 355 . this reference, p. 334.
Pro Geenen has gathered his facts from M. }ugie, A.A., Ln Mort el I'Asso>1lpi·ion
de Ia Sa.inte Vierge (Citt.'\ del Vllocano, 1944)- and &:001 G. Hentcich et R. G.
de Moos. Petitio'l1e5 ~le Assumptione Corporea B. V. Mariae in caelum definienda,
2 vols. (Typis Polyglottis Vnticnnis, 1942). Cf. also, for the popes of that period,
C. Pinna, O.P.M., Asst~7Il'Ptio beatae Virginis Mariae apud scriptores saec. XIII
(S'ib/!1lici et Romae. I942).
 MARIOLOGY
reserve toward the bodily Assumption. Pius V put in their place
lessons explaining the bodily Assumption. 68

C. Pius IX to the Present

From Pius IX to Pius XII, the popes have spoken mOTe often of
Mary in heaven. They have at the same time received petitions and
encouraged the movement for the dogmatic definition. May we not
then see in their references to Our Lady in heaven an implicit affirma-
tion of her bodily Assumption?
Pius IX (1846-1878), in Ineffabilis Deus, emphasized the close
bond that linked the Mother of God with her Son Jesus Christ:
"from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one
and the same decree of predestination."69 Munificentissimus Deus
connects the sinless conception and anticipated resurrection as parts
of the same victory over sin and its consequences. "[Mary] by an
entirely unique privilege completely overcame sin by her Immaculate
Concepcion, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remain-
ing in the cotmption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until
the end of time for. the redemption of her body."70
In 1864 Pius IX received a petition for the definition of the
Assumption from Queen Isabella II of Spain. Although the Pope
judged the time not yet oppOl'tune for the definition, he wrote in
reply, "There is no doubt that the Assumption, in the sense com-
monly believed by the b0dy of the faithful, follows from the Immacu-
late Conception."71 A petition waS presented in )870 at the Vatican
Council. 72
Pope Leo XIII (1878-19°3) gave his explicit approval to the
program of studies of the International Marian Congress held at Fri-
bourg, Switzerland, 1902. The topics included the dogmatic study
of the Assumption. Among Leo XliI's many Marian documents,
especially the Rosary encyclicals, some references seem to concern
68 Cf. William O'Shea, S.S., The History of the Feast of the Assu?fIption, in
The Thomist, Vol. 14, 1951, pp. 127-128.
69 Quoted in Munificentissimus Deus, AAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 768; N.C.W.C.
translation, No. 40.
70 AA.S., Vol. 42, 19~o/ p. 754; N.C.W.C. translation, NO.5. On the relation-
ship between the Immaculate Conception arul the Assumption, d. Roschini, The
Asmmption ,!Ita th.e rn~mac~lla:te Ccmcepr,ion, iu T he Thomist, Vol. 14, 1951, pp.
;9-7I, and K. Hea1y, O.Oum., The As$'1t1W!"ti01I among Mary's Privileges, ibid.,
pp. 77-81.
71 Geenen, art. cit., pp. 337-338; Healy, art. cit., p. 78.
72 AAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 755; N.C.W.C. translation, NO.7.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 29
the Assumption) especially those treatin g of Our Lady as Queen. For
example, h wutul a semper (1894) thus describes th e glorious mysterie
of the Rosary: ". . . W e beh old h er taken up from this valley of
tears into the h eavenly Jerusalem, amid choirs of angels. And we
honor her, glorified above all the saints, crowned with stars by her
Divine Son, and seated at His side, the sovereign Queen of the
unhterse."7S
Blessed Pius X was already interested in the Assumption when he
was Patriarch of Venice. He was one of the instigators of the petition
sent to the Fribourg Congress. As Pope he encouraged the movement
for the definition, sending congratulatory messages concerning the
Congresses of 1906 at Einsiedeln , Switzerland, and Valencia, Spain.
Both conventions submi tted petitions for the proclamation of the
Assumption as a dogma. On another occasion, in 1908, he said,
"There is still need for many studies, and for. serious ones."74 The
same year he ordered the definability thoroughly studied.
Some consider that Ad diem illum of Blessed Pius X alludes to the
Assumption in its interpretation of the Woman of the twelfth chapter
of the Apocalypse. "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed
with the sun, and the moon was under h er feet, and upon her head
a crown of twelve stars" CApoc. 12: r). After quoting this text,
Blessed Pius adds: "No one is ignorant that this woman signified
the Virgin Mary, who remained inviolate when she brought forth our
Head ... . So John saw the most holy Mother of God already enjoy-
. h
mg '
appmess . . . ."15
Benedict XV, like his two predecessors, decreed that all the petitions
for the Assumption be kept. During World War I he requested that
the sending of petitions be deferred until peace came again.
Pius XI encouraged the movement for the definition. On March 2,
1922, he named Our Lady under her title of the Assumption prin-
cipal Patroness of France; and on May 3 I, 1937, gave his approval
to the third-centenary celebrations of Louis XIII's solemn consecra-
tion of the kingdom to Our Lady, a vow that was annually com-
memorated on the feast of the Assumption.
The pontificate of Pius XII is distinguished by a whole series of
statements and writings about the Assumption, before as well as after
the definition. To list or attempt to analyze them would require a
73 Tondini, 158; Lawler, II6 (The Rosary of Mary, ed. Wm. Lawler, O.P.)
(Paterson, N. J., 1944).
74 Geenen, art. cit., p. 339.
1~ Unger, Mary Mediatrix, pp. 16-17.
30 MARIOLOGY
book. A few selected examples must suffice here.
In Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, there is the first explicit men-
tion in a Papal document of Our Lady's boqily Assumption into
heaven:
May she, then, most holy Mother of all Christ's members, to whose
Immaculate Heart We have trustingly consecrated all men, her body
and soul refulgent with the glory of heaven where she reigns with
her Son - may she never cease to beg from Him that a continuous
copious flow of graces may pass from its glorious Head into all the
members of the Mystical Body.76
Meantime, the Holy Father was taking active steps toward the
definition. He issued special orders commanding more advanced
inquiries into the matter, and likewise ordered the publication of the
petitions since Pius IX's time. 77 Following the same procedure which
Pius IX had used before defining the Immaculate Conception, by
the letter Deiparae Virginis Mariae, May 1, 1946, the Pope asked
all the bishops,
... to make known to Us how much devotion is manifested by the
clergy and the faithful entrusted to your care toward the Assumption
of the Most Blessed Virgin, in accordance with the faith and the piety
of each. Above all, We desire to know if you, Venerable Brethren, in
your outstanding wisdom and pmdence, are of the opinion that the
bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined
as a dogma of faith, and if, with your clergy and people, you so desire.T8

D. "Munificentissimus Deus"
The replies of the hishops showed the "outstanding agreement of
the Catholic prelates and the faithEul."7DOn November I J 1950, in
the fullest exercise of his supreme teaching authOrity, speaking infal-
libly as Vicar of Christ, the loly Father le6ned the As~umption of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and souJ, into heavenly glory, as a
truth r ' veal d by God.
76 A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247-248; English of the N .C.W,C. translation, No,
108. There is also a connection between the doctrine of the Lnmaculate Heart, to
which the Pope here refers, and the bodily Assumption, for Our Lady's Most
Pure Heart is her physical heart; cf. Remigius De Roo, Regina in Coe/.'U-1n AsS1mlpta.
in Les Tracts Marials, Nos. 37-38, Mars-Avril, "1953 pp. 49-50. There fife many
studies on Mystici Corporis, e.g" J. Dille.rsberger, Das neu.e Wort iiI'ST MariC!
(Salzburg, 1947).
77 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 756; N.C.W.C. translation, No, 10,
78 A.AS., Vol .. 42, 1950, pp. 782-783.
79.t\.A.S· l Vql. 42, 1~?0, 1" 7~6; N.C.W.C. ~ranslation, No. 12.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 31
The dogmatic definition concerns the Assumption alone:" . a
divinely revealed dogma : that the Immaculate Mother of God, the
ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life,
was assumed body and sou] into hea.venly glory."80 In the precise
words of the definition are mentioned, in addition to the As~urnption,
only the three privileges of Our Lady defined as dogmas in earlier
centuries: Mother of God, ever Virgin, Immaculate. Nothing is said
of when or where or in what manner the Assumption occurred. Nor
does the actual formula say anything about Mary's Mediation, her
Queenship, or other privileges.
Muni{lcentissi:mus Deus provides a rich background for the better
understanding of the newly defined dogma. The theological principle
of the universal consent of the Church is explained, and neW light
shed on the role of the supreme magisteriu.m. A survey is given of the
belief across the ages, both in the liturgy and in patristic and theo-
logical writings.
The marvelous hannony between Mary's gifts is described: "God
... put the plan of His providence into effect in such a way that all
the privileges and prerogatives He had granted to her in His sovereign
generosity were to shine forth in het in a kind of perfect harmon .
. . . The wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the
most provident God has lavished upon this revered associate of our
Redeemer. ..."81 The Assumption is compared with the Immaculate
Conception; with Mary's association in her Son's victory over the
devil, sin, and death; with her virginity in the birth of Christ. The
common fountainhead of all Mary's privileges is the divine mother-
hood. The scriptural foundations are examined in the light of tradi-
tional interpretation: especially the Protoevangelium - the Woman
of Genesis 3: 15; the "full of grace" of Lulce I :28; and "that Woman
clothed with the Sun, whom John the Apostle contemplated on the
island of Patmos" CApoc. 12: I ff.).82
At the dose, the Holy Father expresses his confidence:
. . . That this solemn proclamation and definition of the Assumption
will contribute in no small way to the advantage of human society,
since it redounds to the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, to whiclJ the
Blessed Mother of God was bound by such singular bonds. It is to
be hoped that all the faithful will be stirred up to a stronger piety
80 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 769; d. note 57 for the Latin text.
81 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 754, 758; N.C.W.C. translation, Nos. 3, 14.
S2 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 763; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 27.
 MARIOLOGY
toward their heavenly Mother, and that the souls of all those who
glory in the Christian name may be moved by the desire of sharing
in the unity of Christ's Mystical Body and of increasing their love for
her who in all things shows her motherly heart to the memhe.rs of
this august Body. . . . In this magnificent way all may see cleru:1y to
what a lufty gual our bodies and SOlUs are destineu. FiJlal1y jl is Oll!
hope that belief in Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven will make
our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more
effective. 88

VI. MEDIATRIX W ITH THE MEDIATOR

A. Mediation in General
Caxdinal Mercier of Belgium began the movement to petition the
HoI See for the definition of the do trine of Our Lad's Mediation
of all graces. On January 12, 1 921, Pope Benedict XV,M permitted
a speciaJ Office and Mass in honor of Mary Mediatrix On May 3 I .
111 192.2, Pius XI organjzed three commissions of theologians (in
Rome, Spain, and Belgium) to maJ<e a serious study of the question.
There is in t1le writings of the recent P pes, especially the encyclicals
from Pope Pius L",{ to the present day, a mine of material about
Mary's role in the gaining and distribution of divine graces.
Today many theological writers hold that this helief is contained
implicitly in divine revelation and could be defined as a dogma.
There is no Catholic theologian who denies to Our Lady the title:
Med iatrlx of all oraces. But since the term "mediation" has many
shades of meaning, tl1e sense in which the Mod1er of God is called
Mediatrix must first be explained.
A mediator is a person who stands in the middle and unites indi-
viduals or groups which are opposed. Our blessed Lord, the God-Man,
was uniquely fitted to be the Mediator beMeen God and man. St.
Paul says, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God
and man , himself man, Christ Jesus, who uave him elf a ransom for
all . . ." ( I Tim. 2: 5-6). By offering Himself, through His whole life
and the sacrifice of the cross, Christ, our Mediator, destroyed the
middle wall between God and ourselves, wiped out the handwriting
against us, brought His human brothers back to full friendship with
God the Father. The Lord fulfilled His mission of mediation by
becommg . our Redeemer or "R ansomer. "
88 A A S., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 769-770; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 42.
84 AAS., Vol. 13, 1921 , p. 345.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 33
The Redemption or mediation Christ accomplished on earth did
not end there. The divine grace won by the Redemption must be
applied to individuals through the means determined by Christ, that
is, through His Church, by faith, the Sacraments, etc. The first phase
of Om Lord's mediation was the work of Redemption perfected on
the cross; the second phase is the individual application of the fruits
of this work.
Where, then, is there place for another Mediator? In what sense
is the Mother of Christ associated with her Son in His work of
mediation? Does her association extend to both phases of His re-
demptive work? What has the Church's magisterium said on these
topics?
If there is only "one Mediator," as St. Paul writes, then any other
Mediator can only be such in strict dependence and in a secondary
sense. Pope Leo XIII quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on the possibility
of other mediators:
. . . As the Angelic Doctor teaches, "there is no reason why certain
others should not be called in a certain way mediators between God
and man, that is to say, insofar as they co-operate by predisposing and
ministering in the union of man with God." Such are the angels and
saints, the prophets and priests of both Testaments; but especially has
the Blessed Virgin a claim to the glory of this title. For no single
individual can even be imagined who has ever contributed or ever
will contribute so much toward reconciling man with God. She offered
a Saviour to mankind, hastening to eternal ruin, at that moment when
she received the announcement of the mystery of peace brought to
this earth by the angel, with that admirable act of consent - and this,
"in the name of the whole human race." She it is from whom Jesus
is born; she is therefore truly His mother, and for this reason a worthy
and acceptable "Mediatrix to the Mediator."85

St. Thomas Aquinas' phrase "in the name of the whole human
race" recalls what is the oldest idea about Mary found in Christian
literature after the New Testament itself. By representing all human-
ity in consenting to the Incarnation and in offering the Victim on
Calvary, Our Lady, like a new Eve, repaired the harm in which the
first Eve was involved. Some writers claim the parallel between the
first Eve and the second Eve goes back to the Apostles themselves. 86
85 Fidentem piumque, Tondini, pp. 248-25°; Lawler, pp. 150-151; D.B., 1940 a.
86 Cf. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, a.p., The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior
Life (Dublin, 1948), p. 184; for this point and for many others, see E. Druwe,
34 MARIOLOGY
Card:jna] Newman showed in the writings of St. Justin (d. 165),
St. henaeus (d. 200), and Tertullian Cd. 240), Mary's association
with Christ the ne"" Adam . Adam called his helpmate and wife
'Eve," meaning Mother of the living. Adam's fall introduced original
sin into t11e wO'rld, bUl Eve had an intimate personal share in "that
awful transaction" (Newman's phrase). Yet even in the hour of
punishment God promised a R.edeemer, and warned the serpent,
"I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy
seed andber seed" (Gen. 3:15). The woman who would crush the
serpent's head was the obedient Virgin, Mother of the Redeemer.
Newman concluded UOlll his investigations: "St. Justin, St.
Irenaeus, and others, had distinctly laid it down, that she [Mary]
not only had an office [i.e., of motherhood], but bore a part, and was
a volUl1tary agent in the actual process of redemption, as Eve had
been instrumental and responsible in Adam's fall ."S? St. Irenaeus'
idea of the "Virgin who regenerates us" shows the close parallel
between Eve, mother of all the living, and Mary, the Dew E ve,
mother of those born again through Christ's redemption. "By the
time of St. Jerome (331-420), t11e contrast between Eve and Mary
had almost passed into a proverb. He says, 'Death by Eve, life by
M
. ary.'''SB
In the order of history the belief of the faithful and the writings
of the Church's theologians were expressly directed to Our Lady's
share in Christ's work of mediation even before such doctrines as the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were explicitly held. s9
Newman saw the doctrine of the Immaculate CODception as uan im-
mediate inference from the primitive doctrine that Mary is the
second Eve."90
A common term to describe Mary's participation in Christ's re-
demptive work is uCoredemptrix." By it is meant the association of
the Mother of Christ in the properly redemptive work which Our
Lord performed on earth, principally through His Passion and death.
In the second phase of Our Lord's mediation Our Lady is called the

S.J., La mediation universelle de Marie, in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed.
H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), pp. 417-572.
87 Cardinal Newman, An Essay in the Development of Christian Doctrine
(London, 1845), p. 384 - refetence from L. Riley, Historical Conspectus of the
Doctrine of Mary's Co-Red.ellJ1itio1,l., ill Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, p. 84, n. (229).
88 Cf. Cardinal N ewman, The New Eve (Oxford, 1952), p. 19.
89 Cf. Druwe, art. cit., p. 478.
90 Newman, op. ctt., p. 25.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 35
"dispensatrix of all graces" or often simply "mediatrix." Some writers
divide the two phases of mediation into the objective Redemption
and the subjective Redemption.
Our consideration of the teaching of the popes on both Co-
redemptrix and Dispensatrix will be restricted to the past century,
from Pius IX to the present. Earlier evidences do exist of Papal
statements on Mary as mediatrix, but the many Marian writings
and discourses of the recent Popes are more than sufficient expression
of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. W e say "ordinary"
magisterium because up to the present the Church has n ot yet used
its teaching authority to give a dogmatic definition of Mary's
Mediation.

B. Coredemptrix
In interpreting statements of recent popes concerning the Co-
redemption, the advke of Bittremieux is oppOrll.we. N amely, we
should presume that the popes have followed a consistent line in their
teaching, the more so when they quote their predecessors, even
though a predecessor may not have taken so clear a stand as his
successor. This was the case in the history of the Immaculate Con-
ception. The Coredemption seems to enjoy a similar development
with successive popes speaking ever more favorably.ol What then,
do the popes tell us about Mary's share in her Son's redemptive work?
T he title "Coredemptrix" first received Papal sanction under Pope
Pius X, by his approval of its use in a decree of th e Congregation
of Rites concerning the feast of the Seven Dolors.o2 Pius XI tlsed the
term on several occasions, for example, in the radio address to
OJ J. Bittremieux, n movimento mariologioo dell'anno 193B- r939, in Marimmm,
Vol. 2, 1940, p . 12; Druwe, art. cit., p. 4 58 . On the C oredemption : J. B. Carol,
O.F.M., De Corre,Zetnptione B. Virgi1l.is Mariae ( Civitas Vaticana, 19 ~o)i H .
SeIler, S.J., Corred.e mptri;oc, Theologische Stnaie r ur Lehre dsr L.(ltze1~ Piipste 11,ber die
MiterUisersdlaft Mtll'iens, Rom , 1939; MarlaJ~ Stu,clies, Vol. 2., 1951, on the theme
of the Coredemption. Stl. dies in Praise of 011,r Blesse(Z MotJu~r, cd . J. C. Fen ton
and E. D . BenB'rd (Washington , D. C ., 1952.), contuins the following articles on
this topic; after the pagina tion in studies is given in parentheses the volume, year
and pages of Th,e Am ericml Ecclesiastical Review, where these studies lUst appeared:
T. U. Mullaney, O .P., T l1e Mea1~ing of Mary's Co ml'assi01l, pp. 100-127 ( Vol.
125, 1951, pp. t-6, 120-129, 196-207); A. Mid1el, M ary's Co-Redempt'ion, Pl"
137- 146 (Vol. l 22., 1950, pp. r 83-r 92) ; C. Boyer, S.J., Thong l~ts 011 Mary's
Co-Redemption, pp. 14'7-16r ( Vol. 12.2., 1950 , pp. 40 1-41 5); J. Carol, O.P.M.,
Mary's Co-Redemption in the T eachi1lg of Pope P'il!" XII, pp. r62-170 ( Vol. 121,
1949, pp. 353-361) .
92 A.A.S., Vol. 41, 1908, p. 409 .
 MARIOLOGY
anniversary of St. Bernard's death, Pius Xli repeats the great Marian
writer's phrase on Our Lady's Mediation: "It is the will of God that
we should have nothing which has not passed through the hands
of Mary. "iO~
St. Paul teaches that "... He [Christ] is able at all times to save
those who come to God through Him, since He lives always to make
intercession for th m" (Hebr. 7:25). Mary's share in this second
phase of Christ's mediation, namely the dispensing of the graces of
the Redemption to individuals, has been believed in the Church
from earliest times. The Gospels show Our Lady as the channel of
divine grace, first of all through her divine motherhood, but also on
other occasions. In the mystery of the Visitation, the unborn John
was filled with grace through Mary's charitable visit. "Her only Son,"
says Mystici Corporis, "yielding to a mother's prayer in 'Cana of
Galilee,' performed the miracle by which 'His disciples believed in
him' CIn. 2: I 1)."106 luc1,mda. semper describes the scene jn the
Cenacle: "Mary is ... there, praying with the Apostles and entreating
for them with Sighs and tears, she h stens for the Church the
coming of the Spirit, the Comforter, the supreme gift of Christ, the
treasure that will never fail."107
Mary's office of dispensatrix of graces is the consequence . of her
part in the Redemption. Adiutricem populi says that after her
Assumption
she began, by God's decree, to watch over the Church, to assist and
befriend u s as our Mother; so that she who was intimately associated
wjth the mystery of huma.n salvation (sacrarnenti h"'''lJ.cmae 1'edetnp-
tionis) is just as closely associated with the distribution of the graces
which for all time will flow from the TIedemption. The power thus
put into her hands is all but unlimited.1.08
Pius XI spoke by radio to Lourdes, April 28, 1935, at the conclu-
sion of the Jubilee Year of the Redemption. "0 Mother of pity and
mercy, who as Co-sufferer and Co-reclemptdx (compati.ens et cor-
redemptrix) assisted thy most dear SOIl, as on the altar of the ross
He consummated the Redemption of mankind . . . preserve in us
and increase each day, we beg of thee, the precious fruits of the
Redemption and of thy Compassion. . . ."109
105 A.A.S., Vol. 45, 195'3, p. s8:o..
106 Ibid. , Vol. 35, 1:943, pp. 2.47-248; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 107.
107 Tondini, p. 206; Lawler, p. U5.
108 Tondini, p. 222' Lawler, p. 1.30.
109 L'OsservatorB Romano, Apcil 29-30, 1935; English translation as in G. Shea,
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 39
How great is Mary's power when she intercedes in our behalf?
The popes set nO limit on it; they speak of a truly universal Media-
tion - of all graces and for each individual, even for those who
throug11 forgetfulness or ignorance fail to ask her help. For Pius IX,
"with her Son, the Only-begotten, she is the most powerful Mediatdx
aDd Conciliab.ix of the whole wocld."i1O Leo XIII in encyclical after
encyclical on the Rosary extols Mary's Mediation; e.g., in Magnae Dei
Matris: one of many similar passages reads:
When we have recourse to Mary in prayer, we are having recourse
to the Mother of mercy, who is so well disposed toward u s th at, what-
ever the n ecessity that presses upon us, especially in attaining eternal
Ufe, she is instantly at OUI side of her own accord, even though she
has not heen invoked' and dispenses grace with a generous hand from
that treasure with which f-rom the beginning she was divinely endowed
in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother
of God. l11
Pius X: in Ad diem illum says:
By this community of pain and will between Christ and Mary "she
merited to become in a most worthy manner the Reparatrix of the
lost world," and consequently, the Dispenser of all the gifts that
Jesus acquired for us by His Death and Blood .... Who knew better
than all others the secrets of His Heart, and who by maternal right
distributes the treasures of His merits.l12
After saying that Mary "may justly be said to have redeemed
together with Christ the human race," Pope Benedict XV continues:
"for this very reason, every grace we receive from tlle treasury of the
Redemption is given to us as by the hands of the Same sorrowing
Virgin."l18
Even the favors for which we thank the other saints come through
the Queen of All Saints. Thus Pius XI in Ingravescentibus Malis
( encyclical on the Rosary) mentions his gratitude for the recovery
of his health: "This grace ... We attribute to the special intercession
of the virgin of Lisieux, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, but we know

The Teaching of tile Magisterium on Mary'S S'P'irl~1Ull Maternity, in Marian St'lldies,

3. 1952, p. 9 8. Bover. Shea, Catol, Seiler, and other M aiiologists attach great
doctrinal value to this message oE the Pope.
l lO Tondini, p. 54; Unger, Mary It/l.macl~klte, p. 2.:2.; Palmer, p. 88.
1ll Tondini, p. 158; Lawler, p. 79.
112 Tondini, Pl" 312.-3 I4i Unger, Mary Mediatrix, pp.8- l:0; D.B. , 1978 a.
lllI AA.S., Vol. 10, 1918, p. 182.
 MARIOLOGY
nonetheless that all things are given to us by the great and Good
God through the hands of His Mother."l14

VII. SPIRITUAL MOTHER

OUI Lady's Mediation is the proof of her motherly love for men.
Pius XI wrote in Lu."C veri,t'atis, "She, by the very fact that she brought
forth the Redeemer of the human race, is also in a manner the most
tender Mother of u all, whom Christ OUI Lord deigned to have as
His brothers (Rom . 8:29)."116 le b lief of Catholics that Mary is
our spiritual Mother h as never been solemnly proclaimed by the
magisteri1Mn of the Church. Nor does the invocation of Mary as
Our Mother occur in th ese words before the Middle Ages, but the
spiritual mothedlood was equivalently believed in the patristic
phrases, "second Eve, new Eve, Mother of the living." The doctrine,
as recent popes h ave told us, is imp1icit in the Gospels: in Mary's
fr,cl'b at the Annu nciation, and in Christ's legacy on Calvary "Behold
thy mother" On. 19:27). The popes by their ordinary teaching
authority have been preaching Mary's spiritual U1otherhood with ever
increasing emphasis. Papal statements on the "Mother of grace" are
at least as old as Sixtus IV, who used this term in Cu:m praecelsa,
1477. 116
Benedict XIV (1740-1758) wrote in approval of the Marian so-
dalities: "The Catholic Church, schooled by the Holy Ghost, has
always most diligently professed, not only to venerate Mary most
devoutly as the Mother of the Lord and Redeemer, the Queen of
heaven and of earth, but also to honor her with filial affection as the
most loving Mother who was left to her with the last words of her
dying Spouse."l17
Pius IX (1846-1878) frequently referred to Mary as Our Mother.
The encyclical Ubi primum, February 2, 1849, asking the bishops'
Ibid., Vol. :1.9, T937, p. 380; londini, p. 42.4.
1.1.!l.
ll6 Tondini, 400. These pages borrow heavily from the thorough treatment of
Fr. George W. Sbea, TJle Teaching of the Magtsterilllll on Mu,ry's Spiri~Jla l
Maternil,y, in Maria}~ St1ul:/es, Vol. 3, 1952., pp. 35- 110. T he whole volume is
devoted to the spiritual motherhood, with studies b~ W. Sebastian, O.F.M., William
R. O'Connor, C. Vollen, S.J., etc. Cf. aho C. Vollert, Mother of Divine Grace,
in Sh,dies in Pmise of Ot~r BLessed Mother, pp. '-4-36 , originally published in The
A1Il,erican Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 126, 1952, pp. 2.58-270. English translations
for thi section are Dr. Shea's.
116 Shea, art. cit., p. 42.
117 Shea, art. cit., p. 44, quoting Benedicti XIV Opera Omnia, Vol. 16 (Prati,
1846), p. 428. This was the Bull Gloriosae Dominae.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 41
mind on the Immaculate Conception, speaks of "the most holy Mother
of God, and the most loving Mother of us all, the Immaculate Virgin
Mary."Jl8 Ineffahi lis Deus calls Om Lady "the dearest Mother of
mercy and of grace."11D Addressing a group of pilgrims September
17, 1876, Pius IX said, ''There on Calvary, at the foot of the Cross,
xepresented by St. John we were p laced under the protection of Mary
as our Mother. The last words of the testament which Jesus pro-
nounced .. . 'Woman, behold thy son.' "12P
The ten Rosary encyclicals an d the Q14-amq'LI-am pl'twies on tlle
patronage of tlle Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph give us "Pope Leo
XJll's teaching. Mary "is our Mother not in a human way but through
Christ."'l2l She is "at one and the same tin1e God's Mother and
our Mother."122 "Just as the most holy Virgin is the Mother of Jesus
Christ, so she is the Mother of all Christians."123 Indeed the "whole
human race was entrusted" to her motherly care. 124
Pope Leo's Marian doctrine -pictttres Mary'S spiritual Maternity
under a double aspect: -first, because she is Mother of Christ; second,
because of her association with the Redeemer even to Calvary.
By the very fact that she was chosen to be the Mother of Christ,
Our Lord, Who is at the same time our brother, she was singularly
endowed above all other mothers with the mission of manifesting
and pouring out her mercy upon us. Moreover, if we are indebted
to Christ in that He has shared with us in some way the right,
peculiarly His own, of calling God our Father and possessing Him
as such, to Christ's loving generosity we are similarly indebted for
sharing in His right to call Mary Mother and to possess her as such.125
Just as the most holy Virgin is the Mother (Genetrix) of Jesus Christ,
so she is the Mother of all Christians, whom indeed she bore (gene-
rctllit) on Mt. Calvary amid the supreme throes of the Redeemer; also,
Jesus Christ is as the first-born of all Christians, who by adoption
and Redemption are His brothers. us
118 Tondini, p. 2.
119 Tondini, p. 56.
j 30 Shea, IlTt. cit. , p. 54.

~21 Tondini, p. 160 . f. J. Bittremieux, Doctrl1l1l Mll!iuna Leou,is XIII (Drllgis,

1928) , l'P' 32-42, OJ) the spiritual motherhood.
122 A.djlttriC61'1'~ 1?OPUU, 'fondini, p. 2 30.
:U8 Tondini, p. 116 CQlIamqw,ml pluries) .
12\l Tondini, E. I36 COc.tobri me'l tse): " u11 iversitatem hmnani generis in loanne
discipulo, curandam ei fovendamqLle commissit."
U6 Magl'lae Dei J\lIatrls, Tondini, 1;8; Shea, art. cit., p. 59.
126 Q11MI/.quam pluries, TOlldini, p. n6; Sh e~ art. cit. p. 58.
42 MARIOLOGY
Blessed Pius X in Ad diem illum (19°4) has a magnificent passage
on Mary Our Mother. The reader is urged to consult the whole
encyclical:
For is not Mary the Mother of Christ? She is therefore our Mother
also ... as tile God-Man He acquired a body composed like that of
other men, but a the Saviour of our race He had a kind of ~'Piritual and
mystical Body, which is the society of those who believe in Christ.
'We, the many, are one body in Christ" (Romans 12,5) . . . Mary,
bearing in her womb the Saviour, may be said to Jlave borne also all
those whose life was contained in the life of the Saviour. All of us,
therefore, who are united with Christ and are, as the Apostle says,
''Members of His body, made from lis flesll and from His bones"
(Ephesians 5,30), have come for.th from the womb of Mary as a body
united to its head. Hence, in a spiritual and mystical sense, we are
called child-ren of Mary, and she is the Mother of us all . . . the
Most Blessed Virgin is at once the Mother of God and of man ... .1..27
TIle finaJ phrase in Latin i : liD i simul atgue bominum parens
est." The word pa.rens (paTent), earlier used by Pius VII,126 implied
a genuine maternity. It js used by Pius XI, in his first encyclical,
Ubi a.rcano, December 23 1922: "The Vjrgin Mothe! of God and
the rno t loving Mother of aJl of U S."J30
The new Code of Canon Law was promulgated under Pope Bene-
dict XV. Canon 1276 tells us: "It is good and useful to suppuantly
invoke the Saints of God -reigning together with CllIist ... but above
the others let all the faithful show the Most Blessed Virgin Mary
{llial devotion."uo The letter Inter S06lCllicia (to the Sodality of Our
ady of a Happy Death) con tains these words :
... she, having been constituted by Jesus Christ as the Mother of
all men, received them as bequeathed to her by a testament of infinite
charity, and since with maternal tenderness she fulfills her office of
protecting their spiritual life, the Sorrowful Virgin cannot but assist,
mOre zealously than ever, her most dear sons by adoption at that moment
when their eternal salvation is at stake. 1a1
121 Tondini, pp. 310-312; Shea, art. cit., pp. 72-73. Cf. Dillersberger, Das
neue Wort uber Maria (Salzburg, 1947), pp. 197-205; William G. Most, Blessed
Pius X and the Blessed Virgin Mary, in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol.
52, 195 2 , pp. 311-314.
128 Cf. Shea, art. cit., p. 48.
129 AA.S., Vol. 14, 1922, p. 675.
130 Codex iuris canonici, 1276; Shea, art. cit., p. 80.
lal AA.S., Vol. 10, 1918, pp. 181-182; Shea, art. cit., pp. 81-84.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 43
Pope Pius XI spoke or wrote of the spiritual Maternity on more
than 50 occasions. Bertetto well calls him, "The Pope of the Spiritual
Maternity and of the Rosary."132 Rerum ecclesiae, the encyclical on
the Propagation of the Faith, February 28, 1926, says: "... since
on Calvary all men were commended to her motherly affection, she
loves and cherishes no less those who do not know of their Redemp-
tion by Jesus Christ than those who happily enjoy the benefits of
the Redemption."133
On the occasion of the jubilee year of the Redemption, Pope
Pius XI made frequent references to the dying Saviour's words
proclaiming His Mother as M other of M en , for example, an allo-
cution of August 19,1933 : "The nineteenth centen ary of the Re-
demption . .. is also . . . the centenary of the universal Maternity
of Mary, officially proclaimed by the Divine King from His throne,
the Cross."134
On November 30, 1933, the Pope gave a discourse to pilgrims:
"It is precisely under the cross, in the last moments of His life, that
the Redeemer proclaimed her our Mother and universal Mother:
'Behold thy Son,' He said to St. John who represented us all; in
the same Apostle we, all of us, received those other words: 'Behold
thy Mother.'''135
The radio address to Lourdes, April 28, 1935, begins: "Let us all
pray to our common Mother. . . . Preserve in us and increase each
day, we beg of thee, the precious fruits of the Redemption and of
thy Compassion, and, thou who are the Mother of all, grant that ...
we may fin ally enjoy un troubled the gifts of peace."lS6
Mystici Corporis of Pius XII, June 29, 1943, condenses in a few
paragraphs of exact and beautiful phrases the Marian teachings of
the Church . What recent popes h ave said about the spiritual Mater-
nity is said here still more forcefully:
. . . She who corporally was the mother of our Head, through the
added title of pain and glory became spiritually the mother of all His
members. . . . Bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous
burden of her sorrows and desolation, truly the Queen of Martyrs,
she more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting
of the suffering of Christ ... for His Body, which is the Church" (Col.
132 D. Bertetto, S.D.B., Maria nel Domma Cattolico (Torino, 1950), pp. 295-302.
138 A.A.S., Vol. 18, 1926, p. 83.
134 Shea. art. cit., p. 92.
136 Ibid., p. 93.
136 L'OsservatO'l'e Romano, April 29-30, 1935; Shea, art. cit., p. 98.
44 MARIOLOGY
1,24); and she continued to show for the Mystical Body of Christ,
born from the pierced Heart of the Saviour, the same mother's care
and ardent love, with which she clasped the Infant Jesus to her wann
and nourishing breast. 137
The Latin term used for "Mother of all His members" is
genetrix - the first time in a Papal document that this word is used
for spiritual motherhood. It was previously used only in reference
to the divine Maternity.1B8
Pius XII relates the mysteries of the Annunciation and of the
Crucifixion to the spiritual motherhood:
But when the little maid of Nazareth uttered her fiat to the message
of the Angel and the Word was made flesh in her womb she became
,pot only the Mother of God in the physical order of nature, but also
in the sup ernatural order of grace she became the Mother of all, who
througb tlle Holy Sj>irit would be made one under the Headsbip of
ber d,ivine Son. 130
(Mary) became our Mother when the Divine Saviour was accom-
plishing His sacrifice of Himself, and thus, under this title also, we
are her children. 140
In the homily delivered immediately after the solemn definition
of the Assumption the Pope said : 'We are all children of the same
Mother, Mary, who lives in Heaven, the bond of union for the
Mystical Body of Christ and new Eve, new Mother of the living,
who wishes to lead all men to the truth and grace of her
divine Son."141
T he souls in purgatory still benefit from Mary'S motherly care :
"And certainly this most gentle Molller win not delay to open, as
soon as possible, through her intercession with God, the gates of
eaven for Her chil hen who are expiating their faults in Purgatorx-
a trust based on that Promise /mown as the Sabbatine Privilege. '142
1 3 1 A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247-248; D.B., 2291; N .C.W .e. traD~latioD, No.
107; Palmer, pp. 99-100.
138 Cf. G. Geenen, O.P., Mother of the Mystical Bo~y, t:ra~. Sister Mary
Madonna, C.S.C., in Cross and Crown, Vol. 2, 1950, pp. 385- 402; p. 391 on
Genetrix.
13 9 Tondini, p. 538 : Radio message delivered in English to the National Marian
Congress at Ottawa, June 19, 1947.
140 A.A.S., Vol. 39, 1947, p. 582. The encyclical, Mediator Dei, November
20, 1947.
141 A.A.S., Vol.42, 1950, p. 781.
142 Neminem profecto latet, February I I, 1950, A.A.S., Vol. 43, 1950, p. 391.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 45

VIII. QUEEN
A. In Popes of the Past
For centuries, the Church has called Our Lady "Queen." Yet it
comes as a. surprise to mimy to discover that the ma,gistetium,
through the statements of the recent popes, and most of 311 through
I-lis Holiness, Pius XII, has presented a strikingly complete picture
of Mary's Queenship in harmonious relationship with her other
privileges. 143
As early as Pope St. Martin I (d. 655) there are references to
Mary as Queen and Empress. 144 Under Pope Adrian I (d. 795), the
Seventh Ecumenical Council (second of Nicea) defended the use
of sacred images, those of Our Lord (Dominus) God and Saviour
Jesus Christ, and of our Immaculate Lady (Domina- a word with
royal significance), the holy Mother of God. u6
Boniface IX (1389-14°4) calls Mary "perfect Queen, royal Virgin,
Queen of the heavens.".....o Sixtus IV's Cu,m praecelsa of 1477 speaks
of the glOriOUS Virgin Mother of God as "Queen of heaven" and also
of her tireless intercession with "the King whom she bore."llY
Benedict XIV in Gloriosae Dominae, September 27, 1748, not only
recalls the long tracUtion in the Church of venerating Mary "as
1.43 American MBDologists have been giving special attention to the Queenship.
Marian Studie.~, Vol. 4, 195'3, is e'Iltirely devoted to this theme; the present writer
contributed Otlr Lad.y's Q'Uee!lship in the Magist.erium of the Ch'lll'ch, pp. 2.~t.
The United States section of the Mariological Congress held in RODle, October.
1950, treated the same question: ct. the Acts of the Gmgress, AIma Socia Christi,
Vol. 3 (Romee, 1952.); contHining (in English) the episcopal adiliesses l:ead at
the meeting, by Cardinal Spellman, Archbisl:iop Cushing, and Archbishop O'Boyle,
and the studies Oil cli1terent aspects of the Queenship by J. C. Fenton, Ie. Moore,
O.Carm., T. B. Falls, U. Mullimey, O.P., A. Rush, C.SS.R., fl. Connell, C.SS.R.
Besides the many books and atticles referred to in Maria~ Studies, VoL 4, the
following recent titles may be noted : RemiRhlS J. De Roc, Regina in coelum
ass1Impt.a (I.es Tapports entre l'AssOffll'tion et Ta Royaute de Marie), in Les Tracts
Marials, Nos. 37-38, Mars-Avril, 195'3, an excellent -work, its Canadian author's
doctorate t hesis 3t the Angelicl.1Ill University, Rome, 1952.; Leone Jambois.
Regalita III Maria Santissima, in Enciclot.'eaia Cat/,olica, Vol. 10, eols. 635'-{)38
( Cittil del Vaticano, 195'3); G. PiJogrtlssi, S.J., La riottTilla mariana ad Papi (da
Pio IX a Pio Xll), ill La CiviM Cattolica, anno 103. 1952-, Vol. 3, pp. 357-359.
Fro/ll the progress this beljef in the Queenship has made) in th.e liturgy. the P aea!
teachings, amollg tlle theologians and the people, Filograssi calls it certclil1 Catholic
doctrine.
144 Cf. P. Aubron, De la Souverainete de Maria, in Souverainete de Marie,
Cangres Marial de Boulogne SIMer (Paris, 1938), pp. 12.1-12.2.
145 Cf. A. Luis, C.SS.R., La Realeza de Maria (Madrid, 1942), p. 80.
146 Ibid.
141 Canoll, art. cit., in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, p. 41.
 MARIOLOGY
Mother of the Lord and Redeemer, Queen of heaven and of earth,"
and of honoring 'l1er with filial affection as the most loving Mother,"
btlt also adds, "For this is the most beautiful Esther, whom the
supreme King of Kings so loved that for the salvation of His people
He seems to have given ber not merely half his kingdom, but in
SOme manner to have communicated to her His whole rule and
power. This valiant woman is that Judith, whom the God of Israel
permitted to gain victory over all the en.emies of His peoFle."uB
Ineffahilis Deus1<\.O of Pius IX exalts Mary in these words, " ... she
nas been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth,
and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and classes of Saints."
"Qt.teen conceived without original sin" was placed in the LitrulY of
Loreto after 1854.
Leo XIII frequently called Our Lady "Queen of the Most Holy
Rosary."150 The encyclical Magnae Dei MatTis recalls Mary's con-
tinual association with her Son:
It is thus that the crown of tbe kingdoms of heaven and of earth will
await her because she will be the invincible Queen of martyrs; it is
thus that she will be seated in the heavenly city of God by the
side of her Son, crowned for all etern:ity, because she will drink with
Hun the cup overflowing with sorrow, faithfully thIOUgh all her life
most faithfully on Calvary.1~1

Ad diem illum of Blessed Pius X mentions Mary's Queenship in

the context of her association with Christ in the work of human
salvation and in the ministration of graces. "Olulst 'has taken 1-lis
seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high' CHeb. I: 3), and
Mary as Queen st:mds at His right hand.... "152 In a similar setting
Mary is calleel "Queen of Martyrs": 'With Mary present and wit-
nessing it, that divine sacrifice was perfected by which we have
been redeemed, and she shar d in it to such an extent that the
348 Ibid., p. 43. The Epistle in the new Mass of the Assumption also recalls
Judith's triumph (Judith 13:22-25; 15:10); d. A.A.S., Vol. 4 2,1950, p. 793.
149 Carroll, art. cit., p. 45.
150 Salutaris ille, Tondini, p. 84, is the apostolic letter of December 24, 1883,
commanding the insertion of "Queen of the Most Holy Rosary" in the Litany
of Loreto.
151 Tondini, p. 166; Lawler, p. 88. Note the connection between Coredemption
and the Queenship.
152 Tondini, pp. 312-314; Unger, pp. 9-10; Carroll, art. cit., pp. 53-54.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM 47
Queen of Martyrs both brought forth and nourished the most sacred
Victim."163
Benedict XV's war-tom pontificate is full of his pleas to the
"Queen orPeace." In adding the prayer "Queen of peace, pray for
us" to the Litany of Loreto, the Ponti'lf said, "Will Mary, who is
Queen not of wars and slaughter, but of the kingdom of peace,
disappoint the trust and the prayers of her faithful children? . . .
Faith and history alilce poipt to the one succor, to the omnipotence
of prayer, to the Mediatrix, to Mary. In all secllTity and trust we cry,
Regina pacis, ora pro no"bis."l~<I
Pius XI in at least three encyclical letters, begs the Queen of
the Apostles to grant unity to the Church. (I) In Ecclesiam Dei,
November 2, 1923, on the third centenary of the martyrdom of St.
Josaphat, Pius XI urges us-like St. Josaphat-to go to Our Lady,
who is also loved by th · schismatics. "Let us invoke this most kind
Mother, especially with this title, Queen of the pastures, that the
straying brothers may return to the life-giving pastures, where Peter,
ever living in his successors and Vicar of the Eternal Shepherd,
feeds and guides all the lambs and sheep of the Christian flock."155
(2) Rer'um Ecclesiae, Febmary 28, 1926. "May Mary, the most
Holy Queen of the Apostles, graciously second our common under-
takings; Mary, who since she holds in her mother's heart all men
who were committed to her on Calvary, cherishes and loves, not
only those who happily enjoy the fruits of the Redemption, but those
likewise who still do not know that they have been redeemed by
Jesus Christ."1J16 (3) Lux 17eri/:at'is, December 25, 1931, ill commemo-
ration of Ephesus. "Under tlle auspices of tlle heavenly Queen, We
desire all to beg for a special favor of the greatest importance, that
she who is loved and venerated with such ardent piety by the people
of the East, may not permit that they should be unhappily wandering
and still kept apart £rom the unity of the Church and thus from her
Son, Whose Vicar on earth We are."157
1.0BAA.S., Vol. 3, 1911, p. 266: 8 letter of Apr.il 30, IgU; cf. Seiler, Corre-
(lemptrix. p. 76; Druwe, «rt. cit., p. 448.
104. ~ pur troppo vero, Christmas Eve address to the cardinals. 1915, quoted
from the translation in Principles for PlMce - Select-io'ns from Papal Dot:'ml'tel'lt.s,
Leo XlII to Pius Xll, ed. by. H. C. Koeuig (Washington, D. C., 1943), No. 425.
l,ij~ A.A.S., Vol. 15, 1923 pp. 581-58-2..
156 Ibid., Vol. I8, 1926, p. 83; English hom Tile Global War for Christ (New
York, 1944).
157 A.A.S., Vol. 23. 1931, p. 513; Tondini, p. 402; N.C.W.C. translation.
 MARIOLOGY
Loreto: "Queen assumed into heaven."162 From his study of this
topic, Father De Roo concludes that the solemn proclamation of the
bodily Assumption on November I, 1950, has been an invitation
given us by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, the great Marian Pope of
the twentieth century, to open a new chapter in Marian doctrine:
Queen assumed into heaven!16S
Munificentissimus Deus contains a brilliant paragraph which is a
striking summary of Marian doctrine:
The revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way
with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, im-
maculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine mother-
hood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a
complete triumph over sin and its consequences, was finally granted,
as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be pre-
served free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own
Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul
to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the
right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the ages. 164

A CLOSING WORD
There are many more teachings which the popes have given us
about Our Blessed Mother; for example, their recommendations of
traditional Marian devotions like the Rosary and the Brown Scapular,
or their praise of Marian saints, like St. Louis Marie Crignion de
Montfort, St. Bernard, St. Ephraem, St. Simon Stock, St. Bernadette.
In preaching the imitation of the holy Mother of God; in encourag-
ing pilgrimages to her shrines, as Lomdes, Fawna, Loreto, La Salette;
in extending consecration to her Immaculate Heart; or in app 'oving
any form of veneration of Our Lady, the magisteriu"lr~ at the same
time reminds us that true devotion flows from sound doctrine. May
the serious study of Mary, Seat of Wisdom, bring home to us the
truth. which our supretn> Teacher underlines with these words: "Do
not forget, Catholics of Mexico and of all America: true wisdom is
that which she gives you, that which she teaches you, in the name
of the Incarnate Wisdom!"165
162 AAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 793.
163 De Roo, op. cit., p. 56.
164 A.A.S., Vol. 42, p. 768; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 40.
165 A.A.S., Vol. 37, 1945, pp. 265-267; Tondini, p. 5II.
 Mary in the old Testament

By ERIC MAY, O.F.M.CAP.~ S.T.D., S.S.L.

INTRODUCTION: "THE MOTHER OF JESUS WAS THERE"

HEN Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, came into
W the world, He was not very particular about the kind of place
where I e was to be cradled, or the clothes He would wear or the
food He would eat. But on one point He was very definite. The
woman who was to be His Mother had to be perfect. And perfect
she was - sinless, stainless, Virgin as well as Mother.
We cannot doubt that the God-Man was very proud of His
Mother Mary. And that fact, perhaps, emphasizes our astonishment
at finding the Virgin Mary mentioned rather infrequently in the
pages of Holy Writ. We do not know wIlen or where ill was born,
for instance; we do not know when or where she finishe 1 the earthly
course of her existence; and it is little enough that we read of her
apart from St. Luke's infancy section. This comparative silence of
Sacred Scripture concerning the Mother of God has teased the minds
of men for centuries. We can always answer, as did St. Lawrence
of Brindisi and Didacus Stella (concerning the Assumption), that
divine mysteries are far above us, so that a holy silence and quiet
admiration praise them more than fulsome words on tip of tongue
or pen. 1 Ultimately, however, one must conclude that we know every-
thing about Mary that God thought it good for us to lmow.
How much do we know? That is to say, in how many passages does
the written Word of God speak to us of Mary? To satisf-y this query,
several prior questions must rust be answer-ed. The difficulty lies not
so much with the New Testament where disputed Marian texts are
few (e.g., the identity of the Woman in Apoc. J2), but rather with
the Old Testament. Should we expect to find references to Mary
1 Laurentius de Brindisi, Sermo II, In Assumptione, in the Mariale (Opera
Omnia, I) (padua, 1928), pp. 590-591; Didacus Stella, In sanctum Iesu
Christi Evm~geliu/m, Vol. 2 (Lugduni, 1583), p. 53. Fr. Anthony Cotter, S.J.,
has written a general article worthy of consideration: The Obscurity of Scrip-
ture, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1947, pp. 453-4 64.
51
52 MARIOLOGY
scattered through the history 0.£the Old Covenant? If so, they would
have to he in the nature of a revelation antI a. prophecy. A priori,
there is nothing agilinst this inasmuch as the same hold true for
Old Testament messianic pa sage egarding the Person of Christ.
And one wouJd aJmost expect to End tbe Messias and His Mother
linked together in prophecy as in reality.
Granting the possibility of Marian passages in the Old Testament,
in what manner do tb se texts refer to the MOLh r of G d? Such a
question draws one inevitably into a consideration of biblical he/:-
meneutics and the various senses of Sacred Scripture. This ground
has already been covered in scholarly fashion by other authors,' and
since that is not our pl'iruary Concern her.e, and because the termi-
nology involved is still open to dispute, we merely st1IDl11ar.ize our posi-
tion in the matter for OUT immediate needs. We accept, then, the
customary pattern given in standard m~1nllals of Introduction to
Sacred Scripture. s vVe accept the literal ense as a strict biblical sense
(wbether tbis be properly literal, taking words or phrases in theiT.
obvious, etymological meaning; or improp rJy liteml, understanding
words in their transferred, figurative meaning; or literal in the fuller
sense, i.e. taking words in their "developed" literal sense as known
to God alone or those to whom He reveals it). The typical sense (the
meaning in which peI'sons, things or aClions directly signified by a
text, according to the intention of the Holy Spirit refer also to still
other persons, things, or actions) is likewjse a strkt biblical sense .
Besides these strict scriptu.ral senses<l there is the so-called consequent
sense (not strictly literaL but derived from words of Scripture by a
reasoning process), and the a.ccommodated sense (a meaning which
one adapts to the words of Scripture, intended neither by the human
~ Outstanding is a recent article by Dominic Unger, o.P. tCap., The Use of
Sacrad. Scripture in Mariology, in .Marian t1wies, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 67-116.
Cf. also S. Alameda, O.S.B., La Marlo"log/a y las f/le'1'I1,es de la revelaci6h, ll1
Est't~djos MariQ110S, Vol. I, 1942., :pp. 41- 100; J. Coppens, Les t,amwni.es des
,ZetIX TestIl1HBH't5, in N01welle Re'pw:, Tlu!o'loglqua, Vol. 70, 1948, pp. 799-810;
Vol. 71, 1949, pp. 3-38, 337-366, 477-496; Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., La
Madonna seco·~do 1" Fede e ltl Teologla, Vol. ~ (Home, 1953) , PP' 49-147.
8 E.g., H. BopR and D. Gut, O.S.B" ., Introd1Jctio Ge~eraUs in Saaraln Scrip-
tUftlln, 5 ed . (Rpmac, 1950), p. 434 £E.; John Stei:nmueller, A Companion tc)
Scripture Sw.dies, Vol. 1 ( e\V Yo+lt, 1941), p. 2.2.6 IF.
"According to another common division the biblical senses may be explicit
(the meaning explicitly expessed in the words) or invplic#. (the meaning con-
tained in the words "either for-mally - making it equivalent to an explicit con-
cept - or Virl1tJ(ltl.y - when the meaning is derived by a reasoning process). The
"consequent sense" corresponds to the virtually implicit sense.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 53
nor the sacred Author). These, then, are the senses we take into
consideration when investigating the Marian texts of the Old
Testament.
Before proceeding to the Old Testament passages commonly con-
sidered as Marian, there are several points to bear in mind . Despite
the tons of inlc and paper devoted to Mariology in recent decades,
agreement is still lacking on some fundamental concepts. Perhaps
this is due mainly to a vague and conflicting terminology; perhaps
not. But it is still possible to find authors who l-eruse outright, or at
least hesitate to see literal references to Mary in the Old Testament
because of a mistaken notion that in interpreting early an primitive
texts one may not go beyond whatever the first readers could have
1.mcterstood. 5 Such an attitude surely exceeds the proper caution to
b~ observed lest one read something into a text not intended by its
divine and human coauthors. The attitude does less than justice to
the strict sCdptural senses, not excluding the fuller and the typical
senses.
This fact leads logically to another consideration. It is f-.requently
taken for granted that revelation, developing slowly as it did over the
centuries before Christ, left those of the Old Dispensation (even the
sages and prophets) helpless to understand the mess:ianic message.
Hence, some think a direct reference to the Mother of the Messias
as early as the Protogospel (Gen. 3 : 1 5) is out of the question. The
same line of thinking governs their consideration of even the Virgin-
Birth prophecy in Isa. 7: 14. Too advanced a concept, they saYi hence
at best they grant a typical reference to the future Baby and His
Virgin Mother.
Must we patiently breathe "Amen" to such a view? May we not
probe deeper and perhaps come up with a different answer? Grant€d,
that there is a gradual development of the messianic theme in the
Old Testament. S Granted, that according to St. Augustine's famous
~ Of. D. Unger, art. c-it., pp. 107-108. As applied to Gen. 3: '5, d. bibliogrllpby
in Eric May, O.P.M .Cap., The Script.ural Basis for Mary'S Spi.ritua! Matemit",
in Mar,ian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, p. II4 ff. R. Gald6s, S.J., Maria en la 13ihlia,
in Ctlillura Bihlica, Vol. 3, 1946, pp. D3-115, contends that theologians of note
limit Old Testament texts, which are applicable literally to Mary, to 1sa. 7: 14.
He adds thrtt "enthusiastic Mariallophilists" (li ke Roschini) also try to bring
forward texts like Gen. 3 : 15 and JeT. 3 1:22.
G Cf. particularly E. F . Sutcliffe, S.J., The Meaning of the Old Testament,
in A C«t~roUc COmllte~ll'ary on HolJI Scripture (henceforth: CCHS) (London,
1953). pp. 11.7-132; Augustin Bea, S.J., Das Marienbild des Alten' Bundes, in
Katholische Maricmkunde (ed. P. Striiter), Vol. 1 (Paderbom, 1952), pp. 22-43.
54 MARIOLOGY
dictum the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old
Testament becomes manifest in the New. 7 Granted further, that
nothing of a supematuralllature in the Old Dispensation could be
learned apart nom revelation. Is it not possible, however, that God
may have revealed His mysteries more frequently than we have
supposed? Could Moses h~we appreCiated that it was of the Messias'
Mother he was writing in that Woman-Seed prophecy of Gen. 3:I5?
Did Isaias understand what he was really saying wh en referring to
the Virgin. Mother (7: I4) or the Suffering Servant (53)? he ru:gu-
ment that J wish contemporaries seemingly did not compreh end does
not appear to be sufficient WaIT.ant to deny at least a possibili ty of
knowledge to these men who stood in so intimate a relationship to
God. 8
Not yet has sufficient stress been placed on the fact that both Old
and New Testamen ts had the same divine Auth or. Not yet has
enough been written about oral tradition as a second s0urce of revela-
tiOll during the Old Dispensation. To give due consideration to this
latter point, no doubt, will lead one to a position not too far removed
from that of Father J. Arendzen. This author, in explaining lsaias'
Virgin-Birth prophecy, remarks:
Does the exc1usjve stress of the prophecy [of lsa. 7: 14] lie on the
miracle itself that it will be a vi.rgin who will conceive and thus that
God in One uniq,u e instance will give the crown of virginity and
ma ternity to one person making her mother and leaving her a maid?
I t would seem not. The miracle is indeed plajn}y aud I.l11mistakably
foretold, but rather as a thing taken for granted, as a t1ling already
Jrnown, something which needed not a repeated prophecy to bring
it to the notice of Israel then living. Divine revelation in the Old
Testament was no lUore limited to the Written Word, or the Bible,
than it is :in the New. It was then a living progressive revelation both
by the spoken and the writtel1 Word, as it is now a living completed
revelation contained both in Scripture and Tradition and maintained
h y t1le infallible Church. Hence there is no need to S1.1PPO e or de-
mand that Isaias then for the (tnt time brought to the notice of Israel
the glories of the Mother of the M.essias. . . . The prophets of Israel
were living people who prophesied with the Hving voice. Some of
their prophecies have by God's Will come down in writing, some of
7 "In Vetere Testamento Novum latet, et in Novo Vetus patet," Quaest. in
Hept., II, 73; PL, 34, 623.
8 Along similar lines cf. Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., Ecce Agnus Dei (Washing-
ton, D. C., 1947), pp. 100-108 and 123-129, for John the Baptist's advanced
knowledge regarding the expiatory death of Christ.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 55
them have not. There is nothing to force us to say that the mystery of
the Virgin birth must have been unknown to Elias or Eliseus, Amos,
Osee or Joel because they preceded Isaias. Though the immediate pur-
pose of Isaias' prophecy to Ahaz was the devastation of Palestine by
the Assyrians within a few years, he states with utmost clarity that the
Mother of the Messias is to be a Virgin as well as a Mother.O
With the increased interest in Mariology during recent years, an
interest given greater impetus by the declaration of the dogma of the
Assumption in 1950, au thors arc diligendy re-examining Sacred
SCripture in its bearing on this special branch of theology. As one
writer has put i~ "Mary is at the point of junction of the Old and the
New Law, which means that one cannot realize the whole signifi-
cance of her vocation withotlt replaci'l'lg her in the Old Testament;
a thorough understanding of the passages in Matthew and Luke in
their early chapteJ.'s is impos ible without this constant reference to the
biblical atmosphere which we have in common with Israel."lo We
just cannot afford to study the biblical era as merely human history,
or the Sacred Text solely in the light of literary criteria. To do so is
to end up with what has been aptly called "minimum Mariology."
In recent Mariological research th trend has been toward an
examination of bihlical themes radler than of isolated texts. Thus, as
C. Moeller explains in an article for prospective catechists, tIthe
teacher should be aware of the general signiGcan.ce of the texts and,
above all, of the Old Testament themes which an! the foundation of
the Marian revelation in the New Testament. Mary is placed at the
tum of the old and new economy: on the one hand she is the supreme
flowering of this h1d,man. preparation (although realized through
grace) of the 'cradle,' destined to receive the Messiah; on the other,
after Jesus, Mary represents 'the consent and cooperation of the
Church.'''l1 The theme motif is not always invoked in precisely the
same way. The basic idea, however, is to consider tlle concatenation
of Marian texts in both Old and New Testaments as bearing a unified
message, one text helping to explain the other.» To our way of think-
ing, this is not only a justified approach-it is a necessity.
oJ. Arendzen, Ot~r Lady in the Old Testament, in Gur Blessed Lady (Cam-
brit/.gc Smf£1r1er School, Lectfl,Tes for f933) (London, 1934), PI" l a-n .
10 Charles Moeller, The Virgin Mary in Contemporary Thot~871t, in Lumen
Vitae, Vol. 8, 1953, p. 19T.
ll. ChillIes MoelJer. Doctrinal Aspects of Mariology, in Lumen Vitae, Vol. 8,

1953, p. :1.:1.7·
12 The following are a few examples of how the biblical theme motif has
been applied to Ma.n an doctrine. A general article is that of Ennenegildo Plant,
 MARIOLOGY
ence first to Eve, then to Mary, and call it the typical sense. 16 In recent
years more and more authors ate seeing a literal reference to Mary in
the Protogospel. Some explain it as the improper literal sense.17 Others
prefer to see here a verification of the fuller sense. 18 Still others find
a direct and properly literal reference to Mary in the verse,19 and
it is with this view that our sympathy lies - for exegetical as well as
traditional reasons.
A criptural passage ·s th wode of Gou as well as of man; and
while the exegete will first app1y the principles of literary criticism
to the text, he may not stop there. This is pa.rticularly true of a
disputed text. It is most especially true of a text that has been used

latter concludes: "Abbiamo detto che si puo dunque intendere mariologicamente

il Protoevangelo. Ma oserenuno dire anche di pili: che si deve interpretare in
tal senso" (p. 395).
16 E. Sutcliffe, S.J., Protoevangelium, in The Clergy Review, Vol. Z, 193 I, pp.
155-159; G. Repetti, La tipologia mariana nel ProtoevangeUo, in Dlvus Thomas,
Vol. 14, 1937, p. 289; J. Dougherty, The Fall and hs CO?lseq-tHl1IOeS, in The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 3, 1941, pp. 230-231; A. Robe"n , P.S.S., La
Sainte Vierge dans l'Ancien Testament, in Du Manoir's Maria. Etudes sur la
Sainte Vierge, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), p. 35.
11 T. Gallus, S.J., sees the whole COD te.'Ct as a continued metaphor. Mru;y is
in the text figuratively or metaphorica)]y, the so·called "allegouco·dogmatic"
sense; Beata Virgo Maria Protoevangelio pl'aesigllatcl, in ALma Socia Christi Vol.
II, 1953, pp. 58-67. This author has written extensively On the Protoevangelium.
Cf. e.g.: Interpreta no liiari%glc(I P-rotoevangelii (Gen.. 3, IS) tl)l1tpOTe post-
patristico usque ad Cone/Hum T1'iden,t imml (Romae, 1949); Observatiimes ad
"Novam Protoevangelii mariologicam interpretationem," in Ephemerides Mario-
logicae, Vol. 2, 1952, pp. 425-437; Interpretatio mariologica Protoevangelii post-
tridentina . . . , pars prior: a Concilio Trid. usque ad annum 1660 (Romae,
1953). Cf. also J. R. Garda, C.M.F., Glosas critico exegeticas. II, Maria en el
Protoevangelio (Gen. 3:15), in Cultura Btblica, Vol. 8, 1951, pp. 193-197.
18 E.g., Te6filo de Orbiso, O.F.M.Cap., La Mujer del Protoevangelio, in
Estudios Btblicos, Vol. I, 1941, pp. 187-207; J. Trinidad, S.J., Quomodo prae-
nuntietur Maria in Gen 3:157 in Verbum Domini, Vol. 19, 1939, p. 357; M. de
Jonghe, De Protoevangelio, in Collationes Brugenses, Vol. 29, 1929, esp. p. 435;
F. Ceuppens, O.P., Mariologia Biblica (Romae, 1951), p. 17.
;1,.0 Cf. Francis X. Peirce, S.J., Mary Alone is "the Woman" of Genesis 3, 15, in
The Cat.h.olio BibUcq:1 Q1.lartet1.y, Vol. 2, 1940, pp. 245-252; idem, The Woman
of Genesis; in T11,e Ecdesia5tical Rev'iew, Vol. 103, 1940, p. 94 ff.; idem, The
Protoellangelilwl, in The Cat110lic Bibliclll Quarterly, Vol. 13, 1951, pp. 239-252;
A. Vitti, S.J., Maria negU splendol'i dena Teologia Biblica, in La Civilttl Cattolica,
Vol. 3, 1942, pp. 193-201; Michael von Neukirch, O.F.M.Cap., Kleine theo-
logisch-praktische Mariologie (Leipzig, 1925), pp. 19-20; G. Roschini, O.S.M.,
La Madonna secondo la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 2 (Bomae, 19 53) p. 49 ff.;
Theophilus ab Orl1iso, O.F.M.Cap. Sartct'i Lanrel'7:tii Bmnclm'ini qw~edam de
t:heologica biblica qU4esticmes, in Collec:tatlea PrclllciscG'I'Ia, Vol. 22, .1951, pp. 251-
1.80. A further elaborate hibliogra,Ehy will be found in Junil'er Carol, O.F.M.,
De COI'Tedem.ptlo'/le B. V. M ariae (Civitas Vaticftna, 1950), pp. ' 86- 91.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 59
so f-requen tIy in connection with Marian dogma and Marian theology
in general. Here the authentic jnterpT.etation of the Chmch as mani-
fested by the authority of the Fathers, the analogy of faith, papal
encyclicals, and the teaching Tnagiste'r1u,m must find place. Where
Gen. 3: 15 is concerned, we believe that the teaching Church bas said
enougl to provide a solid foundation for tile directly literal Marian
interpretation of the verse. And we believe that there are good exe-
getical reasons for saying the same.
Briefly, the Lwo most cogent rea ons for holding that Mary alone
is the Woman mentioned in Gen. 3: 15 are: (1) the fact that the
total and perpetual enmity placed between the Woman and Satan
was verified in Mary alone; (2) the fact that the Woman's Seed, at
total and perpetual enmity with Satan's seed, crushed Satan's head.
Jesus Christ was the one who did this. He is the Woman's Seed;
Mary is His Mother.
We proceed to positive proof. It was a complete and perpetual
enmity predicted between the Woman and Satan. The Hebrew word
for "enmity," '~ybdh., means just that, as we can gather from its use
elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., N wn. 35:21 where it means
a personal enmity that leads to mmder; Ezech. 25: 15 where it signi-
fies a national destructive enmity), as well as from the very nature
of the passage. Which woman of history qualifies for such an enmity
with the devil if not the Immaculate Mother of Jesus who never for
a moment fell beneath Satan's power? Eve surely does not. We know
how Scripture speaks of her. She was the one who brought sin into
the world (Ecclus. 25:33; 2 Cor. 11:3; I Tim. 2:14). Never was
she said to be "full of grace." And even though Ev did repent of
the original sin, ar we really to sUPfose that never again for all
instant did she yield to temptation unti her dying breath?20 Again, it
will pay us to remember that Pope Pius IX bad this perfect enmity in
mind when defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 21 The
type of enmity predicted in Gen. 3: T 5 :is perhaps the strongest reason
fOT rejecting the view that Eve, here, is a type of Mary.
It is the Woman's Seed who crushes Satan's power a:nd is harmed
somewhat in the crushing. Of whom is this perfect vi.ctory, the
Redemption, veri:fied if not of Jesus the Messias who brought salva-
20 Fr. Peirce, S.J., Ptotoe'l7m~gelium-, lac. cit., p. 251, quite correctly ridicules
the idea, as proposed (for example) by Fr. Ceuppens in his Quaestiones selectae
ex Historia primae'l7a (Romae, 1947), p. 197.
21 Cf. Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap., Mary Immaculate, the Bull Ineffabilis
Deus of Pope Pius IX (Paterson, N. J., 1946), pp. 10-11 and note on p. 30.
60 MARIOLOGY
tion to the world by His bloody death on the cross? He and He alone
brought about the objective Redemption (altbough Mary co-operated
in a secondary capacity). Need this be proved? But if Christ is the
individual to be identified through parallelism with the Woman's
Seed, then surely the vVoman herself can only be Mary His Mother. 22
These reasons do not appeal to everyone, it is true. There are
numerous objections, mainly on exegetical grounds. One vvidespread
objection holds that Mary cannot be the Woman of Gen. 3: 15 at
least not pr.immily and directly, because the context is against it.
Throughout Chapter 3 only one WO.mClO is mentioned: Eve. TIlel;e-
fore, the woman in verse 15 must also be Eve, according to the
(literary) principle of bemleneutics that a word is determined by its
context. This is more certain (say the objectors) in that the word
for woman in Hebrew has the definite article (hii'md) , which by
anaphoric usage refers to previously mentioned Eve. In reply, we
may point out that there are very good reasons for identifying the
Woman of verse r 5 without reference to the immediate context. The
surrounding verses, 14 and r6, are also prophetic it is true, but they
are not messianic as is verse 1 5. And wherever else in the Old T esta-
ment the Woman appears in a messianic text (as we shall see), that
Woman is Mary, Mother of the Messias. T11crefore, considering
Gen. 3: 15 in its remot.e context, i.e., the Old Testament - and indeed
the entire Bible, we are to identify this Mother of the Perfect Victor
with Mary. Then, too, the fact that the Hebrew word for Woman
has the article does not by any means prove an anaphoric usage.
There are many similar phrases in the Old Testament where use of
the article'is not anaphoric. 2s The reference here, then, is to a certain
Woman who with her Son will be victorious over Satan.
If this is true, what did the prophecy mean to Adam and Eve?
So runs another line of objection. From the words of verse 15 alone,
22 As is well known, the Vulgate reading of vllrse 15C is: "Ipsa conteret
caput tUllm" - "She shill crt\$h your head." Philologically, this is nn incorrect
rendition of the Hebrew ltit' ("he"). Theologically, though, a'S a smct traditional
argument it has great value, linking ilie Blessed Mother with her divine Son
in the perfect victory over Satan. cr. E. Gallagllc,r, S.J., Eval'll.ation of the
Argumcn'J;s in Favor of Mary's CO-Tedemptioa in Ma'ria'lI S~/.cl.ies, Vol. 2., 1951,
p. 109; L. Kost'e:rs, S.]. nrtlde Mqria ill LexI7to?~ fil.r TII,eologie 1,md Kirch!!,
Vol. 6 (Freiburg i/Br., 1934), col. 887.
28 "D'une fa~on gcnemle on peut dire 9ue l'emploi de l'article en he.b Ieu
est assez OOWlIlt. En poesie l'emploi de I'article est tres libre. . .." Paul ]oiion,
S.J., Grammaire de I'H~bret.f, Biblique (Rome. 1947), p. <p-l . The author then
goes on to show how the article can express perfect detemllnRtion, lack of
determination, or imEettect detemrinatiop.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 61
it is said, our first parents could not have understood a reference to
a personal Messias (and His Mother). In answer, one may note in
all justice that the time sequence of p1ll'rishment was not necessarily
immediately successive. There is nothing in the text to force us to
believe that Adam and Eve even heard the Originallunisbment of
Satan. 24 True, at some time they must have learned 0 the prophecy.
In any case, however, where is the necessity for Adam and Eve to
have understood the prophecy in its fullness, inasmuch as even we
of the twentieth century A.D. are not perfectly clear on all the
messianic prophecies? For the rest, it is at least quite possible that
Adam and Eve had had a revelation of the Incarnation prior to the
fall, in which case there would have been no difficulty in recognizing
the Woman and her Seed, regardless of when they learned of the
ProtogospeJ.25
Another objection looks to the precise meaning of the word
"seed." Some argue thus. The seed of Satan in verse 15 is certainly
a collective noun (because of scriptural passages which speak of
Satan's offspring in the plural); but by parallelism the Seed of the
Woman, then, is also a collective. But if it is collective, then we
do not have here primarily a reference to the individual Messias,
and consequently His Mother Mary is not primarily the Woman.
However, it is not at all certain that Satan's seed is a collective noun.
Why could it not very well be a metaphorical reference to the one
thing the devil had spawned in Eden, and for which he was now
being punished - 0 iginal sin, w hich after all was that which necessi-
tated the Redeemer?26 Even granting, however, that the seed of Satan
does refer to a collectivity, this does not demand that the Woman's
Seed equally refer to a collectivity. The parallelism ill this part of
the verse is already weakened to the extent that a metaphOrical gen-
eration is certainly indicated regarding Satan, true phYSical generation
in the case of the Woman. The W oman's Seed is an individual,
and parallelism seems equally well served by the generic idea of
offspring against offspring.
In view of the solid arguments proving that Mary is certainly the
24 Fr. Peirce, S.]., Protoevangelium, pp. 239-240.
26 Cf. Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap., Franciscan Christology, Absolute and
Universal Primacy, in Franciscan Studies, Vol. 2, 1942, pp. 454-458.
2 6 As we have noted elsewhere (Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, p. 121), we
can see one real difficulty with a restriction of Satan's seed to the individual
sense. In Apoc. 12:9 we find other devils associated with Satan, and this in a
passage which evidently alludes to Gen. 3: 15.
 MARIOLOGY
Woman of Gen. 3: 15, and even that she alone is the Woman directly
intended by the Author and (through revelation) the coauthor of the
verse, it is not surprising to see the fruitful use made of it in modern
Mariology.27
2. ISA. 7: 14-16
Oontext;. In 734 the northern Jewish l<ingdom of Israel, and
B.O.
Damascus, were seeking to force the sou them Jewish lcing-
dom of Juda into au alliance against Assyria. To have a more pbable
instrument at the helm of Juda, they pl()tted to replace King Ahaz
with their own choice. In the face of this pressure Ahaz was assured
by the prophet Isaias that all would go well, provided that the King
of Jucla spurned the human assistance of Assyria against Israel and
Damascus and placed his entire trust in God. Then Isaias foretold
the collapse of the Israel-Damascus project. King Ahaz was not to
be afraid of their threal,,; their plan would fau (7:4-9). To help tlle
King's faith Isaias offered him a sign, a miracle, as proof that he
spoke in God's name (w. lO-Il) . When King Ahaz refused to ask
for a sign, on a flimsy pretext, Isaias gave him the providenti~ll an.d
prophetic sign of the Virgin Birth.

Text. "Behold a Virgin [the Virgin] shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel. He shall eat butter
and honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the
good. For before the child know to refuse the evil and to choose the
good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of the face of
her two kings."

Again, as befits a text of this kind, very much has been written
concerning it.2B Unlike most Protestant authors, 29 Catholics are
27 E.g., for the Immnculate Conception, cf. Jaime L1ad6 El Proto-EvQ/I,gelio y
la IttlllaclIlada, .in C1jJ,tl~ra 13fhlica, Vol. 5, 1948, pp. 344-345; for dIe Co-
redemption, d. J. Carol, O. .M., Dc COITeilemlprio'lle B. 1T. Marine ( iVltas
Vaticana, !950), pp. B6-gl' . Garcia Garce$~ C.M.F. , 1\I1.(llel· C orredemptrix
(Homae, 1940), esp. pp. 30-33; for ]\,I1a:1:)"$ ~Flritua1 ate.mity, d. Eric May.
O.F.M.Cap., 111,e Scrfptlira L Basis fo~ Maryis Spirit1Ull M.ateMlit;', in lV!arfa~',
Stuales, Vo!' 3, 1952, pp. T11-t41 , J. Bevet, S.J., UmVCr$ij115 B. V.rglnlS
'mClitia/;io ex Pr%evm1geUo (Ge'tl. 3, 15) dem01lstrata, ill Gregorianum, Vol.
5. 19"2.4 pp. 27t- 272; for the A'isumptiol1, d. P. S. MLleller, S.J., 01'igo divino-
tipost01ica doctri~'rte evectionis B. 1/irgiais ad. gloriam coele~ !l1n quoad COT1!m .S
( 0 niponte, 1930), esp. PP' 58- 63; R VIT. Gleason, S~1J.dies OIl the ASSlt1llptioll:
. The Assumption and Soriptl~re, ill ThoJ'g1.t, Vol. 26, 19P , PI" 533-539.
2~ Besi(les the standard commentaries on lsoias, a list of recent specialized.
sources would include: HubC'l:t Vecollierel1o, O.P.M., The Virgin BIT/.n of
C1~TisD (Pate'\'Sou, N. J., 1932.); Heinisch-Heidt, O.S.B., 11~eology of ~he Old
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
agreed that the prophecy refers to Jesus Christ the Messias. Pope
Pius VI condemned the proposition that the prophecy does not refer
to Christ in any way.so However, whether the words of Isaias are a
literal or typical reference to the Messias (and to Mary His Mother)
remains a point of disagreement amana Catholic writers. How the
Virgin Birth of Christ could be a sign to King Ahaz when it would
only occur 700 years later remains the major difficulty to be ex-
plained. For our part, we believe that Isaias' momentous prophecy
refers prol)erly, directly, and exclusively to the Virgin Birth at Bethle-
hem; and this represen.ts the much more cornmon opinion among
Catholic expositors.
The Hebrew prophecy reads literally: "Behold, the Virgin is
pregnant and bearing a son and she shall call his name 'God-with-
us.''' The Hebrew word translated by "virgin" is 'almdh. Biblical
Hebrew had several words to designate a young woman. Na'ardh was
applied to a young lady, married or not. B 6 tl1.1Hii-h was used only for
a virgin, young or old. 'Almah, in its etymology implicitly although
not necessarily, supposed the state of vir~nity (something lile the
German Ju!n.gfra'U. or the English "maiden' ). In its usage, 'ctlmah was
gu.ite simila.r to the more riaid Hebrew word b~t:J./.'ulii7~ and explicitly
signified a young virgin of marriageable age. S1- In the light of the
immediate scriptural context (the p'omise of an e).'traordinary sign)
and the remote scripturaL context (Mt. :r :23), the word (a,hruitl'l. in
Isa. T 14 ml'lSt definitely be lIndersto.od in the sense of "virgin." Con-
fi.rmation of this is found in the Septuagint Greek translation, parthe-
nos (virgin). It is noteworthy that the Jews were not scandalized at
the translation parthenos until the Christians used it against them.
The Messias, then, was to have a Virgin Mother.

Testamerlt (Collegeville, Minn., 1950), pp. 305-307; C. C. Martindale S.].,

Mother In Isr(Jel, in The Mary BOGllt (New Yotk, I950), pp. IO-H; T. E.
BiId, MIa is 'The Boy' in Isaias 7:167 in T1~e Catholic Biblical QlII~rterZy,
Vol. 6, 7944, pp. 435-443; E . Power, S.J., The Emmanuel Pr07"~ecy of Isaias in
The Iris11 Ecclesiastical Record, Vol. 70, r948, pp_ 2.89-304; idem, Isaias, jn
CCHS, esp. pp. 546-$48; A Vaccnri, S.J., De Si.gna Emmanuelis Is 7 in
Verbllfll Domini, Vol . J7, 1937, pp. 45- 49, 75-8 I; Schaerer-Brossart, The
Motller of Jesus in Holy Script-ure (New York, 1913), p. IS ff:.; I ip6lito Arias,
C-!.M., La Virge". Madre en IsaIas, in Cathedra, Vol. 4, r~50, pp. 4l~-42.1.
20 E.g., the Anglican L: S. Thornton, The Modler of God 1n Holy SOTlt)tI~re,
in E. L. Mascall (ed.), T1Ie Mot71er of God, a Symposi1~m (WestminstC!, 1949),
p. 2.1.
80 In his brief Divina, September 20, 1779; Enchiridion Biblicum, No. 59.
81 C. Lattey, S.J., The Term Almah in Isa. 7:14, in The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1947, pp. 89-95.
66 MARIOLOGY
that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the
beginning, from the days of eternity. Therefore will he give them
up even till the time w11erem she tha t travaileth shall bring forth:
and the remnant of his brethren shall be converted to the children
of Israel."

The exact relationship between the prophets Isaias and Micheas

has not been fully detellnineei,B" but Catholics commonly agree that
the Nativity prophecies of both refer as with one voice to Mary, the
Mother of Jesus. 33 We know that at Christ's time, Jews of all classes
understood Mich. 5 :2-3 in a messianic sense, the learned eMt. 2:4-
6) as well as the unlearned (cf. In. 7:40-42). Micheas foretold that
a new Ruler was to merge in Israel, i.e., was to be born in David's
humble biIthplace, Bethlehem. Yet this same Ruler to be born in
Bethlehem was considered as having had existence £rom eternal
days. Hence, a double origin: one eternal, one temporal. God would
permit Israel's enemies to oppress her until "she that travaileth shall
bring forth (the Saviour)." This mother, thus introduced suddenly
as known and determined (Hebrew: y6ledah, yaladah) but without
mention of a husband, was to be understood in the same sense as
the Virgin Mother of Isa. 7: 14 who bears Emmanuel. This Ruler
would gather together His brethren (the dispersed Jews) and form
a blessed people at last secure from enemies, because He would be
endowed with the majesty and authority of Yahweh.
Perhaps no one has brought out the Marian significance of this
messianic passage better than Fr. K. Smyth, S.]. He writes:
34 Yet, according to C. P. Caspari, liEs mochte kaum zwei prophetische
Schriften geben, die in allen Beziehungen in einer so starken Verwandtschaft
mit einander stehen, als das Buch Micha's und das Jesaja's." Ober Micha den
Morasthiten und seine Prophetische Schrift (Christiana, 1852), p. 444.
35 Ct. P. L. Suarez, C .M.F., Un. texto mariol6gico en Miqueas, in Cultura
Biblica, Vol. 10, r953, Pl?, 247-248; H. Arias, C.rM., La Virgen. Madre elt
Isnfas, in Cath.edrn, Vol. 4, 1950, p. 419 (where he maintains that Mich. 5:2-
is unintelligible apatt from Is&!. 7: 14); Schaefe-c-Brossart, The Mother of God
in Holy Scripture, pp. ,6-58; Gaspare de Stefani, Marl" Santissima neZI'A1mco
Te.sf;amento, 11.ella sua, vita ~ nella vita della C1~i.esa (Torino, [n.d.]), pp. 68-'70;
A. Vitti, S.J. Maria negli splendori della Teolo[!.ia Bi],Uca, in LA Civi.lta
Cattolica, Vol. 3. 1942, pp. 193-201; E. Rosales, O.P.M., La Realeza de Mllrfa.
en Ius Sagrailas Escrib'Hras, in Aotas del Congreso Asu.nciollista Fmnciscano de
America Latina (Buenos Aires, 1950), pp. 217-218; Heinisch-Heidt, Theology
of the Old Testament, pp. 305-307.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Because it is God's plan to raise up a Saviour, not from royal SiOll,
but from Bethlehem, he will leave Israel at the mercy of her enemies,
till a Mother bears Child. Then begin God's blessings, with the return
of the Child's exiled brothers. Abmpt and succinct, this prophecy
evidently sUQposes a great current of Messianic prophecy then familia·
to all. It harmonizes perfectly with Isaias 7: 14. There is the same sign
of deliverance: the appearance of a Mother, the coming of the Child
then the retutn of the exiles; cf. Is 7:3 'A Remnant will Return.'
Through the centuries which proph etic vision has . to pierce, only fig-
ures gigantic in their import can be distinguished. But, however indis-
tinctly perceived, a Woman looms large throughout the great prophe-
cies of Redemption. In the Proto-Evangel, Cen 3, in Isaias and in
Micheas salvation comes through one who always associates with him-
self a Mother. Thus the Cailiolic Church follows out fundamental
lines of revelation in the honour paid to the Virgin Mary, Mother
of Cod, and in acknowledging her significance in the economy of
Redemption. 86
We agree with the view that Mich. 5:3 is a proper literal reference
to Mary, the Mother of Christ, and another important part of the
Marian picture in the Old Testament.

4. JER. 31 :22
Context. Chapter 31 of Jeremias' prophecy holds out the hope of
the restoration of the Jews (vv. 1-14). At present, Rachel
,(the mother of Joseph i.e., Ephraim) is piclured in the prophet's
imagination as watching From her tomb at Rama, and bern0aning
the ruin of her children. But she need not grieve, says the prophet;
Ephraim will yet repent (vv. 15-20), and both Ephraim and Juda
will be restored together ( vv. 2.t-30) . In cOnbrmation of this, a
great sign is promised (v. 22).

Text. "How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, 0 wander-

ing daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the
earth: a woman shall encompass a man" (Douay Version).

As with the preceding texts, there seems little room for doubt that
we are dealing here with a messianic text in a messianic context. 37
3GKevin. Smyth, S.J. Micheas, in CCHS, p. 675.
a7p. Ceuppe:ns, D.P., !towel'cr, holds that Jer. 31:22 is to be considered
.messianic by reason of context, without any reference here to the Person of
Messias, muoh less to His conception in Mary's virginal womb. The text, he
 MARIOLOGY
Cd. Mt. 22:df., 25.:df.; In. 3:29; 2 Cor. 1I:2j Eph. 5:23-32;
Apoe. 2.1: 9). Whether or not this last meaning is a verification of
the fuller sense is a matter of opinion. The important f lIther ques-
tion that concerns us here is: did Almighty God also intend in the
Canticle to refer to the close union between Christ and His Blessed
Mother? Is this a Marian boo}e in any sense?
From patristic times down to our own day there have been com-
mentators who extended (if that is the correct word) the parabolico-
allegoric understanding of the Canticle to an ascetico-mystical inter-
pretation. Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the individual Christian soul
is the bride. Since the Virgin Mary is the holiest of the Church's
members; since her union with Christ is the most intimate imagi-
nable; since after Christ she occupies the main position in the economy
of salvation, in a special way Mary is the ride discussed in the
Canticle. 48 And for our part, we do believe that Mary was included
in the mind and intention of God when He inspired the sacred
author to write the Canticle of Canticles. Be this the "fuller" sense
or the "fullest" sense (if you wiH), Mary's role as Sponsa Verbi is
too evident within the remote context of both Testaments to cast
serious doubt on a Mariological interpretation of the Canticle. Here
we have one of those biblical themes mentioned earlier, a theme aptly
indicated according to its general line of development by Charles
Moeller when he writes:
This first line of e>.-plicit biblical themes [i.e., espousals in the Old
Testament; Church-Bride in the New] being thus recalled to mind,
from Genesis to the Apocalypse, a second series can be discerned,
renewing the former in its emphasis and revealing Marian implications.
This second series of themes is to be found in the Johannine revelation,
which, to our mind, together with the Canticle of Canticles for the Old
Testament, represents the peak of the New. The Marian texts in St .
.a CE. D. Buzy, Le Ccmtique des Cant,iques (Paris, 1949), p, 29 fE.; Juan G.
i\rintero, CantM de los C(mtares (Salamanca, 1926), Lllroducci6n; Pougct-
Guitton-Lilly, The Cmi.ticle of Cqnticles (New York, 1948), pp. 144-1"45; P. P.
Saydon.. The Canticle of Canticles, in CCHS, pp. 497-498; PasChal Parente,
The Canticle of Canticles in Mystical Theology, in The Catholic Biblical
Ql~arterly, Vol. 6, 1.944, pp. 142.-158; Alfonso Rivera, C.M.F., Sentido Mario ·
1.6gico d.el Ca't~ar de iDs Ccmtares? in Eplumterides Mal'iologicae, Vol. 1, 1951,
pp. 437-468·; Vol. '-. 1952, pp. . 25-42. Rivera gives BS t1le conclusion to the
£r·t port o£ his article: "Admitimos como vcrdadero, junto can el sentido
eclesio16gico. el sentido mariano del Ct., con la probabilidad y fuerza que Ie
cIa la interpretaci6n tradicional y moralmente un8nime de la. exegesiS cristiana,
con£rmada por el anaIisis intemo y los criteri05 de oua10gfa exegetica del Ct."
(p. 4 68).
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
John's Gospel (II, I - I I ; XIX, 25-27) linked on the one hand to
verse 13 of the prologue [John I] and to Genesis III, 15 and on the
other to Apoo. XII, sheds a Rood of light On Mary the Bride of the
Word, associated in the rede~ption, and the spiritual mother of the
faithful. It is necessary to note that we arc here using a literal exegesis
founded on the secret comlections placed by St. John himself between
tlle different parts of h is gospel and between that gospel and Genesis
and the Apocalypse:'~
The Canticle of Canticles, then, looked ahead in a fuller sense to
the special relationship that would exist between the Word of God
and His Bride, Mary - even though the author's contemporaries, per-
haps, would not have plumbed the depths of the Canticle's meaning.

6. OTHER TEXTS
A passage from another of the major prophets is frequ ently men-
tioned in connection with the Virgin Birth. Ezech. 44: 1-3 reads:
'And he brought me back to the way of th e gate of th e ou twmd
sanctuary, wh ich looked toward the east: and it was shut. And the
Lord said tome: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and
no man sh all pass through i t: because the Lord the God of Israel
hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut for the prince . The prin-ce
himself shall sit in it . . . ." The prophet refers to a prinGe who rules
for Yahweh. Among his privileges is a special place for sacrificial
meals, the eastern gate of the grand Temple in Jerusalem. This gate
was never to be opened by another, inasmuch as Yahweh had entered
tlUOllgh it. Now, it is true that a goodly number of the Church
Fathers and ~iters and pr~c~e~s have seen in ~is sealed gate a
figure of Mary s perpetual VlIgllllty.4~ But was tl1lS merely by way
of h omiletic accommodation and not intended as the strict scriptural
sense? We think so. There seems to be no good exegetical reason
for thinking otherwise.
There are not wanting authors who imitate St. Jerome and see in
Isa. I I: I a reference to Mary along with her Messias Son. 46 But
44 Charles Moeller, Doctrinal Aspects of Mariology, in Lumen Vitae, Vol.
8, 2953, pp. 2.3.6 -2 3 8. D. ~u'o/. calls the Cfmtiple of C(m~-i cJles "tl1c fourth
Gospe.l of tile Old Te.~t ament'; Ibid., p. 33.
4~ Cf: E. Power, S.J., EzechieZ, in CeHS, ,. 619' Some patristic qlJOt9tions
aJ;C available in Schaefer-Btossart. The Mot,her a ./esm in Holy Scripttttc, p. 63 ff.
Schaefer himself concludes : '''This app.Ucation [0 · Ezech.. 44:2 to MIDy] is made
in such A manner tllat the conviction becomes evident that such a reference to
Mary was also intended by the Holy Ghost."
46 E.g., Eduardo Rosales, O.F.M., La Realeza de Maria en las Sagradas
 MARIOLOGY
they do so without adequate foundation. The text reads: "And
there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower
shall rise. up out of his root." Isaias contrasts the figure of a sprout
from Jesse's root with the forest metaphor of the preceding verse.
The forest (symbolizing AsSyria) is utterly destroyed, but the stump
of Jesse (the royal family of JudrJ.) envisions a shoot springing up:
the Messias. By parallelism ale subjects of verse 1 "rod . . . flower"
hath refe to th Messias - not one to I-lim the other to His Mother.~7
Still another passage is sometimes referred to Mary in a direct
scriptural sense. It is the second half of Ps. 44 (45). This psalm,
the nuptial song of the king, is certainly messianic. But (so the
argument runs), if the first half of the psalm concerns the Messias,
an individual, why should not the second half also refer to an indi-
vidual Queen - Mary?48 The more common view, however, seems to
see in Ps. 44 either a reference to the espousals between Christ
and the Church directly, or a literal reference to some royal wed-
ding (Solomon's?) which is then a type of the messianic espousals
(cf. Eph. 5:25-27). As for our opinion, we must confess to more
than a little interest in the Marian interpretation through the fuller
sense. We have here almost the same setup as in the Canticle of
Canticles. When we note how consistently the Church and Mary
are brought together in explanation of passages like Ps. 44, the
Canticle of Canticles, and Apoc. 12, as by a kind of interrelationship,
it seems difficult to restrict Mary's presence in Ps. 44 to one of mere
accommodation.

II. MARY IN TYPE

Among the many beautiful things Monsignor Ronald Knox has
written is a short article wherein he treats Esther of the Old Testa-
ment as a type of Mary. He asserts that "there is a mystical signifi-
cance in the Old Testament everywhere; and that, above all, the his-

Esoti.'I4il"a5, iu AetllS del Con,greso AsUllciO'I~/Sta Frandscano de America La!i7w

( Dueuos Ailes, .195"0), pp. :l.16- :n7. He thin],s the prophecy .efets to the
Messias :in the literal, e..'<)'ress sensc, and to Mary in the implicit, ljteral sense.
'1"1 Simon-Prado, Pr6le/,ect;iones Biblicae. Vel",s Test'll.'I'I16I1mA,11I, Vol. 1 (Taurin],
1949), p. 4 6 3.
48 Thus, Eduardo Rosales, O.P.M., La Realeza ae Maria, pp. zr8-220. E. C.
Messenger, Our Lady f'lI the Scril't4,lres, in CCHS, p. 114, likowi6(l thinks that
the (primary) collective meaning of the Spo,-,se does not c;'(clude the "applica,-
'lion" oJ t he tl!A"t to the King's Mother, Mary. However, Eustuce Smith, O.P.M.,
doubts the l'vlOUi.\D verificalion; The Scriptural Ba.tis f"Or Mary's Q'U,een hi11, in
Marilin Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, p. 114.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 73
tory of the Jewish people foreshadows and typifies the glories of our
Blessed Lady." Remarking that there is much that is violent and
some things which are dull in the Old Testament, the distinguished
author adds:
But through this tangled skein runs a single golden thread; between
these soiled pages lies, now and again, a pressed flower that has
lost neither its colour nor its sweetness. T hat thread, that flower, is
the mention, by type and analogue, of her whom all generations of
Christendom have called blessed, the Virgin of Virgins, the Queen
of Heaven, the holy Mother of God. It is not wonderful that it
should be so. For our Lady is, after all, the culmination of that
long process of selection, of choosing here and rejecting there a human
instrument suited to his purpose, which is so characteristic of God's
dealings with his ancient people. 49
Many years ago His Holiness Pope P ius IX poin ted out the same
truth even more vividly in his incomparable Bull Ine ffabiHs De'us,
wherein h e solemnly defined the dogma of the Immaculate C on-
ception . H e took great pains to list many of the persons and objects
in the Old Dispensation which according to the Fathers, typified or
prefigured the all-pure Mother of Christ. The pertinent passages read :
This illustrious and singular triumph of the Virgin [mentioned in
Gen. 3 : 15], together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holi-
ness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspealeable
abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virmes and privileges
- these the Fathers saw [typified] in that ark of Noe, which was
built by divine command and escaped entirely safe and sound from
the common shipwreck of the whole world (Gen. 6-9); also in that
ladder which Jacob saw reaching from earth to heaven, by whose
rungs the angels of God ascended and descended, and on whose
top the Lord Himself leaned ( Gen. 28: 12-13); also in that bush which
Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, but which was not
only not consumed nor injured in any way bu t gtew green and blos-
somed beautifully (E?C. 3: 1-3); also ill that impregnable tower before
the enemy, from 'W11kh hung a thousand bucklers and all the armor
of the strong (Cant. 4: 4) j also in that garden enclosed On all sides,
which cannot be violated nor corrupted by any deceitf-uJ plots ( Cant.
4: 12); also in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with
divine splendors, is full of the glory of God (3 I(jngs 8: 10-11 ); and
in very many other types of this kind. By them the Fathers h ave
40 Esther as a Type of OUT Lady, in Sheed's The Mary Book (New York,
1950), pp. 15-16.
74 MARIOLOGY
handed down the tradition that exalted things have been signally
predicted of the Mother of God and of her spotless innocence and
holiness which was never subject to any blemish. ~O

The Holy Pontiff then goes on to demonstrate how the Fathers used
the words of the Prophets of old to describe Mary's sinlessness and
great gifts. Spotless dove, they called her (Cant. 6:8), and the Holy
Jerusalem, the exalted throne of God, the ark and house of holiness
which eternal wisdom built for herself (Prov. 9: 1). They addressed
Mary as that Queen who, full of deligbts and leaning on her
Beloved (Cant. 8:5), came forth nom the mouth of the Most High
(Ecclus. 24: 5), entirely perfect. And a little later in the encyclical
the Pope brings together still further examples of how the Fathers
appealed to Scripture in describing Mary's purity and holin.ess.
Hence, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the
lily among thorns, or the earth entirely intact, virginal, undefiled,
immaculate, ever-blessed and free from all corruption of sin, from
which was formed the New Adam; or th flawless, brightest and most
pleasant paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by
God Himself and protected against all snares of the poisonous Serpent;
or the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin llad never corrupted;
or the fountain ever clear and sealed by the power of the Holy Spirit;
or the most divine temple; or the treasure of immortality; or the one
and only daughter not of death but of life, the child not of an ger but
of grace, which by i:he singular providence of God bas always blos-
amed, tbough it sprang from a corrupt and infected root, contrary to
d1e ordinary and fixed laws.51

To the thorough list of lis Holiness might be added other in-

animate objects of the Old Dispensation which have been considered
as types of Mary. Aar01I/s rod, for example (Num. 17:8). Only
Aaron's IDd, among many others, blossomed forth; so Mary is the one
flower of innocence that sprang from our corrupt nature. Gideon's
fleece is another example (Judges 6:36-4°). At one time the fleece
was wet with dew while the surrounding ground remained drYi then
again the fleece remained untouched by dew though the earth
around was soaked. Thus Mary was fi1led with God's grace from the
first moment of her conception while all others remained deprived
50 Mary Immaculate, The Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX, translated
and annotated by Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap. (Paterson, N. J., 1946), pp.
II-12.
H Ibid., p. 14.
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 75
of it; she alone was preserved from sin while the whole world suc-
cumbed to it.
Nowhere is Marian typology more in evidence than with regard
fa certain Old Testament personages. Just a few pertinent examples. G~
Eve heads the list. She is the mother of all the living on the natural
plane, Mary on the supernatural level. Resphct the daughter of Aia,
who mourned for her crtlcified sons (2 Sam. 2.f :8-10) and the
mother of the M.achahean 1'/1,artyrs who so generously offered up the
martyrdom of her SOnS (2. Mace. 7), arc types of Mary mourning
for the death of her crucified Child after generously assisting Him
in His sufferings. Bet7'Lsa.he~ (3 Kings 2: J 9), seated on a throne at
the righ t hand of her son Solomon, shaIed his glory and power.
Mary, seated in heaven at the right hand of her Son Jesus, shares
with Him our love and veneration. By her charms Rachel (Gen. 2.9)
won the heart of Jacoh; so Mary won the heart of God. Rachel's
son Joseph, havin.g been sold by his brethren, attained great honor
and saved his people. M ry's Son Jesus, sold by His brethIen, sa.ved
the world and reached an infinite glory. Esther, J"'tdit7't, Debbora, and
7a,hel were all types of /{ary in ilia they were instrumental in thc
salvation of their people. More specifically, Estlq,er who was of lowly
buth won the favor of a mos.t powerful king and became his !ipouse;
so Mary, a poor and bumble Jewess, won the heart of God and shares
with Him the empire of the world. Esther alone was exempted from
a law which bound everyone else; Mary alone was exempted from
the law of original sin. As for Judith, whereas she saved her fellow
Jews fl'Oill harm by cutting off 1 olofernes' head, Mary played her
grand role of Coredemptrix by crushing the, head of the serpent.
Judith's praises were on every tongue; so are the Blessed M0ther"s, as
foretold in the Magnifocat.
TI1e question naturally arises whether these Old Testament per-
sons, events, th ings are genuine scriptural types intended as such by
Almighty God, or whether they fall in to the class of mere accommo-
dation . The guestion_ is very clifficult to answer. Scripture jtself seems
to be silent on the matter (except for the generic reminder of St. Paul
in I Cor. 10: 6, I I that the typology of the Old Testament was in-
tended for us); and from the wording of the Fathers it is not always
clear just how these Old Testament realities refer to Mary. Surely
52 Cf. esp. Fr. Canker 6.F.M.Gap., Mary, a St'l-I/ly of the Mother of God
(Dublin, 1950), Chilp. 3; M. J. SQheebcn, Mariology, Vol. I CSt. Louis, 1946),
p. 35 if. Por a ruller de.velopmcnt of Eve 8S 8 type of Mary, d . Francis Friedel,
The Mariology of C~rd.i1U1t NewlllfHl (New York, (928), Chap. 2.
 MARIOLOGY
it places no strain on our credence to see in many of these types a
deliberate anticipation on God's part of the tremendous role to be
played by His Mother in the New Dispensation. The difficulty is
where to draw the line between the strict biblical sense known as
the 'typical, and mere accommodation.
rere, the relationship between Mary and the Wisdom literature
calls for special consideration. Some remarks of Pope Pius IX in the
Buil lne ffnb-i.l" Dens are p tinent. "From th beQinning and before
the ages," he says, "God chose and appointed a Mother for His
O nly-Begotten Son, fTom whom this Son would take H is flesh and
be born wb en th e blessed fullness of time would arrive." A little
later in the encyclkal the Ioly Fath er tates that since the Church
on the feast of the Immaculate Conception uses those passa('Tes of
Sacred Scripture which speak of the origin of Eternal and Incarnate
Wisdom by tha t fact the Church implies that Mary'S origin and
conception was sacred and immaculate.G8 And the Holy Father con-
cludes : IIFor her origin was preordained by one and the sam de re
with the Incarn ation of divine Wisdom."
T he Wisdom passages utilized in Church li turgy for the vigil of
th e Immacllla te Conception are tal{ell from EccZus. 24: 23-3 I and
Provo 9 : I. On dle great feast day itSelf, the epistle is taken from
Provo 8: 22-35 which reads (Dollay V ersiol1):
I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither had
the fountains of waters as yet sprung out:
The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established:
before the hills was I brought forth:
He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of
the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain
law and compass he enclosed the depths:
When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of
the waters;
When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the
waters that they should not pass their limits: when he balanced the
foundations of the earth;
530p. cit., pp. I, 3. The Holy Father's words are: "For this reason the
very words by which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom, and
by which they represent His eternal origin, the Church has been accustomed
to use not only in the ecclesiastical offices but also in the Sacred Liturgy [the
Eucharistic Sacrifice], applying them to this Virgin's origin."
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 77
I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day,
playing before him at all times;
Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children
of men.
Now therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep
my ways.
Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my
gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors.
He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from
the Lord.
Despite the aptness of the accommodation of these words to Mary,
we believe tha t such p assages are not Marian in a scriptural sense.
N ot in th proper literal sense, inasmuch as the text refers to
Hypostatic Wisdom· 5 'l not in the typical sense, because it would not
be proper to ma]~e the more dignified ( the Incamate Word) a type
of the less dignilled (Mary).
For the rest, there are a multitude of Old Te tament texts which
the Churcll in her liturgy, and the Fathers in their homiletic works,
have accommodated to Mary by extension or allusion. \'"e h ave
already mentioned some of these accommodations (e.g., the closed
eastern gate of the Temple, Jesse's root, etc.) . Pope Pius XII men-
tions more of them in h is recent encyclical Fulgens C01'ona. There
he notes that the Fathers, to support their belief in Mary'S Immacu-
late Conception, claimed for her such. titles as "Lily Among Thorns,"
"Land Wholly Intact," "U nfading T ree," "Foun tain Ever Clear,"
and the like.oo Other accommodations are contained in the Litany of
Loreto, and in the Marian praiSes of medi ;val theolOgian s and
preachers.50 Beautiful as sllch accommodations to Mary undoubtedly
are, they were intended neither by the Holy Spirit nm: by the human
authors of Sacred Scripture. T hey do not constitute the biblical
D~ Cf. ETlc M ay, O.P.M .Cap., The Logos in the Old Testament, in T he
Catho);lo Bih1.ical Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1946, esp. p. 442 f\:.; ah o E. C. Messenger,
0 11f Lady in the Script.u.res, in CCHS, p . 11 4. In. a rather uni q~l.Ie way, ScheeIlen
in his Mar/ology, Vol. I, pp. 22.-35, maltcs an Rttempt to reconcile the reference
to both E temal W isdom and to Mary in this Wisdom litera ture.
56 Pl~lge1J.S Coron a, as translated in T he Catholic Mind, Vol. 51, 1953,
p· 739 ·
611 E.g., d . Raphael Hu.ber, O.F.M .Conv., T he Mariology of St. A11."j'01t)' of
Padlla., in St /l.dia Mariana, 7 (Burlington, Wis., 1952 ) , pp. 188-2.6 8. St. Anthony
ga.ve -Iary affectionate titles like ''Pamdise of HumauiLy," "Rainbow In the
H eavens," "Uly and Rase," "Door DE Paradise:' etc. - based on texts like Ge1:!.
2 :8 and 9 : 13; Beall'S. 50:8; Osee 14 :6; 3 Kings 6 :25 .
 MARIOLOGY
meaning of the text in any sense and hence may never be proposed
as such; nor can they be used (as a scriptural proof) to prove
Marian doctrine.
CONCLUSION
The scattered threads of our research have still to be tied together.
As we have discovered, the Old Testament does not tell us all we
would like to know about the Blessed Virgin, any more than does
the ew Testament; bue it reveals a loving preparation on God's
part for the advent of His Mother. In the key periods of Old Cove-
'naDe history, beginning with the very dawn of revealed religion, the
IJromise of the Mother as well as her Saviour Son is manifest - now
in the bold tones of direct prophecy, now in the more subdued tones
of t.ype and .6 gure.
Man's fall in paradise can indeed be called the felix C'' I-Zpa, bring-
ing in its wake so grand a promise of salvation, a promise that asso-
ciates Mary, "the woman," with her Messias Son in the redemption
of mankind, a promise that implies her xlr ortlinary purity and
virtue. As time passed and the oly Spirit in His great wisdom in-
spired more and more men to write the books of d1.e Old Testament,
He included many references to the Messias, His Kingdom, His
Mother, in the form of minor incidents or major personages who
served to prefigure the grand realit\es f a later century. T h ese types
no doubt wer - essentially obscure to the Jews of old and perhaps to
the sacred writers themselves; by and large they achieve their full
recognition and significance only in the light of the more complete
New Testament revelation. But God did not rest content with type
and figure. In the turbulent age of the prophets He saw to it that
the men who spo){e for l-lim would once again refer directly to ills
wonderful Mother. And He added a new, distinctive note. The
Mother of the Messias was to be a Virgin Mother! Thus, the startling
sign given the reluctant King Ahaz, entrusted to the lips and pen of
Isaias. T his news was ,fully confirmed by a contemporary, M.icheas
and reasserted at a later date by the great Jeremias. In all of these
major prophetical announcements the Woman concerned is Mary -
Coredemptrix. Immaculate Virgin Mother of J u hrist. Not yet
did these te.'\.'1:S exhaust the Old 'Testament references to the Blessed
Mother, for when the Holy Spirit inspired that intimate and beau-
tiful composition known as the Canticle of Canticles which de-
scribes the vast bond of love and union between Yahweh and His
Chosen People, Christ and His Church, likewise included in the
 MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 79
meaning - and that by God's intent - was the ineffable bond of union
between the God-Man and His Mother.
"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, the Old Testament
stands revealed in the New." How true those words are of Mary's
presence within the pages of the Old Testament. Pope Pius XII makes
a particularly practical observation in the middle of his encyclical
Fulgens COT01'la. He says:
Just as all mothers are deeply affected when they perceive that the
countenance of their children reaects a peculiar likeness to their own,
so also our Most Sweet Mother wishes for nothing more, never rejoices
more than when she sees those whom, under the cross of her Son,
she has adopted as children in his stead, portray the lineaments and
ornaments of her own soul in thought, word and deed.... TIle COm-
memoration of the mystery of the Most Holy Virgin, conceived irrL-
maculate and jmmune from all stain of original sin, should, in the
£lrst place, urge us to that jnnocence and integrity of life which aees
f-rom and abhors even the slightest stain of sin .fi7
Sincere devotion to Mary, then, is a means of acquhing virtue. It
is well to note again that the basic truths underlying devotion to
Mary, though brought to ful6.ILnent in the New Dispensation, were
all propheSied with an astOnishing degree of clarily already in the
Old Testament. God could do no less for His Mother.
57 Fulgens Corona; loe. cit., p. 742.
 Mary in the New Testament

By MICHAEL J. GRUENTHANER, S.J.

S INCE the Annunciation took place in Nazareth and most of

Mary's relatives resided there, she was most probably born in
that village. It is situated in the hill country of southem Galilee,
bordering upon the great plain of TIsdraelon. Though not a great
religious, poJitical or social center, it must not be conceived as an
isolated settlement of a remote comer of northern Palestine. The
great caravan routes to Egypt and the Medlterranean were within
easy l;cach. Sepphoris, which Herod chose as the capital of Galilee
from 4 B.d. to abou t r8 A.D., was a f w miles north of Nazareth.
The last stretch of the oad ITom Jerusalem to SeEPhoris passed
through Nazareth. From the heights of Nazareth one could, looking
southward, obtain a view of the scenes of not a few of Israel's explOits.
According to tradi tion, the house where M ary was bom was lo-
cated on the site where the Basilica of the Annunciation now stands.
This is built over some caves or grottoes one of which is venerated
as the scene of the Annunciation. Even in modern times Nazareth
contains homes consisting of two parts: a small wootlen Hat-topped
house fron ting the street and an adjOining cave hollowed out by
human hands or by nature. A 110me of tl)is type may well have been
the place of Mary's birth. This would be an additional proof that
Mary's parents lived in modest circumstances, with ut bcing paupers. 1
PARENTAGE
The Church venerates Mary's parents as Joachim and Anna. These
names may be autllentic but they are not guaran teed to be such,
since they are delived hom the ap cryphal Protoe1J('/.'ngeli'L~m of
James/ which goes back to the second century but embodies much
that is pure fantasy. Nothing historically trLL twortllY is knOM'} about
1 Cf. J. M. Abel, G60graphie de la Palestine, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1938), p. 395. Cf.
also the standard guides to Palestine such as Meistennann, Biideker, etc.
2 M. J. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1926).

80
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Joachim and Anna, but they must have been persons of superior
sanctity, for they have been virtually canonized by the Church and
we may rest assured that God must have chosen parents worthy to
educate a child of such high destiny and singular holiness.
St. Paul emphasizes the fact that Christ is carnally descended from
David. Writing to the Romans, he declares that Jesus is of the seed
of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1: 3). At Antioch, in Pisidia,
be tells his audience that Jesus the Saviour, was brought to Israel
Erom the seed of David (Acts 13 :23). He exhorts Timothy: "Remem-
ber Jesus Christ risen from the dead, of the seed of David accordin~
to my gospel" (2 Tim. 2:8). St. John calls Jesus "the Toot of David'
(Apoc. 5:5) and represents Him as saying: "I am the root and the
offspring of David" (Apoc. 2;2.: 16). There cannot be the least doubt,
then, that Mary was of D aviruc lineage, at least through Joachim,
her father, and perhaps through Anna, her mother, as well. The
bodily origin of the Messias from David had been predicted by Isaias
(1l:1) Jeremias (23:;; 33:15), and Zacharias (3:'8; 6:12).
Joachim and Anna named their daughter Miryal'n., after the
valiant sister of Moses (Exod. 15:20). In the Septuagint this was
rendered Mariam. Hence Mary'S name is occasiona1ly given as Mar-
iam in the Gospels, although the Greek form Maria is more frequent.
This has been Anglicized into Mat")'.
Did Joachim and Anna have other children beside Mary? St. John
tells us that ''beside the cross of Je US were standing His mother, and
His mother's sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdaleneu On.
19: 25). Since it would be guite unusual Jor two sisters to have the
same name, we must probably distinguish four persons with the
Syriac Peshitto, which clarifies the text by inserting the conjunction
"and" before "Mary of Clopas." Who; then, was this anonymous
sister of the Lord's Mother? St. Matthew, omitting the Mother of
Jesus, names three women as witnessing the crLlcilixion: Mary Mag-
dalene, Mary, the Mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee (27: 56). St. Marl< men tions the same truee with
slight modifications: Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James the
Less and of Joses, Salome.
If we assume that the Johannine list enumerates four women, it
follows from a comparison with the Synoptic list that Salome was the
sister of the Mother of Jeslls and that James and John, the sons of
Zebedee, were His cousins. It is possible, however, that "sister" is
employed by St. John in its broader Semitic sense of cousin or relative.
 MARIOLOGY
If, on the other hand, we suppose that St. John enumerates but
three women, so that "His mother's sister" is the title of Mary of
Clopes, we must conclude that she was the sisteli of Our Lord's
Mother. According to Hegesippus~ (c. 180), tllls Mary was the
wife of Clopes, the brother of Joseph. Hence she was the sisteT of
the oId's Mother in the sense of being her sister-in-1aw. In addition,
she may have been related to Ma!'y by blood. Consequently, it is
not clear that Mary bad a sister in the proper sense of the word.

EDUCATION
'While there were elemen tary and advanced schools for boys, there
was no provision for the education of girls. The majority of the
Jewish rabbis were hostile to female education, although this was
endorsed by a few. Accordingly, if she acquired the arts of reading
and writing, she did so at home under the guidance of her father or
mother. That this was not impossible is shown by the fact that some
Jewish women became distingnished scholars in the early centllIies
of the Christian era. 4
Despite her lack of fonnal education, Mary must have acquired a
familiarity with the history of the Ohosen People and the messianic
prophecies of which it was the recipient and custodian. This famili-
arity was assured by her attendance at the synagogue On the Sabbath
and the Jewish festivals. In the moming and evening services held
on these occasions selections tram the Law and the Prophets were
publicly read and translated into Aramaic, the cunene language of
the common people. A discourse, also, was delivered on some text
of Scripture. Certain psalms were chanted." If, as seems likely, she
accompanied her parents on pilgrimages to Jerusalem, she heard and
learned the Psalms of Degrees sung by the pilgrims On their way to
the holy city and listened to the chanting of the psalms in the litllIgy
of the Temple.o
H er spilitual life, also, was nurtured by pt:ivate devotions. Every
Jew was encouraged to pray often: he was expected to begin and end
the day by lifting up his heart to God; grace was said before and
after meals; certain psalms were recommended for private recitation;
every conting~ncy of life was to be met by suitable prayer. It seems
3 As quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesicrstical I-H~or)', 3. J I, 2.
4 J. B();nsiI'ven,
Le j1tdai.I'HIe pale..l~i,zietl, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1935), p. 213.
5 Cf. 13onsirven, or. cil., Vol. 2, pp. 139, 141-143.
6 P ss. I t9- 133 ( 120- 134 ) ' CE. BOllSiIvCll, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 119, 139,
147- 14 8.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
reasonable to suppose that Mary even exceeded these high ideals and
that she was, in fact, gifted with the highest forms of mystic prayer.
BETROTH AU
We read in Mt. 1: 18 that Mary was espoused to a man named
Joseph and we glean from Lk. I :27 and from the genealogies of
the Gospels that he was a scion of David (Mt. 1: 1-17; Lk. 3 :23-38).
But his illustrious origin did not imply social prominence. After the
demise of Zorobabel (after 515 B.C.), the house of David seems to
have declined steadily in wealth and influence. It is mentioned for
the last time in the Old Testament in I Par. 3: I f. So we find that
Joseph was no more than a carpenter of Nazareth not famed for his
erudition (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3). This again is a sign that Mary's
parents belonged to the artisan class, for, according to Jewish opinion,
bride and bridegroom were supposed to be of the same social and
economic status. 8
That Joseph sought a wife does not surprise us, for marriage was
obligatory for a Jew; an unmarried man was stigmatized by the rabbis
as not a man and as devoid of joy, blessing, and well-bein o.o But that
Mary, who was resolved to preserve perpetual virginity 1:38) ,CLk.
should conSen t to espousals seems stran ge. She may have yielded to
pressure from her parents or guardian to conform to the prevailing
custom, leaving it to Divine Providence to safeguard her resolution.
Perhaps she disclosed her resolve to Joseph and persuaded him to
consent to a virginal marriage. It is possible, also, that Joseph enter-
tained the same ideals, so that he needed no persuasion to accept the
ldnd of espousals contemplated by :Mary.
A young man usually became betrothed between the ages of
eighteen and twenty-four; a girl, between twelve years and one day
and twelve years six months, the perioci when she was classified as a
maiden Cna'arah). The obligation to secure a husband for her was
considered urgent when she became a hogereth, that is, when she
reached the legal state of puberty, after the age of twelve and a half.
7 Cf. P. Giichter, The C hronology from Mary's Betrothal to ~he Birth of Christ.,
in Theological Studies, Vol. 2, 1941, pp. 347-368; U. Holzmeistet, De nll'P·tiis S.
Joseph, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 25, 1947, pp. 14 5-!49; E. N eubert, La chrono-
logie dep-uis les fian«ailles de Marie jusqu'cl la naissanclJ du Christ, in Mari4tmn'/.)
Vol. 4, 194 2 pp. 10-20.
II Cf. Bonsirven, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 209; W. L. Strack and P. L. Billerbeck,
Kommentar :!:1tm Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, Vol. 2 (Miinchen,
19 2 4), pp. 377-378.
9 Cf. Bonsirven, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 208.
 MARIOLOGY
But these were standards set up by the rabbis; in practice, girls some-
times became betrothed at a more advanced age, although most prob-
ably not as late as twenty, as it was thought calamitous to postpone
marriage so 10ng. 10
A great disparity in age between the bride and bridegroom was
deprecated, but wi lowers sometimes were forced to marry young
gir1s. 11 Hence Mary and Joseph were both youthful at the time of
their b trothaJ, lIDless Joseph was a widower. Many of the apocryphal
gospels and some Otiental writers believed that he was such and
that the brothers and sisters of the Lord mentioned in the canonical
gospels were Joseph's children by a fil'st, deceased wife .l.~ In the West,
St. Jerome gave the deathblow to this opinion by asserting in his reply
to Helvidius the perpetual vi:rgini ty of Joseph. u T his has been the
unanimous belief of the Catholic Church ever since.
Jewish n uptials consisted of two steps: betrothal and marriage
proper. After certain financial arrangements concerning the bride
had been signed, the bride and bridegroom were betrothed to one
another in the house of the bride. The bridegroom gave her a small
object haVing the value of a peruta, the smallest coin, in the presence
of two witnesses, saying : "By this you are betrothed to me." Betrothal
could also be accomplished by a written document and by intercourS
with the expressed intention of be trothaJ.1~
Betrothal was in every respect equivalent to our marriage. The
betrothed girl was called the man's wife; she became a widow if her
betrothed died; she was subject to levirate marriage; when widowed
or divorced, she could claim the financial settlement accorded to a
wife in the same circumstances; in case of infidelity she was liable
to the same punishment as an adulterous wife; like a wife she could
not be dismissed without a bill of divorcement. Marital relations were
licit in Judea during betrothal. This does not seem to have been
customary in Galilee. Is
If the betrothed woman had not been married previously, she
usually waited a year before the second step, the marriage proper,
was taken. On the day set for the ceremony the bridegroom conducted
10 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., p. 375; Bonsirven, loco cit.
11 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 379.
12 Carlo Cecchelli, Mater Christi, Vol. 2 ( Romae, 1948), pp. 51-52.
13 St. Jerome, De virginitate perpetua B. Mariae adversus Helvidium. PL, 23,

203AB, 2 1 3B.
14 Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 384-394.
15 Cf. ibid., p. 393.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
his betrothed in solemn procession from her parental horne to his
own. Thereupon the wedding was celebrated for a week.16

ANNUNCIATION
Not long after her betrothal,17 Mary received an epoch-malcing
revelation while she was at prayer in her home. T he angel Gabriel
appeared to her, probably in visible Eonn, as he had to Zachary in
the Holy Place of the Temple (Lk. I : u ) . He greeted her with the
words : "H ail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou
among women" CLk. 1 :28). Some think that the Greek word for
'~hail" Cc7~aire) represen ts the salutation shalom, meaning "peace,"
"prosperity," in common use amoDg the Jews. But the literal sense of
cha,ire, "rejoice thou" may be in tended. For this exhortation is re-
peatedly found in the Prophets and rendered chaire in the Septua-
gin t (Soph. 3:14-17; Joel 1. : 2 1; Zach. 9 :9; Lam. 4:21). In this
supposition the very n1:st word uttered by the angel suggests that he
is a herald 0[: spiritual happiness.l~
''Full of grace" transla tes le.echaritomene, the perfect passive parti-
ciple of chari too. It denotes one who has been and still is the object
of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to
be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and
remains in this state. 19 Verbs ending in 00, such as haimatoo (turn
into blood), thaumatoo (fill with wonder), spod.ooma,i ( burn to
ashes) frequently express the f-ull intensity of an action. H ence
kecharitomene has been felicitously rendered "full of grace" by th e
Vulgate and the Peshitto. This rendering expresses the conviction of
the Church that the divine favor was fully bestowed upon Mary, in
the sense that she was ever immune from the least stain of sin and
that she abounded in the graces of the supernatural life and in all
the gifts and &uits of the Holy Spirit which How from that life.
"The Lord is with thee"20 continued the angel, enunciating the
fact that she enjoyed the effective divine assistance in all her endeav-
16 Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 504-518, on Mt. 9:5; p. 879, on Mt. 22:2.
17 Cf. D. Frangipane, Utrum B. V. Maria ab angelo salutata jam in domo Joseph
ut conjux fuerit, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 25, 1947, pp. 99-1 II.
lS S. Lyonnet, Chaire Kecharitomene, in Biblica, Vol. 20, 1939, pp. 131-141; cf.
R. Bernard, L'evangile de l'Annonciation, in La Sainte Vierge, figure de l'Eglise
(Paris, 1946), pp. 7-40.
19 Cf. L. Cerfaux, Gratia plena, in Memoires et Rapports du Congres Marial
tenu a Bruxelles (1921), Vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1922), pp. 34-40.
20 Cf. U. Holzmeister, "Dominus tecum," in Verbum Domini, Vol. 23, 1943,
pp. 257-262.
86 MARIOLOGY
ors for God's glory, like Gedeon, to whom a similar declaration was
made and who crushed the foes of Israel as one man (Judges 6: 12,
16). Gabriel concludes his address with "blessed art thou among
women," indicating that she occupied a unique position among the
women of all nations and ages CLk. 1 :28, 29).
Mary was much perturbed by this salutation, far more than
Zachary had been by the apparition of the angel in the H oly Place
of the Temple. 21 The cause of her perturbation was not the eulogistic
character of Gabriel's greeting, which her profound hum ility must
have borne with equanimity, but the intimation conveyed by his
words that she was selected for some great task the difficulty of which
she viewed with apprehension. While she was pondering on the
possible import of the message, the angel reassured her addressing
her familiarly by her name, bidding her not t.o fear and reaffirming
the fact that she had found favor in God's sight eLk :30). Then
he recounted the nature of the gr~ce conferred upon her : "And
behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and give birth to a Son,
and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be
called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him
the throne of David, his father. And he shall reign over the house
of Jacob throughout the ages and his kingdom shall have no end"
CLk. 1 :30-33).
This announcement of the dignity destined for Mary alludes
to several messianic prophecies which she may have recollected .hom
her attendance at the synagogue or from her pdvate perusal of Scrip-
ture. First, there is a reference to the prediction of Isaias: ''Behold, a
virgin will conceive and bear a :;on, and she shall call his name
Emmanuel" CT 14). Emmanuel CGod is with us) is equivalent in
meaning to Jesus Cthe Lord saves). "H e shall he great" recalls the
appellation El Gibbor (Strong God) bestowed upon the messianic
Child by Isaias C9:6). "Son of the Most H igh" reminds us of the
words of the Psalm: "T hou art my son; this day have I begotten
thee" CPs. 2:7). His Davidic descent explains why the Messias was
tenned "The Branch of David" (Jer. 23:5; 32 :15) or simply ''David''
(Jer. 30:9; Ezech. 34: 23; 37:24) . J is everlasting rule is a verification
of the promise made to David C2 Sam. 7 : 13i Ps. 88: 4)·
At this point Mary asked the angel : " low shall this be since
I Imow not man?" CLk. I : 34.) If Mary had expected to have relations
with her lmshan d, the question would have been senseless. It only
21 Cf. the verbs in Lk. 1: 12, 29.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
becomes intelligible if we assume that she was inalterably resolved
never to have such relations. It is not unthinkable that she had taken
a vow 2 • of perpetual chastity even though we cannot find a similar
instance among the holy men and women of the Old Law. Since her
union with God was unparalleled among the saints of the Old Testa-
ment, h er mental att itude cannot be appraised by their standards. Her
question was not prompted by incredulity, for she did not ask for a
proof of the angel's words, nor is she charged with disbelief and
punish ed as Zachary was in similar circumstances. As a matter of fact,
she is praised by Elizabeth for her fai th (Lk. 1: 45). Her query did
not spring from curiosity but from a legitimate desire to lmow what
measures she must adopt to attain the realiza tion of the angelic prom-
ise, iuce the use of the na tural mea ns ai' procreation were impossible
to her.
Gabriel replied: "The Holy Spirit shall come lrpO~) thee and. the
power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore the H oly
One who shall be born of thee shall be called Son of God" eLk.
1:35). The conception of the Child, therefore, will be due to a special
in tervention of God, which , being an outward act, was the work of
the Most Holy Trinh)' but is appropriated to the Holy Spirit because
it is a supreme expression of divine love and bears an analogy to
H is procession from the mutual love of the Father and the Son.
This act of divine omnipotence is compared to a cloud casting its
beneficent shadow lIpon an object or covering and filling it with its
presence.2S The angel ma)' be alluding to the miraculous cloud which
fill ed the T abernacle at Mount Sinai. It symbolized the presence of
God dispensing benefits to ',S people (Exod. 40:34-3 8; Nu m. 9 :22).
Its action in filling the tabernacle is described by the verb epis7dazein
in the Septuagint version of Exod. 40:3 5, the very verb used b)'
St. Luke in this passage and rendered "overshadow" in the English
translati on .
Gabriel closes his description of the coming Saviour with the
words: "Wherefore the Holy One who shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God." This cannot mean that He will be con-
stituted Son of God in the proper sense of the term because of His
virginal conception, for in this sense He is the Son of God by virtue
22 C E. J. J. Collins. Our Lady's Vow of Virginity , in The Catholic Biblical
Qu.al'tel'l)" Vol. 5, 1943, I?P' 37 1-3 81•
28 Cf. H. J\ongy, La conoeption surnaturelle et virginale du Christ d'apres
(lint L~tC, in M bnoires et Rapt,orts du Congres Marial tenu a BTuxelles (1921),
Vol. 1 ( Bruxelles, 192.2.) , pp. 2. 1-33·
88 MARIOLOGY
of Hi" eternal generation. Consequently, it must signify that His
supernatural conception will be a sign or a proof enabling men to
recognize Him as the Son 0 , ' God.
The angel concludes bjs discourse to Mary by a reference to the
wonderful event which had befallen her kinswoman Elizabeth CLk.
I: 36-37). The relation of this event was designed, firs t, to gladden
Mary: Elizabeth, advanced in year and sterile, unjustly suspected
of being under a divine cur e as all barren wives were among the
Jews was declared to be in the sixth month of her pregnancy. This
malllel of divine goodness is said to be a proof that the incomparably
greater prodigy of the Incarnation will be accomplished: "For with
God nothing will be impossible" CUe. 1 :36). This was the second and
more important reason for revealing the blessing bestowed upon
Elizabeth to Mary.
Throughout her conversation with th angel, Mary displayed
admirable virtues: simplicity, prudence, wisdom. When Gabriel
finished speaking, Mary wa conl'-ronted by the supreme te t of ber
faith, obedience, and htmlllity. Would she assent to the will of the
Triune God, who did not wish to save the world without Mary/4
to become the Mother of the Divine Word in His human nature?
Would she satisfy the yearnings of mankind for salvation, the longing
of the souls in Limbo for liberation, the hope of the angels for the
redemption of man? Her answer to Gabriel was: "Behold the hand-
maid of the Lord! Be it done to me according to thy word" CLk.
1 :38). This shows that her [.lith in the angel's revelation was com-
plete and unresel'Vcd, that her consent to be the Mother of God was
not passive but active, unforced, absolutely free, that her humility was
deep and her obedience wholehearted. At this moment the Incarna-
tion took place, an.d the angel departed.

VISITATION25
After the Annunciation, Mary hastened to visit her kinswoman
Elizabeth, who resided in an unnamed town in the hills of Judea,
which is most probably to be identified with Ain Karim, about four
miles west of Jerusalem. Various motives may be assigned for this
24 CE. H. 13aue, Le ccms~nteme'/tt It l'Tncartlation reJllmptt'ice, in Mllri,ltIufI/., VoL
14, 1952, pp. 233-266; J. 1M. Bover. Virgliflis consens l.l,1 fuiPlie vera Corredet~£pLi.o?
in Almll Socia Christi, Vol. 2 (Romae, 1952), pp. 164-t76; A.-M. Malo, Do~lP/.~es
de 'L'ev(l1~gile ~le S. Luc pOl~r la Coredempt:iol~ de MII'ne, ibiil., pp. 178-183.
25 Cf. F. Ogara, De d.octrina m ariana in visitationis mysterio contenta eLk.
1; 39-56), in Verbum Domini) Vol. 17, 1937, pp. 199-204, 225-233, 289-295.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
VlSlt, among which the resolve to aid her aging relative with her
domestic duties was the least important. Above ali, she must have
desired to felicitate Elizabeth upon the extraordinary boon granted
to her and to rejoice with her over the Incarnation, of which this
gift was a guarantee, as she had been told by the angel Gabriel. She
must, also, have been anxious to bring the blessing of the unborn
Messias to Elizabeth, her child, and her husband. This is true all
the more if Mary knew that Elizabeth's son was to be the precursor
of Jesus.
Elizabeth had a supernatural experience when Maxy entered her
house and greeted her : the babe maturing within her womb leaped
for joy eLk. I :41, 44). At the same time she was fined with the
Holy Spirit, who led her to understand this phenomenon. The child's
manifestation of joy was due to the pre-eminence of Mary and her
Son. As she expressed it in the resounding tones of enthusiasm:
"Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb" eLk. 1 =42). Elizabeth con£essed herself quite unworthy to
receive such distinguished gu~~ts: ''VY,hy this hono~ to me that tl:e
motl1er of my Lord should VlSIt lUe? CLk. 1 :43.)-0 Then she dis-
closed the cause which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
brought her to d1e recognition ot this mystery: "FoT, lo! as the voice
of thy salutation reached my ears the babe leapt in -my womb tor
joy" CLk. 1:44). Since the Incarnation was in part due to the faith
of !laIY, Elizabeth concluded by extolling this faith: "And blessed
art thou who hast believed, for the message of the Lord to thee shall
be fullllled" eLk. 1:45).
On this occasion Mary, too, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. She
improvised the poem known to llS as the Magnificat/ 7 hom the open-
ing word of its Latin version. I t is charged with reminiscences of
the psalms and other writings of the Old Testament, showing that
Mary's mind was steeped in Holy W rie. In the first trophe CLk.
I :46-50), she meditates with restrained enthusiasm L1pon the mercy,
power, and holiness of God, who had chosen her for so great a
dignity. She explains in the second strophe Cvv. 5T-53) that God is
wont to exalt the weak and depose the proud. In the third strophe
26 R. Rabanos, lDe donde a mE esto, que la Madre de mi Senor venga a mi?
CLk. I :43), in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 8, 1949, pp. 9-27.
27 CE. J. De KauJenaer, De Ctmtico "Magnificat," in Collectanea. Mec;hliniensia,
Vol. 8, I934,pp. 542-547; G. Fregentino, n Magnifocat nei IJOmmel1ti de; Sana
Padrl, Siena, 1939; P . Luis Su:hez, Soterlo1.ogi" del Magnifocat, in Ephellll3r~ cles
I'vlariol.og;ca.e, Vol. 3, 1953, pp. 4'~7-466 .
 MARIOLOGY
(vv. 54-55), she praises God's fidelity in fulfilling through His Son
the promises made to Abraham and Ius posterity.
The GOSEel informs us that Mary stayed about three months with
Elizabeth (Lk. I: 56). She may, then, have assisted at the birth of
John. Her name is not mentioned in connection with the remarkable
happenings at John's circumcision. Hence she may have returned
to Nazareth before this took place.

JOSEPH'S ORDEAL
St. Matthew relates the following crisis in the life of Joseph before
he took Mary to his house: "When MalY, his mother, had been
betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child from the Holy
Spirit" (1: 18). We are not told when this discovery was made; it
certainly occurred after the Annunciation, and it may have happened
before or after the Visitation. Vle are, also, left in ignorance of the
person who made the discovery. Most probably it was Mary herself
who informed Joseph about her miraculous conc ption. Wh;r should
she conceal so important a matter from her husband? Joseph's reaction
to the discovery is described thus: "Joseph, her husband, being a just
man and unwilling to expose her, was minded to give her a private
release" (Mt. 1: 19). The thought of being in such close proximity
to the Ieity may have terrified Joseph and impelled him to divorce
Mary. To make the divorce public would have exposed Mary to
obloquy, since many of her acquaintances would not have readily
believed in a conception wrought by the Holy Spirit. Being a just
man and reluctant to inBict an injury upon anyone, especially upon
a maiden of suoh sanctity, he was planning a secret divorce either
by giving her a bill of divorcement or by leaVing the city.ell
While he was in this agonized state of mind, "an angel of the
Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying 'Joseph son of David,
fear not to take to thyself ilary, thy wife, for what is conceived in
her is of the I-Ioly Spirit. Ana she shan give birth to a Son, and thou
shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save hjs people from their
sins'" (Mt. I: 20-2 I).
Thus Mary's statement about the origin of her child was conlinued
by a special revelalion. Joseph then completed the second and final
stage of his marriage to Mary: he brought her to his dwelling, which
IDay have been situated on the site of the ancient Church of the
28 Cf. R. Bulbeck, The Doubt of St. Joseph, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly,

Vol. 10, 1948, pp. 296-3°9.

 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 91
Nutrition, now pointed out as the workshop of St. Joseph. According
to the Gospel, Joseph had no marital relations with Mary "until she
gave birth to her firstborn Son" (Mt. I :25). The "until" in the
original does not signify that he knew her sexually afterward. It
merely states what hapI>ened up to a certain point without affirming
or negating. ~ything abo~t .th; sub~e:uen~ :eeriod (d. Is. 46:4 in
the Septuagmt, I Cor. 15.25, Is. 71.7,1°9.1).
In fact, the Cburch's belief jn the perpetual virginity of Mary can
be traced back to the second century.29 It was impugned for the first
time by Helvidius, an obscure heretic apparently residing in Rome,
with an insignificant following. He was rer"uted by St. Jerome, whose
treatise on the subject has become a classic of Catholic theology. GO
Nor does the appellation "firstborn" applied by the Evangelist to
Jesus imply other cruldren. It was a tedmical term, shOwing that the
son in question was God's property and had to be redeemed (Exod.
34:20; Num. 3 :4 1; 18: 16). In addition, the first-born was especill11y
esteemed because he was tl1e first issue of a man's strength (Deut.
21: 17). After the decease of rus father he was entitled to the leader-
ship of tJb.e family and to a double portion of the inheritance in case
tl1ere were brothers (Deut. 2 r: 15-17). Hence the brothers and sisters
of Jesus repeatedly mentioned in the New Testament (Mt. 12:46;
13 :55-56; Mk. 3:31-32; 6:3; LIe. 8:19; In. 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor.
9:5; Gal. 1 :19) were cousins or kinsfolk of Jesus since the Hebrew
and Aramaic words for brother and sister also have this broader sense.
St. Matthew stresses the fact that Mary's conception is a fulfill-
ment of Isaias' prophecy: "Behold the virgin shall be with child and
give birth to a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel" (Mt.
1 :25). It seems probable that Mary and Joseph also adverted to the
accomplishment of this prophecy at this time.
BETHLEHEM
As the time of Mary's pregnancy was drawing to a close, she and
her husband were faced with a new problem. An edict of the Emperor
Augustus was published ordering a census of all the inhabitants of
Herod's kingdom. Similar enumerations had already been made in
other provinces of the Roman empire or were chen in progl.'ess, so
that, popularly speaking, the whole world seemed to be in the process
of enrollment (Lk. 2: I). This registration required each citizen to
29 Hegesippus; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3, II, 2; 4, 22, 4.
30 St. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae adversus Helvidium. PL, 23,
1 85- 206•
92 MARIOLOGY
repair to the home of his clan. Since Joseph was of Davidic lineage,
he had to go to Bethlehem, the birthplace of David and the center
of his clan. The supervision of the census was entrusted to Quirinius,
who was either governor of Syria at this time CII-8 B.C.) or acted as
deputy of Saturninus, the governor of Syria in 7 B.C. 51
The journey to Bethlehem from Nazareth covered about ninety to
ninety-five miles and must have b6len arduous especially for an ex-
pectant mother. Mary accompanied Joseph either because women had
to be enrolled also or because she owned taxable land in Bethlehem
or because she wanted the companionship of Joseph in the hour of
her destiny. Scripture does not enlighten us about the details of the
journey. TIle character of the persons involved suggests that it was
made without grumbling, with fun trust in Divine Providence, and
with complete submission to the will of God. Their thoughts, as they
escorted the unborn Son of God, were too hallowed to be described
here.
On their arrival, they met with a new bitter disappointment: they
found that there was no place for them in the inn CLk. 2: 7). The
inn is usually thought to have been a caravansary. But the Greek
word translated "inn" does not necessarily Ilave this meaning; it also
denotes a lodging, a guest room. Joseph may have expected to find this
in the house of a relative or friend, only to discover that all such
rooms had already been taken by otheIs. Somebody, perhaps the
intended host, then showed them a series of caves outside the city.
Christian devotion has commemorated one of these caves as the birth-
place of Christ by converting it into a shrine and building the Basilica
of the Nativity over the site.
How long Mary resided here before Jesus was born is not known.
His birth may have occurred on the very night of their arrival or
after some days. Wllen the time of her delivery came, Mary retired
to the cave and gave birth to Jesus in utter solitude. It is an article
of the Catholic faith that she did so without suffering the usual
lesions of the tissu.es which occur. in ordinary childbirth, so that she
remained a virgin phYSically even in parturition. The passage of the
child through her body has been compared to the transit of light
through crystal. Like all mothers of Palestine in ancient and modem
times, she wrapped her Bahe in neat narrow bands of colorful mate-
rial. Then she laid Him diagonally on a square cloth and folded the
comers of the cloth over His hands and feet. Next she tied His
81 Cf. Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, s.v.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 93
hands to hiS sides with bandages, which in this case were plain, since
only the rieb could afford embroidered ones. 32 These bands together
with the cloth and the bandages constituted the swaddling clothes to
which St. Luke refers (Lk 2:7).
The cave must at one time have been a shelter for animals, for,
after swaddling the Babe, she laid Him in a manger, a stone eating
trough for domestic beasts set conveniently low on the floor. Before
placing the Child within it, she undoubtedly filled it with straw. aa
Thus the divine Infant did not lack the essentials of child care re-
quired in the Near East from time immemorial, although the articles
used conformed in quality rather to the standards of a poor peasant
than to those of the middle and upper classes. The census was prob-
ably held in late summer, after the harvest, not in winter, as is
popularly supposed, when frequent rains and the cold make traveling
extremely difficuk Hence the child was not exposed to the inclem-
ency of the weather, although even in December the cave would
have afforded some protection against wintry blasts.
While Mary and Joseph gazed in adoration, -praise, thanksgiving,
and supplication upon the Incarnate Son of God, they must have re-
Rected with some sadness upon the bitter poverty and dereliction of
Israel's king. Their sorrow was mitigated by the sudden advent of the
shepherds seeking to adore the Child wrapped in swaddling clothes
and laid in a manger. From their enthusiastic story they learned that
the birth of the Saviour was not without manifest splendor: a super-
natural radiance illuminated the nocturnal sky; an angelic herald pro-
claimed the joyous tidings about Christ, the Lord, born in David's
city; choirs of angels sang of peace and Gael's benevolence to men
(Lk. 2: 8- J7). After leav.ing, the shepherds spread the news of Christ's
nativity among their acquaintances, filling all their listeners with
wonderment (Lk. 2: I8-2I). It would be odd, indeed, if at least
some of these did not come to pay homage to the Child and His
M other. We are told that Mary kept all these things in her heart,
pondering them (Lk. 2: 19)' She treasured them as precious testi-
monies to the dignity of her Son, compared them with pIeviolls rev-
elations that she had receiVed and so penetrated even more deeply
into the mystery of the Incamation . The episode of the shepherds im-
pressed upon her that wealth learning. or any form of earthly honor
32 Cf. Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, Encyclopedia of Bible Life (New
York, 1944), p. 60.
83 Ibid., pp. 26, 248; Ill. 21.
94 MARIOLOGY
were welcome to her Son only if accompanied by the strong faith
and moral integrity of the shepherds.
At the end of eight days, she rejoiced over the rite of ci:rcumcision,
which made Jesus a member of her own people (Lk. 2: 2[; Gen.
17=9-19). At the same time she may have rellected that this rite
had lost its prophetic meaning: the promises made to. Abraham and
his posterity, of which it was a sign and a seal (Rom. 4: If), were
realized in her Son. On this occasion, Mary and Joseph named the
babe Jesus as they had been commanded (Mt. 1 :21; LIc 1 :31). That
the task of saving her people intimated by the name Jesus would be
toilsome was suggested to Mary by the hardships of His infancy.
PRESENTATION AND PURIFICATION
The Mosaic Law decreed that a woman who had given birth to
a male child should he ritually unclean for forty days ( Lev. 12: 1 f.).
During this period, she was prohibited from touching anything
hallowed and hom entering the Temple. After the forty days she
was obliged to go to the Temple and rid herself of her uncleanness
by certain prescribed sacriflces: a Jamb a year old for a holocaust
and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. In case she
could not afford a lamb, she could substitute a young pigeon or a
turtledove. If the male child was her first-born, she was also obliged
to Iedeem him from the Lord, whose propeJ:ty Ile was, by the pay-
ment of five shekels to the priests (Exod. 13:13 34:ro; Num.
18:15, 16). Accordingly, Mary and Joseph, taking the Child, went
up to the Temple in Jerusalem from Bethlehem and carried out the
prescriptions of the Law, offering the sacrifices that were incumbent
upon the poor CLk. 2:22-24).
As they were proceeding to the gate of Nicanor, the eastern gate
of the Court of the Women, where women to be purified were
required to assemble,34 they encountered a just and devout man
named Simeon, to whom the Holy Spirit had revealed that he
would not die before seeing the consolation of Israel, the Anointed
of the Lord, the Messias. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit
he recognized the long-awaited Saviour in Jesus. Attracted by his
manifest piety and emotion, Mary acceded to his desire and allo"Ned
him to take Jesus in his arms. Swayed by prophetical inspiration,
he exclaimed: "Now thou dost release thy servant, 0 Lord, accord-
ing to thy word, in peace! Because my eyes have seen thy salvation,
84 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 129, note b.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 95
which thou hast prepared in the sight of all peoples - a light of
revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel" (Lk.
2:29-3 2 ).
This prophecy filled the parents with admiration: it brought
110me to them the filct that the mission of Jesus would not be
confined to the Chosen People but would extend to the other
nations as well. This reminded them of the similar predictions of
Isaias concerning the Servant of the Lord (42:6; 49:6).
That this mission would entail suffering not only for the Saviour
but also for His Motber is evident from the words wbicb Simeon
addressed to her after blessing her and Joseph: "Behold, this child
is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel and for a sign that
shall be contradicted, and a sword sball pierce through thr soul
also, that the thoughts may be laid bare in many hearts' (Lk.
2:34-35). 3 ~ Jeslls wiU cause the spiritual downfall of many in
Israel and the rise of many otbers to a higher supernatural life. He
will be a sign, a manifestation of the divinity which will be o'pposed
by some. In consequence of this opposition, Mary, too, will suffer
anguish so intense that a great sword will seem to pierce her soul.
All this will bring to light the good or bad sentiments latent in
many hearts.
Mary was distracted from her forebodings of evil engendered by
this prophecy by the adven t of Anna, a prophetess and a widow of
venerable age, who worshiped day and night with fasts and prayer,
never leaving the Temple. On this occasion, she praised the Lord
for I-lis salvation. After meeting the Saviour, she spoke about the
Child repeatecUy to those who looked forward to the deliverance
of Jerusalem (Lk. 2:36-38).
THE MAGI
A year or perhaps a year and a half after the Presentation of the
Child Jesus in the Temple, a stately caravan halted one evening
at the humble home of tbe Holy Family in Bethlehem. This home
is called a "house" by St. Matthew (2 : II). Hence they may have
exchanged the cave for a more suitable dwelling b~ilt perhaps by
the s]dll of Joseph. The leaders of the caravan explained dlat they
were Magi, members of a priestly caste from far-distant Media, who
86 Cf. J. Fernandez, El encuentro de Sime6n y Ana con JesUs. SlI t.est.itHOuio ,
in Cultura BihUca, Vol. 5, 1948, pp. 338-343; C. De KOnincK, Luprophetie de
Simeon et la compassion de la Vierge Mere, in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. z ( Romae
1952), pp. 184- 191.
 MARIOLOGY
h ad seen the newly created star of the Messias in the East and had
been told by H erod that the prophet M icheas had predicted His
birth in Bethlehem of Juda (5: 1-3). T hey pointed to the star,
which was sen ding down its rays upon the bou e of the Holy
Family. After apl? aring to them in their native land, it had van-
ished as they traveled to Judea to ~ldore the messianic King of the
Jews. I t had reappeared on their journey from Jerusalem to Bethle-
hem, 6llinO' them with exceeding grea t joy and guiding them to the
goal of their longings, the house of the infant Saviour.
Theil story revealed such palpable evidence of divine intervention
and such extraordinary faith that their request to see the Child
and His Mother could not be denied. When they beheld Jesus in
fis IVlother's arms, they prostrated themselves in silent adoration.
Then they offered gifts indicative of their faith: gold , ITanlcincense,
and myrrh. These gifts suggest tha t they perceived in the Child
more than merely a human Messias : they were the mnd of offerings
which men of that age presented to their gods. According to a
common interpretation, the gold was a tribute to His lcingship; the
frankincense, to His divinity; the myrrh, to His humanity.
Mary and Joseph recalled the prediction of Simeon that Jesus
would be a light of revelation to the Gentiles eLk. 2:32) and the
prophetic words of the Psalmist concerning the homage of the
nations to the Messias: liThe kings of Tarshish and of the isles
will render lTibuto; the kin gs of Sheba and Seba will bring gifts; all
kings will fall down before him, all nations serve him" (Ps. 71: 10-
II). They remembered also the parallel prophecy from Isaias: "All
these from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and frankin-
cense" (60:6).
THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT
Mary and Joseph were not allowed to enjoy the triumph of the
Son of God .for long. Herod was determined to slay this Child,
whom he falsely supposed to be an aspirant to his throne, and
h oped to discover His whereabouts through the Magi, whom he
had urge? to return, simulatin~ a pio~ des.ire t? emulate their act
of worshIp. Soon, therefore, atter then aIn val ill Bethlehem, per-
haps that very night they were told in a dream not to return to
Herod bu t to take another road back to their own country. Joseph,
too, was warned in a dream about the murderous designs of Herod
and bidden to take the Child and His Mother and flee to Egypt
(Mt. 2: 12, 13). He was to remain there until he was admonished
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 97
to return. Joseph may have chosen the road which leads by way
of Ascalon and Gaza along the sand dunes of the Mediterranean
coast to Egypt. Or he may have taken the southern route by way
of Hebron and Beersheba across the northern part of the Sinai pen~
insula to the seacoast and into the Delta. Either way was laborious,
demandin~ about two weeks of exhausting travel. Tlley were for~
tunate indeed if they owned a donkey or a camel upon which
Mary and the Child could ride at least at intervals.
On reaching Egypt, they most probably settled in some Jewish
colony. Their jom:ney seems to have been without untoward inci-
dent, since nothing is recorded. But as t1ley cast a retrospective
glance upon their past experiences, they must have realized that
the service of the messianic King could requiTe heroic humility and
obedience. If the news of the slaughter of the Innocents reaclled
them in Egypt (Mt. 2:16-18) , they perceived that martyrdom
migh t even be exacted from guiltless children.
They were, no doubt, nauseated by the degrading idolatry of
Egypt; it was a striking proof of man's crying need of a Saviour.
Isaias had consoled Egypt witll the words: "And the Lord will
make. himself known to the Egyptians and the Egyptians will know
the Lord" (19:21). That this hour might be accelerated was un-
doubtedly the theme of Mary's prayer.

RETURN TO NAZARETH
When Herod I died in 4 B.C., an angel appeared in a dream to
Joseph and bade him to return to the land of Israel with Mary and
Jesus. In the course of his journey, he heard that Archelaus, Herod's
older son by the Samaritan Malthace, hac! been appointed ethnarch
of Judea; he hesitated about going back to Bethlehem, fearing that
this monarch might persecute Jesus as ruthlessly as his father if he
learned His identity. I e was freed from all anxiety by another
dream vision in which he was directed to go to Nazareth of Galilee,
which was ruled by Herod Antipas as tetrarch, a full brother of
Archelaus (Mt. 2: 19-23). According to St. Matthew, who quotes
Osee 11: I , the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their en-
trance into the Prontised Land were a prophetic type of Jesus'
return to Israel (2: 15). The same Evangelist likewise notes that the
SavioUI took up [-lis residence in Nazareth to fulfill the declaration
of the prophets that He would be called a Nazarene (2:23). It is
doubtful that these truths were apparent to Mary and Joseph .
 MARIOLOGY

THE HIDDEN LIFE

Two sentences summarize the retired life of Jesus in Nazareth,
which endured until about His thirtieth year (Lk. 3:23). The
first states that He rendered submission to His parents (Lk. 2:5T).
Since Mary and Joseph lmew that He was the Son of God, they
were nO doubt 61Jed whh wonder and awe at the profundity of
His abasement. The mainspring of His action was not the high
esteem which He Ielt for Mary and' Joseph 0'0 account of the perfect
p~rfon:nan.ce of their parental duties. His primary mo?ve was th~
wlll of E s Heavenly Father whenever and wherever It was mam-
fest. Mary fully appreciated this motive since it governed her own
demeanor toward Joseph as the head of the household.
The second sentence about the hidden life declares: "And Jesus
increased in wisdom and in stature and in grace with God and
men" CLIe. 2: 52).Ba It is easy to understand how He increased in
tature: this means simply that I-lis physical development kept
pace with His age. =row He advanced in wisdom is more difficult
to grasp. The knowledge which fe possessed as the Divine Word
was infinite and n0t susceptible to change. ]ut His human nature,
also, was gifted with knowledge, which was threefold in character:
(-I) intujtive, the continuous and immediate vision of the divine
essence" (2) infused, comprising the species of objects and persons
impressed upon His intellect by God, (3) experi1l1ental, acquired by
the appliC4ti0n of His senses and intellectual faculties. Obviously,
the last named alone could increase, Ior the first two were perfect
from the very first moment of His conception.
His advancement in knowledge, then, signifies that He gained
and displayed an experimental knowledge which was proportionate
to every stage of His age and growth. Since His senses were more
acute and His intellect more keen than those of any boy that ever
lived, His a.cquired knowledge mu t have surpassed that of any
youth with comparable opportunities. Tl is mental development un-
questionably gave intense joy to Mary and Joseph; at the same time
His humble obedience in concealing His talents in an obscure
village lilie Nazareth must have aroused their unquali£ed
admiration.
It is possible that He also revealed an ever increasing amount of
His infused knowledge. The progressive manifestation of this
86 The Greek word translated "stature" means also "years," "age."
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 99
knowledge could also be termed an advancement of knowledge,
for so it would have appeared in the eyes of men. However, He
seems to have given no evidence of this supernatural knowledge
during the hidden life at Nazareth, at least outside the family
circle. For when He revisited Nazareth during His public life, its
citizens were struck with astonishment and said: "Where did this
man acquire this wisdom and these powers? Is He not the son of the
carpenter?" CMt. 13:54; Mk. 6:1-6; Lk. 4:14-30.)
Since Jesus was full of grace from the first instant of His con-
ception, He could not increase in grace internally. As He advanced
in years, He performed acts of virtue in harmony with each period
of His life. Thus He progressed in grace with God, who was pleased
with His actions and with men, who noted His outward progress
with ever growing approval. The peerless beauty of Christ's
demeanor, as it unfolded itself before them, must have been a
source of inspiration and delight to His parents. They were rooted
and grounded in the love of Jesus whose personality dominated
their work, their recreation, their prayer, their mutual regard, and
their attitude toward others.

THE CHILD JESUS IN THE TEMPLE

After completing his thirteenth year, every Jew was obliged to
appear in the sanctuary at Jerusalem on three major festivals of the
year: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Women were not
bound by this precept, although they could make these pilgrimages
if they so desired. Devout parents introduced and habituated
their sons to the observance of this law before the legally prescribed
age. Hence we find Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the Passover
in His twelfth year. They may have done so on previous occasions,
but this is the only instance commemorated in the Gospels CLk.
2:4 1 -5 0 ).37
Having fulfilled their religious duties at the Passover, Mary and
Joseph joined one of the caravans returning to Galilee. At the first
stopping place, after a day's. journey, which may not have e,.'(ceeded
thirteen miles,s8 they noticed to their cODstemation that Jesus was
not with the caravan. Fearing that some mishap might have befallen
Him, they retraced their steps and combed the groups of acquaint-
ances and friends going back to Galilee. On reaching Jerusalem,
37 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 141-149.
38 Ibid., p. 149.
100 MARIOLOGY
they searched all the localities where He might be tarrying. Finally
they found Him on the third day in the Temple listening to the
doctors of the Law and as1<ing them questions. It was customary
at this time for scholars to surround themselves with disciples and
to encourage them to propose queries and to debate doctrinal and
moral problems. The circle which Jesus joined was assembled either
in one of the porticoes of the Temple or in the lecture hall o£ the
synagogue attaclled to the Temple. All those in attendance were
amazed by the intelligence of Jesus and by l-lis responses.
When Mary saw Jesus thus occupied she, too, was astoni.hed
not so much by His intellectual brilliance as by the fact that He
seemed oblivious of I-lis parents and unconcerned about their
anguish. Accordingly, she asked Him: "My chiltl, why hast thou
treated us so? Indeec~ thy Father and I have been searching for
thee in great distress." Jesus' reply indicates d1ac their fears For His
safety were tmfounded: 'Why did you search for :me?" Then He
proposes the motive of His seemjn~ly l.m£lial conduct: "Did you
not know that I must be in my Father's house?" ( Ue. 2:49.) "Bll
they did not comprehend what he said to them" CL}e. 2: 50). 3D
Th y knew indeed that He must he in His Father's house but
they did not understand that His Father's call might involve the
abandonment of family ties even in boyhood, without permission of
the parents, without previous notification, and with the in:Iliction
of much sorrow. We need not be surprised that Mary did not grasp
the mysteries of Christ's Hfe at once. Just as she grew in love and
grace, so could she increase in understanding. That she stored up
this and other incid Dts of the hidden life in her memory Ear further
meditation is expressed by St. Luke as follows: "And his mother
kept all these incidents in her heart" (2: 5 I).
CANA
We read nothing further about Mary until the begirming of
Our Lord's public life. At that time Jesus, Mary, and some of His
disciples were invited to the wedding festivities of a young couple
in Cana of lower Gahlee, situated, according to tradition, at Kefr
Kenna, three and a half miles northeast of Nazareth. Since nothing
is said about Joseph on this occasion, it is reasonably assumed that
he died during the hidden life at Nazareth (J n. 2: I, 2).
ao Cf. J. M. Bover, Una nueva interpretaci6n de Le. 2:50, in Estudios BihUeos,
Vol. 10 Cseg. ep.), 1951, pp. 205-215.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 101

The newly wedded couple were expected to provide food and

drink for the llwHed guests, who st;reamed in from all sides in the
course of the week. Owing to their poverty or to an unexpectedly
large influx of visitors, the supply of wine intended for the enter-
tainment of the guests became exhausted prematurely. Failure to
provide this inilispensable element of Jewish rejoicing would have
exposed the bride and bridegroom to humiliation. Mary learned of
their preilicament and in the tactful kindness of her heart appealed to
Jesus for alievia lion. Having unbounded confidence in His re-
sourcefulness, she merely stated the fact, without adding a plea:
"They have no wine." 'Woman," Jesus answered her, "what is
there between me and thee?" CJn. 2 :3, 4.)
It is now recognized by scholars of an
shades of thought that
"woman" as a vocative does not imply any rebuke or reproach, that
it may, in fact, denote the highest esteem.40 Still it is puzzling that
He chose this form of address in preference to dle more affectionate
"mother." Perhaps He wished tq convey the idea tIlat her maternal
authority had ceased with the inception of the public life and tha-t
Hi regard for her was dominnted primarily by her spirihlal merits
and not by the yhysical bonds of I:lesh ana blood which united them.
The meaning of the question, "What is there between me and
thee?" has been labOriously investigated by scholars,dl but a solution
satisfactory to all has not been attained. It is used to deny a peti-
tion (2 Sam. 16: 10i 19:23) and to protest against ::1 hostile measure
(Judges II: 12; I Kings J7: 18). It does nOt necessarily imply harsh-
ness of tone but may be friendly, as when David dissented from the
opinion of Abisai, his most ardent supporter (2 Sam. 16: 10).42
Jesus, then, seems to have rejected the petition of His Modler,
rving as His reason: "My hour has not yet come." The expression
'my hour" is obscme and has been the subject of exegetical argu-
ment.'S It seems to mean the time when He is to manifest His
messianic mission in some conspicuous manner.
40 Cf. Walter Bauer, Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1952), s.v.
41 See, for' example, T. Gallus, "Quid mihi et tibi, mulier? Nondum venit hora
mea" CJn. 2, 4): potestne intelligi tamquam allusio? in Verbum Domini, Vol. 22,
1942, pp. 4 1-50.
42 For an analysis of all the sCriptural passages concerned, cf. Paul Gachter,
Maria im Erdenleben (Innsbruck, 1953), pp. 171-177.
48 Cf., for example, F.-M. Braun, a MeTe de Jesus dans I'oeuvre de saint Jean ,
in Revue Thomiste, Vol. 50, I g)O, p~l. 429-4 79; Vol. 51, 1951, pp. 5-68; J. Leal,
La hora de Jesus, la hora de S'II Madre Clo. 2 , 4), in Estudios Eclesiasticos, Vol.
26, 19P, pp. 147-168.
102 MARIOLOGY
But if He rejected her request, how are we to explain her direc-
tions to the servants which denote consent: "Do whatever he bids
you" CJn. 2 : 5)? T he explanation seems to be that fe denied her
prayer at first in order to afford her an opportunity to gain more
merit and greater glory hy making 11er petition more intense. This
intensification of her supplication was not formulated in words but
oc mred in the secrecy of her heart, where Jesus alone could read
it. She who knew ber Son so perfectl read the a!£rmative answer
in the expression of H is face, in the light of His eyes, in the
smile of His lips, perhaps even by the illumination of the H oly
Spirit.
Thus her intercession resulted in a stupendous miracle, the trans-
mutation of water into wine, possible only to the omnipotence of
God. She also revealed the kindness of her heart, which intervened
to save a relatively unimportant family of Galilee from a temporary
social embarrassment.

THE PUBLIC LIFE

St. John relates that Mary an d the brethren of Jesus accompanied
Him and His disciples to Capharnaum On. 2:12). This was for a
time the center of lis messianic ministry apd the starting point .for
expeditions to other parts of Galilee . She may have settled down
there and so may h ave listened to I is discourses and ,lVitnessed
some of His miracles. But she played no part in His public life.
She is not mentioned among the women who ministered to Him
and His Apostles in Galilee (Mk. 15:41) . Only two incidents are
recounted in which she is refeued to. 0 1 the first occasion, Jesus
was so besieged and importuned by a crowd of visitors in a house
which was presumably in Capharoaum that H e could not tale
necessary food. Then His brethren and His mother came to take
Him away, for some people even accused Him of being beside
Himself (Mk. 3: 20). If His brethren shared this view, it cannot
be attributed to His Mother, whose presence was motivated solely
by solicitude for His welfare. When Jesus was informed that His
Mother and brethren were without, H e replied: "Who are my
mother and my brethren?"'" "Looking round on those who sat
abou t hi m, 11e said: 'Behold my mother and my brethren ! For
whoever does the will 01: God, he is my brother, sister and mother' "
44 Cf. O. RodrIguez, "Qui sunt fratre s mei" CMt. l2 , 48) , in Verbum Domini,
Vol. 5, 1925, pp. 13 2 - 137.
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 103

(Mk. 3:33-38; Mt. 12:46). This reply does not imply a disparage-
ment of His Mother; it merely exalts spiritual values above
consanguinity .
The same doctrine was inculcated by Jesus on another occasion
when a woman of lis audience exclaimed enthusiastically: "Blessed
is the womb that bore thee and the breasts whicll thou didst suck."
Jesus answered: "Yes, indeed, blessed are they who listen to the
Word of God and observe it" (Lk. 11:27-28). Mary's role, then,
during her public life of Jesus was prayerful retirement. Jesus
wished to avoid even the semblance of undue human attachment
and to concentrate the attention of men upon Himself.

BENEATH THE CROSS

We do not encounter Mary again in the Gospels until we find
her standing beneath the cross together with John, the beloved
disCiple, and the holy women On. 19:25-27). Sorrow is in direct
proportion to our comprehension and love of the person over whom
we grieve. But Mary understood the prerogatives of Jesus and His
relationship to herself more keenly than an other human being;
the intensity of her love harmonized with this understanding.
Hence she was truly the Qlleen of martyrs: every insult, every
wound must have .filled her with unparalleled anguish. She knew
that the consciousness of her grief increased the agony of her Son.
Still she suffered without flinching, in heroic silence, fully aware
that the passion of her Son together with her own sorrow were
necessary for the redemption of mankind.'6
Amid the encircling gloom, which lasted from the sixth to the
ninth hour (Mt. 27:45; Mk. 15:30; Lk. 23:44), the voice of Jesus
was heard for the third time CJ n. 19: 26-27). Addressing His
Mother, He said: "Woman, behold thy son," thereby commending
John to Mary's maternal solicitude. Then speaking to John in cor-
relative temlS, He conferred the privileges and duties of sonship
upon him: "Behold thy mother." The beloved diSciple understood
the words in this sense. "From that hour," we read, "the diSciple
took her into his home" (v. 27).
Was John our representative on this occasion, so that Mary was
proclaimed our Mother also? Various opinions have been expressed
in this connection. Exegetes, in general, and a few theologians claim
45 Cf. R. Rlibanos, La Corredenci6n de Maria en la Sagrada EscrituTa, in Estudios
Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, esp. pp. ~)I-;9.
 MARlOLOGY
that the text under discussion does not furnish any biblical proof
(either in the literal or the typical sense) for the doctrine of Mary's
spiritual motherhood.cc Their main argument seems to be that the
Fathers of the Church do not interpret the text in this sense. How-
ever, the vast majority of theologians, and not a few exegetes,
appealing principally to the teaching of recent pontiffs, consider the
Johunnine IJ3ssa ge a valid scriptural argument in favor of that doc-
trine. or t li s group, some do not specify what biblical sense they
have in mmd;'1 others show their l>refercnce for a liteml scnse
Cat least plcl1ior ):8 while still others favor a Madan typical sense,
expressed at times in equivalent terms,4$
OUf persona l views on this mattcr may be summarized as fol-
lows: the doctrine of Mary's spiritual motherhood is not expressed
in In. 19: 26-27 according to the literal sense; the words themselves
do not suggest it. H owever, it is not excluded by the literal sense,
and certainly not by the typical or inclusive sense. If the declarations
of the popes in this connection GO are sufficient proof that this mean-
46 Cf., among others: J. Corluy, Connnl.!/llari us in Evangeliu,,~ loamlis (Gandavi,
1889), p. 5 11; ] . Knabenbaucr, E".mgelium see. 10111111em ( Pansiis, 1898), pp.
546-547; A. Dumllti, Ewltlgi/e selon Saint Jean ( Paris, 1938), p. 493; W. Newton,
A Commeulary on tile New Teslament (Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1942), p. 357; F. Ceuppens, De M ariow&ia Biblica, ed. 2 ( T aurini, 195 1), pp.
199-2.02.; H. Lcnnen, De Beala Virginc (Romae, 1939), p. 127.
U Cf., for example, F. X. MaS2.l, ErklliT1IIIg cler Ill. Sc.llrifuJII des Neuen Testa-
mentes, Vol. 5" ( Wien, 184 1), PI" 433-43 5; Loch-Reischl, Die H eiligen ScI,riffen
des N.T., Vol. 1 ( Regensburg, 1899), p. 387; Lusseau-CoUomb, Manul.!l a'Etudes
Bibliqlll~~, Vol. 4 ( Paris, 1932.), p. 8~p.
48 Cf. E. Lcgnoni, De lile% gica certitUlline Maternitatis B. M. Virginis quoad
{I.ldes jm:ta CliriSti verba "Mlllkr. ecce fililu tutU" ( Venetiis. 1899). p. :2,7;
Hilary of St. Ahathll, Beatiuimlle Virgilli$ Mlltemilas 11II;IICTStilis ill lIerbis ] em
morie'/l!;!: "Ecce filiUS 1m" .. . ecce maIm' 11l11." in Teresiauunl, 1933, pp. / 0 5- 151;
1934, pp. 194-2.49; J. P rado, Pradectiones Biblicarlllil COlllrem11ll1!l, Vol. 3
( T Burini, 1942), p. 446; n. IMbanos, La malcrnidaJ espirituu de Marill ell e/.
Protoevel'llgeiio y San Ju an, in ESf1ldiQS Marillllos, Vol. 7. 1948, pp. 1~-50j J.
Leal, Beata Virgo omnium $piritualis Mater ex ]'11. 19, 26-2.7, in Ver/lllm D Ollli7Ji,
Vol. 2.7. 1949, pp. 65-73; E. May. The Scriptural Basis fflr Mary's S pirilll11l
Matern;ty, in Marial! Studies, Vol. 3, 19P. pp. 1:2,5- 130; C. M. Roschini, La
MIiJonna $cconJo 111 fede e III tcowgia, Vol. 2 ( Roma, 1953), pp. 2.45-:2,53.
40 J. M. Bover, Mlllier, ecce filills tillIS, in Verb-11m Dotllini, Vol. 4, 1924,
r. 340; D . Unger, in his review of KlltholiscJI8 Mariellimnde, in Tile Americall
Ecdc.d aniell! Review, Vol. 12.5. 195 1, pp. 2.39-2.40; P. Codner, Die geistige "'hltter-
schaft Marills; ein Beitrllg t ilT ErkJiinmg VOII ]0 19, 2.6f.• in Zeltscllrift fur Iwt holisdw
Th e%gie. Vol. 47, 192.3. pp. 39 1-42.9: T. Gallus, "Mlllier, ecce (ilills I1I11S." ill
V erbmll Domilli, Vol. 1.1. 1941. PI" 2.8g-297·
M The \la rions Papal re ferences 10 lhis lliblical p.1ssage may be found ill the
exhaustive dissenation of C. W. Shea, TIle Teadlillg of til e Magistmlllll 0"
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 10 5
ing is contained in In. 19:26-27, then, of course, it must be found
there. But it would seem to us that the various Papal utterances
relative to this point do not constitute true declarations of doctrine.51
Be that as it may, the truth of Mary's spiritual motherhood is
deducible from other passages of the New Testament. Christ
speaks of His disciples as His brothers (Mt. 28: 10). St. Paul
calls Him the first-born among many brethren (Rom. 7:22).
Therefore, the teaching of tradition that Mary is our Mother, to
which we must give credence, is not without scriptural foundation.

THE RISEN CHRIST

Scripture is silent about Mary's participation in the burial of
Jesus. How she spent the days intervening before the Resurrection
is likewise left to our imagination. She did not accompany the
holy women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint
Him. Being so absolutely convinced of His n esurrection, she con-
sidered this expedition useless. Great saints and scholars consider
it almost self-evident that the Risen Christ apperu-ed first to Hi
Mother, although no apparition of this kind is narrated in the
Gospels. 5 2 The forty days preceding the Ascension m ust l ave been
a season of indescribable joy for other reasons also: Mary M agdalen,
the Apostles, and others to whom Jesus apperu-ed, mu st have given
her glorious accounts of the glory of her Son . After the Ascension
she is said to have been present in the upper room, persevering
unitedly in prayer with the Apostles, the holy women , and the
brethren of the Lord (Acts 1: 13- 14) . Consequently, we may rea-
sonably infer that she accompanied her Son to M oun t Olivet and

Mary's Spiritual Maternity, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 35-110, esp.
68-69, 9 2 -93 .
61 Others aIe of a different opinion. Cf., for example, Card. A. H. L6picier,
Dlatessaro1J, Vol. 4 ( Roma, 1927), p. 177·
62 On this interesting controversy cf. F. Tallachini, U n ~'ilell~o neI Vangelo, in
:al.estra del Clem, Vol. J9. 1940,p: ~O~j G. Ghemrdi, P.e~ . tm si.:eltzio 'Ie~ Vangelo,
Ibid., Fl'. 233-235. G. M. Roschull, Intorno all'avparmo1'UJ d~ Gesu morto allil
Sl~1I Ss. Madre, ibid., pp. ;2.35- 246; V. Buffou, A proposito di 1ma rece11te eml-
troversia mariologica, in Mariamml, Vol. 2., 1940, pp. 4 ro-424i U. Holzmeister,
Num C11risflus 1,ost rlUl.lrrectlonem suae Ss. Matri apl'l1T'1lerit, in Verbum Domilli,
Vol. 2.2- 1942, pp. 97-10~ i ill., Der Ar./ferst.andene 1.m d seine heiHgs~e Ml~tter, in
Klerllsblatt, V ol. 24, 1943. pp. 238-240; J. Blirnler Dey Anfers.tandene Ulta. seine
M,.d ter, -ibid., pp. tJ3-t16; i(l., N ochm.als Z1/.T Frage cler Christop'hanie 1Ior Maria,
ibid., p. 240 It.j A. M . Schuhmaier, Controven-ia de Ch.rislophemia B. M . VJrgini
die resrm'ectio1'l'i" CO'l'lc.eSSIl, in Maria'wwm, Vol. 8, 1946, pp. 147-151 .
106 MARIOLOGY
witnessed the glory of the AscensioD. TIle great joy which filled the
disciples on this occasion must have been hers a1so, even in greater
measure CUe 24: 52), Since she was united in prayeI1 with the
Apostles, she m ust have beh eld the outpouring of the H oly Spirit
n lhe day of Pentecost and the other !>tirring events inaugurating
the promulgation of Christ's Ch mch (Acts 2:1; 3:26). Nothing
further is related about h er in th e Acts; the Epistles, too are silen t
about h er. Nevertheless, by her prestige as the Mother of the Lord,
by her holy life, her prayers, and her encourag men t, sb must
have exerted an inestimable in11uenc;:e upon the nascent Church.
There is no direct allusion to her Assumption, which was the cul-
mination of her privileges and the reward of her labors.

THE WOMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE

In the Apocalypse St. John describes a woman whom he saw in
vision: she was clothed with the sun, the moon was beneath her
feet, and upon her head was a crown of stars. "And she was with
child and cried out in the pangs of birth an d in pain to be de-
livered" CApoc. 12: 1, 2). The male Child to "Yhom she g ives birth
on earth, who is the Son of God, is caught up to God and His
throne CApac. 12: 5). Then the dragon , or Satan , who was lying
in wait to kill the Child pursl.les the woman into th e desert and
attemp ts to destroy h er but she escapes with divine help and abides
securely for three and a h alf years CApac. 12:6-9).
Now at Bethlehem Mary did not bring forth her divine Child
in pain nor did she have to flee to the wilderness after the Ascen-
sion. Hence the woman before the birth of the Child, most prob-
ably represents the Israel of the Old Testament, whose heroes and
heroines toiled to prepare the way for the Messias. After the birth
of the Child and His Ascension into heaven; the woman symbolizes
the Israel of the New Testament, the Church. Th ough periodically
persecuted, she will always be secure under God's pr0tectioll. Her
persecution is said to last three and a half years to
indica te tha
it will be relatively short when compared to the eternity of her
duration.
But Mary is also included in the symbolism of the woman. She
certainly is the most distinguished purely human person of the Old
Testament: by her prerogatives, her prayers, h er good works, her
consent, she pre-eminently prepared the way for the Incarnation.
Moreover, she physically gave birth to the Saviour, though without
 MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 10 7
the pangs of childbirth. She is. also the brightest ornament of the
New Testament. If the sun, the moon, and the stars represent the
glories of the Old and New Testamen ts, then her singular privileges
and virtues must be included. Hence the woman of the Apocalypse
designates Mary in an inclusive and pre-eminent sense.53 Finally,
the woman's symbolism exhibits a feature which is borrowed from
Mary's personality; she virginally conceives and bears, which re-
minds us of Isaias' celebrated prophecy about the virgin (T 14)
and the similar prediction of Micheas about the woman in labor
(5:3).
SUMMARY
The main elements upon which our devotion to Mary is based
are contained in the New Testament : h er fullness of grace, her
unique position among women, her virginity, her co-operation in
the Redemption, her divine motherhood, her power of intercession.
She is rarely introduced as speaking but when she does speak, she
charms us by her simplicity, her modesty, her prudence, her obedi-
ence, her love of God and Christ, her kindness to others. Despite
the fact that she is kept in the bac1mround, it is easy to perceive
that she shares in all the privations and
triumphs of Christ's infancy
63 The various opinions on this may be grouped as follows: (A) T bose who
favor the exclusive ecclesiological interpretation, for example, J. Bonsirven, L ' Apoca-
lypse de saint Jean, in Verbum Salutis, Vol. 16, 1951 , pp. 2I3- 22 r; J. S. Considine,
A Comlllentary on the New Test.ament (Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1942) , p. 669; C. Rosch, M1~lierJ draco et bestiae 11~ AtJoc. 12: 13, in V (''Tbul1t
DOflJini, Vol. 8, 1928, p. 271. CB) T hose who claim that the "woman" is Mary
alone, for examFle, J.-F. Bonnefoy, Les interpreta.tions eccles;ologiques dl,~ ck . xn de
l'Ap ., in M arian1l1n, Vol. 9, 1947, FP' 208-222: ·id., Le tny$tere de M arie selon Ie
p.rot.evangile et l'A pocalypse ( P aris, 1949)j T. Gallus, SohoHm ad "m'Ulierem"
Apocaly~seos C12, '\ in Ver~u!n Domini, Vol. 30, 1952 Pl" 33z..:-340 ..( C) Those
Wll0 beheve that the woman 15 both Our Lady and the Church m a literal sense,
alit£!' atqlle oUter. Fo~ example: E. B. AHo, Sainb Jelm - L'Apocaly pse, ed. 3
(paIis, 1933), p. 194: G. Pen-ella, Senso m ariologico aell'ApocaUsse XlI, 1n Divus
Th omas CPl.), Vol. 43, 1940, pp. 215-223; L. Di Ponzo; l1~torn{] al senso
lIIa;riolqgico dell.' A poca!isse, c. Xll , in M ariam ,pm , Vol. 3, 194 1, pp. 24&--268; E.
May, The Scriptural Basis for M ary's S piritual M aternity, in M arian St1ulies,
Vol. 3, 195'2,l'P' 131-135: A. Rivera, "lnimicitills ponas .. ." - "Sign.um t l.lagl1U1J1,
1I1JP«T"T4it • •• " ( Gen. 3, 15i A poc. 12, 1), in Verhum D01nin i, Vol. 21, 1941, pp.
lJ3-122, 183-189; D. Unger Did.. S,t . Johtt See tI'l.e Vlrgi.n Mary ill G lory? in
T~1e Catholic BibliclII Q11l1rterly, Vol. 11, 1949, pp. 248- 262, 392-405; Vol. 12,
1950, pp. 74-83, 155-161 , '2.92-300, 405-4,15 (3 complere review of the patristic
exegesis of this passage); B. Le Fr:oi~, The Wom an Clothed with the Sun, in
The At/le r'iC41~ Ecclesiastical RI.-'V ie"lll, Vol. 126, March 1952, pp. 161-180. The
author has recently published an exhaustive book on the same subject: The
Woman Clothed with the Sun (Rome, 1954).
108 MARIOLOGY
and hidden life at Nazareth. Except at Cana, she is excluded from
active participation in the public life of Our Lord. But she suffers
with Him beneath the cross and tastes the joy of the Resurrection
and Ascension. Her gifts and the virtues which she practiced are
so extraordinary that they merit our most serious and loving study
in the special branch of Theology called Mariology.64
54 For further study on Our Lady in the New Testamc:mt tlle following authors
may be consulted with profit: Msgr. E. F lorit, Maria nel/.'esegesi b fblica content-
pOTanea, in Studi Mariani, Vol. I, 1943, pp. 83- 132.; G. HlliOD, La Sainte Vierge
dans Ie Nouveau Testament, in Maria. Etudes sur la Ste. Vierge (ed. H. du Manoir),
Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), pp. 43-68; R. Knox, Our Lady in the New Testament, in
Our Blessed Lady (London: Cambridge Summer School Lectures for 1933, 1934),
pr' 48- 67; C. Lattey, Our Lady's Gospel, ibid., pp. 18-47; J. Leal, La Virgen en
e Evangelio, in Cultura Biblica, Vol. 9, 1952, pp. 115-II6, 215-217; A. Merk,
Das Marienbild des Neuen Bundes, in Katholische Marienkunde (ed. P. Strater),
Vol. I (Paderbom, 1947), pp. 44:-84; M. Peinador, La Sagmr/n E~O,.UllTa 1m. 1a
M al'/ologla c'1iwm:nte los 11.lttmos vei.l1t1cin.ao Mios. Prohlem<ls 511soltados y avances
realiz(lclos, in Estwiios Ma"ianos, Vol. 11 , 1951, pp. 17-58; M. Sind1eZ del Villar,
Mar'fa segltn _e l E'lJalLgdio . .. in Cronicu Ofioial deJ COllgreso Mari4:mo ,His1JaIlD-
A l1w ricano de SeviUa (Madrid, 1930), pp. 622--725; A Schiifer The !Vlo,ther of
Jesll' in- Holy Scripture (New York, 1913)'
 Mary in Western Patristic Thought

By WALTER J. BURGHARDT, S.}.

T HE present essay is a theological enterprise. It is a theological

enterprise realized in a precise way, which consists in exploring
the data of one theological source, the Fathers of the Church, by
availing ourselves of aids proper to the historical discipline.
The enterprise is theological; therefore it will not lose sight of
the first principle of theological method, the achievement of truth
in the light of revelation. The precise way in which the investiga-
tion is conducted does not violate this fundamental theological law,
because the Church herself recognizes patristic consent as a valid
expression of revealed truth.
And yet, though our precise approach does not fail to be theo-
logical, it nonetheless uses conscientiously the tools of the historiog-
rapher. The historian has as hjs first task the achievement of extant
data in the highest degree of pbj]o1ogic purity. This we too attempt
to do, and On this score the historian of any religious persuasion or
of none is in a position to accept our findings. The historian's
second task is to construct the data achieved according to some
theory freely chosen. This the theologian is not free to do, for in
his ultimate construction of the data he is led by the living 'l'l'tagis-
teri'Lt1n, which does not conjecture but in faith claims to know the
doctrine taught by patristic consent.
Individual Fathers are not patristic consent. They may,. in prin-
ciple, deviate from the consent. It is the function of philology to
discover whether they did. In the theologian's use of philology, how-
ever, he supposes that the individual Father is thinldng and writing
in the atruosphere of patristic consent. This will not lead him to
falsify the evidence, to put into a document what was never there;
but he will be prone to hear in ambiguous or obscure statements
a vague echo at least of the consent. Such an approach will not
necessarily endear itself to the naturali tic historian, who does not
10 9
110 MARIOLOGY
share the theologian's supposition that patristic consent is directed
in some fashion by the Ioly Spirit; but the supposition is, for the
theologian, basic.
The following pages will essay some initial insight into the
thought of the Western Fathers and ecclesiastical writer of the
fust seven centuries on five prerogatives linked inseparably to Our
Lady in contemporary Catholic theology: the Second Eve, Mary's
perpetual virginity, her divine Maternity, her holiness, and the
corporeal ASStilllption. In each instance the fundamental task will
be to present the evidence in the light of philology; now and again,
inevitably, a construction will be imperative in the light of
revelation.
I
The primordial patnstIc insight with respect to the Mother of
Christ is the vision of Mary as the New Eve. John Henry New-
man framed the question at issue with his customary lUCidity, then
answered it with startling brevity, in the Letter to Pusey: 'What
is the great rudimental teaching of Antiquity f-rom its earliest date
concerning her? I mean the primti facie view of her person and
office, the broad outline laid down of her, the aspect under which
she comes to us, in the writings of the Fathers. She is the Second
Eve."l
The earliest patristic testimonies to the Eve-Mary parallelism
stem from the W est: from Rome, Lyons, and Carthage. The wit-
nesses are the three most significant figures on the W estern literary
horizon in the latte:r half of the second century and at the dawning
o'f the third: Justin, Irenaeus, and Tettullian . ~ The dean of
second-century apologists, the martyr Justin Ct c. 165), composes
a graphiC overture to the Eve-Mary drama in his Dialogue with
Trypho. In the course of a labyrinthine treatment of Isa. 7: 14, he
writes with respect to Christ, who proceeded from the Father before
all creatures:
1 J. H. ewman, A Letter to tile Rev. E. B. P"ll.Sey, D.D., o'~~ His Recent
Eire1l1COn, 3 ed. (London, 1866), pp. 33-34·
2 For a brief treatment of the texts in question, cf. M. A. Nauwciaerts, De
Mliria nova Heva doctrin'l patrunT. lmt'enicllel~o"'um, in Dw-u.s Thomas. (Pi<lcenza),
Vol. 34, 1931, pp. 480-491' E. Neubert, Marie dims l'eglise cl'ntenicerl11l1e (Paris,
1908), pp. 2.40-2.541 also the literature cited below, footnotes 17 and 18. For
background, and the atmosphere in which the uSllge of the Eve-Mary IlDalOgy
developed, cf. W. Staerk, Eva - Marill. Bin Beitrag ZUT Denk- 1md Sprechweise cler
1I1tldrclllio1wn C7lristo!ogie, in Zeitscn.rift fUr ale 1I81.1tes/tJmen.t liche Wissensclurft,
Vol. 33, 1934, pp. 97- 10 4.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT III

[The Son of God] became man through the Virgin, that the dis-
obedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way
in which it had Oliginated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, con-
ceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth
disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith
and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her tbe glad tidings that ,the
Spirit of the Lord would come upon bel' ... and she answered: "Be
it done unto me according to thy word." And through het was e
born . . . by whom God desh'oys both the serpent and the angels and
men who have become like the serpent, and delivers fmm death those
who repent of their wickedness and believe in Him. 3
Justin does little more than trumpet the parallelism. He tells us
explicitly that, as designed by God, the pattern of man's redemption
paralleled his fall: both were effected through the agency of a vir-
gin. He leaves us to conclude that for the human race the conse-
quences of Mary's co-operation with God contrasted sharply with
the effects of Eve's seduction by Satan: Mary's issue, inferentially,
is obedience and life. He makes no effort to penetrate the nature
of her redemptive role; his gaze is fixed not on Mary but on Christ.
A score of years later, a pupil of Polycarp named Irenaeus ( t
c. 202), perhaps the .first theologian of the Virgin Mother, took hold
of the analogy and integrated it with his theology. At the root of
his Mariological thinking two principles lie. There is the principle
termed recapitulatio: the human dilemma, the paradoxical impera-
tive that fallen nature must be lifted to God by the nature that
had fallen, is resolved in the Word made flesh, who identifies Him-
self with humanity by becoming its second head Ccaput).4 And
there is the complementary principle called recirculatio: the process
of restoration is fated to correspond inversely to that of the fall,
somewhat as a knot is untied - a complicated knot, fashioned of
Eve's disobedience as well as the rebellion of Adam. 5 In the light
of this latter principle, Irenaeus has left a provocative passage:
a Justin, Di«logu:s Ct~..n T"ypha1tc, cap. 100; PG, 6, 709-712.
;1 Thi~ is simpJy one aspect of lrenaeus' theelogy of recapitulation; cf. A. d'Ales,

La doct'l'it'Le de !a r:~ca'l?il",llaLioti en 50;inl. IrBm!e, in Recherches de science religieuse,

VoL 6, 1916, I'll. 185-ZII. FOI the Mmiology 01: IIensclls, d. J. Gar~oll, La
ma,riologie Gle s. ltellcc (Lyon, :1"932.); B. Ptzybylsld, De mari%gill s. Il'elwei
L!,gm,.nensis (Romae, 1937); N. F. Moho)y, Sai,n t Iren.a(}r.r~: The Father of M:adol,..
ogy, in Studia NIariana, Vol. 7: First Franciscan Natioual Marian Congress in
AccJ,tuIlation of the Dogma d£ the Assumption [1 950] 031ll'lin'g ton, Wis., T952),
pp. 129-187.
5 Cf. E. Druwe, La mediation unil1erselle de Marie, in Maria. Etudes sur 1a
Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. I (Paris, 1949), p. 462.
112 MARIOLOGY
Just as Eve, wife of Adam yes, yet still a virgin ... became by her
disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race,
so Mary too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause
of salvation for herself and the whole human race. And this is why
the Law calls her who was espoused to a man the wife of IUlll who
ha'd esp0used her, though she Was still a virgin: to show the cycle
chat goes back (reci'l'culationem) f-rom Mary to Eve. 'TIle point is,
what is tied together cannot possibly be untied save by inversion of
the process whereby the bonds of union have arisen, so that the original
ties are 100 cd by the subsequent, and th subsequent set the original
free .. .. And so j was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed
by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her
refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief.6
This passage should be supplemented by another, equally im-
pressive, where the Eve-Mary parallelism is set side by side with
the Adam-Christ analogy:
... by the obedience that took place on a tree [the Lord] recapitulated
the disobedience that took place on a tree; and, to the destlUction of
that seduction whereby the betrothed virgin Eve was evilly seduced
the glad tidings of truth were happily brought by an angel to Mary,
virgin espoused. For, as Eve was seduced by the utterance of an angel
to £lee Cod after disobeying is wor,d, so Mary by the utterance of
an angel had the glad tidings brought to her, that she should bear
God :in obedience to His word. And whereas Eve had disobeyed God
Mary was persuaded to obey God, that the Virgin Mary might become
pa.troness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was
sentenced to death by means of a virgin, by means of a virgin is it
delivered Csalvat$£l') . A virgin's disobedience is balanced by a "Virgin's
obedience. For the sin of the .first-formed was mended by the correc-
tion from the First-born; the guile of the serpent was overcome by the
Simplicity of the dove; and we were set free from those ch ains by
which we had been bound to death. 7
In Irenaeus' eyes, Mary as the Second Eve has a distinctive func-
6 Irenaeus, Adve.rms haereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, 1 (Massuct 3, 22, 4)j cd. W. W.
H arvey (CIlntabcigiae, 1857), Vol. 2, r23- 124; PG, 7, 958-959.
? Ibid ., lib. 5. cap. 19, Tj H arvey 2. 375-376; PG, 7. I I75- 1176. Essentially the
same idea is present in Irenaeus' Demon,stra'tio apostol/cae praed:ica"t-ioniS, CIlp. 33;
PaU'ologia Orientlllis, Vol. 12, 684--685; cE. the care£!Jl translation from the
Armenian by J. P . Snrith, in Anciil11t ChristittJ'l Writers, Vol. 16 ( vVesoninster,
Md., 1952), 69. This is sig?ificant, because the Demo11.Strntio is not a polemlcal
but a catechetical work. which reveals how ChrisLillnily was presented to the
people of Lyons at the end of the second century; d. A. H ornack, in Te.."(te tmd
Untersuchu,n gen, Vol. 31 , n. 1 (Leip1-ig, 1907), pp. 65- 66.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 113

tion in God's design for man's redemption. The co-operation of the

first Eve with Satan in effecting man~s spiritual death is matched
and outstripped by Mary's co-operation with God in effecting man's
return to life. The co-operation in question is not a sheerly negative
thing, as though the pal"allelism began and ended on the level of
virginity. It is not an exclusively physical thing, as though Mary's
role opened and closed with the bare fact of divine motherhood.
Her co-operation involves activity of the moral order: she gave
Gabriel and God a free consent. Her obedience was not compelled;
with eyes open and will unfettered she placed herself at God's
disposal for the accomplishmen t of His designs. That Consent, more-
over, has a soteriological character: its term was not simply an
lncamation, but an Incarnation recognized as redemptive. Mary
knew as wen as Joseph that she would call Him Jesus because He
was to "save his people from their sins" CM t. I: 2 I ). 8
The same essential ideas-virginity, disobedience, and death baL-
anced by virginjty, obedience, and life- are discoverable about the
year 210 in the impetuous Carthaginian, Tertullian Ct c. 220),
who uses the Eve-Mary parallelism as a secondary argument in
favor of the virginal conception of Christ, and emphasizes the act
of faith involved in each instance. ''For into Eve, as yet a virgin,
had crept the devil's word, the framer of death . Equally into a
virgin was to be introduced God's Wend, the builder of life, to the
end that what had been lost through one sex might by the same
sex be restored and saved. Eve bad believed the serpent, Mary be-
lieved Gabriel. The fault wrucll the one committed by believing,
the other by believing emend d . . .. God, therefore, sent down
into the Virgin's womb His Word, our good Brother, to blot out
the memory of that evil brother:"9
The insight of Justin, Tertullian, and especially Itenaeus will be
repeated, if not sigi:6cantly f-urtheted, after Nieaea . Not only in
the Ea5t/o but in the West as well . In the eyes of Ambrose Ct 397),
"it was through a man and a woman that flesh was cast from para-
dise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God." Little
8 J. B. Carol, O.F.M., De Cotredel,,·tptiane beatae Vlrgil~is Mariue. Dls-
Cf.
q~~jsltioposi.t i·va (CivJtas Y'lticilna 1950), p. 38.
o Terwllian, De carne Christi, cap. 17; C.S.B .L., 70 233.
~u Cf., e.g., Ephrnem, De diversis set'!lionib'I{S, 3: De Ifl'l4al1ms Dei gCllitrJc:is
Mariae; Opera ott/'nia syr. et lat., Vol. 3 (Romae, 1743), 607; Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catecheses, 12, 15; PG, 33, 741i Epipbanius, Panarion, luter. 78, D. 18i G.C.S.,
37, 468-469; John Chrysostom, Expositio itl 7'$. 44, n. 7; PC, 5); 193; John
Damascene, Hom. J itl nativitatem' beatae Virginis Mariaa, n. 7i PG, 96, 67'1..
114 MARIOLOGY
wonder that "Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary
mother of salvation."U Jerome Ct 420) is splendidly epigrammatic:
"Dead1 through Eve, life through Mary."13 Augustine Ct 430) is
impressed by "the profound mystery that, as death had befallen us
through a woman, thl,"ough a woman life should be born to us";
he muses that "the liberation of both sexes would not have been a
proper punishment for the devil, were the liberation not effected
by the agency of botb."18 Peter Chrysologus et c. 450) in~,ists that
the reason "why Christ wanted to be born is this: that, just as death
came to all through Eve, so through Mary life might return to all." n
And the poet Sedulius bymns the same theme in Latin dactyls:
As the tender rose from sharp thorns grows,
Knowing not how to wound, and fairer far than parent stem:
So from the stem that was Eve the hallowed Mary bloomed,
A spotless virgin new, to mend that ancient virgin's fault. 15
Perhl:1PS the most mgent theological problem which derives from
the Eve-Mary parallelism is this: What role do the Fathers of the
Church assign Mary in the redemptive task of her 80n(10 The
majority of Catholic scholars insist that the contempora·y doctrine
of Coredemption, Mary's immediate co-operation in the objective
Redemption, is inescapably affirmed in patristic literature. l1 A
U Ambrose, Epist. 63, n. 33; PL, 16, l2.49-U50 (ed. 1866); Senll . 45, n. 41 PL,
17, 716 (ed. 1866); this latter text is taken from a sermon dtibiously Ambrosian.
For the Mariologlcal teaching of Ambrose, cf. A. Paguameura. La mariologia di S.
Ambrogio (Milano, 1932).
~2 Jerome, E1'ist. 22., n. 2lj PL, 22, 408. For the Marian doctrine of Jerome.
cf. J. Niessen, Die Mari%gie des ~Il. Hiel'on'Y"nus (Milnster, f9!3) .
18 Augustine. De agone ohrist:iatlo, 11. 22 [24]i C.S.E.L., 41, 125. For the Mariology
of Augustine, cf. Ph. Friedrich, Die Mariologie des 111. A1~g'!/.s#wu.s (Koln, 1907J.
14 Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 99; PL, 52, 479.
1 11 Sedulius, Paschale carmen, lib. 2., lines 28-31; C.S.B.L, IO. 46.
1 G 111e coredemptive £'Ullction of Mary :is by no me-arts lhe only aspect of
Marian theology which scholru:s have tri.ed to trace to the Eve-Mary analogy of the
Fa.thers; d ., e.g., J. M. Bover, La mediaci6n. universal, de Ia "Seg'll,,,,la Eva" en. la
tradj,ci&11 patristica in Estl~dios ec!esia.tticos, Vol. 2., .1923, pp. 321-350; also Baver's
detailed treatment of Ambrose, La 1I1,edilll;i6t, 1Iniver.~1l1 ,ie Maria 5e.gl/'1'I S. Ambrosio,
in Gregorianmn, Vol. 5, Y924, pp, 25-45. Nor is the Eve·Mary pamllelism the sole
patristic basi.s on which theologians test the thesis of Cotedemption. AnlOt1g others,
thete aTe the texts which seem to ascribe. to Mary various effects of the Redemption;
d. the classical, much·controverted passage fTorn Ambrose on Mllry's compassion
beneath the cross: "Suscepit quidem [Chdsl'us] arfec:tum paten tis, sed non quae-
sivit altmus auxilium." E1Ji$t. 63, D. 110; PL, .6, I27I (cd. 1866); ce. P_agnamcD ta,
op. cit., pp. 369-370; Carol, op. cit., p'p. 142.-144.
17 Cf. e.g., J. Lebon, L'qpostoz.;cit~ de la doctritle de la mecUat:ion tm.r.riale, in
Rechercftes de theologie ll1lcienne et med.ie17a1e, Vol. 2. 1930, p. 143; id., CON/IInellt
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 115
smaller group concludes, with comparable conviction, that the
Fathers have nothing to say with respect to a genuinely coredemp-
tive function; the germ, indeed, is there, in what they have to say;
but the problem at issue had not presented itself, the Fathers
consequently made no attempt to solve it, and it was to take cen-
turies of doctrinal development before even the germ would be
recognizable as such. 18
The evidence of Irenaeus is a focal point in the controversy and
may serve as a test case. The summary of his thought given above
incorporates a minimal exegesis difficult to dispute: Irenaeus attrib-
utes to Mary, not technically but equivalently, a positive, moral
co-operation in a specifically redemptive Incarnation. But this basic
agreement leaves the heart of the matter untouched: In what sense
is the Incarnation redemptive for Irenaeus?
As some scholars see it, Irenaeus does not limit Mary's co-opera-
tion in man's salvation to the production of the Hedeemer, as to a
preparatory stage in the story of Redemption; he associates her
directly and immediately with the realization of the total effect.
True, he stresses her obedience to the angel, but that stress stems
from the fact that the Annunciation scene brings out so Vividly
the Eve-Mary analogy. The redemptive program is divinely designed
to destroy a twin disobedience, Eve's and Adam's. Part of that
program is the obedience of Mary, an obedience especially in evi-
dence at the moment of the Incarnation. But, for Irenaeus, the
Incarnation is intrinsically orientated to the cross, and the cross is
the consummation of the Incarnation. Mary's pat corresponds to
her Son's ecce venio Cd. Hebr. 10:5 If.); each finds its culmination
on Calvary. Not that Irenaeus says, this in so many words, but it
seems a legitimate deduction from the direct, immediate fashion
in which he links the efficacy of the Redemption to the obedience

je conc;uis, l'et.ahlie et je defends Ia doctrine de Ia mediation mariale, in Epheme.rides

Theologicae wlIaniense5, Vol. 16, 1939, pp. 6;:;-'744; G. M. Rosohini, De COT-
r.edem,ptrice. in M'lrwmnn. Vol. I, 1939. pp. 365-367; P. So13, La cOl'reiIel'lciorl de
Marla en III tradicion patT'tstica, in Es"~dios Marianas, Vol. 2., 1943. p. 68.
1 8 a., e.g., W. Goossens. De cooperatione imme.dl ata Mat-ris Redemptoris ad.
redempl,i onem ob'iectiwli'm. (Parisiis, 1939). pp. 109-J'1.4; C. Dillenschneic1er. Marie
1m service de notre rI!demptkm (Haguenall, 1947), pp. 268- 2<88; J. Riviere. Mllrie
"coredemptrice"? in ReVIle des sciences reUgieuses, Vol. 19, 1939. pp. 339- 340;
L. J. Riley, Historical Conspeotus of the DOC~l'ine of Mary's Co-1!eriem1't-ipn, in
Marill1l St-udies, Vol. 2., 19;1. PP' 46-47. Of. the unqualified rejection of any
patristic basis by H. Lennerz, De cooperatiotU! b. Virginis in ipso opere rede-lnp.
tionis. in Gregonllm~1n1 Vol. 29, J948, p. 1:33· -
II6 MARIOLOGY
of Christ and of the Virgin. BrieRy, in the architectonic of salva-
tion and :in its realization the role of Mary is attuned to the l'ole
of Christ is such wise that the total effect depends on a single totaJ
principle fashioned of Christ the Redeemer and Mary tlle
Coredemptrix. 1o
Not quite true, otbers retort. For lrenaeus, the Incarnation is
redemptive, of course. "The Lord readmitted us to His friendship
by His Incarnation."20 It is redemptive, however, not in the sense
that the hypostatic union and the objective redemption are co-
extensive concepts. The Incarnation is redemptive in the sense
that it is the beginning of salvation. In taking our nature Christ
"recapitulated" all men in I-limself, became capahle of effec6ng
man's reconciliation by the tl1eandric acts which fol1owed in the
wake of the Incarnation. "He reconciled us to God by His pas-
5ion."21 Inasmu,ch as Mary co-operated, wide-eyed and free, in an
Incarnation integral to salvation, lrenaeus could justi'6ably speak or
her as "cause of alvation."22 But the further conclusion, that above
and beyond this causality Mary was immediately associated with
bel' Son in the remainder at 1-lis 'redemptive activity, specifically
the Passion, goes beyond the thought of Trenaeus. The relationship
between Adam and Christ, between Eve and Mary, is of concern
to him; the redemptive relationship between Mary and Christ is
not. To prolong his thought so as to see in them one total principle
of Redemption is doubtless l~gitimate ; but the prolongation is OllIS
not his; and tl1e c1evelO'ped thesis is tlle fruit of a long, complicated
doctrinal ptogression. The contemporary principle of redemptive
co-operation may well be tmassailable; but to find mo'Ce than a germ
of it, lUore than (l basis for it, in the second century is to do
violence to the texts. 23
19 Cf. Druwe, art. cit., pp. 464-465 ' Wortll mentioning in this connection are
the two passages in which Irenae lls speaks of Mary as the Virgin who "regenerates"
us: Adversus haereses, lib. 4, cap. p " 1 (Massuet, 4, 33, 4); lib. 4, cap. 55, 2
(Massuet, 4, 33, II); Harvey, 2, 259, 266; PG, 7, I0 74. 1080; d . P. Galtier, La
vierge qui nous regen/lre, in RlMJherches de scilmce religieuse, Vol. 5, 1914, pp.
13 6- 145'.
2°Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 5, cap. 17, I; Harvey, 2, 369; PG, 7, 959.
21lrenaeus, op. cit., lib. 3, cap. 17, 9 CMassuet, 3, 16, 9); H arvey, 2, 91; PG,
7, 9 2 9.
22Irenaeus, op. cit., lib. 3, cap. 32, I CMassuet, 3, 22, 4); Harvey, 2, 123-124;
PG, 7, 958.
23 Two splendidly sober treatments of the patristic aspect of this problem,
especially with reference to the thought of Irenaeus, are to be found in M. A.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 117

The conclusion of this latter band of sci olar is confessedly

modest; it is, I submit, just:ified by the texts. As a convincing dem-
on tration of th e thesis th t Mary co-operated directly and lmme-
ruately in the objective redemption, the extal1t evidence hom the
New Eve doctrine of the Fathers is somewhat inadequate. On the
other hand, if we suppose the doctrine otherwise established, then a
goodly number of patristic texts take on new meaning. We are
justified in ruscovering therein inrucations, vaJ ua ble elements, in-
sights, which later ages would exploit and bring to a perfection
unsuspected in the clays of the Fathers. For, as Druwe h as pointed
out, from the death of Damascene in the middle of the eighth
century the 'witnes es to the Eve-Mary parallelism follow one an-
other in an endless wave, across the whole of the Latin Middle
Ages, down to our own time, when Pius XII, in the moving epi-
logue to Mystici corporis, portrays the New Eve at the foot of the
cross, offering her Son and herself to the Father for the sin-scarred
children of Adam. 24
II
If the Eve-Mary' aJ.)alogy is the rust genuine insioht of tlle
patristic age with respect to Our Lady, dle first problem that is
clearly posed in her regard is Mary's virginity.25 Not that the ques-
tion springs up full-blown aJld unsuspected at a given point of
time; it gives the impression rather of gradual growth, gradual
awareness, from the first century to the fm.lrth.
Historically, the investigation of her virginity has focused on
three phases of Our Lady's life: the years before Bethlehem the
moment of childbea-ring in the cave, and the period subsequent
to the birth of JeStts.~a The crux of the first phase may be epitomized

Genevoi$, La lnatel'11ite 1miverse1!e de Marie selO1~ aitlt Ire.l1ee, in ReV11,e !J.rml,~js te,
Vol. 41, 1936, 2-6-51; and Caro) , 01" cit., pp. 12-8-159.
2"1 Cf. Dnnve, art. cit., p. 468; Pope Pius Xl1, encyclical, Myst:ici cOrplll'i.~, June
2.9, 1943; A.A.S., Vol. 35. L943. pp. 2.47-248.
2.5 Cf, [ I. Rondet's] unsigned Preface ~o the eighth edition of J.-B. Terrien,
1..11 M~re d,e Dillu et la Mere des hotu'mllS, P art 2., Vol. I (paris, 195.0), (9) . The
Preface is a line condensation of Ms!ian theology, especially in its rustoriau
growth.
~Q Cf. E. DublRnchy, M{lric, in D.T.C., Vol. 9, Part 2, 2.369-2.382, for a hrief
presentation of the -patristic texH. Precious iDSight~ On this find othe.r aspects o'!:
eady 'VVestem Marl,ology !lIe given by H. Rahner, Die Marienl,unde in tier lateini-
schen Patristilt, in PaUl Striiter, ed., ICDtholische Maricmktl1lM, Vol. l, Maria i,t~
tier Offfmb{lnmg (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 137-182.
II8 MARIOLOGY
in two questions: Was Mary a virgin physically at the bour of
Gabriel's visit? Was the conception of Christ a virginal conception,
effected independently of intercourse with man? On this twin
score there was no hesitation among the early Ohristians. There
could hardly be; Scripture was all too clear. The primitive Eastern
evidence offered by Ignatius' of Antiocll and Aristides of .Athens H
is supplemented in the West by Justin, lrenaeus, and Tertullian.
J ISbn i anxi us to forestal] misunderstanding of Isa. 7: J 4 from
two quarters, pagan and JeWish. In the first place, he dl'les not care
to have the pagan turn against him the accusation Bung by Chris-
tians against the poets, to the effect that Jupiter approached women
with carnal lust in mind. "The words, 'Behold, a virgin shall con-
ceive,' tllerefore mean that the virgin shall conceive without inter-
course. For, if she had had intercourse with anyone at all, she was
then no longer a virgin. The fact is, the power of God descending
upon the virgin overshadowed her and caused her, wIllie still a
virgin, to conceive. . . . And it was this Spi it who came upon
he virgin, overshadowed her, and brough it about that she
became pregnant, not by sexual intercourse, but by divine power."2S
Second, he accuses Trypho and his fellow Jews of an audacious
distortion of the Septuagint; in their polemic preoccupation they
have changed the original "virgjn" (7Tap8&o<;) of Isa. 7: 14 to "a
young girl" (J!£aJIL~), "as though something of extraordinary impor-
tance was signified by a woman conceiving after sexual intercourse,
as all young women, except the barren, can do."2D
Irenaeus sounds like an echo of Justin or of a common tradition.
He is aware that some, in the wake of Theodotion and Aquila, see
in the Isaian prophecy merely "a young woman," and tlIat the
Ebionites insist that Jeslis was begotten of Joseph.so FIe argues that
Isaias was pointing to "something une>''Pected'' with respect to the
generatjon of Christ; he was pointing to a sign. But, "what great
27 Cf. Ignatius, Ad Ephesios, n. 19, I; ed. K. Bihlmeyer, p. 87; id., Ad Smyrnaeos,
n. J, I; Bihlmeyer, p. 106; Aristides, Apologia, n. 2; Texte una Untersuchungen,
Vol. 4. Pan 3. p. 9·
28 Justin, Apologia I, cap. 33; PG, 6, 381; cf. tr. by T. B. Falls, in The
Fathers of the Chu.rch: Saint Justin Martyr (New York, 1948), pp. 70-71. There
is a rather detailed treatment of early Western thought on the virginal conception
of Christ in E. Neubert, op. cit., pp. 57-12.0.
29 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, cap. 84; PG, 6, 673-676; tr. Falls. 01" cit.,
p. 282; cf. Dial., cap. 100; PG, 6, 709-712.
30 Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 23 (Massuet, 3, 21, I); Harvey,
2, 110; PG, 7. 946.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT II9

thing or what sign would there have been in a young woman bear-
ing a child through conception from a man? Tllat happens to all
women W110 bear a child. But because an unexpected salvalioD
was to be initiated for men through God's help, an unexpected
birth from a virgin was likewise accomplished. The sign was God-
given; the effect was not man-mad . "31
Tertullian, too, asserts that the Word of God was brought down,
of the Father's Spirit, "into the Virgin Mary, took aesh in her
womb ...."30 As God fashioned Adam of virgin earth; unfurrowed,
unsown, so the Second Adam was shaped by God "of a Hesh not
yet unsealed to human generation.'~33
Such is the personal belief of Justin, lrenaeus, and Tertuilian.
More signi6.cantly still, Irenaeus and Tertullian declare unequivo-
cally that such is the belief of the Church. "The birth ['rom a
virgin," lrenaeus says, is a belief which, lil<e the belief in God
the Creator, in the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, in the
passion, resurrection, and ascension, the universal Church "has
received from the apostles and their disciples. ' 34 In Tertullian's
yes, the virginal conception in a virgin s womb is part and parcel
of "the rule of faith."8fi And this rule of faith Carthage has appar-
ently received from Rome;uu this rule of faith is common to the
apostolic Ohurches. u7
The unwavering belief of the West in tl'le physical virginity of
Mary before Bethlehem is summed up in the expression, "Virgin
Mary," and is enshrined as early as the second century in the
Roman form of tlle Creed, as we find it, for example, in iippoly-
tllS : "I believe in God, the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus,
Son of God, who was born from the Holy Spirit of Mary the
Virgin (de SpiriPu sancto ex Maria 1lirgine). . . . " S8 The problem
31 Ibid., lib. 3, cap. :1.6, :1. (lvIassuet, 3, 2.1, 6); Harvey, z, lI8; PC, 7. 953 .
.32 T rtulliall. De 1,rnescriptiotle haereticomm, caJ? 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17-18. A.
d'Ali!s bas a comp_endiolls section on Tertlll1ian's Mariology in La theologie de
Tert1~1lien, 3 cd. (paris, 1905). pp. 192-1 97.
SR TeItlllllan, De carne C1.t'isti, cap. 17; C.S.E.L., 70. 23:1.-2.33.

3" Irenaeus, A(i1ler5'!~s haereses, lib. I, cap. 2. (Mllssuet, I , 10, 1); Harvey. I,
9O-9J; PG. 7, 549·
81i Tertullian, De praescl'iptione naereticon.m, Cilp. 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17-18.
an Tettullian. De praescriptione haeretico"u1l~, c-ap. 36; C.S.E.L., 70, 45-46.
aT f. Tertulliall, De praescr;'ptio1'le flaeret/cort.l-f11., cap. 2.0- :2.1; C.S.B.L., 70, 2.3-25.
Tertullian proposes to prove that the rule of faith in cluestion is derived fLam the
tradition of the Apostles' cf. cap. 2.2; C.S.E.L., 70, 25.
as Cf. Rippolytus, Tradil,io al'os~olica" n. 73; ed. J. Ql.lasten, Flori!egil.ltn patristi-
cnm, Vol. 7 (Bonnae, I935), p. 31. On the textual problem, cf. R. H. Connolly,
120 MARIO LOGY
begins to take shape wjth the question: Did Mary remain a virgin
while giving birth to Jesus? On this score the historical traaition
is less clear and slower to solidify. Nor is thi surprising. In th
first place, the manner in which Jesus emerged f-rom Mary's womb
w~s not a likely topic for widespread Christian discussion. Socond,
it would not necessarily strike an early Christian as a problem in
virginily. Third, some of those who did recognize the probl~
might well have been persuaded to silence with respect to the
miraculous element in the aetnal bh'th of Jesus, for fear of giving
aid and comfort to the Docetic enemy, to the heresy that Christ
was only apparently hom of Mm::y.SD
It has been suggested that the very silence of the early authors
is expressive, especially if reset within the aura of mystery and
miracle which surrounds some contemporary accoun ts of Jesus'
birth. 40 And it roay well be that the unqualified title, "the Virgin,"
intimates that Our Lady's virginity remained unimpaired in child-
bearing.~l In iroilar vein the creda} fonnula, "horn of a virgin,"
of whlch the West was so fond,12 perhaps involves the conclusion
Jater drawn by Augustine: "And jf only in His birth her virginity
had been destroyed, from that moment Ie would not have been
born 0f a virginJ and the \IIrhole Church would proclaim Jalsely,
which God forbid that He was born of the Virgin Mary:'~ 8
But alJ this, though plausible, is still conjecture. The one West-
ern author before Nicaea whose language on thi seO'e is unequivo-
cal denies Ilatly that the virginity of Mary sUJ.'vived her child-
bealing. In his polemiC against Docetists, Mal'cionites, and Valen-

01'~ Bcrpti~'/1,1l1 Creeel qf Hi'P1?oLytns, in JOImlCll of Theological

tH,/l. 'Te:d of l.h.e
S't'tl.d:iesVol. 2.5, 1923- 1924, l'p. 131- 139. Dom Connolly believed that tbe eX,
whether due to translator or SUDsequent scrille, should be corrected to e.t; d. p. 137.
"0 Of. J. C. Plumpe, Some LiUle-K-'no1ll'J'l, Eq:rZy Wjtnesse~ to Mllry's Vitginitas in
11aT144, ill TIwologi.ca! Stu,t/ies, Vol. 9, 1948, p. 568. Some Doc:etistS held th.1t
Christ had no genuine human, body at an; othel admitted R human bocly but
insisted. that He came with this body nom beaven. that He was noL born ex
virgine but simply passed per virgil1e~n.
·10 Cf. e.g., L. KOstCIS, Marill., die M11tter Jem, in ~jhol' {iiT Th.eologie una.
Kirche, Vol. 6. '934, p. 890; Plumpe. art. cit., p. 567.
41 Cf., e.g., Justin. Dialog~!.~ c3oI!n T1'yph.01'loe. C<JP' 100; PG, 6 712.; lrenneus,
AclversH 1Hrereses, Jjb. 3, cap. 3:2., 1: (Massue t. 3, 21. 4); HaJ:Vey. 2 , r:!.3i PC,
7, 95'8; Terrullian. De p'raescriptio11e haf!re£7col'l~m, cap. 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17.
42 Cf. J. QlIns~en, PatroZogy, Vol. I (Westminster, Md., 1950), p. 27 •
• 3 Augustine, Enchi.ridiol'l ad La'I~rent.ium, cap. 34 [aI . cap. 10, D. 341; PL 40,
249.; tr. L. A. Ar;md, in AlIcient C1~rlstiaH Writers, Vol. 3 (WestmimtCt, Md .,
1947), p. 42.·
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 121

tinians, Tertullian presents the birth of Christ as quite normal.

Revolting as parturition may be (and TertLlllian takes a pathological
delight in assembling the less attractive details), "birth will not
be worse for I im than death .... If Christ lruly suffered all this,
to be bom was something less for Him."44 In line with this brutal
realism he applies to Christ the prim.oge-I~it'us aperiens vulvam of
Exod. J3:2. "She did bear, because she produced offspring of her
own flesh; she did not bear, because she produced Him not of
.~ husband's seed. She was a virgin, so far as her husband was COn-
cerned; she was not a virgin so far as her childbearing was con--
cerned. . . . Sbe who gave birth, reaUy gave birth; and if she was
a virgm when she conceived, in her childbearing she was a wife .
. . . The Virgin's womb was especially opened, because it was
especially closed. In fact, she ought rather to be called 110t a virgin
than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, at it weJ,'e, before being
a wife." ~6
Tertullian is clear but vexing. He does not appeal for support
to a tradition or current opinion' but neither is he conscious of
contradicting official Church teaching. Is there all African t arution
on Mary's virginity before N icaea? Is this sheer polemics? Or TertuJ-
lian's pique? Neither Cyprian nor Arnobius nor Lactanous will
help us settle that question. This much can be said: we are not
justified in deriving from TertulLian the conclusion that we have
here an echo o.f theological thought current in the Church of
AfTica.4.6
With respect to Irenaeus, it can still be confidently urged, despite
the research and reasoning of H. Koch/ 7 that there is no text
&4 Textullian, Advers1JS MClI'cione,n, lib. 3, cap. lJ ; C.S.E.L., 47, 394; d. Ad·
versus Marcionem, lib. 4, cop. 21; C.S .E.L., 47, 490-49I .
• 5 Tc(tullian, De carne Cllristi, cap. 23; C.S.E.L., 70, 246- 2.47. A. d'Ales, La
t'h.eologie de TerluUien, p. ~97, note 5, says simply that the virginity in childbirth
is "affi(med" in De vitginihus ve1luldis cap. 6; PL, 2, 946 (ed. 1866). TcrtulliBll'S .
involved argumentation in this passage, however, does not se~ to wauant d' Ales'
conclusion.
40 C£. G. Jouassard, Marie i1 travers Ia 1JlLtl'is/,iq7loc: Matemi'.e divi'l/l, 'lJirgi-nite,
sailltete, in Maria. ~tJudes Stlr 111 Sainte Viergc, ed. 1-1. du Manoix, Vol. I (paris
:r949) , pp. 77-'78 . This whole article, pp. 69-157, is crammed with infOrnllltiort
Bnd is unusually rich in discernment; d. the annotated bibllogntphy, pp. 154-157.
47 f. H. Koch, Adh1'c virgo ( Tii.bingen, I929); 'id. , Vi"go Eva - Virgo M arla
( Berlin UDd Leipzig, J937) ' These two sriiall volumes provoKed. spirited J:eaction !:rom
Catholic scholars; d ., e.g., O. Bardenhewer, ZUT Mariologie aes hZ. Il'Imii14's, in
Zeltso'hri,ft fifr /,athoHsche Theologie, Vol. 55 193 1 , l.'p. 600-604; J. Lebon,
review in R evue d'histoire eccUsi-astiq1ie, Vol. 34, J938, pp. 336-345; B. Capelle,
122 MARIOLOGY
from his pen which clearly contradicts dle virginity of Mary in
Bethlehem. The well-known ad7'Luc vi.rgo texts-in which, lor ex-
ample, the birth of Christ from Mary, "who was as y t a virgjn"
is compared to the fashioning .0£ Adam "f-rom untilled and as yet
virgin SOil,"48 or Mary's virginal obedience is cont 'asted with the
disobe4ience of Eve "while still a vir?in"·o - reveal no interest on
Irenaeus' part in any aspect of Mary s virginity save tlle virginal
conception of Jesus. On the other hand, there may well be an
indication of her virginity in clilldbirth in Irenaeus' paradoxical
phrase, purus pure 1m'r am aperiens v",dvum (ilie stainless Word of
God opened His Mother's stainless womb stainlessly) - if indeed,
as seems lilcely, it is the adverb and not the verb that merits the
stress. no Even more strikingly, Irenaeus takes Isa. 66:7, where the
prophet foretells a remarkable repopulation of J rusaJem through
Mother Sian, and interprets it as messianic, as spoJ<en of me Virgin
Mary wno gave birth to a man child in unique fashion, without
bilth pangs. "Also, concerning His birth, the same prophet [Isaias]
says in another place: 'Before she who was in labour brought forth,
and before the pains of labour came, there came fotth delivered a
man child; he proclaimed His unlooked-for and extraordinary birth
of the Virgin."51 Irenaeus' language is not limpid, but it scarcely
warrants the charge that he denied Mary a vir~nal childbearing.liz
It is not lmtiJ the second half of the fourth century that the
extant patristic evidence indicates a general awareness of the prob-
lem in the West. Hila:J.'Y of PoitieJ.'s Ct 367), whose exile in the
"Adhuc virgo" chez saint Irenee, in Recherches de theologie ancienne et
medievale, Vol. 2, 1930, pp. 388-395.
48 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 30 (Massuet, 3, 21, 10); Harvey, 2,
120; PC, 7, 954-955.
49Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, I (Massuet, 3, 22, 4); Harvey,
2 , !23-f24; PC, 7, 958-959.
roo Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 4, cap. 55, 2. CMassuet, 4, 33, 11); Harvey,
2, 266; PC, 7, 1080; cf. Bsrdephewer, art. cit., p. 604.
51 henaeus, Demonstratio apostolicae praedico;tionis, cap. 54; Pa,tralogla oriw"taIis,
Vol . n, 701; te. J. P. Smith, ap. cit., p. 83; cf. Plumpe, art. cit., pp. 569-57°.
52 It is Iegtettable thBt in the second or third centlU)' the West oEFers nothing
oompaxable to the Eastern apocrypha: the Proteva.ngeUtm~ Iaco/?i, with its gxapbic
atgument f,om sight and touch, and the suggestion that about 1)0 the question
of Mary's vi-rginity in cbildbearing was debated; the Ascehsio Isaiae, with the
clear testimony that Mary has conceived her Child as a virgin, has borne Him
through a. period oE gestation as a virgin, and has given Him birth 3S a virgin;
and the Odes of SolO1lton, where the odist's idea of Mary as Virgin Mother includes
painless childbir.th w:ithout need of midwife. Cf. P lumpe, art. cit., pp. 570-577.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 123

East enriched hi theology in general but not his Mariology, is

explicit only on Mary's vir~ty before and after Bethlehem. 5s
There are one or two texts which in isolation might well be judged
unfavorable to the idea of a virginity in childhearing,5~ while the
passages traditionally advanced to establish Hilary as a champion
of the doctrine are not very convincing under analysis.1I"5 Not long
after, Madus Victorinus, that remarkable old man whose conver-
sion from Neoplatonism "stunned Rome and gladdened the
Church,"50 seems little aware of the idea. 51 On the other hand, the
tmlmown author of the Cons'ulta'/;i01U3s Zacchaei uses the Virgin
Birth a a demonstration of Cl1l'ist's divinity and insists that in His
birth "He did not destroy the integrity of His Mother's body." Just
as I-Iis fashioning by the Spirit was incorruptible, so too was His
birth. 56 And in the north of Italy, Zeno, Bishop of Verona Ct
c. 372), states emphatically that Mary "gave birth as a virgin."G9
She remained virgin after marriage, after conception, after
childbearing. GO
A high-water mark appears about 389-390 with the excommuni-
cation of Jovinian by Pope Siricius, specifically for unorthodox utter-
ances on virginity and marriage. Siricius' letter, Optarem, to the
Milanese ChurCh proposed to acquaint Ambrose with the Jovinian
53 On the virginity before childbirth, cf. Hilary, De Trinitate, lib. 3, n. 19;
PL, Ie, 87. Por the virginity after childbirth, d. Commentarius in Matthaeum,
cap. I, n. 3; PL, 9, 92.1-922. .
54 Cf. Hilary, De Trinitate, lib. 2, nn. 24-27; PL, 10, 66-68; De Trinitate, lib.
10, n. 47; PL, 10, 380.
1i~ Cf. the well-known "perPectum ipsa de suis non imminuta generavit"j De
TI·11·.itate, lib. 3, n. 19i PL, 10, 87· Dublllnchy insists that we -have he:re !Itt
affirmation of lhc vitginity 111 :pa~; cf. D.T.C., Vol. 9, P art 2, 2373. The passage
is not u lterly clear, however, and Druwe argues thllt it is in the light of the texts
nnfilvomble to the doctrine (soIDe of those he cites are not convincing) that
we must conclude that this particular passage is dealing with the viJginal conception
a
alone; d. Marie travers la p«'triStiq1W, p. 102., Dote ~ .
~o Atlgustine. Co'ri.fes~lones, lib. 8, cap. 2; C.S.E.L., 33, I73.
B7 Cf. Mm;i lls Victorinus, Tn epist. PlI1ll-iacl. Gat, lib. 2; PL, 8, 1176-1177. He
does ailian the v.h~al conception; d. Adversl£s Ath~tn, lib. 4, n. 32.; PL, 8, I 136.
08 Co'l'tS11It'(ltiOl1es Zacchae, et Apol101lii, Jib. T Clip. IIi cd. C. Morip. Florile8ilf11~
pmrisnp1l1lt, Vol. 3$l (BOJJDaC, 1935), p. 15. The vh;ginnl conception 15 likewise
asserted: d. ibid. lib. I cap. 10; ed. Morin, p. )4. Morin's ascription of die
CO'll'fu ltclt'io~les to Julius Firmicu5 lVlatemus has not won acr;:cp~'lDce; d . B , Altaner,
PCfi;rolou;!c, .3 ed.. (J:;reibu.rg, 1951), p. 314. Altaner prefcIS to dnte the work about
the be:gtnumg of the fifth century.
50 Zeno, Tractatn~s, lib. 2, tr. 8, 2; PL, n, 415.
60 Cf. Zeno, Tractatus, lib. I, tr. 5, 3; PL, II, 303; Tractatus, lib. 2, tr. 9, I ;
PL, II, 417.
 MARIOLOGY
problem and enlist his support.01 Ambrose and the Synod of Milan
(390) ratified the condemnation in their reply, Recognovimus, but
pointed out what Siricius had omitted to mention: Jovinian and
his followers denied the virginity of Mary, not indeed in h er
conception but in her childbearing. Milan i one in rejecting the
thesis' and Milan l:lIgues from Scripture and tradition.
If they do not believe the teaching of the priests, let them believe the
words of C hrist, let them believe the admonition of angels: 'For with
od uotWn g is impossible' (Lh . I: 37). Let them believe the Symbol of
th Apostles, which the Roman Church ever guards and keeps in-
violate. . . . This is the Virgin who conceived in the womb, this the
Virgin who gave birth to a son . . . . For [Isaias] did not say th at a
IJhgin would merely conceive; he said that a virgin would give birth
as well. Now, what is that ga te of the sanctuary, that outer gate
looking to the East, wbicb remains shu t and nO one, jt says, shall
pass through it save the God of Israel alone (Ez. 44:2)? . .. This
gate is blessed Mary; of ller it is writlen: tithe Lord shall pass througb
it," :md it shall b do 'ed aft.er childbearing, because a virgin con-
ceived and a virgin gave birth. 62
This, Ambrose makes clear, is part and parcel of Catholic belief.
Did ecclesiastical circles at Rome openly profess the same thing?
In his answer to Siricius, Ambrose indicates that the pertinent
article of the Symbol espoused at Rome was interpreted, or at least
should be interpreted, not merely of a virginal conception but of a
virginal childbearing as well. And yet, only seven years before, in
Rome itself, Jerome had come to the defense of Mary's pel'petual
virginity against Helvidius, and had nonetheless expressed himself
with r ference to Christ's birth in tenus that are a disconcerting
echo of Tertullian. Retail aJI the horrors of childbirth . he ehaI-
61 Siricius, Opfarem; ed. W. Haller, in Texte- 'II,nd Untersucktmgen, Vol. T7,
Part 2 ( Leipzig. 897), Pl?' 68-72. HalleI Iep,oduces the teJ..1: of J. D. Mansi,
Sacromflt conciliorwm n01/(~ et mnplissima colle-crio, Vol. 3 ( FlOJ:e.ntine, 1759) 663-
664, with the chapter division of Coustant. It is found twice in iVligne : lIll10ng
the letters of Ambwse, Pl~, 16. Il69-Jr7~ (cd. 1866); Ill1d with the letters of
S iricius, PL, 13, 1168- 1I 72.
U2 Ambrose, El'ist. 42., n. 4; cd. Hallet, 01" cit., pp. 7'5-76. In lVlignc, PL,
16, 1174 (cd. 1866), the pertinent n~s are 5-6. Cf. abo De IlIsLiL'll/jllne 'Ilirg'i1lis,
cap. 8, n . 52: <t • • • viIginilli fusus est partu, et genitaHa virginitatis claustra non
solvit"; PL, 16, 334. Ambrose proposed the same doctrine 1'0 the people in his
sermons; d . Erxpllsitio el1m~geUi sectmflt~m L'IIcam, ill). 2. n . 43; C.S.E.L., 32,
Part 4 66; Expos.;.tio evangeUi seClmd141'~ Lll,cam, lib. 2 , n. 57; C.S.E.L., 32,
Part 4, 73. This 1 tter -passage is nO,t clear, and reveals the illfluence of Odgen :
"Hie ergo wlus aperuit sibi vulv3m . . . hie est qui ape:ruit wlIuis b1.1flC vulvnm, ut
i lI1IDJl.cWatus exilet."
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 125

lenges; you will produce nothing more outrageous than the cross.63
And still he can add: "That God was born of a virgin we believe,
because we read it; that Mary became a wife after childbearing we
do not believe, because we do not read it."64 A decade later, writing
from Palestine against Jovinian, Jerome applies to Mary the words
of the Canticle, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my bride, a foun-
tain sealed" (4: 12); but his language is so laconic that one wonders
whether or not he is being consciously ambiguous. 65 Shortly after-
ward, in a letter to the Roman senator, Pammachius, occasioned by
the sh abby reception given at Rome to his attitude toward marriage
as e:ll.'Pressed in A dversu s Iov·iniamtm, h e remarks:
Christ is a virgin, and the mother of our Virgin is herself ever a
virgin; she is mother and virgin. Although the doors were shut, Jesus
entered within; in the sepulchre that was Mary, which was new and
hewn in hardest rock, no one was laid before or after. . . . She is the
eastern gate whereof Ezechiel speaks, always shut and full of light,
which closing on itself brings fo:cth from itself the Holy of Holies;
whereby the Sun of Justice ... enters in and goes out. Let them tell
me how Jesus entered [the Cenacle] when the doors were shut . . .
and I will tell them how holy Mary is both mother and virgin, virgin
after childbirth and mother before marriage."66

H ere we confront the same paradox which he will repeat in 415

against th e Pelagians : "only Christ opened the closed gates of her
virginal womb, and yet the ga tes remained unfailingly closed."61
One is persuaded by the paradox to conclude that, in Jerome's eyes,
Our Lord could somehow "open th e womb" of M ary without
viola ting h er virginity.
But if Jerome is at times obscure on this score, Augustine, Peter
Chrysologus, and Leo the Great are not. For Augustine, Mary is
virgin before and during wedloclc, virgin in her pregnancy, virgin
in giving to Christ of her milk. In taking birth of her He did not
steal virginity from her. 68 T ersely, "sbe conceives and i a viJ:gin'
63 Cf. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate adversus Helvidium, n. 18; PL, 23,
212-213 (ed. 1865).
6~ Jerome, De perpetua virginitate adversus Helvidium, n. 19; PL, 23, 213.
65 Cf. Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum, lib. I, n. 31; PL, 23, 265.
66 Jerome, Epist. 49 [48J, n. 21; C.S.E.L., 54, 386.
67 Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos, lib. 2, n. 4; PL, 23, 563. Cf. Comm. in
Isaiam, lib. 3, cap. 7; PL, 24, 110 (ed. 1865); Comm. in Ezechielem, lib. 13,
cap. 44; PL, 25, 449 (ed. 1865).
6 8 Augustine, Serm. 188, n. 4; PL, 38, 1004 (ed. 1865).
126 MARIOLOGY
she gives birth and is a virgin."oO Peter Chrysologus sees Mary's
integdty strengthened ilL hildbirth;70 it is the crown of her vir-
ginity;'~ Christ Comes forth in stich fashion that the virginal gate
does not swing open, and so Om Lady realizes in Bethlehem the
garden enclosed, the fountain sealed of the Canticle.72 Leo declares
that Mary's womb is a mother's womb, but the birth of Jesus is a
virgin birth; 73 it is the incorruption of Christ that kept intact the
integrity of Mary.7<l 1'hi is the tradition which will be ratified in
649 by the Lateran Council when it condemns anyone and every-
one who "does not confess, in harmony with the holy Fathers, that
... Mary ... gave birth without corruption."76
A third phase of l\1ary's virginity concems her life after Bethle-
hem. Did Mary have conjugal relations after the birth of Jesus? To
point tlp the problem: Did Mary have aIll children besides Jesus?
It is the age-old problem of "the brethren of the Lord."70 What rela-
tionship to Christ did early Christianity see in tl1ese "brothers and
sisters"? Were they perhaps children which Joseph had by Mary
after her "first-born" Son? Or were they offspring of Joseph by a
previous marriage? Or is the kinship a more distant clllng?
If the extan t evidence is typical, Western Christianity was slow
to face the problem. Here again it is Tertullian alone whose lan-
guage is unmistakable before Nic..<J.ea: and without nesitation Ter-
tullian regards the Mother of Jesus as mother of other children as
well. To begin with: "It was a virgin who gave birth to Christ
and sh e was to marry only once, after she brought Him forth (sem.el
nup·twra post part1Mn). 111c reason for this WaS that both types
of chastity might be exalted in the birth of Christ, born as He
was of a mother who was at once virginal and monogamous."H
69 Augustine, Serm. 189, n. 2; PL, 38, 1005; cf. Serm. 191, n. 3-4; PL,
38, 1010-101 I.
70 CE. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 142; PL, 52, 581.
71 CE. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 175; PL, 52, 658.
72 CE. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 145; PL, 52, 589.
73 Cf. Leo, Serm. 24, cap. I; PL, 54, 204.
7'IcCf. Leo Sernt. 22, cap. 2' PL, 54, 196. Cf. Epist. 28, cap. 2; PL, 54, 759;
Birth nom a vh:gin is included among the truths of faith universally l)clieved . "He
was conceived ot tllC Holy Sp~it within the womb of a virgin mother; just os she
conceived Hhn wi 'bout loss of virginity, so without loss of vttO'inity did he give
Him birt11." 0

75 Cf. Mansi, Vol. 10, lJ51.

76 Cf. Mt. 13:55-56; Mk. 6:3; In. 2:12; 7:3, 10; Acts 1:14; I Cor. 9:5;
Gal. 1:19.
77 Tertullian, De monogamia, cap. 8; PL, 2, 989 (ed. 1866); tr. W. Le Saint, in
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 127

After the birth of Jesus he can speak of her as virum passam, one
who has known a man, in explicit contrast to a virgin.78 And when
he deals with "the brethren of Jesus," he takes it for granted that
they are sons and daughters of the same mother as He. 79
And that is almost all the evidence we have before Nicaea. 80
It is a situation which calls, above all, for caution in deriving con-
clusions or fashioning reconstructions. 81 On the one hand, it will
not do to dismiss Tertullian with the cavalier thrust of Jerome:

Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 13 (Westminster, Md., 1951), p. 86. A virginal

marriage with Joseph would satisfy the words semel nuptura post partum, but
only in the abstract; in other passages Tertullian supposes that Mary's monogamy
was no t virginal.
78 Tertullian, De virginihus velandis, cap. 6; PL, 2, 946.
79 Cf. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, lib. 3, cap. II; C.S.B.L., 47, 393;
Adversus Marcionem, lib. 4, cap. 19; C.S.B.L., 47, 482-483; De carne Christi,
cap. 7; C.S.E.L., 70, 208-212.
BO HdVidius later claimed as a witness a,g airut the virginity post pllr/1U1'1~ l~ot m.erely
TertulliBn but also Victorinus, bishop of the modeIn Pettau in Styria ( t 304) .
Jerome conceded Terlullian, but argued that VictODnUS did no more than speale,
l:ile w,e Evangelists, of "the Lo.rd's brethren"; he did not say they were Mary's
children; cf~ Ad.versus 1-[clvidi'II.1'n, n . 17; PL, 23 :2.11. The pertinent texts of
Victorinus are lost. Around the same time, an unidenri6ed versifler Erom ilie region
of Autun hinted at the perpetual virginity in certain Laudes Domini; PL, 19, 383:
liNe tamen insignem res nulla ostenderet ortum,
Virgine concipieris: non sufficit esse pudicam,
Nec quae nupta queat Domino conjungere fratrem,
Ne procul ex utero contagio turpis abesset."
81 For example, Hugo Koch, op. cit., has reconstructed the evolution of the
doctrine of Mary's virginity from what h e collsiders the primitive and bjstorkally
accurate belief to its ultimate, definitive forms ill the fourth century. He eli,·
tinguishes four stages. To begin with, Jesus wils the eldest son of: many childten
born to Mary and Joseph. Subsequently, the iden o~ a virginal conception was
introduced; the brothers and sisters of Jesus were regarded as born oE the later
marriage of Mary and Joseph. Later still, the perpetual virginity of Mary being
admitted, the brethren of Jesus became the Eruits of a previous mamage of Joseph .
A final stage was reached in the West alone: Joseph became a "irgin in his
turn, and the brethren of the Lord became mere]), cousins. RO'm's unamb iguous
poin~ of departure is Tert~llian. In I:ejecting Marr'~ virginity in an~ after ~hpd­
beanng, he argues, Tertulhan cannot be in O)'poSlt1Dn to a pre-exlSUup, tmditJon
because he would be the last so to aot. He must. 1ulve drawn Ws opinion Erom a
good ecclesiastical SOUTce. This Sl'lmce elm only be Irenaeus, on w110m he depend,
Eor his Ch'ristol'l'Jgy lind Soterio!ogy, lllltl who is well suited to this Tole hy reas()]]
DE his Eve.-Mary analogy. TC!ltullian and Irenaeus cannot ha,ve found a tradjtion
favoring petpelllnl virginity in Justin, Theo-philus, or Melito, whose writiIlgS now
lost, they read. The primi 've tradition, therefore, ha d no Toom for 11erpetual virginity;
it Imew nothing of brethren impwpeIly so caned, or of cousins of Jesus, etc. For
tbjs summ!lry, and the wealmcss of individual links in Koch's chain, cf. J. Lebon, in
ReV1,r,e d'Mstoi-re eccUsfastique, Vol. 34, 1938, 341 ff.
 128 MARIOLOGY
"he was not a man of the Church."82 For, as Neubert has observed,
if the Catholic Tertullian had recognized the virginity of Mary
after Bethlehem as defined doctrine, the Montanist Tertullian
would hardly have rejected it. 83 On the other hand, Tertullian's
rejection is scarcely indicative of a traditional or official rejection.
We are not in a position to establish the source of his thesis, if any;
we do not know to what extent he is playing the polemist. It is
tempting to conjecture that Origen, who insisted between 226-229
that "no one whose mind on Mary is sound would claim that she
had any child save Jesus,"84 might well have found support for his
view when he went to Rome about 212 and met men of the
stature of Hippolytus. But conjecture is not evidence; the philo-
logical data at hand do not reveal that the Christian West at the
dawn of the fourth century was conscious of an obligation to
represent Mary as virgin save for the years before Bethlehem. 85
A new phase in Marian theology opens in the West with the
publication of Hilary of Poi tier's Commentary on Matthew before
his exile in 356. Hilary knows of more than one Cplures) adver-
sary who believes that Mary had marital relations with Joseph
after Jesus' birth; but these are "irreligious individuals, utterly di-
vorced from spiritual l:eaching." He himself is aware that, when-
, ever Scripture speaks of Mary and Joseph in the same breath,
Mary "is called 'Mother of Christ,' because that is what she was;
not 'wife of Joseph,' because she was not." He knows that there
are people who insist that Jesus had many blood brothers; but these
are "extremely wicked" men. The brethren of Jesus were children
of Joseph by a former marriage; were that not so, Jesus would not
have been compelled to entrust His Mother to John from the cross.86
Hilary's language is so strong that we are tempted to see in his
adversaries recognized heretics; but the conclusion is not apodictic.
At any rate, we find in Hilary, if not a convincing scriptural argu-
ment, a deep conviction with respect to the perpetual virginity of
Mary that is rooted in her dignity as Mother of the Saviour. 8T
82 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium, n. I?; PL, 23, 211.
83 E. Neubert, Marie dans l'eglise anteniceenne, p. 194. De virginihus velandis,
Adversus Marcionem, and De carne Christi stem from Tertullian's semi-Montanist
days; De monogamia is a product of the full-Hedged Montanist.
84 Commentarius in Ioannem, lib. I, cap. 4, n. 6; G.C.S., Origenes, Vol. 4, 8.
85 Cf. Jouassard, Marie a travers la patristique, pp. 83-84.
86 Cf. Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum, cap. I, n. 3-4; PL, 9, 921-922.
87 Cf. Jouassard, art. cit., p. IOJ.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 129

In the second half of the fourth century the fascinating un-

known,1!S Amhrosiaster, i<; likewise aware of the opinion that Mary
had other children besides Jesus. It is a thesis with which he has
little patience. The Lord's brethren - specifically, James, lithe Lord's
brother" - ate so caned because their father is Joseph, and Joseph
is called the father of Jesus. Those who claim that the brethren
are genuine brethren of Jesus by b irth from Mary ate out of their
minds and their affinnation is impious; they would logically have
to regard Joseph as Jesus' real fatber. 90 Zeno of Verona offers a
remarkable fonnula, apparently in the face of an adversary: "0
marvdou.s mystery! Mary conceived as virgin incolTupt; after con-
ception she gave bird) as a virgin; after childbirth she l'emained a
virgin. "00
Perhaps the most significant documents appear in the decade
between 383 and 392. The atmosphere, and the source of strife as
well, is the ascetical yearning of the age. It is tlle comecrated
virgin who has succeeded tlle martyr as the witness without peer
of the Cburch's holiness; and, undel'standably, the unequaled model
of virgins is the Virgin Mary.o1 A reaction is inevitable, and the
villnins of the piece are primarily Helvidius and Bonosus.
The approach of Helvidius was attractive. He did not make the
ta.ctical blunder of affirming that virginity is inferior to marriage;
be did not attack ilie Virgin Mary. He asserted that marria$e and
virginity are equal in honor, th,a t Mary is doubly admira ble faT
having been, in turn, virgin and mother of a family: virgin until
the birth of Jesus, then mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus
spoken of in Scripture. The impression in Roman drcles was pro-
found; even the elect among the ascetics were disturbed; and the
hierarchy did not intervene.
Jerome, lately come to Rome from Constantinople, reacted vigor-
88 The conclusion of C. Martini is that the author flourished at Rome during
the pontificate of Damasus ( 366-384) , though he apparently had some connection
with the Milanese Church and with Spain; cf. Ambrosiaster: De auctore, operibus,
theologia (Romae, 1944), p. 160.
89 Cf. Ambrosiaster, In epist. Pauli ad Galatas, cap. I; PL, 17, 364 (ed. 1866).
About the same time, Marius Victorinus does not combat the idea that James
was Jesus' blood brother, though the opportunity knocks quite loudly; cf. In epist.
Pauli ad Galatas, lib. I; PL, 8, 1155-1166.
90 Zeno, Tractatus, lib. 2, tr. 8, 2 ; PL, II , 414-415; cf. Tractatus, lib. I, tr. 5,
3; PL, II, 303.
91 For a brief insight into the ascetical movement of the time, and the influence
of Athanasius on Western asceticism, cf. Jouassard, art. cit., p. 103 ff.
 MARIOLOGY
ously. I-lis })<1mphlet, Adver '~sHelvidium (383), develops the
thesis that vrrgmlty is sLlperior to marriage; his palmary proof is
that Mary would never have dreamed of relations with any man,
no matter W h O.02 Tradition is summoned briefly to the stand:
Ignatius, Polycarp, henaells, Justin . But it is the scriptural diffi-
culties, since become classical, which form the burden of his
presentation: "before they came together" (Mt. I: 18); Joseph's
"wife" (I: 24); "he did not know her till she had brought forth"
(I :25); "first-born" (I :25). The Lord's brethren are children not
of Mary but of her sister. And there is a final touch: "You say
tba t Mary did not remain a vj-rgin. I claim. still more; I claim that
Joseph himself was a virgin for Marts sa}<e, so that fTom a vir.gin
wedlocl, a virgin son might be born.' oa
The argUlllenta tion is not consistently convincing, but it is
effective, linked as it is to a rare talent for the satirical. As
Jouassard has pointed out, it quicldy restored the fortunes of
asceticism in Roman circles and accredited the virginity after child-
birth to such an extent that ther is no evidence of its ever being
seriously contested there after that encounter. D4
More bluntly, Bonosus, Bishop of Naissus (the modern Nish in
Yugoslavia), submitted that Mary had had more than one child. 95
The most significant literary reaction stemmed from Ambrose, who
cried sacrilege.oo Not only does he deal with several Old Testa-
ment symbols of Mary's perpetual virginity (the "closed gate ' of
Ezechiel, the <'enclosed garden" and "sealed fountain" of the
a~~,t:icle);he explains the ew Testament texts addu ced by
Donosus (M t. : 18 ff.). 07 The breth ren of Jesus are not children
of Mary; they may have been Joseph's; in any event, the term
"brother" need not be interpreted strictly.98 It is the perfect, per-
92 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium; PL, 23, 193-216 (ed. 1865).
93 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium, n. 19; PL, 23, 213; cf. n. 17; PL, 23, 211: the
brethren are "fratres propinquitate, non natura."
94 Cf. Jouassard, art. cit., p. 107.
90 This happened Ilbou t 390. Ambrose intimates that Bonosus was not alone
in denying the pennanence of Mary's virginity; the reason for interrupting his
silence on this core is the presence of a bishop, Bonosus, in the enemy camp;
c£. De imtlPntiolle virgi1lis, cap. 5, n. 35; PL, 16, 328 (ed. 1866).
96 Cf. ibid.
97 Cf. De institutione virginis, cap. 5, n. 36 fF.; PL, 16, 329 fF.

98 Cf. De institutione virginis, cap. 6, n. 43; PL, 16, 331. Ambrose, too, argues
from the fact that Christ entrusted Mary to John on Calvary; cf. De institutione
virginis, cap. 7, nn. 46-48; PL, 16, 332-333.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 131

manent virginity of Mary that Ambrose time and again proposes

to virgins for their imitation. ao
The condemnation of Bonoslls by his fellow bishops of I1lyricum
\-vas approved in a celebrated letter whose auci10r may he Pope
Siricius but is mare proba bly Ambrose himself.~OQ 111e writer
assures Anysius, Bishop o.f Thessalon.ica, and through him the
bishops of I1lyricum: "Surely we cannot deny that YOllI Reverence
was perfectly justified in rebuking him [i.e. Bonosus] on the score
of Mary's children, and that YOll had good reason to be horrified at
the thought that another birth might issue from the ame virginal
womb from which Christ was born accorrung to the flesh. For the
Lord Jesus wQuld never have chosen to be born or a virgin if He had
ever judged that he woull be so incontinent as to contaminate witll
the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, that
court of the Eternal King. To assert such a view is to do nothing
less than to accept as a basis that Jewish falsehood which holds
that He could not have been born of a virgin. And once the weight
of episcopal authority is gained for the view that Mary gave issue
to many children, they will strive with even greater zeal to attack
the truth of faith."lOl
The condemnation of Bonosus and the tmqualified rejection of
his thesis by episcopal authority may well have influenced the Greek
world; in the West it Simply consolidaled ground alrea Iy won. As
the Fourth century draws to a close it is illnbrose and his thesis that
emerge triumphant; it is his De i1'loStipu,t101'Le tiirginis that is the
theological chef d/oeuvre of the time,"lon It is from this period that
UP f. De i1!:;Litntiol~e- vl'rgilli.s, cap. 5, u. 35; PL, 16, 328; cap. 16, n. 97 ff.; PL,
,6, 343 fr.; De virginihus, lib. 2, cap. 2, n. 7: ed. O. Faller, Florilegium patristicum,
Vol. 31 ( Ronnae, 1933), p. 47; ExllOrtatio virginitatis, cap. 5, n. 31; PL, 16, 360.
l~~De BOlloso; PL, 16, 122~-I224 (cd. 1866); also in PL, 13,1176-1178, as
SiTicius, Epi.'>t. 9, Ad A11ysium Th.essalo1l-i{)en~ell'l, aliosque IIlyl'ici episcopos. Cf. X.
Le Bachelet, B01'Iose, ip nT.C., Vol. 2, col. 1027 £E.; E. Amann, Sirice CSf.l~l'It),
ihill., Vol. 14, Part I, :1,173. The pertinent note in PL, 16 refuses to ehoose ('lam
among the authors suggested; the mouitum ill PL 13 nsccibes the letter to Siricil.ls.
Jouassard a.~signs it to Ambrose; cr. Le l'Tobldme de l&l sai1'ltete de. Marie chez Ies
1 eres tkpnis ~es origines de la, patris /;iq'l.le j1lSq~,~'au cO'lciLe cl'Epll1he, in Etu,les
MuTinIes, Bulletin de la Soci6t6 t-ran~e d'etudes maria] ,),. annee, I947, Saintete
i!P, .Menie (pmis 1948), p. 23, note 31. F. Homes Dudden believes th"t "the
~Ly !e And he matter indicate Ambrosinn authorship"; TIle Ufe and. Times of B-1.
Ambl'o "e ( O...fOl;d, 1935}, Vol. 2., p . 40.:1., note 4.
101 De Bonoso, n. 3; PL, 16, 1223-1224; 13, II 77.
102 Cf. Jouassard, Marie a travers la patristique, p. 113. For the dating of De
instit~~tione virginis, whether in 392 with Palanque, or 393 at the earliest, cf. ibid.,
note 52.
 MARIOLOGY
orthodOA'Y uncompromisingly involves belief- in Mary's perpetual
virginity, so much so that th manner of expression tal<.es on a
monotonous dogmatic ring. Augustine tells us over and over that
Our Lady "conceived as a virgin, she gave birth as a virgin, she
remained a virgin. 'loa Peter Chrysologus and Leo the Great cho th
phraseology of Augustine. lei In the light of this development the
definitive pronouncement of the Lateran Council (649) on Mary's
"indi<;soluble virginity" will 11ardly come unawares On the West. 106

III
A third problem in patristic Mariology is Mary'S Maternity.
Strangely enough, what was first lenied to Mary was not the pre·
rogative, Mother of God, but what her contemporaries never dreamed
or denying, that she was Mother of Jesus (cf. Mk. 6: J-3). The
early crisis was Docetic -the affirmation that the Saviour simply
did not have a genuinely h1.Ullan body, or at any rate, as TertulUan
sums it up, that ~'He was born th.rough a virgin, not of a virgin,
and in a womb, not of a womb,"~oo without being fashioned of h er
substance. But there was a complementary denial. Where the
Gnostics introduced a distinction between Jesus born of Mary an d
the hrist who descended into Jesus at baptism,m they denied inl-
plicitly that the Child of Mary was Goel.
The Ch ristian reaction in the first three centuries is expressive.
Not that Our Lady is categorically denominated Mother of God;
there is no indisputable evidence for the title before the fourth
century. lOB But, like Ignatius earlier in the East, Justin and Irenaeus
103 Augustine, Serm. 190, n. 2; PL, 38, 1008; cf. Serm. 196, n. I: "Virgo con-
cepit, miramini; virgo peperit, plus miramini; post paltum, virgo permansit"; PL,
38, 101 9.
104 Cf. Peter Ohrysologus, Serm. 98: "Virgo concipit, virgo parturit, virgo per-
manet"; PL, 52, 521 . Cf. Leo, Serm. 22, cap. 2: " ••• divina potestate subnixum est,
quod virgo conceperit. quod virgo pepererit, et virgo permanserit"; PL, 54, 195.
105 f. Mnn~, Vol. )0, 1 51.
lOS Tertullian. De carne Christ:i, cap. 20; C.S .EL., 70 2.38.
;lU1CE. Ircnnens, Aa17ers~1>S htleresfJS, lib. 3, cap. 17, I (Massuet, 3, 16. 2.);
Harvey, 2, 83; PG, 7, 921.
'108 On the antiquity of the title, cf_ V. Schweitzer, Alter des Titels OEOTOl<Of, in
Der KatlloHk, Vo l. 83 1903, pp. 97-103; Jouassard, Marie a travers ta 'l'al.rist:iqI4e,
p. 86. llOl,e 2. PerhBps the most imp.-e5sive modem advance in our knowledge aD
this point is the discovery or a parytus lenf preserving scra.ps of our S'lib iuum
'Pl'ae)'jdi . w~ in Greel, wid. the wO{e 9lilO'fOIrn clearly written; d . C. H . Robens,
eel. Catalogtle of the Greek and Latin Papyri in. t11e JOhl~ Rylcmds Library, Vol. 3
(Cambridge, 1939) , D. 470; F. Mcrcenier, L antierme mariala grecqlw It:! plus
Imcie'lme, in M-usco", VoL 52, 1939, pp. 229--233; id., La plus a'l'lciemle pri~re
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 133
and T ertullian have a two-edged answer for the Gnostic position.
On the one hand, they use expressions that equivalently affirm the
divine Maternity. On the other, they propound the twin premises
for their conclusion: (a) Jesus was genuinely born of Mary; and
(h) Jesu born of Mary is God.
Justin declares that the Word of od, who "is also God," the
same God who appeared to Moses and the otller prophets in the form
of fire and ilie guise of an angel, "became man by a virgin"; He was
actually' "bol;n" of her. lo9
What for Jus,tin is sheer doctrinal affirmation, is in Irenaeus a
thesis defended at lengtl1. uo The New Testament (Mt. 1:20-23)
reveals two things clearly: "that ilie Son of God was born of a
virgin, and that He is Himself the Saviour Christ, whom the
prophets proclaimed; Dot, as these men say, that Jesus is He who
was born of Mary, while Christ is He who descended from above."lll
In the Old Testament tl1.e Holy Spirit points out in the Isaian
prophecy (Isa. 7: 10 ff.) "I-fis birth, which is from a virgin, and His
essence, that He is God.JlU2 In his argumentation Irenaeus employs
several phrases strikingly indicative of the divine Maternity. Our
Lord "is the Word of the Father and the Son of Mall"; "Vl/oId that
He is, He took birth of Mary"; the glad tidings were brought to
Mary "that she should bear God."1l3 Apart from Scripture, the

a la sai,ltte Viergll, iu QUIl.~tions liturg'iqnes III pamissiales, Vol.

25, 1~40, pp. 33-36.
The conselVstjve d~ ting of Roberts, not before the second half of the fomth
centu.'ry, has been disputed by G. Vannucci, who prere,s the opiniou of Lobel
based on sheerly paleographic groW1ds, that the document is not Inter than the
third century; d. La ph\ antica preghiera aUa Maare di Dio, in MariMw"m, Vol.
3, 1941, pp. 97-101. More recently, Otto Stegmiiller has objected to Mercenier's
restoration and substituted llls OWll; paJeographic, litu-cgical, patristic, and apocryJ,lhol
data persuade StegmiiTIer that the prayer, so Significant in tlle story of 1arian
veneration and invocation, ought not be dated hefore the end of the fourth centL1.ry;
cE. S11b tl~t~m prtlesidilun: Bemerkunge,~ %'lIr liltesten ttberliefemng, in 'Zllitschrift
/iir katholisc1te Theologie, Vol. 74, 1952, pp. 76-82.
loa CE. Justin, Apologia 1, cap. 63i PG, 6, 425'; Apologia 2, cap. 6; PG, 6, 45'3.
Regrettably, Justin's work Adversus Marcion;etn, wT:rich lrenaeus used (cf. Ad'll.
haer., lib. 4, cap. IT, 2; Massuet, 4, 6, 2) and Eusebius mel!ltions (Hist. ecd., lib.
4, cap. 1 I, 8 If.), has been lost.
llO Cf. E. DubJanchy, Marie, in D.T.C., Vol. 9, Part '2., coL '2.35'0.
ill. Irenaeus, Adversus l~allTeses, lib. 3, cap. 17, I (Massuet, 3, 16, :z,); Harvey,
2, 83; PG, 7, 921.
112Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 25', '2. (Massuet, 3, 21, 4); Harvey, 2,
II6; PG, 7, 951.
113Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 20, 3 (Massuet, 3, 19, 3); Harvey,
2, 104; PG, 7, 941; lib. 3, cap. 30 (Massuet, 3, 21, 10); Harvey, 2, 120; PC,
7, 95'5'; lib. 5, cap. 19, I; Harvey, 2, 376; PG, 7, II 75'.
134 MARIOLOGY
proof of his predilection is drawn from the economy of Redemption .
If man was to be saved, God had to become man, had to derive His
human nature from the nature that h ad fallen. If His birth from
l'v1ary is urueal, our redemption i~ equally unreal. w
Tertullian, too, has Gnostics in view; he makes the same J)ointl:
as hen aeus; and his belief with respect to Mary's motherhoo does
not chmlge with 11is checkered ca:reer. In his Catholic days he has
no doubt that the Son of God became flesh in Mary's womb; in
His birth we find one who is "man and God l.Ulited."l.'15 In fad,
Hi being enfleshed in her womb and His birth of her is a truth
which the rule of fai th obliges llS to believe. uo The palpable model
ot: divine patience is God's Son, who endured to be born in a
mother's womb. ll7 Dallying with Montanism does not prevent Ter-
tullian from propounding an authentic Incarnation, e.g., in his works
0'11 the Fles1?- of Christ and Against Marcian. The novelty of Christ's
birth does not lie in this (as the Gnostics claim), "that as the Word
of God bec'~me flesh without a human father's seed, so there should
be no flesh of the Virgin Mother"; i rests in this, "that His flesh,
though not born of seed, still proceeded from Resh."UB If Mary is
not His Mother, then Scripture lies; if she is His Mother, He was
in her womb. But "no flesh can speak of a mother's womb save that
which is itself the offspring of that womb .. . ."p~
[t has not been established incontrovertibly that HippolyhlS, the
first antipo] e, who died a martyr in 235, actually called Mary
"lVlotber of Goa";l2U what is indisputable is that, £0'( Hippolytus,
Mary was literally pregnant with the Word of GJd , with God's
114 C f. he~ aeus, Adversu s haereses, lib. 3, cap. 31, 1 ( M assuet, 3, 22, 1) ; H arvey,
2, 121; PC, 7, 956.
115 T e1tullian, A pologeticum, cap. 21 , n. 13-14; C.S.E.L., 69, 55-56.
116 Cf. Tertullian, De prlt6scriptione haereticorum, cap. 13; C.S .E.L., 70 , 17-18.
11 7 Cf. Tertullian, De patientiCl, cap. 3; C.S.E.L., 47, 3.
118 T erfullian, D e carne Christi, cap. 21 ; C .S.E.L., 70, 241-242.
119 T e1tullian, De carne Christi, cap. 21 ; C.S .E.L., 70, 243.
no The ct1.1o.ial passage occurs in De be·n eiUctionibus Iacob, cap. I; " . . . Joseph
betroths Mary to Iiimself and lJeCollieS II trustworthy witness to the 10ther of God
(1IeoroKou),,; Te,~te 1~1'ld Utttersuclmngen, Vol. 38, Patt 1 (Leipzig 1911), p. 13.
U !lfo.tI.ll13tely there is nothing in the Georgian translation to correspond ro iti
only the G,eek ha~ it; cf. Texte 1,f,!l(l U'nterS1!chnngen, VoL 2.6, Part ;r ( L ipzig..
1904 ) , p . 3. Hugo Rah/Jet has made a laudable effort to accredIt the Greek text,
(lnd concludes thut Hippolyrus, about 220, attests Lhe title, Melli'r of God; f.
11 ip-poly/, 'I/()I> Hom al.s Zwge fii.T det~ A1.1Scll'uc1~ 6eoro«os, in Zeitscl~T'ift fur hat/wlische
TIr('oZogie, Vol. 59, 1935, pp. 73-81. Jouassard is n()t convinced; cE. Marie (I
travers It!, 'Putri,~ti<Jlte, p. 86, not.e 2..
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 135
Sbn;J.R1 Another Roman. priest, Nova tian, who occupied a leading
position among the c1ergy of Rome about 250 and later fell into
schism, is subordinationist in his Logos docb.-ine, but emphatic on
two points: Chlist is born of Mary, and Christ is God and Man. 122
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage Ct 258), in the second book of his
Testimo'l'l.ies, written pe.rhaps before 249 and "containing the mys-
tery of Christ," includes the truth "that a sign of His birth woUld
be this, that of a virgin He would be born man and God, Son of
man and of God." His scriptural texts are Isa. 7: 10 ff. and Gen.
3: 14- 1 5. 123
With the fourth century the title "Mother of God" is quite coro-
mon and its theological basis comes into view Tather clearly. True,
the development is more dramatic in the East - £rom the moment
Cc. 319) when Bishop Alexander of Alexandda, in announcing to
his colleagues the deposition ofAxius, made the first indisputable ·use
of Tlu~ot6Jws,12~ through Julian the Apostate's querulous Cfu'1Ige
against the Christians, ''You never stop calling Mary Mother of
God,"125 to the celebrated anathema of Cyril and Ephesus: "If any-
31 Cf. De benedictiu'11.ih.s Jacob, cap . 27' Texte mrd Unterm.cMt.IIgel"l, Vol. 38;
Part I, p ' 41; De anpichristo, cap. 4;; G.C.S., Hippolytus, Vol. I, Pm;t 2, i8.
Cot,l,ra Noel>Um, cap. 4; PG, 10, 809. The last Christian. author at Rome to express
himse1f in Greek, Hippolyrus may well have been a disciple of Irenaeus; at anl.
:rate, his Soteriology is henaean, :revolving pbom the I;oncept of ree:aphu]atioll; c '.
Ph.i.1.osophumena., lib. IO, cap. 33, I;. G.C.S., Hi.ppolytns, Vol. 3, 291. His under-
standing of Mary's Maternity is unmistakable: "Let us therefote believe, brethren
IJlessed, according to the tnlditiOll of the apostles, that God the Word came down
hom heaven into the haly Virgin Mary, with this in mind, that enfIeshed at her,
assuming a human ( I mean rali-onal) soul, become all that man. i, sn.ve Em;· sin,
He might, save fallen ~ and offer i.mmortality to those who. believ~ in His naJ~c ..
. . . As It was proclrumed, so was It done: He showed Himself lU 'person of a
virgin and the Holy Spirit, become a new man ... ,oat by phanhl.SY or altemtion ...
but man in all reality." Ccmtra Noetmn, cap. 17; PG, 10, 82;~82B; d. Contra
No€t'lt1l'l>, cap. 1;; .PC, ~o, 824-825.
:1.22 Cf. Novatian, De Trinitat:e, cap. 9 IF.; PL, 3 927lF. The e}.-pressions he
uses in this second section (cap. 9-"7.9) to show the unity of the ty.'o n(ltU!e~ in
Cluist are significant for the divine Maternity and were of Ullllsual influence on
Lntin theb)ogyj cE. J. Rahner, Die Mal'ie'1'lbm,de in Cle.r l(IteinlschIl1~ l'atristik,
p. J44·
'oR ·t,est;j.17~on:ja, lib. 2, cap. 9; C.S.E.L., 3, 73; cf. Ad
yprian, Ad Q ·!l.il"inu1n
prad.; C .S .B.L., 3, 3;. For the date, cf. J. Quasten, Patrology,
Qu.iri'l'll~m t.esti·f/lonia,
Vol. 2 (Westminster, Md., 1953), p. 363'
12'1 CE. Alexander of Alexf)ndria, E1?I~t. ad Alexandrum CO'11.stant., n. 12; PG,
18, 568. The offhand use of the term, with no apparent need to justify it, arouses
the suspicion that Alexander is inspired by an established custom; cf. Dublanchy,
art. cit., col. 235 I.
125 Quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Iulianum, lib. 8; PG, 76, 901,
 MARIOLOGY
prostitute. 137 The reaction of the Christian West would make fasci-
nating reading, but it is nowhere in evidence. It is not unreasonable,
however, to conjectlre that Christiam who reco&l'11ized in Mary the
countel,]?al't of Eve, whose rule of faith involved the virginity of
Mary b fore Gabriel, must have reacted as strongly if not as
mordantly, as Tertullian was to do somewhat later.1~8 This much
will stand the test of criticism: for the orthodox Christian, Mary
was not a woman of evH reputation .
Second, the Eve-Mary analogy is relevant here. Our Lady's con-
sent to the redemptive program implicit in the Incarnation was
recognized by Irenaeus as constitu ting an act not simply of singular
significance but even of exceptional moral value; it was an act of
obedience. ~30 Hegrettably, Irenaeus' insight into the Second Eve is
not par.alleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the
state of her soul prior to her fiat. Did the ante-Nicene Fathers glimpse
a further consequence fTom the analogy, an indication of Mary's
sanctity? Le Bachelet, for one, surrenders such investigation: 'Who
could possibly give a certain answer, one way OJ; the oilier?"l'lO
Third, the adjective "holy" is prefixed to "Virgin." Not often;
still, it is used. Hippol ytus, for example, states, without explanation,
that "God the W ord descended into the holy Virgin Mary."Ul T he
difficulty is, such a usage is ill-defined. The wor.d sanctus or ayw<;
has not always been able to boast of a clearly delimited meaning in
ecclesiastical use. 142 Does H iPl?olytlls use aytp<; as a rather vague lauda-
tory epithet, or as a title of dionity, or to imply moral excell.ence, or to
signify the respect reserved Eor one who is segregated from profane
137 cr. Tertullian, De speclaculi.s, cap. 30; C.S .E.L., 20, 29. The same story
was peddled in the East by Celc;us; d. Origen, Contra Celsum, lib. I, cap. 28 If.;
G.C.s., Origenes, Vol. I , 79 II.
139 Cf. Tertullian, De s'l'ectac1.I.1is, cap. 30. Tertullian's reaction was prompted not
00 much by the insult to the M other as by the assault on her Son.
189 Cf. lJ;enaeus, Adllerms naereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, I (Massuet, 3, 22, 4);
Harvey, 2, 123-124; PG, 7, 958-959.
140 X. Le Bacilfllet, Immacultie cO'llception, in D.T.C., Vol. 27, col. 874; he grants,
however, that the principles of solution are there. For Le Bachelet's treatment of
the Western Fathers cE. col. 872-893, 979-983 . It is IUfled that, in J11Stin'S
descrip~ion of Eve as "virgin in~orrupt," there is. ql~estion 0 ~vc exempt from aU
corruptIOn, and so the parallelIsm demands a SimIlar exempbon for Ma:ry. T he
argumentation is not convincing. The seeds of future development with resp cl to
Mary'S sanctity are contained in the patristic Eve-Mary analogy; but they aTe
seeds and not the full Hower.
141 Hippolytus, Contra Noetu1n, cap. '7; PG, 10, 825.
142 Cf. H. Delehaye, Sanctus, in Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 28, '909, pp.
145-200.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 139
things and belongs to God by some sort of consecration? The answer
must, in the state of the evidence, be a confession of ignorance.
Fourth, there is testimony which attaches more intimately to
Mary's holiness. If we 'can trust a fragment on Ps. 22 attributed to
I-IippolytLls, the Roman exegete wrote: "The ark which was made
of incorruptible timber (d. Exod. I5:IO) was the Saviour. The ark
symbolized the tabernacle of Hs body, which was impervious to
decay and engendered no sinful corruption .. . . TIle Lord was
sinless, because in lis humanity He was fashioned out of incor-
ruptible wood, that is to say, out of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit,
lined 'within and without as with the purest gold of the Word of
God."l>J9 The author's direct purpose is t6 Ieveal the sinlessness of
Christ; but his reasoning shows that in his eyes the Virgin, incor-
ruptible wood of which the humanity of Jesus was fash ioned, is
likewise a11~pUIe, all-holy. The meaning is substantially clear; what
fails to C,!Ilerge is the precise nature of her purity, her inconLlptibility.
The extant evidence, therefore, if meager, indicates sufficiently
that for some of the ante-Nicene writers in the West the idea of
holiness and purity did attach to the person of Mary. It does not
justify us in concluding with certainty to the nature of this holiness,
or in picturing them as carriers of an historical tradition, or in
attributing to them a formal belief in an Immaculate Conception.
It is in this era that we confront a current of thought unfavorable
to a thesis of Marian sinlessness. In its general form it is the prin-
ciple that Christ alone is without sin, and it is unmistakably formu-
lated by Tertullian. "Thus, some men are good, others, bad, yet
their souls all belong to the same class. There is some good in the
worst of us, and the best of us harbor some evil within us. God
alone is without sin, and the only sinless man is Christ, since He
is God."144 In this general form there is no inescapable implicit
which would rule out an utterly sinless existence for Mary. There
is a sinlessness which is the fruit of nature; such sinlessness has
always been, in orthodox Christian thinking, the exclusive preroga-
tive of God. And there is a sinlessness which is the fruit of grace;
it is theoretically compatible with human living. Did T ertullian
deny such God-given sinlessness in the concrete order of things?
143 Hippolytus, In ps. 22; quoted by Theodoret, Dialogus I; PC, 10, 610,
86 4-86 5.
144 Tertullian, De anima, cap. 41, n. 3; ed. J. Waszink (Amsterdam, 1947), p.
57; tr. E. A. Quain, in Fathers of the Church, Vol. 10 (New York, 1950), p. 273.
 MARIOLOGY
One phrase suggests it strongly: "the best of us harbor some evil
within us."
However that may be, the stumbling block looms larger when
specific defects are mentioned. If we credit Tertullian, Christ pub-
licly denounced His Mother for her disbelief when He asked:
"Who is my mother and who are my brethren?"l45 According to the
Carthaginian, Mary apparently kept aloof from Jesus while Martha
and others were in constant contact with Him. In standing outside
she was guilty of disbelief (incredulit.as); in calling Him away
from His work she was importunate. Anel if we believe Irenaeus,
whose Marian theology is otherwise so reverential, Jtl!:>ll check d
Mary's "untimely haste" at Cana, her yeaming to quicken the
miracle of the water made wine. l46
The objection from Irenaeus is scarccly momentous. The Bishop
of Lyons finds Mary's request inopportune, untimely; he does not
hint that it was sinful. Tertullian, on the contrary, is harsh and
unambiguous. And if his ar maLion is xpli able in th light oP his
fiery polemic, so heedless of consequences it remains non etheless a
candid accusation. Though b e was llirting with Montanism at the
moment, he still gives no indication that he is aware of a contrary
b lief or official teaching. ltl7 If it is unjustifiable to conclude that
Tertullian is representative of a widespread tradition, it Iemains hue
that in Africa. at the outset of the third cen tury moral deficiencies
were apparently not regarded as incompatible with the dignity of
God's Mother. us
A significan t turning point in the Mariological consciousness of
the Vilest does not occur until 377, with the publication of Ambrose's
tlll;ee books On Vi1'ginity, addressed to his sister, ~arcellina . 111e
inspiration for his portrait of Mary is not purely local, the cantem-
11i'i CF. Tertullian, De carne Christi, cap. 7; C.s.E.L, 70 , 2 10-21:1.. In the same
chapter Tertullian adds anotller, interpretation: "In the mother abjured there is
a figure of the Synagogue, Rne! in the disbelieving breth.ren a l1gme of the Jews."
Cf. also Jesus' alleged indignation and His di.savownl of mother Rnd brethren in
Adversus Ma,.cionem lib. 4. car· 19; C.S.B.L., 47, 483.
146 Cf. Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 17, 7 CMassuet, 3, 16, 7);
Hilivey, 2, 88; PC, 7, 926.
H7 The problem becomes Inore acute when we reBeel that in the East R score
of yeats Inter Origen could preach to the people of ClleS8rca that the sword of
sorrow is l,VIary's experience of scandal at the "Passion o~ her Son, 11 sword of
unbelief, of uncertainty. Even more startling is his theological reasoning: "If she
clid not cxpetience scandnl at the Lord's passion Jesus clid not die for h er sins."
Ttl Ltlc. hom. 17; G.C.S., Origenes, Vol. 9, 1 16-118.
14S Cf. Jouassard, Le prohleme de la saintete, p. 18.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 141

porary aristocratic virgin vowed to Christian asceticism; it is more

specifically Eastern, a work of Athanasius on virginity.149
The influence of Athanasius was fortunate, if only because the
ideas of the fourth-century West on Mary's sanctity were so slender.
In Gaul, for example, Hilary of Poi tiers can somehow reconcile a
profound reverence for Mary's virginity with a tortuous passage in
which she seems destined to undergo the scrutiny of God's judg-
ment. 1SO He insists, too, that Our Lord alone is sinless, and this in
virtue of His exceptional birth.l5l In Rome, Marius Victorinus ex-
tends specifically to Mary the imperfection which he attributes to
the very idea of woman, while Arnbrosiaster understands Simeon's
sword of sorrow as Mary's doubting at the death of the Lord-
a doubt removed only by the Resurrection. 152 In Africa, Bishop
Optatus of Mileve ( t before 400) sees the flesh of Christ alone as
sinless, because of His unique conception; only Christ) perfectly
holy the rest of us are "half perfect"; every man, even if o£ Christian
parents, is born with an tmclean spirit. 163 Near Granada in pain
Bishop Gregory of Elvira seems to number Mary among the an-
cestors who would have transmitted to the Redeemer a body soiled
and open to sin. 164
And yet, the climate of thought and feeling promised the ideas
of Ambrose an enthusiastic welcome, especially in his own North
Italy, where the influence of asceticism and the personal sojourn
1-19 It is reasonably certain that we have this important prodl\otion in a Coptic
translation discovered and edited by L. Th. Lefort, S. Ath"'I'Iase: S1,<r la vi1"g",~it,~, ill
M1,jSe01t, Vol. 41.., 1929, pp. 197-275. For the influ ence of this work on Ambrose,
c,f. Lefort, A t t. Gmase, Ambroise et Chenoute "S1lr la 1Jirginjte," in M.meol~, Vol.
4 8 , 1935, pp. 55-'73·
1r.O C£. Hilary, Tractatus lj~ ps. lI8 , Gimel, n. 12; C.S.E.L., 22, 384. Jou"assard
believes there may be qu e~tion here of faults th at are slight· cf. Marie a travers la
1111Jristiq-ue, p. )02, note 6. The note in PL, 9, 523, recall the marginal jotting of
Erasmus: "Aliud sellmm,t, qu i liberant earn a peccato originis."
lGl Cf. Hilary, 07" cit., Vau, n . 6; C.S.E.L., 2.2., 414; ib'ld., Nun, n. 8; C.S.E.L.,
2.2., 478; D e TTi1~it.ate, lib. fo cap, 25; PL, 10, 364-366. There is no insuperable
problem in, Hilary's belief that Mary wus sanctified at the hour of the Annunciation,
and that the Holy Spirit strengthened her (apparently bodily) weakness; cf. De
Trinitate, lib. 2., cap. 2.6; PL, 10, 67-68.
152 Cf. Marius Victorim ls, l'l~ epist. Pa~,.zi ad Galatas, lib. 2; PL, 8, 1176-1 I77;
Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, cap. 76, n. 2; C.S.B.L.,
50, 13I.
153 CE. Optatus, CO'I'Lt1'a Par-J'nenianwm Donatistam, lib. I, cap. 8; C.S.B.L., 26,
9-1.0' ibid.., lib. 4, cap . 7; C.S.E.L., 26, ,t2; Optatus, lib. 2, cap. 20; C.S.B.L.,
2.6, 5S-56; ib,ia., lib. 4. cap. 6; C.SE.L., 26, 110.
1 5« E. Gregory of ElVira Hom. in Cant. cantic01"um; text established by D.
Wihnart, ill B-ulleti'l£ de litt~/'at'ul'e ecc!esiast'ique, Vol. 7, 1906, pp. 252-254.
 MARIOLOGY
of Athanasius had paved the way. Thus, Zeno of Verona implies
that Mary, like the virgins he is addressing, was "holy in body and
spirit," and claims that she had "deserved" to cal;ry the Saviottr of
SOuJS.l ~1f Hl.lt the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something
novel in Latin litcnl.ture. MAry W<l~ viTgin not in body alone, but
in mind as well. She is the unattainable model of all virtues; she
has lived them to perfection. Not the slightest shadow mars his
portrait of her, no smallest imperfection. 156 It is a vision of Mary
which will inspire Ambrose all his days and lead him to still further
insights. A decade later he can attribute to Mary a fullness of grace
whose foundation is the divine Maternity: "For Mary alone was
this greeting [full of grace] reserved; for she is well said to be
alone full of grace, who alone obtained the grace which no one else
had gained, to be filled with the Author of grace."157 It may be
that Ambrose is simply equating "full of grace" and "Mother of
God"; the construction bears that exegesis. But about the same time,
in a sermon on Ps. I 18, he speaks of Mary as "a virgin free by
grace from all stain of sin."158 It is a text frequently invoked by
defenders of the Immaculate Conception, who feel that to under-
stand the phrase of actual or personal sins alone is to restrict arbi-
trarily the indefinite, unlimited assertion. 159 On the other hand,
Ambrose does not seem aware of the implications in his phrase. In
any event, the germ of future development is indisputably there,
especially since, to his way of thinking, if you are to appreciate
what Mary is, you must reckon with what is fitting in such a
mother. 160
At, the beginning of the fifth century the Spanish poet, Pruden-
155 Zeno, Tractatus, lib. I, tr. 5, 3; lib. 2, tr. 8, 2; PL, II, 303, 414. In lib. I,
tr. 13, 10 Zeno seems to see in Mary moral faults which had to be cut away
before the Incarnation, or simultaneously with it; PL, I I, 352.
156 Cf. Ambrose, De virginihus, lib. 2, cap. 2, n. 6-18; ed. Faller, pp. 47-52.
For a picture of fourth-century ascetical life and virginity, and Ambrose's place
therein, cf. F. Homes Dudden, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 144-159.
157 Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 3, n. 9; C.S.E.L., 32, Part
4, 45-4 6 .
158 Ambrose, Expositio in ps. IIB, Serm. 22, n. 30; PL, 15, 1599 (ed. 1866).
159 Cf. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 882.
160 Cf. Ambrose, Epist. 63, n. IIO; PL, 16, 1270-1271. Jerome is rather vague
on Mary's holiness. Mary is E1-echiel'5 gate to the East, 3 figure of her perpetual
virginity; this gate is "always closed and full of light"; Epist. 4.9, n. 21; C:S.E.L.,
54, 386• The idea is taken up and accentuated elsewhe1:e: Mary i.~ a cloud that is
never in darkness but "always in the light"; Ham. irn l'salmos; ed. G. Morin,
Anecdota Maredsolana, Vol. 3, 65.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 143
tius (f after 405), alluding to Mary's role as New Eve, represents
the serpent trampled beneath the feet of Our Lady, who has merited
to become Mother of God and consequently has remained immune
to all poison. 1Ol Once again, the text, as it stands, is !>Llsceptible of
an interpretation excluding from Mary all possibility of sin from
the initial moment of her existence. Once again, the sole lingering
doubt is whether Prudentius had so comprehensive, so all-inclusive
a concept of sin.
It is actually "vith Augustine and the Pelagians that the issues
involved take on some measure of clarity. H ere there are two Sig-
nificant moments. In the first (415) Augustine confronts Pelagius
on the issue of Mary s personal holiness, ner
fTeedom from actual
sin' hl the second (c. 428) he confronts Julian of Eclanul11 on the
score of her conception, her freedom from original sin.
Pelagius was not content to deny original sin; he ascribed to
Adam's progeny the power to observe the whole moral la w On their
own, a native ability to live lives of justice. To bolster his beliefJ
he cited a number of individuals - Ine11 and women, Old Law and
New -who actually realized this program of sinlessness. TIle nameS
range I-rom Abel through Abraham to Joseph and John, from Deb-
bora to Elizabeth, "and in fact the Mother of our Lord and Saviour
too, whom piety must needs confess free from sin." Ambrose had
found no imperfection in Mary; Pelagius asserted on principle that
none could be found.
Aug'Llstine's response is a two-edged denial. Only M ary is free
from sin, an.d her sin1essness is a triumph not of nature but of grace;
its foundation is the divine Maternity. 'Withthe exception, there-
fore, of the holy Virgin Mary, in whose case, out of respect for th e
Lord, I would have no qu estion raised when there is talk of sin-
for how do we know what further grace was conferred on h er for
absolute victory over sin. she who leserved to conceive and bear
Him who obViously had no sin? -with the exception, then, of this
Virgin, could we but gatber together in their lifetime all those
saints, men and women, and ask them whether they were free from
sin, what in our opinion would have been their answer? . . . No
matter how remarkable their holiness in this body . . . they would
have cried out with one voice: 'If we should say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' (I In. 1:8)."162
161 Cf. Prudentius, Liber cathemerinon, 3, lines 146-155; C.S.B.L., 61, 18.
162 Augustine, De natura et gratia, cap. 36, n. 42; C.S.E.L., 60, 263-264.
144 MARIOLOGY
It might be argued that Augustine simply prefers not to discuss the
case of Mary. It is far more probable that his question is not really
a question at all, that it conveys h is own conviction of the incom-
patibility of actual sin with divine moth rhood, that consequently
it constitutes a landmark in the development of the Western
Church's consciousness of Mary's sinlessness. 168
Julian of Eclanum, a deposed bishop, lifted the discussion to the
level of original sin. In his view, every man is born sinless; a
unique proof of his position, he feels, is Mary. To attack the
doctrine of original sin in its implications, he establishes a parallel
between his enemy Augustine and the heresiarch Jovinian, to the
advantage of the latter : "ille virginitatem Mariae partus conditione
clissolvit; tu ipsam M ariam diabolo nascendi conditione tran-
scribis."164 Jovinian, says Julian, sacrificed Mary's virginity by sub-
mitting her to the usual circumstances of human childbearing;
Augustine surrenders the very person of Mary to the devil by
asserting that original sin is inseparable from human generation.
Augustine's retort ranks among the most passionately disputed
sentences in Christian literature: "Non transcribimus diabolo Ma-
riam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia
renascendi."165 The disagreements in detail among interpreters of
this sentence are too many to be retailed here, but basically scholars
divide into two camps. Both agree on one point : Augustine denies
that his doctrine of original sin surrenders Mary to tlle devil by
the circumstances of her birth. But, for one group, n o surrender
is involved because the grace of regeneration subsequently ann uls
this condition by making it disappear. Conditio nascendi is synony-
mous with birth in original sin. Gratia renascendi necessarily in-
volves a transition from sin to justification :5ubsequ en t to birth, a
sphitual rebirth unintelligible without a prior spiritual death. And
Augustine's doctrine on the universality of original sin and on the
method of its propagation precludes any exception in Mary's case.
163 Some theologians argue that the text indirectly or implicitly excludes original
sin as well. In the context, they admit, Augustine is speaking of actual sin; but
he asserts without reservation that she is free from all sin. The honor of Christ, on
which his conclusion is based, is no less incompatible with the hypothesis of
origin:nl sin thnn with the affirmation of actual sin; d. Le Bachelet, art. cit.,
col. 883.
i h Augustine, 0 P'/,j,s ff)l.perieC/lw'n. C01lLra It.l.im1.um, lib. 4, cap. 122; PL, 45',
14 17. Augustine quotes this objection from the fo urth book of Julian's Ad Flamm,
written 3bout 4.2 1, bu t 110 longer extant a~ ~uch.
105 A\lgustine, OptlS i ml,erfectmn contra Itlliant~m, lib. 4, cap. 122; PL, 45, 1418.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 145
111is interpretation, unfavorable to an immaculate conception, was
the accepted exegesis of Augustine for centuries; right or wrong,
it e."<ercised a vigorous influence On the W est; even after Ine ffa-
bilis Deus it remains an exegesis championed by scholars of
distinction .:1OG
The opposing school denies that this interpretation is apoc1ictic.
For them, nO sun-ender to the devil is involved because the grace
of regeneration simply annuls the condition of birth (original sin)
by preventing its realization in Mary. Conclitio nascen&li is not so
much a fact as a law. Gratia renascendi does not necessarily involve,
of itself or in Augustine, the removal of sin already contracted.
Augustine's doctrine on original sin and the manner of its ·trans-
mission is not an insuperable obstacle to a privilege in favor of God's
Mother, because Mary'S immunity from original sin is not to be
regarded as of native right; it is sheer gjft. In the other hypothesiS,
Augustine would actuaUy have enslaved, surrendered Our Lady to
the devil, despite his protestation to the contrary."l.01
Whatever the truth of the matter, Latin speculation on Mary's
holiness d,erived a twofold orientation from Augustine. With respect
to actual sins, the West would thereafter have little difficulty recog-
lOG Cf. Ph. Friedrich. Die Mn.riologie des hI. A1tgtlstinus, pp . 183-233; L. Saltet.
Sain~ Augustin et l'lmm.aC'l,Iee,Conceptio1l, in B1~lkti-lt de litterat1tre eccl€si(lstiq1lB.
Vol. II. 1910, pp. 161-166; 13. Capelle, La pen see de sain.t Al'g'l-lstin sur l'ImmacuIee
Co1'£,O'ep#o1'£, in Recherches de th,eologie (lncienne e:t. meclie17ale, Vol. 4. 1932, Pl"
361-370; J. Gotz, A1'gus~i1'£ una. die Im1lln014lat-a Conceptio, in Theol.ogie ulUl
Glaube, Vol. 2.5, 1933, Pl" 739-744; A. DU£()UICq. Comment: s'eveilIlI la foj a
1 '[1"'lIIacuUe-Co1)cep~lon et a l'Assomp,tion /'lUX v. et VI6 siecles (paris, 1946),
pp. 12-15; Jouassard, Le 11T'obze.,ne rIe 14 saintetc. 1" 2.5; B. Altaner, Patrologi.e,
3 cd. (Freiburg, 1951). p. 389.
161 Cf. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 884--885. 889-890. A morc detailed defense
oOP this interpretation is offercd by P. S. Mueller. Al~g~lstinl,l.s a'micltS all aallBI'Sari'u5
l1lJ",actilatae COllceptionis7 ~ Misaencmen Agosti1tia.lla (~omQe. 1931! Vol. 2..
pp. 885-9 1 4. Charles HoyeB answer to Capelle lS typlcal and pOInted: (a)
Mary's flesh-of-sin demands only that she have an obligation of 'being conceived
with sin lUlless God's grace intervenes; (b) the excepta ita-que Marin t CJ..'t is
directly concerned with actual sin, but the affinnation is so genc(al and the
reason given so flUldamentaJ that they outstrip the limited pro'blem envisaged;
(0) th.e transcl'ihim.ns text involves Augustine unjustifiably ill conttaclictioll unless
grntia retulscBtlai signjlies n, preservative grace, only conceptually posterior to Mary's
conception; cf. B1.Inetit~ IIlJglls/;'i11,iel'l, ill Gl'eg odaJVUm. Vol. r4. 1933, pp. 93- 96.
Of some Televance i~ n semlOn delivered by Augw;tine in 413 on the l)irrh o£
the 13. aptist. He refuses to except Jolm f(om, Lhe un:iversnHty proclaimed in Rom.
5: 12. ft .• but it is his reasoning tbat is sigllHicant : "l:nven:ist:i plane praeter peccalum
l1atum, quem invenis praeter Adam Ili;ltum. . . . Nam ille qui voluit ob ea
[sen tential e.~se separatus, per virginem est venire dignatus"; Serm. 22.3, n. I _2;
PL, 38, 1335.
 MARIOLOGY
nizing in Marya perfection unblemished. On the score of her debt
to Adam, it was to be centuries before the West could free itself
from the myopia induced by anti-Pelagian concentration and by its
interpretation of five individually intelligible words: ipsa conditio
solvitur gratia renascendi.
Post-Augustinian patristic tllol'lght OD the perfection of Mary
reveals two conflicting currents. T here is a negative un favorable
trend rooted in Augustine's anti-P lagianiSIn; it a entuate the uni-
versality of original sin and articulates the connection between
inherited sin and any conception consequent upon sinful
concupiscence. The root idea is summed up by Leo the Great:
"Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born
innocent, because alone conceived without the pollution of carnal con-
cu-piscence."l68 The same concept: is discoverable in St. Fulgentius,
Bishop of TIuspe in Africa Ct 533 ), the most Significant theologian
of his time; in Pope Gregory the Great Ct 604) at the end of the
sixth century; and a century later in Venerable Bede, a scholar
renowned through out England. 1 G9 At best, this manner of speaking
is ambiguous; it opened the door to the grave controversies to come;
and it was not of a nature to foster the development of belief in the
Immaclllate Conception .
Con cLtrren tly, however, there is a positive, more favorable cur-
rent of thought. It is no t simply that Mary is still the Second Eve,
in strument of oUT salvat; on,UO or that the merits she acquires lift
her above the angels, to divinity's throne.l7l More pointedly, Peter
Chrysologus declares that Our Lady was pledged to Clu:ist in the
womb at the moment of her fashioning, while Maximus of min,
contemporary of Leo I, finds Mary a suitable lodging for Ch rist,
apparently not so much because of her physical virgiruty as in
virtue of some primal grace which he does n ot specif-y:172 T he poets,
1()6Leo, Ser'II'. 25, cap. 5; PL, 54, 2.1 ,.
100 ct ··ulgentius De veritate praede$t;;.l1.ationi$ et gratiae Dei, lib. 2. , cap. 2,
n. 5; PL, 65, 605; Gtegory, M oralill in lob, lib. lS, cap. 52, n. 84; PL, 76, 89;
Bede, H om. gen., lib. I, hom. 2, In feS"to (mnumio:t.ioms; PL, 94, 13. It is a concept
which leads LO the thesis that Mary's flesh is R flesh-of-sin, because conceived in
iniquity; d. F ulgentius, Epi.st. 17, cap. 6, n. 13; PL, 65, 458. It leads likewise to
the theory of a necessary purification of Mary at t?e hour of the Annunciation;
d. Leo, Serm. 22., cap. 3;PL, 54. 196; Bede, op. ctt.; PL, 94, 12.
170 Cf. ifarimus of T urin, HoII/.. 15; PL, 57, 254.
171 Cf. Gregory the Great, In I Regum expositiones, lib. I , cap. I, n. 5; PL,
79, 25·
172 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 140; PL, 52, 576; Maximus, Hom. 6; PL,
57, 235 . On the argumentation of Dufourcq, op. cit., from Maximus and some
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 147
Sedulius and Venantills Fortunatus, sing of Mary in language which
leaves no room for sin and is indefinite enough to provol<e wonder-
ment with respect to the state of her soul at conception. 173
Historically, the strides taken by the West in advance of the East
on the holiness of Mary - due primarily to Ambrose and Augustine
- were slowed. by the barrier which the West ielt had been placed
by Augustine in the way of an inunaculate conception - a barrier
not confronted by the East.
Theologically, we must face up to an evolution. From the extant
philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of
Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as
Catholic doctrine in the patristic West. lH However, the work of
elaboration evident in that era, certain fundamental and general
principles baldly stated but scarcely .fathomed, initial insights into
the implications of divine Maternity and perfect virginity and
Second Eve, all this will help legitimize the conclusion of a later
theology tha t Mary's utter sinlessness from the first instant of her
existence is a truth implicitly revealed by God and implicitly trans-
mitted by the early Church. no
V
As with the Urst moment of Our Lady's earthly existence, so
with the last, theology's quest of patristic data is initially hampered
by the state of tlle evidence. For a discouraging1y long period the
problem is not that the Assumption is denied; it is rather that the
final lot of Mary is apparently not discussed. In consequence, schol-
ars have come to spea1c of the silence,1'16 eventlle ignorance,l71 of

acta martyrllm, cE. the critigue of B. Capelle, in Bulletin de tMologie ancie1'me et

mecl-ievale, Vo1. 5, 1946- 1 947, pp. 255- 2 56.
1.7~ Cf. Sedull'us, Pasc1urle carlllen, lib. 20, lines 208-3l; C.S.E.L., 10, 46; Fortuna-
rus, MisceUqnea, lib. 8. cap. 7; PL~ as, 2077, 208r.
iH Cf. Jouassard, Le prohleme de In sainte1'e, pp. 26-27.
1. 70 On the difficult pl;oblem ot the patristic exegesis of Gen. 3: 15. d . L . Drcwniak
Die 71U/,rfologi,sch.e De1J.!.ung vein Gen. HI, IS i.n der Viitel7:eit (Breslau, 1934);
also the controversy between H. LenneI'l, and G. M. ll.oschini. in Gregoriar£u1lt.
Vol. 2.4, 1943 Pl" 347-366; Vol. '27, 1946, pp. 300-3 18 ; Maria1'tU'III , Vol. 7. 1944,
Jlp. 76-96; Vol. 8, 1946. Pl" 293- 299. noschini's position is that there is a gemljne
patti tic consent on a Mm:iolQglcal bHl:lIpretatioll of the protoevangeliuffi, and that
Piu XX llffuwed thi.s consent in lneffallilis Deus; Lennerz enters a denial on hath
COl..1TItS, Of. also Dominic J. Unger, O.11.M.Cap., The Fir$f;·Gospel, Ge11esis 5, 15
CSt. Bonaventure, N. Y., 1954), pp. 9 0 - 2 3 5.
lTO M. Jugie, e.g., in his monume11tal La 'mort et l'Assomption de la lIinte Vierge
CCitta del Vatical1o, 1944), Ilot only states tha t dlere is no patristic testimony on
dn: Assumption before Nkaea, but insists that in the first five centuries there is no
148 MARIOLOGY
the first three centuries with respect to Mary's end. In reaction,
others have retorted that the silence is sheerly relative, a surface
silence which was inevitable and is actually eloquent. 178
In point of fact, both claims are justified. The early Church is
silent on the destiny of Mary, in the sense that no extant document
deals explicitly with that destiny until a h alf cenLury after Nicaea.
And if in the East we must wa:it until 377 before Epiphanius offers
his three hypotheses on the manner of Mary's departuIe from this
world,m the awakening of the West is a slower process still. Even
when popular faith has been quickened, dlere is little evidence in
the West of a theological movement to rival the homiletic pro-
ductions of the East. If only because it is so surprisingly slender,
the explicit witness of the West deserves to be detailed.
Explicit statements or conjectures on the £nallot of Mary begin
with the last guarter of the fourth century - contemporary, there-
fOJ;e, with Epip11anius. But the witnesses touch tIle problem ever so
lightly, with evident uncertainty. Tychoruus, a lay theolOgian
among the Donatists, independent enough to be excommunicated
by his own sect, seems to have identifiea Mary with the woman of
Apoc. 12, and to have spoken of a "great mystery" in her regard.1HO
Ambrose is more specific but equally unsatisfactory. Discussing
Simeon's sword of sorrow, he dismisses the idea that Our Lady
died a violent death; such a thesis has no warrant in Scripture or
history.l81 But Ambrose does not tell us just how Mary did leave
absolutely clear and ~'Pljcit witness to the glorious Assumption as understood in
Catllolic theology today; d . pp. 56, 101.. This COnc.hlsion was approved by B. Altaner,
ZUT Prage der De.(i.niJJ.ili#it der AsSH1l'Ipl.io n'v.M ., in Theologisc1~e Revue, Vol. 45,
1949, p . ]35 . Cf. also Enrico Recht, IZ silellrio e III dQttl'ina dei Plldri sull'Assu nzione,
in Atti del Gongresso Nazionale Mariano [1947] dei Prati Minori. d'Italia ( Roma,
]94 8) , pp. 33-7 2 •
171 Cf. G. Jouassard, L'A)'somption corporelle de la sainte Vierge et III patristi'p,e,
in Assomption de Marie: 13ulletin de la Societe fraut;;nise d'etudes maIiales, 1948
(publ. Paris, 1949), p. 102.
118 Cf. O. Faller, De priorum saeculomm silentio circa AS5'U1nptionem h. Mariae
V irginis (Romae, 1946), p. 12.9.
1 19 Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 78, cap. 23 : "For either the holy Virgin died
and was buried ... or she was killed . .. or she remained alive ..."; G .G.S., 37,
474. On the silence of Scriptm'e, and the "extrAordinary nature of the procligy,"
cf. Panarion, haer. 78, cap. 1 0- 11; G.G.S., 37 461-4.62. For the prable-IDs involved
in "Iecapturing the thougl1t of Epiphanltts, cf. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 77-81; Faller, op.
cit., pp. 33-'13; Altaner, in Theologiscnll I{(!.vt~e, Vol. 44, 1948, EEl· 131-133·
I SO Tychonius' view is transmitted by Cas~iodOIUS, Complcxiones in Apocalypsin,
n. 16; PL, 70, 14II.
1 8 1 Cf. Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 2., n. 61; C.S.E.L., 32,
Part 4,74.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 149
this life. In a remaIkable passage he presents, as one hypothesis, the
yeaming of Mary to rise w·th Jesus in case she was fated to die
with Him.11l2 There may be an insinuation here that the desire was
not frustrated; against this conclusion is the Hat statement elsewhere
that Christ alone has risen once and for all. !as
Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Italy (t 431), is anxious to learn
Augustine's mind on the exegesis of Simeon's prophecy; he himself,
like Amb;rose, is aware of no document reporting Mary'S death by
violence. m In his reply, Augustine mentions a previous letter of
his Own on the Lucan text; it is, regrettably, lost to us; but he does
tell Pauhnus that their views on the scriptural passage coincide. 185
Elsewhere, in several strildng phrases, he makes it clear that Mary
did die: she died a£1:er her Son; she died a virgin; she died, like
Adam, in consequence of sin.180
Finally, however his silence may be explained, the fact remains
that Jerome, who knew the local traditions of the Holy Land as
well as Epiphanius, gives 1'10 indication that he is aware of any
histolical tradition with reference to the deat11 of Our Lady, her
g'r3ve, or an assumption. 18 ? Briefly, between Nicaea and Ephesus the
allusions to Mruis destiny are rare and inSignificant.
The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption
come to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the ~f1'ansitus beatae Mariae
of Pseudo-Melito, which may stem from the middle of the sixth
century.ll1B This account is significant, in the first instance, because
lB2 Cf. Ambrose, De institutione virginis, cap. 7, n. 49; PL, 16, 333.
183 Cf. Ambrose, De interpellatione lob et David, lib. 1, cap. 7, n. 25; C.S.E.L.,
32, Part 2, 227.
184 Cf. Paulinus, Epist. 50, n. 17-18; C.S.E.L., 29, 419-423. The same letter is
contained among the letters of Augustine, Epist. 121, n. 17-18; C.S.E.L., 34, Part
2, 737-742.
185 Cf. Augustine, Epist. 149, n. 33; C.S.E.L., 44, 378-379.
186 Cf. Augustine, In evangelium loannis, tr. 8, n. 9; PL, 35, 1456; De cate-
chizandis Tudibus, cap. 22, n. 40; PL, 40, 339; Enarratio in ps. 34, Serm. 2, n. 3;
PL, 36, 335.
187 Cf. Altaner, in Th,eologisohe ReV1w, Vol. 44, J948, pp. 133-134" The thesis
of J. Niessen, Die Mariologie des 11,1. Hieronym1t5 (MUnster. 19'1 3), that Jerome
denies the anticipated resurrection o~ Mary ill three passages (Ad". nnfim~m, lib. 2,
n. 5; PL, 23, 447; Contra,loannem. Hieros., ll. 31 j PL, 23. 399; Epist. 75. D. 2; PI.,
22, 687). is by no means convincing; c£. Jugie. op. ait., p. 6'5' and 1lote 2.
I SS The Trcmsil1,'5 Mariae literature. attempts to filJ up the lacunal! of the canonical
books on the life, death, !lud £na] lot of Mary. Perhaps the oldest is a £fth-century
Syriac TrallS'it'l.ls, which made its way into the West, probably in a Latin trll1ls\ation,
and caused such scandal that it was listed in the books proscribed by the Decre/fu.m
Gel.aslan~ul'l- at the beginning of tlle sixth centul")'; cf. A. Thiel. Ep,jsto1ae Romanorum
Ponti rcllm gemli'1ll1e, Vol. 1 (Brunsbergae, 1868), p. 465. Pseudo-Melito, posing
 MARIOLOGY
it affirms unequivocally the death and burial of Mary, the reunion
of her soul and body without delay, and her assumption into heaven
in soul and body. It is signin·cant, in the second place, for the
developed Assumption theology which links this privilege causally
with Mary's Mnternity and viIginil)', and stresses the parallelism
which ought to exist between Christ and His Mother in victory
over death.189 The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the
Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an histori-
cal report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption; under that
aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical dis-
taste. But the account is priceless nonetheless - historically and
theologically. Historically, because it witnesses indisputably to the
feeling of the faithful for Mary, a growing awareness of her dignity,
even though we are unable to specify the full range of this aware-
ness geographically or even to indicate its dawning. Theologically,
because it postulates the Assumption on grounds that are valid not
simply for piety but for scientific theology as well.
The next witness in the West is Gregory, Bishop of Tours in
Gaul; the year, 590. Borrowing in all probability not from Pseudo-
Melito but from a Syriac Transitus of the fifth century, Gregory
states very artlessly:
After this, the apostles scattered through different countries to preach
the word of God. Subsequently blessed Mary finished the course of
this life and was summoned from the world; and all the apostles were
gathered together, each from his own area, at her home. On hearing
that she was to be taken up Cassumenda) from the world, they kept
watch with her. All at once her Lord came with angels, took her soul,
delivered it to Michael the Archangel, and disappeared. At daybreak,
however, the apostles lifted up the body together with the funeral-bed,
placed it in a tomb, and kept watch over it, in readiness for the Lord's
coming. And again, all at once the Lord stood by them and ordered
the holy body taken up and carried on a cloud to paradise. There, re-

as a disciple of St. John, proposes to furnish an expurgated, decorous version; cf.

A. C. Rush, Assumption Theology in the Transitus Mariae, in The American Eccle-
siastical Review, Vol. 123, 1950, pp. 93-110, esp. 101. Jugie would date it about
550, while Faller argues for the fourth century. For the text, cf. C. Tischendorf,
Apocalypses apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 124-136; an English translation is
given by M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), pp.
209-216.
189 Cf. Pseudo-Melito, Transitus beatae Mariae, cap. 15, n. 2 if.; Tischendorf,
p. 134 if.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 151

united with the soul, it rejoices with His elect and enjoys eternity's
blessings which will never end. 190
In brief, Gregory a1:Qrms in sober fashion the death and burial
of Our Lady, the assumption of her body into paradise with little
delay, the reunion there of body with soul, and Mary's unending
blessedne s. He proposes no reasons for the privilege; the only ink-
ling in that direction is the vague reference to the holiness of her
body, and a later statement that she who was assumed into heaven
was the Mother of Christ, vh'gin before and after His birth.:l91 A
formal cODDection, therefore, between Assumption and virginal
motherhood js not made, but the su~gestion seems to be there,
especially if read in the light of similar apocryphal accounts. At
any rate, Gregory's account influenced the development of popular
belief in an anticipated resurrection of the Virgin, though it made
little impression on the theolOgian because of the jaundiced eye
wlllch he cast on its apocryphal source. Jouassard is iuclined to find
Gregory's influence in some of the old Gallican Missals of the sev-
enth and eighth centuries, e.g., the Bobbio Missal and especially
the Missale GothiC'LI.mY2 Moreover, a friend of Gregory, St. For-
tunatus, a native of Treviso who became Bishop of Poitiers in
Gaul aboLlt 595, celebrated Mary's queensrup in verse; her triumph
in glory is clear; not so her glorious Assumption in body as weU
as SOul. '9a
100 Glegory of Toms, LiJ;. I miraculo'l"lIm; In gloria 1l1artynml, cap. 4; PL, 71,
708. or the date, d. VI' . C. McDermott, Gregor')' of Tor~.TS; Sel.ections fr0111 d/(~
M 'h ror Works ( Philadelphia, 1949), 1;1' 9. For the extant epilogue of the fUth-
century Syriac Tra.nsit~ls, which Jugie regards as the oldest oE the accounts, d. W.
Wright, Contrlhu~iOttS to tlte ApocryphaZ Litemture of the New Testa·ment (Lon-
tion 1865), p. 46 f. Jugie Bnd Altaner both believe it likely that Gregory borrowed
from this work, in an early Latin translation.
101 Cf. GregoT}', op. cit., cal?' 9; PL, 7t, 713.
1 ~'2 f. Jouassard, L' Assomptlon corporelle, pp. I 11-112.
'Ioa "Cuius hODOl'e sacra, genitrix, transtendis Olympum,
Et super astrigeros etigis ora palos.

Conderis in solio felix regina superbo,

Cingeris et niveis lactea virgo chons.

Nobile nobilior circumsistente senatu,

Consulibus celsis celsior ipsa sedes.

Sic iuxta genitum regem regina perennem,

Ornata ex partu, mater opima, tuo."

The lines are found in Miscellanea, lib. 3, cap. 7; PL, 88, 282; the poem belongs to
 MARIOLOGY
In the seventh cenLury, only Isidore, Archbishop of Seville in
Spain ( t 636), brealcs the silence, but simply to attest our profound
ignorance on the way Mru:y left this earth. "Some affirm that she
quit this life by suffering a cruel, violent death. Their reason is that
Simeon . . . said: 'And thy own soul a swod shall pierce.' As
matter of fact, we do not know whether he was speaking of a
material sword or of od's word that is powerful and keener than
any two-edged sword (He1!J),. 4: 12). The point is ]lowever that
no narrative informs us that MaIY was slain by the punishment
of the swoId, seeing that nowhere is there an account even of her
death. Some do say though, that her tomb is to be found in the
Valley of Josaphat."104 Isidore echoes Ambrose: we have no ev,idence
that Mary died a martyr. He echoes EEiphanilis too: we h ave no
information at all about her death. We learn f-rom lsi lore tha t the
thesis of Mary's martyrdom still persists; we learn, too, of the Jeru-
salem tradition on her tomb - a tradition which leaves him quite
unmoved. We learn nothing about the Assumption.
A century later ule English Bede confesses his ignorance of the
final disposition of Mary's body. He has read the account given
by Adamnam, lona's Abbot, of the pilgrimage lmdertal<en by the
French Bishop, Arcul£, between 670 and 685.m He reproduces
therefrom the data on the reputed death of Mary on Mt. Sion and
the empty tomb in the Valley of Josaphat, "in which holy Mary .is
said to have rested for a while; but who took her away or when ,
we do not lrnow. ";L~o Bede shows no awareness of an anticipated
resUlTection. He m a.y well have heard of it· after all, he was familiar
with Pseudo-Melito. But he attacl<s this apo typha! work in sharp
tones. Not, it is true, on the score of the Assumption; but his genemJ
criticism could hardly have encouraged in his reade.Is any sort of
confidence in Pseudo-Melito, even on ule theologicalleveL1B7
With ulis patristic background jt vvill not be surprising to fmd

the series of those written before 576; there is some doubt whether these lines
were really composed by Fortunatus, but cf. H. Weisweiler, in Scholastik, Vol. 28,
1953, p. 520.
194 Isidore, De ortu et obitu patrum, cap. 67, n. 112; PL, 83, 148-149. A later re-
daction presents the existence of the Jerusalem tomb as absolutely certain; cf. PL,
83 , 1285- 1286.
lO~ Cf. Adamnon, De lods sacris. lib. J , cap. 12; C.S.E.L., 39, 240-241.
HOI)Cf. TIede, Libel' de lods sanctis, cap. 2 and 5: a.s.E.L., 39, 306, 309-310.
107 Cf. Bede, I~iher re;l.ractat11mis in ActllS ttposrolormn, cap. 8; PL, 92, 1014-
101 5. On the thre Marian homilies falsely attribu ted to Bede, cf. Jugie, op. cit., p.
272, note 2.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 15'3
the first orators of the feast of August 15 in the West - Paul the
Deacon, for example - consistently wary of pronouncing on Mary's
corporeal resurrection; a far cry from Pseudo-Modestus of Jerusa-
lem, Germanus of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John of
Damascus. 1M It will not be surprising to find in Spain, at the close
of the eighth cen tury, some Asturians directly denying M ary's
Assumption - the first to do so, as i ar as the evidence goes,lUU It
will not be surprising to see develop in the ninth century, beside
the tradition favorable to the Assumption rep esented by Pseudo-
Augustine, another current of thought represented by Pseudo-
Jerome and hostile, if not to the doctrine, at least to an unequivocal
affirmation of the doctrine as somehow binding.20o For the sDence
of the first three centuries has been broken in the W est only by
unambiguous affirmations which have the disadvantage of being
tagged as apocryphal, or by genUinely patristic affirmations which
reveal a regreuable indifference, uncertainty, or ignorance.
On the other hand. the silence is a relative thing and rather elo-
quent. Faller h as undertaken to show that the early reticence is
perfectly understandable. seeing that several more fundamental
facets of hristian belief, such as the T rinity and Christology,
had first to be confronted, before Mariology could claim attention. ~Ol
Cayre, too, has indicated how the initial silence with respect to
Mary is nonnal rather than surprising for it goes back to her role
in the early Church : "H er vocation was not to command, but to
love and to pray, two functions that call for silence . . . ."202 The
silence in question, theologians insist, does not reflect an absence
of life; the life, the doctrine, is there in germ. The seed is discov-
erable in the patristic thesis of recapitulation, the Eve-Mary paral-
lelism proposed by Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ambrose, the
198 Cf. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 272-274.
199 Cf. the correspondence between Bishop Ascarius and his friend, Tuscaredus;
PL, 99, 1233, 1235. The Asturians in question insisted thAt M Ary had died like
anyone else, and that her body was still in the tomb awaiting the glorious resurrec-
tion. The thesis scandalized Ascarius; TllScaredUS replied that we have no evidence
of a violent death, or of any death for that matteI. It would seem that Tuscaredus
believed in Mary's glorious immortality.
200 Cf. Pseudo-Jerome, Epist. 9: Ad Paula1ll I!t Eus!;ochilmt de assl.f>tI11'tione B.M.V.,
n. 2; PL, 30, 127-128; Pseudo-Augustine, De asm1wptiolle B.M.V. , n. 2-9; PL,
40, 1143-1148. On the problem of authorship, d. Jugie, 0'1" cit., pp. 278, 290-291.
201 Cf. Faller, op. cit., pp. 69-76.
202 Cf. F. Cayre, L'Assomption aux quatre premiers siecles: Etat emhryonnaire de
la doctrine, in Studia Mariana, Vol. 4: VeTS Ie dogme de l'Assomption (Montreal,
1948), p. 135 if.
154 MARIOLOGY
analogy which associates the New Eve with the New Adam in a
total triumph over Satan.~OH The seed is there in the twin privileges
of divine motherhood and deathless virginity. Insight into these
mysteries would lead to increasing reverence fot the sacredness of
the hody which knew nly God, to a realization that this body
could not fittingly know corruption. 2M
These and other seeds of an Assumption doctrine are discoverahle
in Western patristic thought, but it would be sheer unsupported
theorizing to suppose that the patristic West recognized the seeds
for what they were. As the age of the Fathers draw to a close, the
West is on the point of connonting the problem of Mary's deStiny
on theolOgical grounds. On this score the task of theologica] elabora-
tion has not kept pace with the Eastern development. What Jouas-
saId has concluded of the patristic world as a whole must surely
be said of the West:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought - as some
theologians still do today under one form or another - to transmit to
us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the
beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an
attitude would not fit the facts .... Patristic thought has not, in this
instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission; rather
has it been the precious agent of a task that has enlisted the cooperation
of all mmmer of people - authentic theologians, and individuals too
who cannot claim that title. Both have played their part in harmony
w,ith the capacity of each; they will continue to play it in the years
to come.... 205

203 Cf. C. F. De Vine, The Pal.hers of the Church and the Assumption, in Vers Ie
dogme de l'Assomption, pp. 408-410.
204 Faller has developed these and other principles at length; cf. op. cit., pp.
77-128.
205 Jouassard, L'&somplio!1 corl'orelle, pp. 115-u6. A word of cauti.OA is not
impertinent here. The investignlion of patristic documents might well lead the l}is-
Lorino to the conclusion: In the IlIst seven or eight centuries no truslworthy historical
tradition on Mary's corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The Con-
clusion is legitimate; if the MSI'Orian stops ther , few tlleoJogical nerves will be
touched. The historian's mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof £rom
tradirion om be adduced. The historical method is not the theol()r.cal method, no~
js historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition. Cf. W. J. Burghardt,
The Catholio CO'I~eept of Traditjoi~ i.j~ the Li.ght- of Modam T/leolagical T/-'Ol{gl!.t
in Proceedtngs of th'e Si."(~II Anw14aL Convention (Catholic Theological Society of
America, I95I), pp. 73-75. It is not true to say with V. 'Bennett, that tradItion "is
but. another name -for. the historical evidence of what r.he Church taught and believed
in other ages"; The Assml1ption: A Postscri-pt, in TIleology. Vol. 54, J.95l, p. 410.
 MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT 155

Not a few aspects of Marian theology with seeds in the eady

hristian West have inevitably been omitted from these pages.
There is, for example, the complex, intriguing problem of the rela-
tionship between Mary and the Church; here it is Justin and
Irenaeus and Tertullian, Amb-rose and Augustine, who have had
the initial significant insights.~o6 There is the lovely concept of
Ma-ry's QtJeenship, exercised not by jurisdiction but by interces-
sion.:J01 There is the idea of Mary's universal Mediation rooted in
her function as Second Eve and suggested so vividly by Ambrose.IIOs
There is much mol' , but perhaps enough has been said in this
study to insinuate that the treasures of patristic Mariology are not
the legitimate plaything of aprioristic speculation, nor will they
reveal themselves in their totality to unaided historical analysis. The
thought of the Fathers on Our Lady will be mined in its purity
only by theologians with a feeling for philology, and by philolOgiSts
deeply rooted in theology.
~ O O Cf. A. MUller, E-cdesia·Maria: Die Ei-r,heit Marias 1A>lIil del' Kirc/-te CFribourg,
195 I )j G. Montague, The Concept of M.ary ,md t1te Ch11:rch in the Fathers, in T~te
A1n.erican Ecclesiastical R evle'w, Vol. 123, [9~O, pp. 33 I-337j 1(. Delcbaye, MarilZ,
Typu.s aer IGl'ch.e, .in Wissemch.aft 'Und Weisheit, Vol. 11" 1949, EP' 79-92.
ZOT Cf. H. Barre, La royaute cle Nlclrie pemLant tItS fleuf premiers siec/.es, in Re.-
oherohes de science 'religieuse, Vol. 2 9, 1939, l2.9-162, 3,03-3 34j A. Luis, La realeza
de Maria (Madrid, 1942.); M. J. Donnelly, The Queen-ship of Mary during th.e
Patristic Period, in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 82.-108.
208 Cf. the articles of Bover cited in footnote 16.
158 MARIOLOGY
as John and other saints of the Old Testament, but she received
these blessings in a more excellent manner.
Pseudo-James then states that Mary was the child of Joachim
and Anna, a child who was given by God to th is elderly couple
who had prayed to Him to remove the curse of sterility and bless
them with offspring.R he exceptional elemen t in the birth of Mary
is that she was a child obtained by prayer, dlat sh e was born of a
woman advanced in yea.rs and sterile. The author, however, ob-
viously thought that the conception of Mary took pla~ by the
normal union oE h usband an d wife, and was not a miraculous virginal
conception. T hus, he wLites of Joachim: "The angel of the Lord
came down to him saying: Joachim, Joachim, the Lord God has
heard your prayer. Go down from here for your wife Anna will
conceive in her womb." When Joachim came, Anna ran up to
meet him and exclaimed: "Now I know th at the Lord my God
has blessed me exceedingly. For behold the widow is no longer a
widow. I who was without child shlJ conceive."7 In all probability
the original text uses the future, that is, "your wife will conceive"
and "I shall conceive." Some versions and recensions use the past
tense and postulate that Mary was conceived by a virginal
conception. s
When Mary was three years old she was presented in the Tem-
ple. 9 There she lived as a model of purity until the time came when
she was presented to Joseph. This part will be taken up under the
Virginity of Mary.

THE VIRGINITY OF MARY

If the Protoevangelium set out to glorify M ary by reason of her
birth, it aimed to glorify h er all the more by proclaiming and
defending her absolute and perpetual virginity. The author aims
to leave no doubt that Mary was a virgin ante partum, in partu,
and post partum. 10
a Pro'toevange1i1l1n Jacohi, 1-6 (Amann, pp. 178-198). The text can also be
f-ound in C. T ischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha ( Leipzig, 1876), pp. I-50; C. Michel,
Evrmgiles apocryphes, Vol. I ( Paris, 1911), pp. 2-50.
7 Protoewmgel.iU1n 4. 2- 4 (Amann, pp. 192-194).
S E. Amann, O'p. cit., pp. 17- 22; X. Le Bachelet, Immaculee Conception, in Dic-
tiOn/lain: ile fheologie catholiqne, Vol. 7, 1927, cols. 875-877.
!) 011 the feast of the Preseuration of Mary, cf. Sr. M. J. Kishpaugh, The Feast

of the Presen tation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple. An Historical and Literary
Swdy (Washington, D. C., 1941 ) .
1 0 J. Quasten, op. cit., p. 12I.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA 159
The Gospel proclaims the exceptional birth of Christ from
Mary.ll From early times the virginity of Mary was part of Catho-
lic helief, and the expression, natus e:x: Maria virgine, was part of
the Christian catechesis and contained in the various symbols of
faith! 2 In Catholic thought it was tal<en for granted that the word
'virgin" when applied to Mary meant absolute and perpetual vir-
ginity. T here was no need of going into specific details. However,
the second century saw attacks on the virginity of Mary. The
general attitude is summed up in the charge that Jesus invented
the story of His virgin birth, t.hat he was born of fornication. 1s It is
a&ainst such a baclground that the author of the Protoevangelium
rallied to the defense of Mary's perpetual virginityY
According to the Protoevangelium, Mary was consecrated to God
by the vow of her mother who exclaimed: "As the Lord my God
lives, if I bring forth either a boy or a girl, I will bring it as a
gift to the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering to Him aD the
days of its life."lG By this act Mary was vowed to the service of God
hy perpetual virginity. In this account, however, Mary is regaJ;:ded
ahnost as a purely physical agen t in the work of the Redemption.
The author accentuates a puril)' in Mary that can be described as a
legal or exterior p urity, and he overlooks the freedom of will on
Mary's part in all this work. Hence, when the general theme of the
Protoevangelium appeared in the Western aprocryphon of Pseudo-
Matthew there was a reaction against such an attitude. In this we
see that it is Mary wl,o, of her own free will, resolves to remain
a virgin. Pseudo-Matthew relates that the priest Abiathar wanted
to take Mary as a wife for his son, and then he goes on with the
following account: "Mary forbade them to do this and said: It
cannot happen that I know a man or that a man knows me. Then
the priests and all hli!r relatives said to her: God is honored by
children and Ie is adored by descendants. It has always been such
in Israel. Mary answering them said : God is honored tInt of all by
chastity. . . . This is what I have learned in the temple of God
11 Mt. I: 18-25; Lk. 1 :26-38; In. I: 13.
12 E. Dublanchy, S.M., Marie: Enseignement neo-testamentaire sur la virginite
de Marie, in Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, eols. 2341-2349;
Enseignement traditionnel concernant la virginite de la Mere de Dieu, ibid., eols.
23 6 9-2 373.
130rigen, Contra Celsum, I. 32; Acta Pilati, 2. 3 (Tisehendorf, p. 224).
14 E. Amann, Le protoevangile de Jacques, pp. 10-15.
15 Protoevangelium Jacobi, 4. 1 ( Amann, p. 192).
 MARIOLOGY
since my youth, namely, that a virgin can be dear to God. This is
why I have resolved in my heart never to know man."16 Interpreting
the Protoevangelium in this way, Pseudo-Matthew, who wrote in
the sixth century, is merely reflecting the thought of previous writers
who saw in Mary a model of virginity and one who consecrated
herself to God by a vow of virginity.17
In the Protoevangelium, then, Mary is vowed to God as a virgin
to whom marriage was excluded. This poses an acute problem for
the author of the Protoevangelium with regard to the relationship
between Mary and Joseph. On the one hand he must admit a
conjugal bond because of the testimony of the New Testament;
on the other hand he must hold to the virginity of Mary. It is
because of this that his language and his descriptions of the rela-
tionship between the two is somewhat oDscure and vacillating.
Stressing the virginity of Mary ante partum, he concentrates more
on the fact that Mary was given to Joseph as a charge; she was
given to Joseph who, by reason of his age, could guard her intact.Is
Going on to give further proof that Mary was a virgin ante par-
tum, the Protoevangelium insists, in the language of the New Testa-
ment, that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he
represents both Joseph and Mary as submitting to the trial of drink-
ing the bitter waters to show their complete innocence of all guilt
in the matter of Mary's pregnancy.19
M ary was not only a virgin ante pa.,-t1.£m/ b ut also a virgin in par-
tu . The virginity of' Mary in partu is really the "idee capitale" of
the Protoevangelium. To give proof of his belief in this aspect of
Mary's virginity the author of the accOlmt has the condition of
Mary attested to by a midwife. By these minute physical details
the author emphasizes not only the virginity of Mary but also the
actuality and reality of Christ who took flesh ex Maria. 20
lG P$eudo-Matthew, Liber de or"". Beatae Mariac et i.tlftintlll Sahmt'1ris, 7 (Amann,
pp. 300-304). The text is also fOlmd in C. T ischendotf, EllllngeU", apoorypha, pp.
51-11:'>"; C. Michel, E"angiles apac?,phes, Vol. 1, pp. '4-I 58.
)7 E . DublQnchy, Marie: Le VOIIC de virgilt'ite emis par Marit:, in Diotimmaire d.e
tlreolagie cathoUqtlG, Vol. 9. 1927, col. :1386.
16 On this prolJlem, cE. E. Amann, 01" dt., pp. 24-27.
1~ PTotoevtrngell1.m~, 13-17 (Amann> pp. 2.30-242) . 111 author accommodat
here to suit his own purpose the trial of drinking the bitteJ; Wlitet mentioned in N1~1Jl.
5: 12 ff.
20 Protoevangelium, 19-20 (Amann, pp. 250-256). T he virginity of Mary in
partu is also mentioned in such early apocrypha as the Asce~lriol~ of Isaias, I I :
2-11; Odes of Soloman, 19: 6-10. On these documents, cr. J. P lumpc, Some Little-
known Early Witnesses to Mary's Virginitas in Part'U, in The.ologicr:r! Studies, Vol.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
In the Protoevangelium Mary was not only a virgin ante partum
and in partuj she also remained a virgin post partum. Her consecra-
tion and dedication to God demanded this. However, to leave no
room for doubt in this matter and to show his belief in this fact,
the author portrays St. Joseph as an old man, as a widower, who
had chilcken by his first wife and not by Mary . ~l Incidentally, it is
in this way that he solves the pro blem of the breth ren of J esus. ~2
T here are ever so many document in which the events described
in the Protoevangelium are u tilized and recalled, ~md which empha-
size the above-mentioned virtues of Mary. It would take us too far
afield to go into them, but at least some of the main ones can be
mentioned. There are, of course, the various versions of the Proto-
evangelium in Syriac,23 Ethiopic,24 and Armenian.25 There are no
direct Latin translations, but there are Latin elaboration as seen in
the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew from the sixth c nturi" and the
work on the infancy of Mary from the Carolingian period. 21 Addi-
tional ~ atter is found in the Coptic lives of the Virgin2S and the
history of t. Joseph .21l T o th se may be added the various Infan cy
Gospels. 0
Once the virginity of Mary had been so vigorously defended and
emphasized in the Protoevangelium and its allied documents, we
find that later Apocrypha speak of Mary's virginity in the celebrated

9, 1948, pp. ,67-577. For the testimony of the Epistola Apostolorum, 3, cf. J.
Quastcn, Pa~,.ology, Vol. I, p. l ,1.
21 Protoe1la,ngeUmn, 9 : 2.-3 ( Amann, pp. 2.16-218).
2 2 :E. Amann, op. cit., pp. 36-39.
23 A. Lewis, Apoorypha ~'Yriacn: Protoevangelium, in Studia sinaitica, Vol. II,
t90l. , pp. 1-I2..
H M. Chaine, Al'0cryplw de B. M aria Virgi lle: Lil,er 1wtivitatis M ariCle, in Corpu s
scriptom.om ohristianorll'm o'r ientaHum, ser. I , Vol. 7, 1909, pp. 1-16.
t5 P. Conybeate Protoevangelium Marlae, in A11~erican- Journal of Theology, Vol.
J , 1897, pp. 4~4-442.
2(1 Pseudo-Mlltthew, Libel' de Dr ill I Beatae Mariae et infan tia Salvatoris ( Amann,
pp. 272.-339) ·
2..- De naii1l'ita'te Mariae (Amann, FP' 340-36, ) . T he text can also b e fOlmd in
C. Tischendorf, EvangeLia apocr),pha, pp. II 3- 12. r. Dom Lambert (Revue Bb1l3dic-
tille, Vol. 46, 1934, pp. 275-2.82) argue~ that this is 8 work of Paschasius Radb e.rtus.
~s F. Rob il1KOn, Coptic Apoaryph,aL Gospels: Sahidic Fragments of the Life of t l1.e
Virgin, in Texts and SuuUes, Vo l. 4, NO.2, J896, pp. 1-4 1.
20 F. TIohinso n, Coptic Apocrypha! Gospels: Bohairic Accoun~s of the Dellth of
Joseph, with Sah/dic Fragme11t5, 'ibid., pp. 130-185; P. Peeters, Histo-ire de Joseph
Ie charpe-fitier, in Evangiles apoctyphes, V ol. 1, pp. f93-245. Cf. S. Morenz, Die
Geschicht,-e. von Joseph de11/- Z immer-mall, i4herse,tzt, erlii1ltert 'llonil unters'Uoht (Text.e
'lmd U ntersuchungen, Vol. , 6) ( Beclil1, r 9, I ).
30 P. Peeters, Evangiles apocryphes, Vol. 2., L'evangile de l'enfance (Paris, 1914).
 MARIOLOGY
phrase "ever-Virgin." This is very noticeable in the literature known
as the Transitus Mariae.31 To the Latin writer, Pseudo-Melito,
Mary is beata semper virgo Maria. 3 2 The Greek writer, Pseudo-John,
speaks of Mary as one who was ever a virgin. To him she is
amrap(hllo •• 38
Mary, who was always a virgin, was a virgin both in body and
soul. The Coptic account of T heodosius, speakin~ of the reunion
of the bod.y and soul of Mary in heavenly glory, reters to Ps. 44: 15,
whi.ch speaks of the virgins who will be brought to the King. With
this as his background he goes on to say: "Then we understood
that today th ere were bTOUght to the King virgins, even the soul
and body whi ch were united."M
In this literature the virginity of Mary is regarded as a p ostulate
for her Assumption and for the privilege of not undergoing the
corruption of the grave. Thus, in the work of Pseudo-M elito, when
Christ cmn e to raise Mary from the dead, He is pictured as saying:
"Arise, my love and my kinswoman, thou who didst not suffer
corruption by carnal in tercourse, thou shalt not suffer corruption
in the sepulchre."s6

MARY'S DIVINE MATERNITY

With regard to Mary's divine Maternity there is a parallel be-
tween the presentation of this doctrine in the Apocryph a and ill
the patristic tradition . Although this truth is n ot ~"Plicitly affirmed
in the New Testament, it is manifestly contained in the truth that
Mary conceived and brought forth Jesus, tha t Mary is the Moth er
of Jesus who is the Verbum, the Second Person of the Blessed
Trinity, and that everything that concerns Jesus must be attributed
to the Person of the Word who is true God. se Furthermore, the
period up to the fourth century is characterized by an evident
affirmation of the fact of the divine Maternity, even though the
81 Pertinent data on the Transitus Mariae li terature will be given below when they
are studied in connection with the death (lnd Assumptior,l of Mary.
32 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariaa, prolog. ( C. TischendorF, Apoc(llyp$e.~
apoc:ryphae [Leipzig, J866] , p. f2.4, note) . In the edition of Tischendorf tlLis pm-
logue is given 3S a Dote; in other editions it is given as Chapter 1. Tills accounts .for
the difference in the number 01' chapters.
as Pseudo-Jolm , il)er lIe dcmnitirme Mariae, I (Tischendorf, p. 95).
34 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 9. 14 (Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal
Gospels, p. 127).
35 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae , 16. I (Tischendorf, p . 135)'
36 E. Dublanchy, Marie: Enseignement neo-testamentaire sur la maternite divine,
in Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, col. 2340.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
expression "Mother of God" was llOt formally employed. In the
second and third cenluries the traditional teaching was directed
against the erroneOllS tenet that attributed to Jesus an apparent body
or a body that was not materia! like ours. To combat this it was
asserted that Jesus was born ex Maria, and that Jesus, natus ex
Maria, is God. sT In this early period, also, the doctrine of the divine
Maternity is found in the formulas of the creed, such as, "born of
the Virgin," "born of Mary," and "born of the Holy Spirit and of
the Virgin Mary." In the fourth and fifth centuries we have the
use of the explicit term Theotokos, and an investigation of the theo-
logical principle on which this truth rests. S8 With the Council of
Ephesus and the definition of Mary's divine Maternity, this doctrine
is the focal poine in 1\1ariology. Prior to this time there was more
emphaSiS on the virginity of Mary, and on the concept of Mary as
the New Eve; now she is pre-eminently the Theotokos and there is a
constant emphasis an the Mater Dei theme.
The early apocryphal literature, e.g., the Protoevangelium and
it'> allied documents, stressed, as was seen, the virginity of Mary. In
lceeping with the parallel literature of the patristic tradition, there is
no explicit emphasis on the divine Maternity. Iere the divine
Maternity is expressed merely by repeating the expressions in the
Gospels on which this truth is based. Here it should be noted that
the emphasis on the virginity of Mary in these documents is at
the same time a recognition of her divine Maternity. In the phrase,
natus ex Virgine, they stressed the virgo element; the recognition
of motherhood, as is evident, is found in the first part of the phrase
"natus ex."
In some of these documents that appeared after the Theotokos
theme hecame current, there is an emphasis on the divine Maternity.
This is especially noticeahle in the Coptic lives of the Virgin.39 The
second Sal1idic fragment, after stating that the angel was sent to
give the good tidings to the Virgin. goes out of its way to repeat
the same idea by saying that the angel was ~ent to the Mother of
37 G. Bareille, Docetisme, in Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, Vol. 4 (1939),

eols. 1484-15°1.
88 E. Dublanehy, Marie: Enseignement patristique ou theologique concernant la
maternite divine, in Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, eols. 2349-
2351; V. Schweitzer, Alter des Titels Theotokos, in Katholik, ser. 3., Vol. 17, 1903,
pp. 97-113; G. Jouassard, Marie a travers la patristique: Maternite divine, virginite,
saintete, in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), pp. 71-157.
39 F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, pp. 1-41.
 MARIOLOGY
God to proclaim to her the great good ti lings.4 0 In these documents
there are many expressions describing the divine Maternity. T he
one that merits special attention is the phrase "the holy God-
bearer." It is as succinct and emphatic as "San eta Dei Genetrix,"
or our Englisl phra "Holy Mother of God."u
It is especially in the Transttu.s Mariae literalure that we find
constant emphasis on the theme of the divine Maternity. This is
only normal in literature that developed after the definition of this
doctrine, when the divine Maternily b carne the focal point of
Mariology. Just as in the patristic literature, so also in this litera-
ture, Mary is predominantly the Theotohos. The Transitus Mari.ae
literature high-lights Mary'S diyjne ilaternity in a threefold. man-
ner: it constantly calls her th,e Mother of God; it contains scenes in
which an act of explicit belief is made in Mary's divine Maternity,
and it exalts Mary's divine Maternity by proclaiming her Assump-
tion as postulated by this extraordjnary privilege.
I t would be tedious and repelitious to cite every passage in which
Mary is called the Mother of God. One from the more important
early accounts must suffice. In the complete Syriae version , the
angel appears to Mary and announces: "Hail to thee, Mother of
God! Thy p rayer has been accepted in heaven before thy Son , our
Lord Jesus Christ."42 T he Sixth-century Coptic account of T heo-
dosius is written in honor of the "Lady of us all, the holy God-
bearer Mary ."~ n The account of Pseudo-Melito speaks of the de-
parture of tlle "Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God."44
T o Pseudo-John, Mary js tb (all-holy gloriOUS Mother of God."45
The constant r petit jon of this title is like a growing crescendo.
Actually, one would have to read these documents personally to
see how they are pervaded with the theme of Mary's divine Mater-
nity. A faint idea can be had of this when it is realized that in the
account of Pseudo-John, which takes up about nine pages of
actual text in the edition of Ti,chendorf, there are at least fifty
references stating outrightly or equivalently that Mary is the
Mother of God.
40 Salddic Fragmen.t 2, B (Robinson, p. 17) .
u S"n,idic Fragment, 4 ( Robinson. p. 39).
u TraTlsitl~ Mariere, I C LewL~, Apoorypha syriaca, p. 21).
43 Theodosius. The Fa1.U1~g Asleep ot M ary ( Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gos-
pels , p. 9i) .
'I ~ Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Bel+tae M ariae, Prolog CTischendorf, Apocalypses
apocryphae, p. 124, note) .
4 5 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae, 1 CTischendorf, p. 95) .
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
These documents also high-light Mary's divine Maternity by
portraying scenes in which individuals make an express profession
of faith in Mary as the Mother of God. In the Greek account of
Pseudo-John, as in many others, there is the story of Jephonias who
tried to harIIl the body (If Mary as it was being brought to burial.
As l1e did this an angel cut his two hands from off his body and
left them hanging in the air about the bed. When the people saw
this they cried out : "Truly, He is the true God who was born of
thee, Mary, Mother of God, ever-Virgin." Jep~onias himself ex-
claimed : "Holy Mary, thou didst bear Christ who is God, have
mercy on me.",ja T he complete Syriac account pictures the same
person, who is here called Yuphanya, as setting out to proclaim Mary
among the Jews. ~Tben the Jews were astonished at his message
he explained how he Ilad been cured and then he goes on to say:
"I have become a diSciple of Jesus the Son of the glorious God,
and of Mary His Mother who bore him. . . . And I believe in her
that she is the Mother oE God."41
It must be recalled that the Transitus Mariae is a type of popular
literature. In literature of this kind, such cases in which people
were won over and made explicit professions of fru th in Mary as
the Mother of God was the type of proof that would have a natural
appeal to the popular mind. This is the closest that this literature
comes to the tendency in patristiC literature of pOinting out the
theological principle that justi6es the use of the expression
Theotokos. 48
Finally, these documents stress the divine Maternity of Mary by
postulating a special glorification for her after her death, precisely
because she is the Mother of God. Thus, in the Latin account of
Pseudo-Melito, Peter and the Apostles say to Christ: "If therefore
it might be brought about by the power of T hy grace it has seemed
right to us T hy servants that as Thou, h aving overcome death,
reignest in g101)l, so Thou shouldst raise up the body of Thy
Mother and take h er with Thee rejoicing in heaven."49
The Coptic account of Theodosi us has a similar emphasis. When
Christ came to raise up the body of Mary and glorify her in body
and soul, He is portrayed as standing over the coffin and saying:
to Pseudo-John . Liber de (1ormirion,e Mariae, 47 CTisehendorf, p. 110).
~7 TrlJ,IHIM'S M ariae, 3 ( Lewis, p. 5 I ) .
~ B E. DubJanehy. M. £!rie: Enseig'/l(~ment 1,atTi;$I.iq1j e
au IV et au commencement
du. V sieclc,in Dlction:naiTe de t1wologie (:tl"tholiq'Ue, Vol. 9, 1927. eols. 2351-2355.
ol9 Pseudo-M~lto, TT{ms:it1~s Beat:ac Mariae, 15. 3 CTisehendorf, p. 135).
166 MARIOLOGY
"Arise from thy sleep, 0 thou holy body, wluch was to Me a temple .
. . . Arise. Why sleepest thou yet .in th earth? Array thyself with
thy soul , and come to the heavens with Me, unto My good Father
and the Holy Spirit; for they long for thee. Arise, 0 thou holy
body, from which I bWlt Me My llesh in a manner incompte-
hensible; wear thy soul w11ich was to Me a dwelling place. . . .
Arise, 0 thou holy body; be joined to the blessed soul. Heceive from
Me thy resurrection before the whole creation.1J50
THE DEATH OF MARY
The death of Mary, together with her final lot after death, is
treated in the apocryphal literature known as the Transitus Mariae.
The Transit.'lts attempts to giv information on these matters and
thus supply for the silence of the canomcal Scripture on these
points. There is a great deal of controversy with regard to the
locality and the time in which this literature developed. It seems
that this type of literature developed in Syria in the fifth century
after the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus had given
a great impetus to the development of Mariology.51 The TTC!1'Lsipu.s
was an extremely popular type of literature as seen from the
accounts in Syriac, Latin, Greek, COplic, and other languages.52
Before discussing the treatment of Mary's death something must
be said about the nature 0.£ these documents and Mary's outloo}c
on death. With regard to the nature of these documents, it can
be said that the authors of these wodes, wjth their attention riveted
on the glories of Mary, the Theotokos, began to write about the
marvels and miracles that were associat d with Mary's last days on
earth and with her passing from this earth. The writers surcharge
their accounts with descriptions of the miraculous that are utterly
fantastic, and which manifest bad taste not only theologically but
artistically. With regard to this specific asp ct of the nature and
style of these works, B. Altaner offers a valid explanation. TIlere is
a certain parallel between the Transitus literature and the legendary
Acts of the Martyrs insofar as ,fictitious episodes are introduced and
extraordinary miracles are multiplied. There was a keen msappoint-
50 Theodosiu, The FalLhT.g Asleep of Mary, 8. 10 if. (Robinson, pp. 12.1-123).
51 M. Jugie, A.A., La 11I0rt et I'AssompPioll de la Sainte Vierge (Studi e testi,
Vol. 114) (Vatican City, 1924). pp. £08, 169.
62 C. Balit, O.ll.M., Test:i.monia de Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis. Pars
prior (Rome, 1948), pp. 14---65. 137-153; M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 103-171; A. C.
Rush, The Assumption in the Apocrypha, in The American Ecclesiastical Review,
Vol. II6, 1947, pp. 5-31.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
ment in Christian circles over the fact that the genuine data on so
many outstanding personages of the early centuries was unknown.
Consequently, writers gave free rein to their imagination in writing
up the acts of the martyrs and lives of the saints; the period from
the fourth to the sixth century was noted for such legendary works
and it is within the limits of this period that the Transitus devel-
oped, furnishing fictionalized episodes of Mary's last days on earth
arid multiplying miracles at will. 53
Regarding Mary's outlook on death, it can be said that these
documents are notorious for playing up the horrors of the exitus
animae, that is, the horror of the devil at death and the many foes
that the soul encounters in its journey to eternity.54 Some docu-
ments have the bad taste to submit Mary to such a mentality of
fear, and this is very probably one of the reasons why the Transitus
literature met with disfavor and was rejected by the decree known
as the Decretum Gelasianum. 55 Actually, what these authors are
doing is projecting a very popular esChatolo~ical mentality into
Mary. It is impossible for them to write about death without
stressing the ever popular theme, the exitus animae. As versions
63 n. Ntaner, Z'ur Fraga der DefinibiHtiit aM Asmmptio B.M.V., :in ThoologisoJw
Rel~IU), Vol. 44, 1948, p. 136. In, this and the con:esponc1mg \l.rtic.les ia the T'lreo-
logische RlJ11ue, Vol. 45, 1949, pp. Jl9-142, and. Vol. 46, I 950, pp. 5- 20, Altal1er
pJarced too much emphasi.~ on historical traditiol1; he tried tu clis<bver the teaching
of the ChUl;c.l,.'S dogmatic b;aditioll by a sbeerly historical method. Cf. W. Durg-
hm:dt, S.J .• TIM Catholic C01tCept of Tra{/,i tion j'li th.e UgJ,t o-f Modetn Theological
Tl1'D'ugl~t.J in Th.e Catholic TheologicaL Society of America, Procee,U1lgs of the Sixth
AmJ.1,r,aZ CQltvent-ion (I95I ), p. 73; J. Tem\~s, Zur historisch-theologisch en Tradition
'der Himme1fatt'rt Marians, in. ScJ.iolastik Vol. 25, I950, pp. 32T-360.
54 For the exitus animae theme in ancient Christian writers, cf. J. Quasten, Die
Grabinschrift des Beratius Nikatoras, in Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen
Insti:t,i,lts, Riitnische Abteir"mg, Vol. 53, I938, pp. 50-69; A. C . Rush, C.SS.R.,
Death unGI Burhll in Ctlristian Antiql~i:ty (Sh1(lles in Christian Antiquity, Vol. I ,
Washington, D. C ., 194:r), 32r-35 . In the Transit'lis Mariae literBture the -tetror
!nci-
of tlle exit,,~s (/,n imae is P,Ortra,yed \Terr , gr\lphically in the .Coptic . aCcOlmts.
denta ll y, tlllS was a FIl\Tonre theme WJth sutili eady EgyptJ.an wnters as Oagen,
Homil.ill 23 i n. L'ltcllln ( G .C.S., Vol. 9, p, 15'4., cd.. Rauer): Athanasll11i, Vi-ta S.
Antonii, 65 ( PG, 26, 933); Cyril of Alexandria, Homi!1.a 14 : De =#u anim-i ePG,
77, IOn)· When 11 Latin ver~on of the Transitils mentions (C\1en though_ more
moderately) a description of the e:x.j;I,'U~ t:mif1lae, i.t docs uris not simply as something
borrowed from an,d 1'lltterned Oil the Eastern T,.tll'5it'I.~s th eme, but as some~h.i,ng
thnt played II. pwt m 'Western culhrrc as well. Cf. A. C. Ru.sh, Atl Echo of Cl~rlstlem
Antul"~ity itt St. Gregory the G"eat: Deqth II S/:n~ggle with t1~e Devil in TraaUi Q,
Vol. 3. 1945, pp. 36 9-380 .
55 On the Decretum Gelasianum, cf. B. Altaner, Patrologie, p. 4I4; G. Bardy.
Gelase, decret de, in Dictionnaire de la bible, Supplement, Vol. 3, I938, cols. 579-
59°·
168 MARIOLOGY
of the Transitus multiplied and were written more in 1 eeping with
true Catholic sense, this aspect was decidedly toned down, .g., in
the account of Pseudo-Melito. Even in documents where this
mentality is highly pronounced, there are indications that Mary
was not entirely dominated by it.fin
Turning now to the question of Ma is death, the Tra12situs
literature portrays Mary's departure fl.·om tlus world as a departure
by death, the common lot of mankind. It excludes both martyrdom
and immortality. To these authors the most obvious solution was
that she died a natural death. The Greek a.ccount of Pseudo-John
is actually a 'scourse on the Falling Asleep of Mary, >1olp."1cr,s being
an accepted Christian expression to designate the sleep of death. n
Pseudo-Melito speaks of Mary's death as the departure of the
Blessed Mary ever Virgin, th Mother of God. This departure took
place by the ordinary process of the soul being tal{en out of the
body.nll Mary was to be subject to death, the universal law for man;
she. however, would meet it in victory. Thus, wben Mary pra ed
to Christ to be delivered from the power of darkness, and asked
that she see not the ugly spirits coming to meet her. Christ says
to her: 'When I was sent by My Father for the salvation of the
world and was hung on the Cross, the prince of larkness came
to Me. But because he was unable to find any vestige of his wod
in Me, he departed conquered and crushed. When thou shalt see
him, thou shalt see him :in virtue of th common law of mankind,
whereby death is allott~d to thee. However, he cannot harm thee,
because I am with thee to help thee. Come, without fear, for the
heavenly hosts await thee to bring thee into the joys of paradise."69
It is not necessary to use all these documents that mention the
fact that Mary died a natural death. Greater attention, however,
will be given to some of the Coptic accounts because it is especially
in these that there is a more detailed theological speculation on the
death of Mary. In the sixth-century sermon, written by Theodosius,
M A. C . Rush , Scriptural T exts and the Assum ption in t he T ransitus M ariae, in
Catholic Biblical Q uarterly, Vol. 12, 19 50, p. 373.
,. Pseudo·John, Uber de dor'mit.ione Mariae ( Tischendor£, AtJocaZypses acpocr)'1,hlle,
liP' 95-J 12.). Jugie CIA mort et l' Assomptioll, p. I I7) believes that tbis dales from
the sixth ce.nhuy in the period between 5"50 and 580. o.n the Ohristi;ll1 concept of
dea th as a sleep, d . A. C. Rnsh, Death wtul Bl~rial in Christirm. Antiq'lIlty, pp. 1-22. .
ro8 Pseudo-Melito, Trfmsi t'llS Bel/tae MMlae, 2.. 1 (Tischendm:f. p. 1215). Jugie
(op. cit" p. I I I ) believes th at this is a Catholic adaptation of the work tejected by
the Decretum Gelasiaimm Rlld t:llst it is to be dated about 550.
50 Pseudo-Melito, Trallsi/Jus 13eatae ManGle, 7. 2. (Tischendorf, p. r:l.9).
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria,60 when the Apostles were
grieved on hearing that Mary was going to die, she said to them:
"My sons, wherefore do you weep and grieve my spirit? Is it not
written that all flesh must needs taste death? I also must needs
return to the earth, as all the inhabitants of the earth."61 Theo-
dosius again repeats the fact of Mary's death by pointing to the
universal law of death and by showing that her death makes her
conformable to Christ. This is seen in the words of Christ addressed
to Mary: "0 My beautiful mother, when Adam transgressed My
commandment I passed upon him a sentence, saying, Adam, thou
art earth and thou shalt return unto the earth again. For also I,
the Life of all men, tasted death in the flesh which I took from
thee, in the flesh of Adam, thy forefather. Yet since My Godhead
was one with it, therefore I raised it from the dead."62 In the
foregoing words emphasis is placed on the fact that Christ took
flesh from Mary. This is to prove the reality of Christ and is at
the same time a refutation of Docetism. On the same score, Mary's
death is necessary to show that she was truly human, and conse-
quently to show that Christ and His work were actualities. Thus,
after Christ told Mary that He raised up His flesh because of the
Godhead that was in it, He goes on to say: "I did not wish to
suffer thee to taste death, but to translate thee up to the heavens
as Enoch and Elias. But these also, even they must needs taste
death at last. And if this happens to thee, wicked men will think
concerning thee, that thou art a power (angelic spirit) which came
down from heaven; and that this dispensation took place in appear-
ance. I know the heart of all men, and understand their thoughts."63
The account of Pseudo-Evodius, who represents himself as a
disciple of St. Peter and his successor at Rome, is very similar to
that of Theodosius in the treatment of Mary's death. 64 When Peter
GO a:
E. Amann, Theoaose Ale:wroclrie, in Diationrmire de tMologie aathol:iq1U!,
Vol. J 5", 1946, pp. 325"-328. The text is given by F. Robinson, Coptic A'P0cryph/J1
Gospels: Bohaj,ric ACCO'ln/ots of the FaIling Asleep of Mary, in Texts em,l Studies,
Vol. 4, Part 2, 1896, pp. 90-126 and 311;0 by l\tI. Chaine, Senm}1l de Theodvse,
patrinrc1te J' Alex(lailrie, .I'14r rn dor'11litio"n et I' Ass011l1JNOI'I de la Vierge, in Revue de
l'Oriertt Chret'iim, Vol. 29, 1933- 1934. pp. 272-3.1;4. Ohaitte gives the long intro-
duction nnd the conclusion which Robinson omits.
61 Theodosius, The Fanmg Aslec:.11 of Marz, 5. 4-5 (Robinson, p. 107).
62 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5"' 15-18 (Robinson, p. 107 f.).
63 The Falling A~te/3<I' of Mary, 5. 18-21 (Robinson, p. 109).
64 There is an EvodillS who is mentioned as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch.
Cf. R. Devresse, Le patriarcat d'Antioche (Paris, 1945), p. 1I5; F. Robinson,
Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, p. 207. On the problem of the episcopal succession at
 MARIOLOGY
and the rest of the disciples asked Cluist if it were not possible
that Mary should never die, this answer is given: "I wonder at
YOLl, 0 My holy apostles, for this word which you have spoken now.
Can the word which I spoke hom the first prove a lie'? Nay, God
forbid. But I pronounced a enlence of death from the flTst \lpOn
allllesh, that they must needs taste death. Because of the Besh which
I took, I also tasted death, 1 who am the Lord of all men, that I
might loose the pangs of death."65 When this answer was given
on the certainty of Mary's death, Peter asked Christ if it were not
possible dlat Mary be allowed to remain with them a while longer.
To this Christ answered: "0 My chosen Peter, knowest thou not
that there is an appointed time laid down for each man to accom-
plish in th e wodel; and when it is fulIillecI, it is not possible for him
to stay for a Single hour. Now therefo):e the appointed time of
My mother is [wElled today. Therefore she must needs lay dovvn
her body, and I will take her up to the heavens with Me in glory."G6
The Transi tu,s Ma,riae literature, then, takes for granted that
Mary died. It also adduces reasons for h er death. Among these
reasons we find the universality of death, the conformity of Mary
to Christ, and the reality of Mary with the consequent reality of
the redemptive work of Christ.

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY

The Assumption of Mary is a theme that is found in the T ransi-
tus Mariae. Important as are the statements on the glorification of
Mary as contained in these documents, it must be kept in mind
that tlhe Transitus is concerned primarily with the death of Mary
and with the miraculous happenings surrOlmding it. Then, in a
somewhat brief manner, it treats of the £nal lot of Mary after
death. 6T As was noted, this literature developed after d1e de:6nitioD
of Ephesus had resulted in an intense awareness of the Theotokos.
Accounts were written of her death and then writers speculated
on the lot of Mary after death. Once there was an actual confronta-

Antioch, d. C. Karalevskij, Antioche: Les origines chfl3tiennes jusqu'au concile de

Nicea, in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques, Vol. 3, 1924, col.
,67·
II:; Pseudo-EvodillS, Th e Fcilling A sleep of Mary. 8. To-13 (Rol>inson, p. 55).
flU The Falling Asleep of Mary, R. 16 ( Robinson, p. 55).
67 R. JiiJ;{;ens, Die T ,irchu'cl,e U eherUefel'l.mg von der lei'blichen Aufnahme der
seligSfen Gotte$lm~tt, er hI, ilen Him~J7.d, in Zeitschrift {ih' katholisc1l1~ Theologie, Vol.
4, r890, p. 602.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
tion of the death of Mary, this latter problem had to be faced also.
When this took place, the Christian sense of the writers of these
accounts revolted against the idea that one so glorious as Mary
suffered the corruption of the grave; hence, they postulate a glori-
fication of Mary. She who was extraordinary in life, they claim,
was extraordinary in death.
Except for the account which states that the body of Mary will
be hidden in the earth and preserved incorruptible,68 these accounts
postulate a glorification for Mary in body and soul. It is not easy
to pass a definitive judgment on the nature of this glorification due,
in part, to the very involved eschatology of these documents. At any
event, there is no doubt that, in some versions, this glorification is a
genuine assumption, comprising death, the glorification of the soul,
the resurrection of the body, and the reunion of soul and body in
everlasting glory. Others, e.g., the Greek account of Pseudo-John
and derived documents, seem to draw a distinction between the
glorification of the soul and that of the body. According to this,
Mary's soul is in the heavens, in the treasuries of the Father; her
body is transplanted to an earthly paradise where it is preserved
incorrupt. 6 9
The Syriac fra gment from the end of the fifth century, which
Jugie regards as the oldest Tra1'/.situs,~O in simple language describes
the resurrection of Mary and the remlion of the body and soul in
paradise. While the Apostles were gathered before the sepulcher .of
Mary, C hrist appeared with Michael and a host of ang~ls . At the
bidding of Christ, the body of Mary was placed upon the clouds
which then went to the ga tes of paradise. On entering paradise,
the body of Mary was set down by the tree of life; then 'ber soul
was brough t and placed in her body.n
In the Latin account of Pseudo-Melito, which was a quasi-official
version in the Latin Church,72 Christ appeared to the Apostles who
68 Sllhidic Frllgm etLt of the Life of tlle Virgl1l, 4 . 82-82 (Robinson, Coptic Apoc-
rypl'lllt Gospels, p. 35). Cf. M. Jugie, La m ort et I'Assomption de la Sainte Vierge,
p. 126; C. Balie. T estimonia de ass'U1'nptiono, p. 39.
6 0 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mari~e, 39 (Tischendorf, Apocalypses apo-
cryphae, p. 107 f.). On this point, cf. M. Jugie, 01" cit., pp. 117-126, and the
argumentation of C. Balit, 01" cit., pp. 15-23.
70 M. Jugie, 01" cit., p. 108.
71 W. Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament
( London, 1865), p. 46. This fragment is entitled: Obsequies of the Holy Virgin.
72A. Wilmart, L'ancien recit latin de l'Assomption, in Studi e testi, Vol. 59,
1933, p. 3 2 3. In the light of the text here edited by Wilmart, J. Riviere brought
 MARIOLOGY
were gathered at th sepulcher after burying Mary. Christ said
to them: "Before I ascended to My Father, I promised you saying,
that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the
Son of Man shall sjt on the throne of His majesty, you also shall
sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. I
bave chosen this wOman out of the trihes of Israel by the command
of My Father to be My dwelling place. What, then, do you wish
that 1 should do with her." On h · alin& this, Peter and the Apostles
immecliately answered: "Lord, Thou Mst chosen this Thy hand-
maid to become l .jhy imm~clllate chamber, and us Thy Apostles
for the ministry. Before the ages Thou 11ast forelrnown all things
with the Father, with Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit there
is one equal divinity and infinite power. If, therefore, it might be
brought abou by tl e power of Thy grace, it has seemed right to
us Thy servants that as Thou, having overcome death, reignest in
glory, so Thou shouldst raise up the body of Thy mother and tale
her with Thee rejoicing in heaven."73 At once hrist ommanded
Michael to bring on the soul of Mary to havc it ready to re.-enter
her body. In the words of Pseudo-Melito, the resw:rection js de-
scribed as follows: "The Lord said: Arise, My love and My kins-
woman, thou who didst not suffer corruption by carnal intercourse,
thou shalt not suffer corruption in the sepulcher. And at once
Mary rose from the tomb, blessed the Lord, and threw herself at
the Lord's feet, adoring Him and saying: I am not able to offer
Thee fitting thanks, 0 Lord, for Thy immense benefits, which
Thou hast deigned to confer upon me, Thy. handmaid. May rhy
name, 0 Redeemer of the world, and God of Israel be blessed for
ever."H After the Lord bad kissed her, M<ny was taken up to the
paradise of God together with Christ an.d the angels . 7~
The theme of a genuine Assumption is equally clear and em-
phatic in the Coptic aCC0t11,1t of Theodosius. The min.d of Theo-
dosius on the extraordinary glorification of Mary after death is
seen in the threefold announcement of what is going to happen
to Mary. Addressing words of consolation to Peter and John who

forth a study, entitled Le plus vieux Transitus latin et son derive grec, in Recherches
de theologie ancienne et medievale, Vol. 8, 1936, pp. 5-23. Jugie Cop. cit., pp.
IIO, n. 1, 150-154) argues that this is an abbreviated Latin version of the Greek
account by John of Thessalonica.
78 Pseudo-Melito, Tran.wtus' Beatae Mariae, 15. 2-3 CTischendorf, p. 134).
74 Transitus Beatae Mm'jae, 16 cTischendorf, p. 135).
7~ Transitus BeattIe Manae, 17 CTischendorf, p. 135 f.).
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA 173
were grjeving over the news of Mary's departure, Ghrist said: "Be
of good heer/My friends and Apostles. I will not suffer h er to be
long away h om you , but she shall appear to you gukldy. There
are two hundred and six days from h er death until her holy
assumption. I will bring h er un to you arrayed in this body again,
even as this body also, as you see h er now, whHst she is with you.
And I will translate her up to the heavens to be with My Father
and the Ioly Spirit, that she may continue praying for you aU."7U
The same promise is made as soon as M ary died.77 As the body of
Mary was being brought to burial, Theodosius pictures a Galilean
as saying tU1der the inspiration of the loly Spirit: "This corpse
tl1at is borne, this is the body of Mary, the daughter of Joachim and
Anne, who bore the Messias, who is Christ. He it was who healed
your sick, and gave light to your eyes, and raised your dead. We
believe that as He raised your dead, He will raise His Mother
also, and will take her to the heavens with Him."78
When the time for the actual Assumption arrived, Christ came
lown [rom h eaven and ordered the body to rise. 'This is the beau-
tiful passage "Arise from thy sleep, 0 thou holy body" which has
already been quoted in the section on the divine Mateniity of Mary.
D escribing what then took place, Theoclosius goes on to relate:
'When the Lord had said these things over the coffin of stone,
straightway it opened; for it was shut even as the ark of N oah
afore time, which no man could open save God, who shut it afore-
time. Forthwith the body of the honorable Virgin arose, and
embraced its own soul, even as two brothel's who are come nom a
strange country, and they were united one with another."7D Giving
us a final glimpse of Mary, Theodosius states: "She a1so, at once
Our Lady and our Succorer, blessed us; and we saw them no more.
But the voice of the powers that sang hynms before them was
sounding in our ears, saying: Alleluia. Bring to the Lord glory and
honor; b ring to the Lord honor to His holy name. Aile)uia. Bring
to the Lord the sons of God, and sing glory in His holy temple.
Alleluia. T hen we understood that today there were brought unto
yo Th.eoclosius, Th.e Falli?lg Asleep of Mary, 5. 23-28 (Robinson, Coptic Apocry-
plwL Gospels, p. 109). For a study of the belief in the Assumption among the
Oopts. d. A. vall Lantschmlt, L'Assomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes, in
Greg()ria1~~lln, Vol. ~7, J946, pp. 493-526.
T7 TheodogllS, The FalLing Asleep of Mary, 6. 13 (Robinson, p. 113).

78 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 7. 7-10 (Robinson, p. II7).

79 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 9. 1-3 (Robinson, p. 125).
174 MARIOLOGY
the King virgins, even the soul and the body which were ttnited. il80
These are but a few 01= the many testimonies LO Mary's Assump-
tion in the Apocrypha. s1 These apocryphal accounts are extremely
important and interesting, beca.use it is in them that we have the
6r t t timonies in writing to Mar.y's Assumption. This poses a very
weighty and involved problem, namely, the origin of this belief.
This problem is s en to be all the more acute when :it is borne in
mind that there is no explicit statement in SCripture regarding
Mary's Assumption, and tho t, prior to the Transit1J.s Mariae ]jtera-
ture there is no patristic tradition On this matter. These facts argue
to the nonexistence of an oral tradition of apostolic origin on the
final lot of Mary.82
The glorification of Mary after death and the Assumption theme
in the TransitlJ,s MariCle, then, demand an explanation. It is
impossible to regard these accounts as reliable historical T ports
of the events described. On the other band, they are Dot merely
the pro ' II t of irnaginations allowed to run wild. Altaner's explana-
tion for the bizarre style of these documents, as noted above,8!I is
a very valid explanation. However, this does not explain the As-
sumption theme introduced into these documents. For the explana-
tion of this other factors were at work.
These are aCComlts that proclaim the glories of Mary. Although
previous to tbese writings there were no testimonies to Mary's
Assumption there was in Sacred Sripture and tradition a definite
cotp'u.s Ma'rian'/,j,rn. Mary was revered as tl'le Mother of God, as the
Vitain ante, in., and post part1tHn; she was the New Eve associated
with Christ, the New Adam, in the worl( oE the Redemption. She
was hajJed as a crealure of unique holiness. Consequ~ntly, when
these authors consciously confronted the problem of Mary's ,final
lot, their Christian piety revolted. against the idea that one so
exceptional ~der~eDt. the corruption of the wave' t~ey po~tltla~ed
for ber a gl riftcation m body and soul. To them, t1ns glorificatloD
was ba eel on and flowed from the above-mentioned Mariological
80 The Fn1.liltg Asleep of !VIary, 9. 10-15 (Robinson, p. I'2.7) .
IIIFor other accounts of the A~sulTIption, d. M. Jugie, La mort et l'AssO'!lIl'tion.,
pp. l03-171; C. Balle, Testi1'l.ol1ia de Assmnpt'ione, pp. 14-6" 137-153; A. C.
Rush, The ASSU"'llptioll if' the Apocrypllll, in The American. Ecclesiastical Review,
Vol. II6, 1947, pp. 5-31.
82 M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 168-171, 585-589, 609-612.
83 B. Altaner, Zur Frage der Definibilitiit der Assumptio B. M. V., in Theologische
Revu.e, Vol. 44, 1948, p. 136.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA 175
truths and principles. Hence, in these Apocrypha we have the
origin of the movement to approach the Assumption of Mru:y from
a theological viewpoiIlt. 84 ll1is trend gained tempo with the pass-
ing of the ages. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the
protection of Ghrist, the Church cmne to a greater inSight into the
der.0sit of revelation; the Assumption of Mary was a truth believed
and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and was
solemnly declared a dogma of faith by Pope Pius XII on the first
of November, 1950.85

THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY

Explicit testimonies to the Queenship of Mary did not appear
before the fifth century. so Prior to this time, however, thexe were
implicit manifestations of Ehis beliefY The Mater Domin';' of the
New Testament, where the word Dominu,s definitely connotes roy-
alty and sovereignty,88 led to the use of the word Domina. 89
Similarly, there was the evolution from the concept "Mother of
Christ who is King" to "Mother of the King" and then the explicit
use of the word "Queen."90
It would not advance the proof in any noticeable way to quote
the passages from the Protoevangelium of James and its allied
documents that repeat the Gospel scenes of the Annunciation, I a-
tivity, and the VisitaLion wbich form the basis of this truth. In
the Protoevangelium of James, however, there is a passage that
should be noted . The prie t of the Temple decided to have a veil
spun for the temple from various kinds of tluead. To make this
veil, yOlU1g girls were chosen who were virgins and of the tribe of
David. Lots were cast to determine wl10 would weave the gold,
81 A. c. Rush, Assl'tllp/,i on Theo1.ogy i" the Transitus Mariae, in The American
Ecclesias~i,:,!l Revie1~, yol. .12<3, 19~o , FP' ?3-IlO. J. M. Bover, S.J., Los ap6crifos
y III trlldtClOn llSWIICtOfl.!.Stll, In ESPlulws Mananos, Vol. 6, 1947, pp. 99-118.
8" Pius XII, M1mi~oe1U,is itll'U.s De-us, in Acta Apostolocae SecUs, Vol. 42, 1950,
pp. 753-777·
86 H. Barre, La royaute de Marie pendant Ies neuf premiers siecles, in Recherches
de scieflce reIigieu.se, Vol. 29, 1939, p. 145.
8 7 A. Luis, C.SS.R., La realeza de Maria, (Madrid. ~942), p. 34.
Bli 1. Cerfaux Le titre} yrios et la digtl,jte myaZe de Je~'1'5, in Rev-l/>Il de scie~lces
pJ',ilasaphiques e£ th.eologiqrws, Vol. Lt , 192.2 , pp. 40- 7I.
89 A good brief summary of the history and theology: of Mary's Queenship i~
given by A. Santonicola, C.SS.R., La roymde de Marie (Nicolet, Quebec, Canada,
195 1 ).
00 M. Donnelly, S.J., The Q'tleensl~il' of Mary during the P«trisr;ic Period, jn
Maria" StTldi£5, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 86-91 . This e.ntile issue of Marian St-udies is
given over to articles on the Queenship of Mary.
 MARIOLOGY
linen, etc. It fell to Mary's lot to weave the true purple and scarlet.91
Purple, the color of royalty, was allotted to Mary, to one who was
t~e offspring of a roxal .~ne and who was destined for a royalty
Ingber than all the digDlt:leS of earth. 92 The author does no more
than state that the purple was allotted to Mary. In the Latin version
of Pseudo-Matthew, Mary likewise received the pU!'J.Jle. When this
happened, the other virgins were jealc:lus anaexplained it by saying
that she received tJ'le purple because she was the youngest. Then in
a sarcastic manner they began to call her, "Queen of virgins."
No sooner hacl they referred to Maxy as the Queen of vb:gms, when
an angel of the Lord appeared in u1eir midst and said to them:
"This word will not be a word spoken in sarcasm, but it will be a
true prophecy."98
Referring to this designation of Mary in Pseudo-Matthew,
Amann remarks that the author has understood perfectly the
thought of the Protoevangelium when this document assigned to
Mary the task of weaving the purple. 94 In connection with the
appellation of Mary as Queen in Pseudo-Matthew, it is interesting
to note that the author makes :a very signiEcant change in the
Annunciation scene. In this documen t, the angel is represented as
saying to Mary: "Fear not, M ary thou ha.st found favor with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a King who will
rule not only on earth but also in heaven, and He shall reign for
ever and ever."95
The explicit title of "Queen" in Pseudo-Matthew is a far ad-
vance on the Protoevangelium. This, however, is not surprising
in a work that comes from the sixth century. It is a good illustration
showing how later recensions of a specific theme, such as that of
the Protoevangelium, can mirror explicit and developed viewpoints
current in their own time.
In a similar way, late Infancy Gospels clearly portray Mary as
Queen. This is particularly noticeable in the Arabic Gospel of the
91 Protoevangelium Jacobi, 10 (Amann, Le Protoevangile, pp. 218-220).
92 E. Amann, op. cit., p. 220, note.
93 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Beatae Mariae et infantia Salvatoris, 8. 5
(Amann, p. 310).
94 E. Amann, op. cit., p. 3II, note.
95 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Mariae, 9. 2 (Amann, p. 312). Amann sees
in this change the dependence of Pseudo-Matthew on Sedulius who writes in
his well-known hymn: Salve sancta parens, enixa puerpera regem.
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA 177
Infancy, where Mary has a very predominant role. Do Here Mary is
constantly referred to as "Queen." The title Domi.1~a) applied to
Mary, is always linked with the title Dominus, applied to Christ.
Christ is Herus, Dominus; Mary is Hera, Domina. Mary is Domina
nostra, the Mother of Christ the Kipg. Because of tlns, she is
Domina nostra.0 7
Since explicit testimonies to Mary as Queen date from the fifth
century and are linked so closely with her divine Maternity, the
richest source of this doctrine is the Transitus Mariae literature. In
proclaiming the glories of the Mother of God and in describing
her triumphant entrance into paradise, they hail her as a glorious
queen. The testimonies to this doctrine are somewhat subdued in
the early Greek accounts and very effusive in the Syriac and
Coptic versions.
In Pseudo-Melito there is no direct statement that Mary is a
queen. Two points, however, ru:e stJ:essed, namely, the Kingship of
Ghrist and Mary's divine Maternity. Mary, therefore, is the Mother
of tlle King of Glory. It is to Christ as the King of glory that Mary
addresses her prayers. DS This is as much as can be drawn from
Pseudo-Melito on the royalty of Mary. Mary is the Mother of the
King; and this phrase represents a fact, and also one of the stages
of development or evolution of the Queenship of Mary.
The Greek ruscoUIse by Pseudo-John frequently refers to Mary
as the "Mother of the Lord." The Lord is both God and King. TIle
Mother of the Lord, then, is both Mother oJ God and Mollier of
one who is King. In this term, Mother of the Lord, there is con-
veyed tlle idea of royalty and sovereignty. Pseudo-John, moreover,
explicitly proclaims the Queenship of Mary when he uses 8lG'll'otVl£,
a word that conveys the meaning of "Sovereign Lady" or "Queen/'DS
This is seen when he states: "The Apostles, therefore, rose up
96 E. Amann, Apocryphes au nouveau testament, in Dictionnaire ae la bible,
Supplement, Vol. I, col. 485.
97 Evangelium infantiae Salvatoris arabicum, 3, 6, II, 16, 21 (Tischendorf,
Evangelia apoorypha, pp. 182., ,83,185, 188, 19J).Jn studying the Mariology in the
Apocrypha and in the Christian tradition, we must not ovcrlook the part that
Mary plays in Islamic ~llought which was greatly il,llllcnced by ,the Apocrypha. A
good survey on Mary in Islamic culture i given by J-M. Abd-cl-Jolil, Marie el
l'lsla'/l'! (Etlllle~ ~~tr l'MstQirc des religions) (Paris, 1951).
98 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 2, 3; 7. I (Tischendorf, Apocalypses
apocryphae, pp. 126, 129).
99 H. Liddel and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (New York, 192.9), Vol. I,
p·334·
178 MARIOLOGY
immediately and went from the house carrying the bed of the
Sovereign Lady, the Mother of God."100
I?- the ,~y[iac Tl'ans:,tt~s Ma".ae:0
1
Mary is referred ~o agajn. and
agam as Lady Mary. 10_ She IS 'Lady Mary, the MlStress of the
world." This Lady Mary is the one who bore Him who is the
Governor of the heaven and of the world. 103 This Governor of the
world is Christ the King who came down from heaven to be
beside the Lady Mary in death. 104 Throughout, the royalty of Mary
is linked with the Kingship of Christ, the Son of God whom she
bore. Not only does He proclaim her Queenship, but He proclaims
her as a very special queen, for she is the Mistress of the world.
The Coptic account of Theodosius is a panegyric on the "Lady
of us all, the holy God-bearer Mary."105 Mary is the Lady of us all
because she brought forth Him who bears the universe. 106 The
concept of the royalty of Mary is brought out in the words which
Christ addressed to the Father when He took the soul of Mary to
heaven after she died. To Him He says: "Receive from Me, 0 My
good Father, the bush which received the fire of the Godhead and
was not burnt. I offer Thee, 0 My Father, a royal gift today, even
the soul of My virgin mother."107 Mary, in truth, is a royal gift
because she is the Queen whom Christ called from the grief,
trouble, and groaning of this life that she might receive everlasting
joy and gladness. lOS
Even more enthusiastic are the testimonies to the Queenship of
Mary in the account of Pseudo~Evodius. Like Theodosius, he also
sets out to proclaim the glory of the ''Lady of us ail, the holy God-
bearer Mary. 1J1 0o For him the day on which Mary died was the
day on which "the Queen of all women, Mary the Virgin, the
100 Pseuao-John, Liber de dormitiol'le /IIlarme, 32 CTischendor.f, p. 105')'
lOlA. Lewis, Apocryp}!1J. syriaca: Traasiws Mariae, in Stlldia sindition, Vol. 11.
pp. 1 :z...,,69. An edition of this frOID a slightly later IDtuluscript is given by W.
\Vright, The Depart.'ll,rc of my Lad,y Mtlty frOl'lI the World, in Jourrlnl of Snared
Li,tefat'llil'e (In'Z Bibl-ioal Record, fourth set., Vol. 6, Jammry, 1865, pp. 417-449;
Vol. 7, April, 1865, 110-160 pp.
102 Transitus Mariae, I, 3 (Lewis, pp. 14, 18, 38, 39).
103 Transitus Mariae, 2, 3 (Lewis, pp. 24, 32, 34).
104 Transitus Mariae, 4 (Lewis, p. 55).
105 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, prolog. (Robinson, Coptic Apocry·
phal Gospels, p. 92).
106 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 3. 13 (Robinson, p. 101).
lor The Falling Asleep of Mary, 6.18 (Robinson, p. 113).
lOS The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 30 (Robinson, p. III).
}-09 ps!!udo-Ev9dius, Th"e Fallinf!, Asle~p of Ma?, 'prolo~ (Robinson, p. 44)'
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA 179
Mother of the King of Icings was to go unto her beloved Son, our
Lord, Jesus Christ."m Mary the Queen, the Mother of the King
of kings is th heavenly Q ueen who takes her stand at the right
hand of her Son. Thus, when Ch rist came to call Mm.y in death
and take h er to heaven, He said to the Apostles: "0 My glOriOUS
members, whom 1 chose out of all the world, this is the clay that
the prophecy of My father Dmljd has been fu l:filled, T he Queen
stood at thy lig11t hand .' "1.11 David himself is porLr yed as a witness
to Mary's Q ueenship. W hen Mary died "David th e holy singer
struck his spil'itual harp, and cried out, saying: Precious before the
Lord is the deatl1 of His holy ones. Be glad, 0 Mary, t h01.1 mother
of Chlist, the King of kings. This is th day that the propheci,es
are ful£lled which I spoke concerning thee, thou q ue Queen . "h~
T h e foregoi ng testimonies are sufficient to show the thought and
trend of these do uments on the Queen hip of ilaIY. T hey clearly
show tha t the tlother of the Lord is Do'mina, and that the Mother
of Christ the King is Regina. These documents glory in hailing and
proclaiming Mary as a queen. In popular and Ilomj]etical lit rature
of this type, however, there is little theological speculation on the
nature and basis of tillS Queenship. here are, it is true many
indications of why Mary is a qu en and it is with deep regret
that these, due to lad of space, cannot be handled here at the
present time. One obvious conclusion, however, stands out most
clearly, namely, that the divine Maternity of Mary and her Queen-
ship are always hnked together.

THE INTERCESSION OF MARY

In the N ew Testament we see Mary as the means by which
Christ, the Source of all blessings, came to man. We also see M ary
using her power of intercession with her Son in favor of the
married couple at Cana.l13
Regarding the invocation of Mary and her intercession, there is
.uo The Falling As1eeF of Mary, 10 . 1 (Robinson, p. 56).
lU The Fal.!il'lg Asleep of Mary, 7· 6 (Robinson, p. 53).
ll.i! The Falling Asleep of Mary, 12. IS (Robinson, p . 60) .
WI On the PleO,iation and iutercession of Mary d. E. Dublm'lchy, Marie:
Med:iatio'Yl ulliversell'e de Marie en 'Vert1~ de sa TIIatern.ilc divh1e, in DicLio"rlltcrire e a
tMoIo~ie cathoUqtl~, Vol. ~. 1.927, cols. 2389-2405; lI~arie: .To'ute"P'IIi.ssllt!c~ ~'in'
terccssl,O~1 de lVIane U'li Clel, eols. 2.435-2.439; J. BltttenuclIx, De ",edlat,lone
mti'Ver.~aU B. Mrrriae qt~oail gratias CBI\.Iges, 1926); J. Calcl, O.P.M., The. Theologi-
cal Conoept of 1\1eilillt,i on C!1I(;1 CO-ireriem,ptiolt, in Ephemerides tlteologloae. lovan,jenses;
Vol. 14, 1937, pp. 64 2 -65°'
180 MARIOLOGY
not a word in the Protoevangelium of James. On the other hand,
in Pseudo-Matthew, the sixth-centmy Latin elaboration of this
work, U1ere ru:e scenes in which peop1e h ave recourse to Mary.
Describing Mary's life in the Temple, he says that if any sick
people touch.ed. her they were .immediately cmed of their malady.1H
When the V1r.gms who sarcasucall y referred to Mary as queen were
rebuked by the angel, they at once asked Mary to pardon them and
pray for. them. m When the people made rash judgments about
Mary's pregnant conditiun, and Mary proved them to be wrong,
they implored her to 113ve compassion on them and to pardon
them.lIS
Such a theme, introduced into this sixth-ccnLury version of d1e
Protoevan~elium, is not at a11 surprising, for this work is the
product ot an age where Mary was hailed as the Dispensatrix of
all graces, U1e Hope of the sicl{, the Help of the affiicted, and the
Refuge of SiIll1ers.l.l7 This same mentality is especially pronounced
in the Arabic Gosp 1 ef the Infancy where Mary plays a very domi-
nant role and js the Mediatrix of all bleSSings bestowed by the
Infant. llB This document is replete with scenes in which people
come to Mary in thejr needs and are then helped by Mary and the
Child whom she bore.119
The Transitus Mariae literature which proclaims the glories of
Mary and which proclaims Mary's Assumption and Queenship be-
cause she is the Mother of God also high-lights the invocation
and intercession of one who, as the Mother of God, can obtain all
graces and blessings from her Son. To show the trend of these
documents on this point, these few following testimonies must
suffice.
In the Syriac T ransitus, many people came to Mary in their
needs with pleas for help on their lips. Describing one of these
scenes, the Tra11sit~~s states: "And persons without number went
forth and went to Bethlehem; and they lmocled at the door of the
114 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Mariae et infantia Salvatons, 6. 3 (Amann,
Le Protoevangile, p. 300).
115 Liber de ortu Mariae, 8. 5 (Amann, p. 310).
116 Liber de ortu Manae, 12. 5 (Amann, p. 322).
117 E. Amann, Le Protoevangile, p. 40.
118 E. Amann, Apocryphes du nouveau testament, in Dictionnaire de la bible,
Supplement, Vol. I, col. 485.
119 For two such illustrations, d. Evangelium infantiae arabicum, 14, 27 (Tischen-
dOlf, Evangelia apocrypha, pp. 187, 194).
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
Blessed one's upper chamber. And the Apostles did not open the
door to them. And wben they d~d not open the door to them, they
implored, saying: 0 Lady Mary, Mother of God, have mercy on us.
And the Lady Mary heard the voice of the persons who were
crying to her, and she prayed and said: My Master the Christ,
whom I have in heaven, harken to tlle voice of these afElicted souls.
And straightway great strength and help went forth from the
Blessed one to all these sick people, and they were cured."120 From
the lips of the Governor who was won over to Mary's cause, we
hear these beautiful words: '<The earth on which thou walkest
becomes heaven. The heaven that beholds thee gives a blessing to
the creatures who believe in thee. The healthy who behold thee
l'eceive gladness. To the sick who come unto thee thou givest
healtll. I worship tllee, Lady Mary. Stretch out thy right hand and
bless me, and fuis my only child." Ull The angel who came to Mary
to announce to her that she was to leave the world hails her with
iliis greeting: "Hail to thee, Mother of God! Iby prayer hath
been accepted in heaven before thy S011, our Lord Jesus Christ.
And therefore thou shalt depart from this world unto life ever-
lasting. For thus I have been sent to tell thee and to cause thee to
know that at the time when thou didst pray on earth, at once thou
wast answered in heaven; and whatsoever thou dost seek from the
Christ, thy Son who is in heaven on the right hand of God, thou
shalt have both in earth and in heaven, and thy will is done."m
The power of Mary to help those in need is brought out very
graphically by Pseudo-Melito when he tells the story of tlle Jewish
pliest who tried to overtw:n the body of Mary and whose arms
were cut off £-rom his shoulders and clung to the bier. It is at this
point that the aullior goes on to say: "Then Peter made the bier
stand still and said to him: If thOll wilt believe with tlly whole
heart in llie Lord Jesus Christ, thy hands will be loosed from the
bier. And when he had said this, immediately his hands were
loosed from the bier and he began to stand on his feet; his arms,
however, were still withered and the pain did not leave him. Then
Peter said to him: Go up to the body, kiss the bed and say: I
believe in God, and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom this
120 Transitus Mariae, 3 (Lewis, Apocrypha syriaca, p. 35).
121 Transitus Mariae, 3 (Lewis, p. 46).
122 Transitus Mariae, 2 (Lewis, p. 21).
 MARIOLOGY
woman bore, and I believe all things whatever Peter, the Apostle
of God, h as told me. Then coming n ear he kissed the bed, and at
once all pain left him and his hands were healed.' '"~
Pseudo-Jobn gives the name of Jephonias to the person who tried
to overturn the ho Iy F Mary. Wh n Jephonias was punished for
this rash act and was in excruciating pain, be cried out: "Holy
Ma y, thou d..idst bear Christ, WllO is God, have mercy on me."121
This calling llpon Mary is most helpful because her power of inter-
cession i so great. This idea is brought out very graphically in these
words which Christ addresses to Mary : ''L t thy heart be glad and
rejoice, for every grace and every gift has b een given thee of My
Father who .is in heaven and of Me and of the Holy Spirit. Every
soul that calls upon thee shall not be put to shame, but shall find
mercy and consolation and help and confidence b lh in this world
and in the world to COrne before My Father who is in heaven.'I1·!lfi
he -power: of Mary to obtain for 'Us not only the needs of the
present life, but also the help necessary to attain eternal life is also
stressed by the author when h e says: "By the prayer and inter-
cesSJon of Mary may we all be accoun ted worthy to come u n der
h el" protection and help and guardianship both in this world and
in the world to come."UG
In these writings it is brought out that the intercession of Mar 1
w as great while she was living here on earth and also equ ally great
when she was taken to heaven. Mary the Q ueen assumed into
heaven , is there b eside her Son to intercede for u s. In the sennon
of Theodosius, this role of Mary, the Queen of h eaven, receives
great prominence. VVhen Clni t came to call Mary to heaven,
Theodosius portrays Christ as sayjng to P ter and John: "And I
will translate her up to the heavens to be with My Father and the
Holy Spirit, that she may continue praying for you all ."m

CONCLUSION
The foregoing pages show that there are ample testimonies to
M ary in the Apocrypha of the New Testament. Ample as these
1 23 P seudo-Melito, T ransitus Beatae Mariae, 13. 2 CTischendorf, A pocalypses
apocrypllaa, p. 133)'
1 2. P~eudo-John, tiber tie ,lorm.i/iiol7e M ariae, 47 CTischendorf, p. IIO) .
125 LA,her de aOTfnitiol'te Mllriae, 43 CTischendorf, p. 109) .
1 20 L~her de dor1llit/one MariClll, 50 CTischendorf, p. 112).
12; T.heodosius, The FalliPtg Asleep of Mary , 5. 27 (Bobinson, Coptic A pocryphal

Gospels, p. 10 9).
 MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA
testimonies are, it must not be forgotten that the testimonies men-
tioned are selective. At the same time, the testimonies selected are
representative of the Marian trends in these writings.
Aside from individual works like the As .nsion of Isaias, the
Odes of Solomon , and the like, there are two main Marian sources
in the Apocrypha. For the earlier period (second century on) there
is the Protoevang llum of James, together wi t!1 its various versions
and allied documents. For the later period (6frh cenlllry on) there
is the Transitus l\IIa.riae literature. The Protoevangelium literature
is concerned primarily with the exceptional birth and the virginity
of Mary; the Transit11~S Mal'iae literature is a glorification of Mary
as the Theotoltos and is a witness to ll er death nnd Assumption.
It must not be imagined that these two Marian sources are parallel
Ollrces in the sense that they ruo parallel and never meet. Thus,
later versions of the Protoevangeliulll and later allied documents
can and do reflect teachings current in their own age, teachings
which are nonnally given greater mphasis in the Transitus Mariae
literature. To illustrate, the Latin accolmt of Pseudo-Matthew and
the Arabi osp ] of the Infancy witness to the Queenship of Mary
and the power of her intercession , themes normally found :in the
Transitus Madae as a glorification DE .the Theotoko. Conversely,
accounts of the Transitus Mariae (e.g., that by Pselldo-Evodins)
utilize the theme of the Pl·otoevangeliurn.
The various tesLimonies adduced in these pages show that there
is a very definite and sublime corpus of M.ari.ology in these docu-
ments. Four observations are cal1ed for regarding this Mariology.
Sublime as the Mariology of these documents is, it is hoped that
this has not given a one-sided view 01: these documents and I or-
trayed tb em in too favorable a Daht. This Matiology is often given
agains t a bizarre and fantastic background of fabricated legends
and miracles. The wheat of these docnmcl1,ts, that is their teaching
on Mary, has been gathered and used; the chaff, th at is, the fan-
tastic background has been rejected except when absolutely neces-
sary for continuity. Second, with regard to U1C I1ariology of the
ApocJ:ypha, the writer was very happy to find so many and dear
testimonies. The texts were clear and spoke for themselves; they
did not have to be read into or twisted to form a corpus of Mariol-
ogy. Third, the sublime Mariology in these worles is a priceless
witn S5 to the fundamentaIlv sound Christian fecli n or the iajth-
ful for M ary. This points up the basic importance of these accounts
18 4 186 MARIOLOGY
for the theologian a terni ty.!l Thu s, SS. Ignatiu s of Antioch,
dition they are of g Aristides affirm the Virginal Conception
should be remarked Irenaeus compar Mary to Eve." From th
the development an 325 various ecclesiastical writers treat of Ma
phal teaching and 1 Ocigen, and C lement of Alexandria.r. AFt
(325) there are more references to Mal'Y n
also in the West, due to the ChristologicaJ
sies.o It was precisely the defense of athoh
divinity of Christ that brought out the glo1
Ma ternity. 'l lis increased love and devotion
Ble sed Mother and gave h er a more proml
especially after the Council of Eph esus (431
Christ and Mary are of the Ea t. T heir el
do well to study the Eastern liturgies, therefo
the Christian devotion of the East honors C)
Virgin Mother. The wealth and beauty of t
and prayers to Our Lady are truly amazing
in the Byzantine, Ethiopian, and Syrian li
have hundreds of kontaks and thousands of
and in the eighL tones in honor of Mary
twenty huge volwnes, while those ineclited
more. O T luee fourths of the Byzan tine OffiC
perhaps the best and greater part of them
privileges a~d oJ:Eces. 10 It is somewhat simil
S)'l:ian litorgi s. Bu t in all the Eastern Btu:
nent place.
The theological foundation of Eastern c
divine Maternity. Although the term hyp
used among the Eastern writers, yet the
2 Cf. Jouassard, Marie a travers la pamstique, in
pp. 7 1 - 1 57.
8 Ibid., pp. 72-77. Cf. P. R. Botz, Die Jungfrau!
in der nachapostolischen Zeit. Eine dogmatisch-~
Westphalen, 1935).
4 Jouassard, art. cit., p. 73.
5 Ibid. , pp. 73-8 ,.
6 Ibid., pp. 85- 100 •
7 Cf. Salaville, art. cit., p. 249.
8 Cf. G. Giovanelli, Il culto della Madre di Dio
Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 5, fasc. 2 (Romae, 1952~
Eastern liturgies, see the subsequent sections of ou
9 Ibid., p. 24.
10 Ibid.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 187
Christians actually give her this special cult, for they agree (except
the Nestorians) that Mary has a dignity above that of every other
creature and above all other creatures, because she is the Mother of
God. u Thus, the cult of Mary in the East is identical with that in
the West, which we call hypenlulia, even though the East, for lack
of theological analysis in this matter, does not use this term. In
fact, an Or.thodox theologian, Mihalcescu, calls Mariology "Papist
theology."32
In the follovving pages we attempt to review briefly the place
that Mary has in the Eastern liturgies; but it is impossible here to
give a full idea of the beauty and wealth of doctrine that they con-
tain. The true Church both in the East and the West will never
cease to praise the all-holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God,
to multiply hymns, feasts, and practices in her honor; for in doing
so the Church glorifies God with Mary. a.nd begs her, who is all-
powerful with her divine Son, to grant us mercy, peace, and grace.
This is well expressed in the following prayer of the Byzantine
liturgy:
Whilst we sing the glories of thy Son, we praise thee, too, 0 Mother of
God, living Temple of the Godhead.. . . 0 purest One, do not despise
the petitions of the sinner; for He who deigned to suffer for us will
also be merciful towards us and save us. 0 Christ, behold Thy Mother,
she who conceived 111ee in her womb, without the loss of her virginity,
and who after she had given Thee biIth remained a stainless ViIgin.
We present her to Thee that she may be our Advocate, 0 Thou who 3rt
all mercy, Thou who clost grant pardon to those who say to Thee
from their hearts: Be mindful of me, 0 Lord, when ThOll art come
into Thy kingdomY

In fine, it is devotion to the Mother of God even among the

Dissident Eastern Christians that gives us hope for the reunion of
Churches. She, the Mother of the Good Sh ph erd , we hope, will
lead back to the tl'1.le aock those countless souls who, for so long have
been without a shepherd. By lmowing the Eastern liturgics better
we can grow in love Eor the East, and thus hasten the day when
there will be a united Christendom ruled by the Vicar of Christ.
u a. M. Gordillo, S.]., Fon.ilalllento teo1ogico del cul,to dellll Vergine Madre
eli Dio pesso gli oriental'i, in ALml'l Socia Christi, Vol. 5, fase. 2, pp. 1-16,
esp. pp. 13 and J 5·
12 Gordillo, art. cit., p. 15.
1 8 Cf. L Card. Schuster, D.S.B., The Saommenta.ry (trlIDS. by A. Levelis-
Mllzke), 5 voIs. (London. 1927). Parts 5 and 6, Euehological Appendix, p. 442.
 MARIOLOGY
Thy Nativity, 0 Mother of God, has announced joy to the whole
world; for from thee there has risen the Sun of Justice, Christ, our
God, who breaking the curse, has given blessing, and confounding
death, has given us life everlasting. 2 8
Some other prayers for this feast are:
Today the barren gates are opened, and the Divine Virginal Gate
advances. Today is devoted to Fruit-bearing, its grace manifesting the
Mother of God to the world; by her the earthly is united to the
heavenly, for the salvation of our souls.
Today the joy of the whole world ha its beginnings; today th e breezes
blow messengers of salvation; the barrenness of OUI natuIe is destroyed;
for the Virgin MoLher is manifested, who was a Virgin after the Birth
of the Creator, by whom that which was estranged, was reconciled to
the Nature of God, and salvation was accomplished for the wanderers
in the flesh, Christ, the Lover of man and Redeemer of Our souls.
Today the barren Anna bringeth forth a blessed Child, the fore-
ordained from all generations to be the dwelling of the King and
Creator, Christ our God, for the working of the divine Plan, through
which we, the earth-born, are re-established and renewed from corrup-
tion to the eternal life. 24
At Thy Na tivity, 0 Immaculate, Joachim and Anna were delivered from
the opprobrium of sterility; Adam and Eve from com Iption and death.
T hy people also celebrate this Nativity, Ear they are freed from the
bondaae of sin and cry out: S11e wilo was sterile gave birth to dle
Mother of God, who nourishes our spir.itu.al life.25
October: The Slavs and Rumanians have the commemoration of
the Protection of th e Virgin from the first to the fourteenth of this
month. This is taken from the f east of the M antle of the Virgin, still
celebrated On July 2 in the Ch urch of Constantinople. Among the
Greeks this feast honored Grst the man tle itself and then M ary's p ro-
tection, as seen in the Office (similar to that of Our Lady's Cincture
on August 31 ). Among the Slavs the feast is that of Mary's protec-
tion, even though icons of the Prokov (covering) show either Mary
or the angels spreadin g her mantle over the faithfu1. 26
23 Ibid.
24 The Office for the Lord's Day as Prescribed by the Orthodox Greek Church
(London: Hayes, 1880), p. 161.
25 Salaville, loc. cit.
26 Ibid., pp. 251, 252, 277, 278. Cf. Alma Socia Christi, Acta Congressus Mario-
logici-Mariani, Romae Anno Saneto MCML eelebrati, Vol. 5, fase. 2, De B. V. Maria
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES
The Slavic and Rumanian Offices have this prayer:
Today, we the faithful people . . . contemplating thy pure image,
cry out in all humility: Cover us with thy precious patronage and
deliver us from all evil, praying thy Son, Christ our God, to save
our souls. 27
Today the Virgin intercedes in the Church, and with the invincible
armies of saints, prays to God for us; angels and pontiffs prostrate them-
selves; apostles and prophets rejoice, for the Mother of God prays
the eternal God for US. 28
On the Sunday between October 1 1 and 17 there is the feast of
the Second Council of Nice (787) but it really commemorates the
first seven General Councils. In the liturgy for this feast we have
the following prayer:
o Lord of all goodness, by the intercession of Thy Mother, and of
the Fathers assembled in the seven COl.llcils, strengthen Thy Church,
fortify the faith, and grant us a part in th e Kingdom of Heaven, when
Thou comest on earth to judge every creature. 2n
November: On November 15 the Slavs celebrate the feast of Our
Lady of Compassion. This title responds to the Greek Theotokos
Eleousa, given to many Byzantine icons of Mary.30
On the vigil of Our Lady's Presentation in the Temple we read:
[She is] truly the Temple of the Divine Word. The whole world, filld
with joy, cries out: The Virgin is a heavenly Tabernacle.S1
The feast of Our Lady's Presentation in the Temple on Novembel'
21 is one of the twelve principal feasts of the year, and ranks higher
in the East than in the West.
Today we, the faithful, rejoice in psalms and hymns, singing unto the
Lord, honoring also His sanctified Tabernacle, the living Ark, the
Container of the Uncontainable Word; for she, being marvellously
brought forth in the flesh, is offered to God; and the great High
Priest Zachary receives her, gladdened, as the Dwelling Place of God.

penes Ecclesias Orientis CRomae: Officium Libri Catholici, 1952); David Lathaud,
A.A., Le theme iconographique du Prokov de la Mere de Dieu; Origene, Variantes,
pp. 54-68.
27 Salaville, art. cit., p. 252.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Cf. J. Martinov, Annus ecclesiastic'Us graeco-slavicus, in Acta Sanctorum of
the Bollandists, October, Vol. 77 (Paris, 1870), p. 281.
31 Salaville, art. cit., p. 252.
 MARIOLOGY
Today tIle living Temple of the holy glory of Chxist our God, the
only-blessed UndenJed One among women, is offered in the legal
Temple, to dwell in the holy places; and Joachim and Anna rejoic::e in
spirit, and virginal choirs sing unto the Lord in melodious psalms, and
honor His Mother.
o Virgin Mother of God, thou art the Proclamation of the Prophets, the
Glory of the Al)ostles, and Boast of the Martyrs, the Renewal of the
earth-born; by thee we are reconciled to God. Wherefore we honor
thy el1txance into the Temple of the Lord, and with the Angels we
cry aloud in psalms: Hail to Lhee, the all-august, being saved by Thy
intercession. 32
Today is the prelude of the blessing of God, and the announcement
of the salvation of men. The Virgin is presented in the Temple of
the Lord, and she announces Christ beforehand to all. Let us also
cry to her with a loud voice : Hail, thou who art the fulfillment of
the plan of the Creator.

She who i::. the most pure Temple of the Saviour, She who is at one
and the same time a Virgin and a nuptial chamber of great price, the
true Treasure of the GI01Y of God, enters today into the hou se
of the Lord, hringina with her the grace of the Divine Spirit. The
An els of God sing 11ymns to hex. She is the heavenly Tahemade. 33

Dece1'ltber: The Immacl1late Conception is considered in an active

ense, namely the conception of Mary by Anna. This ,is the title for
the feast fotmd in modem li turgical boo1<&, "Feast of the Conception
of Anna ." But in the Middle Ages the other title was frequently
used, "Feast of the CODception of the Mother of God." TIle hymnog-
raphers have ever celebrated the fact of Mary's conception, and
paid little attention to the miraculous or legendary circumstances
surrounding it. These writers treat of th e special intervention of the
Blessed Trinity in preparing the palace f the Word made Flesh.
This gives the hymnographers an occasion to honor tlle perpetual
san tily oE Our ady. The feast of the Immaculate Conception was
not developed in tlle East under the influence of theolOgical contro-
versies as in the West. The feast expressed the initial holiness of Our
Lady, whom God prepared in a special way to be the Mother of
His Son. A Tl{onta.feion reads:
32 The Office of the Lord's Day, p. 163.
3S Salaville, art. cit., p. 254.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 193
Today the whole world celebrates the Conception of Anna, which is
the work of God; for she has brought forth into the world her, who,
in an ineffable manner, has begotten the Word made Flesh. S4

Again:
T oday are burst the bonds of barrenness, for God, hearing the desire
of Joachim and Anna for children, clearly promised them a holy
Daughter, from whom shall be bo:m I-Ie, wh o is Uncontainable, who
shall become a M ottal by the summons of the Angel crying aloud to
her : Hail, 0 full of grace, the L01'd is with thee. as
From December 18 to 24 the following antiphons are read:
o Virgin, the living Palace of God, He, whom the Heavens cannot
contain, found place in Thee: who in the cave was brought forth
above thought, taking part in poverty and flesh, that H e might deify
me, and enrich poverty, weakness and bitter hunger.
The All-Holy and Blameless One, perceiving the ordinances of nature
renovated by the incomprehensible Birth cried out to the Son : 0 much
desired ahild, I am amazed at the great mystery, how, remaining a
Virgin, I also brought forth by Thy Power, who madest all things
by Thy Will.86
Today the Virgin begets the Supersubstantial One,
The earth offers the shelter of the cave to the Inaccessible One,
The Angels chant the Glory of God with the shepherds,
The Magi walk with the star,
For there is born for us,
The new Infant, God before all ages. S1
On Christmas Day Mary is honored with these prayers:
... For He, the unchangeable Image of the Father, the Impress of
His eternity, hath taken the form of a servant, coming forth from His
virginal Mother, but unchanged; for what He was, that He still re-
mained, True God; and what He was not, He assumed, through Love
for men becoming Man. To Him we cry aloud: 0 God, who wast
born of a Virgin, have mercy upon US. 88
84 Ibid.
85 The O ffice of the Lord's Day, p. 191.
86lbid., p. 164.
81 Salaville, art. cit., p. 255.
88 Th e Office of the Lord's Day, p. 164.
194 MARIOLOGY
From the Hymn of Anatolius:
When Jesus the Lord was born of the Holy Virgin, all things were
enligh tened . ... 0 God who 3rt, and wast before, and shinest forth
from the Vir gin, have mercy upon us.
From the Hymn of Casia:
When Augustus reigned alone upon the earth, the many rulers of men
ceased; and when Thou becamest Man of the Pure One, the many
godheads of the idols fell. 5 9
After the Consecration in the Divine Liturgy, Mary is praised
with this hymn:
It is easy, 0 Virgin, to love thee in silence, without having anything
to fear; bu t it is difficult to chant hymns to thee as we would like,
wcll suited to thy love. At least, 0 Mother, grant us to do so according
to our desire. ~o

On December 26 there is celebrated the Synaxis or Commemora-

tion of Mary, which is really the feast of her divine Maternity and
was the first feast in honor of Mary. A kontakion for this day reads:
He, who before the dawn was begotten oE the Father without h aving
a Mother, took flesh today in thy womb widlOUt having a fa ther.
Therefore the star announces His Birth to the M agi and th Angels
sinO' 0f thy virgina1 childbearing with the shepherds, 0 thou full
of grace.<tl

On the Sunday after Christmas there is a commemoration of St.

Joseph, Spouse of Mary, of David the Prophet, and of James the
Lord's cousin, to show the messianic descent of Joseph and the
relationship of James. The tropar at Vespers declares:
o Joseph, announce to David that thou hast seen a Virgin with
child, aud that, illfonned by the angel, thou hast glorified God with
the shepherds, whom thou hast adored with the Magi. Beg Christ
our God to save our souls. ~ 2
In the Christmas Office there are many tropars and kondiaks in
honor of Mary, e.g.:
39 Ibid., p. 265.
40 Salaville, art. cit., p. 255.
H Ibid., p. 256.
42 Ibid.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 195'
The dew-shedding fiery furnace imaged forth the type of a marvellous
wonder: for its Hames scorched not the Holy Children whom it had
received, even as the fire of the Godhead scorched not the Virgin when
it entered into her womb. 43
Magnify, 0 my soul, the Virgin, the all-pure Birth-giver of God,
more honorable and more glorious than the hosts on high.
A mystery strange and most glorious I behold. The cavern, Heaven;
the Cherubic Throne a Virgin; the manger, the receptacle wherein
lieth Christ, our God whom nothing can contain. Him, therefore, do
we magnify, praising Him in song. 44
January: Although there is no special Marian feast in this month,
the Office of the Circumcision is filled with the idea of the divine
Maternity of Mary. So, too, in the Latin Office for this feast the
antiphons for Vespers and Lauds are obviously taken from the Byzan-
tine Office (0 admirabile commercium, etc.). A Byzantine ~heotokion
reads :
Who could worthily celebrate the supernatural mystery of the con-
ception wrought in thy womb? For thou hast begotten in the flesh,
o All-Holy One, God who has manifested Himself to us the Saviour
of men.
The bush of Sinai, in contact with the fire without being consumed,
prefigured thee, 0 Mother ever Virgin, Mary, 0 most chaste Mother
of God. 4 5
Although the feast of Epiphany is mainly to honor the Lord's
Baptism, it does not forget His Mother. These strophes of Matins are
in her honor:
Every tongue finds it h ard to praise Thee worthily. The heavenly
spirits themselves exult to praise thee, 0 Mother of God. Nonetheless
in thy goodness, accept our faith, for thou knowest our desire. Thou art
the Protectress of Christians; we glorify thee.
o incomprehensible wonder of Thy child-bearing! Virgin all-pure,
blessed Moth-er, by whom we have received complete salvation. 0 thou,
our Benefactress, we present to thee the worthy homage of our grati-
tude.4 6
43 H apgood, op. cit., p. 179.
44 Ibid.
45 Salaville, art. cit" pp. 256, 257.
4ft Ibid., p. 2.57.
 MARIOLOGY
This latter prayer is used also during the Divine Liturgy.
February: On the vigil of Mary's Purification we find this strophe:
The heavenly choir of the angels of God. prostrate on the earth, sees
arriving at the Temple a tiny Infallt carried in the arms of a Virginal
Mother. the First-born of all creation. In their joy mixt!d with fear,
the angels sing with us the hymn of preparation for the feast." r
The Presentation of Christ in the Temple, or Purification of Mary,
is one of the twelve great feasts of the Byzantine rite and is generally
a holyday of obligation. In the Office we find the following tropars:
Hail, 0 virgin Birth-giver of God; for from thee hath shone forth the
Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God, who giveth light to those who
are in darkness. . . .
We magnify Thee, 0 life-giving Christ, and we do homage to Thy
Mother most pure, by whom Thou hast now been brought into the
Temple of the Lord, according to the Law.
o Virgin Birth-giver of God, the Hope of Christians, protect, gual<!
and save thou those who put their trust in thee.
Incomprehensible unto Angels and unto men is that which is wrought
with thee, 0 Virgin Mother Pure.
A pure Dove, a spotless Lamb bringeth into the Church the Lamb and
the Shepherd. 48
The response "Adorna thalamum tuum Sian," used in the Latin
chants for the procession on this feast, is a translation of a Byzantine
tropar for Vespers on this feast. The Latin version is a bit changed.
The Byzantine reads:
Adorn thy l1uptial chamber. 0 Sion, and receive Christ thy King.
Receive Mary with love, who is the heavenly Gate; she has been
made the Cherubic Throne and the Gate of the King of Glory. The
Virgin is the luminous Cloud, who bears in her arms her Son begotten
before the dawn. Simeon, receiving Him in his arms, bas proclaimed
to the peoples tbat Ie is the Master of life and death_and the Saviour
of the world. 49
March-April: For the vigil of the feast of the Annunciation there
is this kontakion:
47 Ibid.
48 Hapgood, op. cit., pp. 198-200.
~9 Salaville, art. cit., p. 258.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 197
Today, let us celebrate with joy the prelude of universal exultation.
Behold, Gabriel approaches, bringing to the Virgin with admiration
and respect the glad tidings: Hail, a Full of Grace, the Lord is with
thee.GO
The feast of the Annunciation is ODe of the twelve great feasts of
the Byzantine rite, and is generally a holyday of obligation. The
divine message of the feast and its importance are repeated in various
ways in the D.ivine OfIiGe for this feas t, together with praise of
Mary and prayers to her.
Today is the beglnning of our salvation and the manifestation of that
mystery which :is nom everlasting; the Son of God becometh the Son
of a Virgin, and Gabriel amloUllceth the glad tidiqgs of grace. Where-
fore, let us also cry aloud with him lmto the Birth-giver of God; Hail,
thou that art full of grace, the Lord :is with thee.
a Birth-giver of God, FOW1taiU living and inexhaustible! Spiritually
establish thou those who hymn tllee, convoked in a choir, and vouch-
safe UlItO them crowns in thy heavenly glory.
Th.e Akathistos Hymn: TIlls long h ymn in honor of the Annuncia-
tion is very old, but it is uncertain just when jt was com.posed.51 Its
name means the "not seated," for it is sung standing as a sign of
joy in praise of the Virgin for her victories in favor of the people.
This hymn is sung in its en tirety on the fifth atm'day of Lent in
Byzantine cl:;lUrches, i.e., it is anticipated on Friday everungs. It is
in su.ch favor that a fourth of it is sung on the four preceding Friday
evenings. 5 :1 The hymn has 24 oi/wi or strophes, each begin ning with
a letter of the Greek alphabet. There are also an introductory strophe
and a concluding invocation. The hymn lills abollt thirty pages in
the Greek version of Grottaferrata (L949) in ordinary pan'lphlet size.
Afte'r speaking of the Archanod Gabriel announcing the glad tidings
to Mary the hymn breaks forth jn jubilation which sets the tone for
the whole hymn:
I will open my mouth and it shall be filled with the Spirit; I will
break forth into a hymn to the Queen Mother and with joy I will
present myself to honor her and I will sing her privileges with
exultation. 58
50 Ibid., p. 259.
51 Ibid. Cf. McPherson, art. cit., April-June, 1949, pp. 128, 129. - Officio del
Inno Akathistos in onore della SS. Madre di Dio CGrottaferrata, 1949).
52 Salaville, art. cit., p. 259.
58 Officio del Inno Akathistos, p. 10.
 MARIOLOGY
The hymn then goes on to salute and praise the Mother of God
under the most diverse titles in true Eastern style and with a rare
sense of fitness. It is a rich and magnificent hymn breathing forth
love and admiration for the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and
Dawn of Salvation. Some of the titles given to her are:
Hail, 0 Virgin Divine Spouse, Rehabilitation of Adam, Destruction
of Hell!
Hail, Brilliant Throne of the Almighty, who hast brought forth the
incorruptible Rose!
Hail, 0 Perfume of the Universal King, purest Virgin, Salvation of
the World!
Hail, 0 Lady, fragrant Lily, that perfumes the faithful, sweet-smelling
Thyme, precious Ointment!
Hail, 0 Mother of God, living and copious Fountain, confirm thy
devoted ones!
Hail, 0 Splendid Dawn, that has brought us the Sun who is Christ!
Hail, 0 unique Gate, through wnich only the W ord passed!
Hail, 0 inaccessible Height of human in telligences. 0 inscrutable
Profundily even to the eye.<; o.f the Angels!
Hai], thou Throne of the King! H ail, who caniest Him who sustains all!
Hail, 0 heavenly Ladder whereby God came down to earth!
I-Iail, 0 Bridge that brings mortru.s from earth to Heaven!
Jail, thPll pleasing I ncense of intercession!
During the singing of this hymn the celebrant incenses the icon of
Mary several times and kisses it. At last he prostrates himself before
the icon, incenses it again, and kisses it. I e then goes to th e anc-
tuary to finish the Office of the day.1W
The O'l'l1:passio11 of Mary: Although the general Byzantine rite
has no special feast of OUT Lady of Sorrows, there are sp eCial trop ars
in honor of her compassion in ever Len ten Office. T hese tropars are
called Stavrotheotohia, because addressed to Our ady at the fo t f
the cross, and are used especially on Lenten Sundays, Wednesdays,
and Fridays. The following are some of these tropars:
In contemplating Thee, Divine Lamb, crucified on the Wood with
two thieves, 0 generous Logos, and on seeing Thy Side pierced with
a lance, Mary uttered these maternal lamentations: What is this
strange and awful mystery, 0 my Jesus? How canst Thou go to be
covered by the tomb, Thou who art the infinite God? 0 unspeakable
54 Salaville, art. cit.) pp. 262-265.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 199
spectacle! Do not leave me alone, Thou whom I have begotten, 0
my sweetest Son. 65
The purest Virgin Mother contemplating Him on the Cross cried
out with sighs: Alas, my Son! What hast Thou done? Thou, the most
beautiful of the children of men, Thou appearest without breatb and
without beauty. . . . Alas I 0 my Light, I C3Jlllot bear to see Thee
sleep; 1 am wounded to the core of my being, and a cruel sword
tnll'lsJixes my heart. I glorify Thy Passion, I adore Thy Compassion and
Thy Mercy, 0 magnanimous Saviour, glory be to Theel OO
On Good Friday at Matins the following antiphons are read:
In seeing Thee suspended on the Cross, 0 Christ, she who begot Thee
cried out: What a strange mystery do I see, 0 my Son? How dost
Thou die on the Cross, Thou who art the Head and the Dispenser
of life. 67
With dramatic insistence the following antiphon cries out:
Mary, with the other women, followed Him com'UIIled with. sorrow
and crying out: \Vhither goest Thou, my SonI \Vhy dost Thou hasten
Thy stepl Is there another marriage at Cana, where Thou wouldst
undertake to change water into wine for them! Would that I could
come with Thee, my Son! Or rather that I could remain with Thee!
Give me a word, 0 Logos; do not pass me up in silence, Thou who
hast preserved me a Virgin. For Tlou art my Son and my God. 58
Again:
Today the Virgin wlde6.1ed, beholding Thee, the Word, uplifted upon
tl1e Cross, weeping with the tender love of a mother, was sore
wounded in heart, and moaned grievously from the depths of her
soul, wiping her face with her hair. Wherefore also beating her hands,
she cried piteously: Woe is me, 0 my Son divine! Woe is me, 0
Light of the WorldJ \Vhy b''lSt Thou departed from mine eyes, 0
Lamb of God? FoI. which cause also the host of bodiless Powers were
seized with trembling, and said: 0 Lord ineffable, glory to Thee!59
On Holy Saturday there is this antiphon:
. . . When she beheld Him hanging on the Cross, she cried with
55 Ibid., p. 266.
~6 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
581bid.
59 Hapgood, op. cit., p. 218.
200 MARIOLOGY
weeping, and with materna] feeling excltlimed: Woe is me, my SonI
Woe i~ me, my Light, and the Beloved of my bosoml that which was
foretold in the Temple by Simeon today hath come to passl A sword
shall pierce my hean, but into the joy of the Resurrection lament shall
be changed. no

Again:
Lament not for me, 0 Mother, when Thou beholdest in the tomb the
Son whom, without seed, Thou didst conceive in Thy womb; for I
will rise again and glorify Myself; and in that I am God, I will
raise in glory that hath no ending those who with faith and love
magnify Thee. 61
Mary an.d the Res~trrecl;ion. of Christ: The Byzantine xite is similar
to the others in joining Mary to the joy of Christ's Resurrection.
Romanos the h ymnographer sang: '1-Iave confidence, 0 M other, for
Thou shalt be the first to see me rise from the tomb."o2
At Matins an ode reads:
The angel cried addressing the One Full of grace: Rejoice, 0 Virgin,
again I say, rejoice! Thy Son is risen from the tomb the third day.63
At every hour of the Office during Paschal week there is read this
antiphon in honor of Mary, the Cause of our joy:
R.ejoice thou, who art the divine Tabernacle of the Most High; for it
is through thee 0 Mother of God, that there has been given the
joy to repeat to thee: Thou art blessed among women, 0 Immaculate
Queen.Dol
On Easter there is this tropar in the Divine Office:
o Christ, who did not break the Virgin's gate by Thy birth, Thou
didst rise from the dead, having kept intact the seals; and Thou hast
opened unto us the gates of Paradise. 65
Again:
Rejoice thou, 0 pure Birth-giver of God, in the rising again of Him
whom thou didst bear.66
60 Ibid., p. 223.
61 Ibid., p. 224.
62 Salaville, art. cit., p. 271.
68 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Hapgood, op. cit., p. 230.
06 Ibid., p. 232.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 201

Rejoice, 0 Virgin! Rejoice, 0 Blessed One! Rejoice 0 greatly Glorified

One! For thy Son is risen from His three days' sojourn in the tomb. 67
May: On M ay 1 1 there is the feast of the dedication of the City
of Constantinople, which the Byzantin e rite considers an act of
homage to MaJ:Y. Even the Slavs, the Melchites, and the Rumanians
have this feast. The very fi rst tmpar at Vespers shows th e M arian
character of this feast:
The Queen of Cities dedicated her foundation to the Queen of
creation; for it is in her that she finds her support. Hence she cries
out: It is thou, 0 Virgin, who art the support of the crown, the
scepter and the rulers. 68
Ju,ly-A'/,/,gust-October: On July 2 there is the feast of the Mantle
of the M other of G od at Blakhernes, on August 3 I the feast of the
Cincture of the Mothel' of God, and on Octobel' I that of the Pro-
tection or Patronage of the Mother of God. On all of these feasts
we see the doctrine of Mary's intercession clearly expressed, as stated
previously f or th e feast of O ctober 1. 6n
August r 5: The feast of the Failing Asleep of the Holy Virgin, or
the Assumption . TIlls is the most solenm Mmian feast in the Byzan -
tine rite. It is preceded by a small fas t of two weeks and a vigil. The
feast is a holyday of oblioation.
There are three kinds of texts in the Byzantine li turgy for tIus
great feast. The fi rst is guite explicit regarding the Resurrection and
Assump tion of M ary. The second speaks onl y of th e Assump tion of
hel' soul and the incorrup tion of hel' body. The third category is
ambiguoLls in U1e sense th at the texts speak either of the Assumption
of her soul or of hel' departure without defining just how. 70 The
clearest texts telling of M ary's Assump tion to heave:n body and soul
are gen erally those of St. John D amascen e, St. Cosmas, ishop of
M aiouma ( both of the eighth cen tury) and S1. Theophan e G raptos,
Bishop of N ice (in the llinth century).
The heavenly tabernacles, 0 all-Pure One, h ave received thee worthily
as a living Heaven; thou hast presented thyself to our King and God
in all the splendor of be&u ty, as a Spouse entirely immaculate.
67 Ibid., p. 233. For "OUI Lady of the Living Source," on Friday after Easter, see
Salaville, art. cit., pp. 272-275.
68 Salaville, art. cit., p. 276.
69 Ibid., pp. 277-281.
70 M. Jugie, La Mort et l'AssOInl'tion de la Sainte VieTge, Etude historico-
doctrinale (Rome, 1944), p. 188.
202 MARIOLOGY
It was a marvel to contemplate the living Heaven of the King of
the Universe, elevated above the earthly places. How admirable are
Thy works! Glory to Thy Power, 0 Lord!
In bringing forth God, 0 Imm.lculate One, thou hast gained the palm
of victory over nature. N 1l'etheles , after the example of thy Creator,
who is also thy Son, thou hast yielded supernatural1y to the laws of
nature; therefore dying with thy Son, thou hast arisen for eternity.
The tomb and death cOllJd not retain in their power the Mother of
God, whose intercession never ceases, and whose PIOtcction con-
stitutes our finn hope; her title Mother of Life has entitled her to
pass to life by the power of Him, who has dwelt in her virgi)lal womb.71
Others read as follows:
o marvel wonderful! The Source of life is laid in a grave, and the
tomb becometh the ladder unto Heaven. Rejoice, 0 Gethsemane, thou
holy abode of the Mother of God.
Sing, 0 ye people, sing to the Mother of our God; for today she
doth yield up her all-radiant soul into the hands most pure of Him,
who, withollt seed, was incarnate of her; whom, also, she doth un-
ceasingly entreat that He will give tmto the world peace and great
mercy.
In giving birth, thou didst preserve thy virginity; in thy Falling-asleep
thou hast not forsaken the world, 0 Mother of God. Thou hast
passed into life, thou who art the Mother of God, and through thine
intercession dost deliver our souls from death.
When the holy Angels beheld thine Assumption, they marvelled how a
Virgin should ascend from earth to Heaven.
The laws of nature were conquered in thee, 0 Virgin pure; for in
giving birth was virginity preserved, and with dea th is life conjoined.
Thou who, after giving birth didst remain a Virgin, though dead, art
yet alive, Birth-giver of God and savest always thine inheritance. 72
August is Mary's month with the Byzantines. The first half is
devoted to the fast in preparation for the feast of the Assumption.
Then there is the feast itself, and then its prolongation until August
23. It was Emperor Andronicus II Paleologus of Constantinople who
issued the decree in 1297 that the entire month of August be dedi-
cated to the 10ther of God. Until the city fell to the Turks in
71 Salaville, art. cit., pp. 281-285.
72 Hapgood, op. cit., pp. 263-265.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES
1453 the month of August was celebrated with solemnity in honor of
Mary. The festivities began at the Church of Our Lady of Hodeges
and was continued at the different churches throughout the month.
On the fifteenth the services were held at Santa Sophia ruld on the
thirty~.6rst at Blakhernes, the Byzantine Lourdes, "Our Lady of the
Living Source."76 The custom spread in the lands of the Byzantine
rite with some variations. Today every evening during the first two
weeks of August they sing the votive office of Our Lady known as
the Paraklisis. 74
2. MARY IN THE DIVINE OFFICE
The praises of Mary occur every day in the Divine Office. The
following are examples taken from various parts of the Office:
o most Glorious and Blessed Mother of God, ever Virgin, present
our prayer to thy Son, our God, and beg Him to save our souls
through Thee.
. . . I place all my hope in thee, 0 Mother of God, protect me in
thy care.
On Sundays:
o purest Virgin, in seeing thy Son divinely risen again from the
dead, the whole world was filled with ineffable joy, in glorifying Him
and in venerating thee.
Hail, 0 Venerable One, thou who hast brought forth God in the
flesh, thou through whom the human race has found salvation. For
through thee we shall find Paradise, 0 Virgin pure and blessed.
o Christ, who art the Light, enlighten me with Thyself, by the in-
tercession of the Mother of God, 0 Saviour, and save me.
On Wednesdays and Saturdays we find this tropar:
Standing at the foot of the Cross, she, who brought Thee forth vir-
7:1 Salaville, art. cit., pp. 285, 286. Archdale A. Kin.g, The Assumption of OTlr
Lady in the OrientLlt Liturgies, in Eastem Churches QtlartetLy, VoL 8, Nos. 3 and
4; for Byzantine rite, NO.4, Ootober-December, 1949, pp. 228, 2.29. seC also Vol.
9, No. 2., Summer, 1951, Michael Guvrilof, 111,e DOnltitiol~ al'l,i! A~SI"mptio)~ of the
Blessed Virgin ill Slav. Icol1og)'&lpl"y, pp. 113-119. 'with 14 illustrations; Dom
Edmund M. Jones. a.S.B., TIle Icunlogr'!ph11 of the Fqlhng Aslu'1) of the Mpth{:!r
of God in Byzan,1.ine Tm,diti01~, pp. 101- 1 D.; Amnaslo G. WeJykyj, a.S.B.M.,
L'As5'll,nz1cme della B. V. Maria Deipara l~ella Li"~rgin Biumti'/1a, in Al'ma 8ooj{l
Christi, Vol. 5, folse. 2., pp. 36-53; M. Jugie. A.A.. La fete Byzal'tine de la Con-
ceptjo7~ de Sainte-Anne, in AIm-a. Socia Christi, Vol. }, fase. 2 pp. 2.9-35.
701 .salllv,.ille, art. cit., p. 2.87.
 MARIOLOGY
ginally, sighed and said: Alas! 0 my sweetest Son, how hast Thou
passed from my eyes, how hast Thou been counted among the dead?
On Thursdays there is this prayer, in which we see a nne declara-
tion of Mary's relation to the three Divine Persons:
Mary, the purest Golden Censer, has become the Tabernacle of the
Trinity, whom nothing can contain. With this Tabernacle, the Father
is pleased the SOn has dwelt therein and the Holy Spirit, 0 Virgin,
(;:overing thee with His shadow, has made thee Mother of God.
On Saturdays:
We glory in thee, 0 Mother of God, and we have thee for Protectress
before God; extend thine invincible arm and destroy our enemies;
send down to thy servants aid from on high.
On Sundays:
Thou art blessed above all, 0 Virgin Mother of God; for it is through
Him, who took flesh of thee, that hell has been made captive, that
Adam has been freed, that the curse was destroyed, that Eve has been
delivered, that death has been sent to death, and that life has been
restored to ourselves. Therefore we sing: Blessed be Christ our God.
At the Little Hours these tropars occur:
Let us glorify without respite, with heart and mouth, the most
glorious Mother of God, holier than the angels, and proclaim her
Birth-giver of God, for she has really brought forth God Incarnate,
and that she should intercede for our souls.
At Prime and before the Divine Liturgy:
Open to us the door of mercy, Blessed Mother of God. Hoping in thee,
may we not be confounded. Through thee may we be delivered from
all dangers, for thou art the Hope of Christians.
At Tierce:
o Birth-Giver of God, thou art the true Vine that has produced the
Fruit of life. We beg of thee, intercede, 0 Queen, with the Apostles
and all the saints, so that our souls will receive mercy.
At Sext:
Thou art the Source of mercy, deign to show us thy compassion, 0
Birth-giver of God; cast an eye on this sinful people, show it, as
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 205

ever, thy power. Filled with hope in thee, we repeat to thee the
salutation, which the Archangel Gabriel brought to thee of 01d. 15
,I t is monastic custom to have the midday meal between Sext and
None. DUTing the meal, in monasteries and in many Christian
families, an icon of Mary, hung in a prominent place, receives spe-
cial honor. This ceremony is called the Exaltation of the Panagia
CAn-Holy). Some bread in the form of a triangle is placed before
her icon. At the end of the meal, one of the community or family
incenses this bread and raising it before all says: "Great is the
Name of the Trinity! Most Holy Mother of God, protect us." The
others answer: "In virtue of her prayers, 0 God, have mercy on us,
and save us." Then the bread is cut and all present take a piece which
is called the panagia. This ceremony is explained in the following
manner in the Homlogion:
After Christ's Resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit
Our Lady and the Apostles lived together. At meals there was a
vacant place at table where a piece of bread was placed in honor of
Christ. After the meal the diners recited praise to the tluee Persons
of the Blessed Trinity. On the third day after tlle burial of Our Lady
the Apostles came together to dine, and when they began the prayer
in honor of the Blessed Trinity, Our Lady appeared to them and
told them to rejoice, for she would be ever with them. The Apostles
begged her aid. Then they went to her tomb and found it empty,
and they understood that she had arisen like her Son on the third
day after her death. Hence in this custom of raising an icon of Mary
at table and of blessing the bread and praising the Blessed Trinity
we find the belief in Mary's Assumption. 76
At None:
Come, let us all praise Him who has been crucified for us. Mary saw
Him on the wood of the Cross and said: Although Thou sufferest the
Cross, Thou art my Son and my God.
At Vespers:
Often during Lent, and on certain other ferial days, there are two
tropars in honor of Mary:
o Virgin Birth-giver of God, Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the Fruit of
thy womb; for thou hast brought forth the Saviour of our souls.
15 Ibid., pp. 289-293.
16 Ibid., pp. 293, 294.
206 MARIOLOGY
We have recourse to thy mercy, 0 Birth-giver of God, do not thou
disdain our supplications in our necessities, but deliver us from
dangers, 0 thou who art alone pure and alone blessed.
The evening table prayers have these words:
Thy womb, 0 Mother of God, has become the sacred table bearing the
heavenly Bread, Christ our God, who promises immortality to whom-
soever eats it, according to the word of Him who is the universal
Provider.
o Virgin Birth-giver of God, make us worthy of thy gifts, forget our
sins, and give us the spiritual remedies, we who receive thy blessing
with faith, 0 Immaculate One.
At Compline:
Having confidence in thee that will never be confounded, I shall be
saved. Assured of thy protection, 0 Immaculate Olle, I shall fear
nothjng; I shall pursue my enemies and destroy them, having thy
help as my only srueld. So, too, imploring thy assistance, I cry to
thee: 0 Queen, save me by thy intercession and ma],e me to corne
forth from dar1< sleep to sing thy praises, by the power of God, thy
Son, who took flesh from thee.?7
This part of the Office ends witb an unusually long prayer attrib-
uted to the monk Paul ( t 1054), founder of the Monastery of Our
Lady of Evergate.~8 These tropars, antiphons, and odes are oilly some
examples of the rich Theo'to1tia in the Byzantine Office. Many more
are used especially on certain feasts at Matins and Vespers. Besides
that, the Byzantine rite also has some Votive Offices. The Akathistos
Hymn is often used that way. Others are called the Small Canon of
St~pplication and the Great Canon of Supplication to the All-Holy
Birth-Giver of God. 79

3. MARY IN THE DIVINE LrruRGY

The icons of Christ and the all-holy Mother of God are present at
every Divine Liturgy. They are incensed at various times by the
celebrant or deacon. On opening the royal door, the celebrant recites
the prayer given above beginning with the words: "Open to us the
door of mercy." Before Mary's icon he says:
77 Ibid., pp. 295-298.
78 Ibid., pp. 297, 298.
79 Ibid., pp. 312-324.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 20 7

Thou art the Font of mercy, 0 Mother of God, vouchsafe us thy

compassion. Look down upon a sinful people, show thy power as
always. Hoping in thee, we cry to thee: Hail, as did once Gabriel,
the Captain of the angels. so
Placing a piece of bread on the paten in honor of Mary the cele·
brant says:
In honor and in memory of our most. blessed and glorious Lady, Mother
of God, and ever-Virgin IVlary, through whose intercession do Thou,
o Lord, receive this sacri£ ce on Thy heavenly altar. T he Queen stood
at Thy right hand, clothed in a robe of gold and many colors.S1
During the Divine Liturgy the Mother of God is invoked various
times, e.g.:
By the intercession of the Mother of God, 0 Saviour, save us.
May Christ our God, by the prayers of His Immaculate Mother .
and of all the saints, have mercy on us and save us, for He is the
gracious Lover of men. 82
Remembering our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady,
the Mother of God, and ever-Virgin Mary, and all the saints, let
us commend ourselves, each other, and all our life to Christ our God. s3
o o111y·begotten Son and WO'l:d of God, -w11o being immortal didst
vouchsafe to take flesh for all salvation of the Holy Birth-giver of
God, and ever Virgin Mary; TI10U who without change didst become
man and wast cruci6.ed, 0 C lui<;t our God, by death trampling down
death; Thou who wast Thyself one of the Holy Trinity, who art
glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us. S4
In this prayer we hear the echoes of the early Councils of the
Church crying down the ages that Christ is true God and true Man,
and Mary is truly the Mother of God. The great Eastern Doctors of
those ages speak to us in this prayer, and in others of this rite, they
who proclaimed these doctrines with such force and clarity. Mary
60 1l,ld.. , p. 303. Cf. Cuthbert Gumbinge.r, O.F.M.Cap., The C ...lt of the Mother
of God, in Byzanti ,te Lihlrgy, in FmnclsClI'I'I St'u.dles (St. Bonaventure, N . Y.),
Vo'!. 22; New Series, Vol. r, NO.3, September. 1941, pp. 49-6r.
81 Dom Placid De Meester, O.S.B., T'he. Div'ille Uw.'rgy of: Du,r Patl1.er atl~ong the
Savnts, John ChrysostOl'n (Greek text with Introduction and Notes) (London: Bums,
Oates and WashboUDle, 1926), p. 13.
~. I1?!.i1., p. 2.7.
S;I rbi.d., p. 29.
g.Qbid., p. 31.
208 MARIOLOGY
is commemorated several times in shorter prayers. Then after the
Consecration, the priest incenses the Sacred Species and praises Mary,
immaculate, all-holy, and ever Virgin. The choir sings the megaly-
narion (which varies on certain feasts):
Meet indeed it is to bless thee, Mother of God, ever blessed and most
sinless Mother of our God. Honored above the Cherubim, infinitely
more glorious than the Seraphim, who didst bear God the Word with-
out stain. Mother of God in truth, we magnify thee. 85
On Mary's feasts the tropars and antiphons multiply in her honor,
e.g.:
Thy mysteries are above understanding and most glorious, 0 Mother
of God, for, spotless and a virgin, thou art acknowledged a true Mother,
who hast borne the true God; pray to Him that He save our souls.
Hail, thou Gate of the Lord! Hail, Bulwark and Protection of those
who fly to thee! Hail, untroubled Haven and Virgin, who hast borne in
flesh thy Creator and God! Do not cease to pray for those who laud
and reverence thy child-bearing.
As the treasure of our resurrection, do thou, 0 universally celehrated
Virgin, raise up those hoping in thee from the pit and depth of sin;
for th ou hast saved the repentent from sin, having borne our Salvation,
and ~ast a Virgin before bearing child, a Virgin in bearing, and after
bearing hast ever remained a Virgin.80
From these excerpts of the Byzantine liturgical texts we see how
profound and how tender is th Madan doctrine of the Byzantines.
They are justly proud of it. We do well to study these prayers to
in rease our own devotion to the all-holy and immaculate Virgin
Mother of God. When we consider that the Orthodox use these
same prayers, we are consoled to think that M ary, in her l1lerdf-ul
goodness, will eventually lead them back to the one true Church
of Christ, over whom He bad appOinted Peter and his successors
to r ule and teach infallibly for all ages. With all the Byzantines we
ask the Mediatrix of All Graces
For the peace of the whole world, for the good estate of all the holy
churches of God, and for the union of all. 87
85 Ibid., p. 69.
86 Theophile A. Zatkovich, The Bread of Life, Prayer Book for Catholics of the
Old Slavonic Rite (Homestead, Pa., 1935), pp. 100, 101, 106, 110. Cf. Salaville,
art. cit., pp. 302.-304.
87 De Meester, op. cit., p. 2.5.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Attwater, Donald, The Christian Churches of the East, 2 vols. (Milwau-
kee: Bruce, 1946, 1947).
- - Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London: Burns, Oates and
Washbourne, 1931).
Brian-Chaninov, Nicolas, The Russian Church, translated from the French
by Warre B. Wells (New York: Macmillan, 1930).
Fortescue, Adrian, The Uniate Eastern Churches, The Byzantine Rite in
Italy, Sicily, Syria and Egypt (London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne,
19 2 3).
Gordillo, Mauritius, S.L, Compendium Theologiae Orientalis (Romae:
Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1950).
King, Archdale A., The Rites of Eastern Christendom, 2 vols. (Rome:
Catholic Book Agency, 1948), Vol. 2, Byzantine Rite with Variants,
pp. 1-2 50 •
Kirsch, Johann Peter, Die Kirche in der Griechisch-Roemischen Kultur-
welt (Kirchengeschichte 1) (Fteiburg im Breisgau : H erder, 1930).
Larsson, Ra~ond, E. F., Saints (J.t Prayer (New York, Coward-McCann,
1942). Many Eastern 11rayers to Mary are here given.
Raes, AlphOflStlS, S.1., Int1"Od1~ctio in Liturgiam. Orientale'ln (Rornae: Pont.
Institutum StudiorulU' Ot;ientalium, 1947).
For Byzantine anaphoras see Aleksyei Maltzev, Die Goettlichen Liturgien
unserer heiligen Vaeter Johannes Chrysostomus, Basilios des Grossen
und Gregorios Diologos (Berlin, 1890). Also Migne, Patrologia Graeca,
Vol. 63, col. 90 et seq.
210 MARIOLOGY

II. MARY IN THE ALEXANDRIAN AND

ETHIOPIAN LITURGIES

1. THE ALEXANDRIAN LITURGY

The Church of St. Mark at Alexandria and its faithful use the
Alexandrian liturgy. After the Council of Chalcedon Egypt fell into
Monophysism, when the Patriarch Dioscoros of Alexandria was de-
posed by the Council Nearly all tl, e ergy and f-ruthful of Egypt,
and many also in Syria, refused to accept the definitions of this
Council. Politics, too, played a part in tllls, and for the next century
Alexandria had sometimes Catholic, sometimes Monophysite, patri-
archs. By 567 two lines of patri archs were established, one Catholic
ond one ilonophysite. The Catholics were in a minority. Both Cath-
olic and M onophysite Egyptians are called Copts. This condition
remains to the present day. Various attempts at reunion have taken
place in recen t cen tul'ies, but wit11 little effect. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII
granted the Cath oli Oopts a patriarch in the person of Cyril Maka-
rios. Since then they have increased in numbers and power. Yet even
Makarios went into schism for a time. The present patriarch is Mark
II Khouzam, appointed by Pope Pius XII, August 10, 1947. 1
The splendid Alexandrian liturgy gives great praise to Mary and
is used by both the Catholic and the Monophysite Copts. This liturgy
is a form of the early Greek liturgy of Alexandria and it has three
anaphoras, namely of St. Basil for Sundays and ordinary days; of St.
Mark and St. Cyril, used on the feasts of these saints and at the
consecration of a bishop; and of St. Gregory Nazianzen for great
feasts. This last anaphora is addressed to Our Lord. The language
used is Coptic, a language derived from the old Egyptian and mixed
with some Greek. 2
The Ethiopian liturgy is derived from the Alexandrian, translated
from the Coptic and Arabic in the course of centuries, without much
1 D. Attwater, The Christian Churche:; of the East, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1946),
pp. I32-141, 132, 134. Ibid., Vol. II, for Dissidents (Milwaukee, 1947) , pp.
199-2II. Annuario Pontificio (Citta del Vaticano, I953), p. 90.
2 Attwater, 0p. cit., Vol. 1, p. I37. A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom
Vol. I (Rome, 1947), pp. 387, 393. S. Coilgregazione Oriencale, St(l,tiSLic,~ con celLni
storici della gerarchia e dei fedeli di rito orirmtale ( RQma, 1932), pp. 33-40. O. I . E.
Hadji-Burmester, The Rites and Ceremo1~ies of tile Copl:ic CfL1~rc'h., in Eastern
Churches Quarterly (Ramsgate), Vol. 7, April- JUI\e, 19 48, pp. 373-40 3i Vol. 8,
January-March, I949, pp. 1-39i Spring, 19 50, pp. 29I-3 16; Vol. 9, Spring, 195I,
pp. 1 - 2 7.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 2Il

order. It is being re-edited at present. s

The Alexandrian ]jtul'gy mani~
fests a tender and abiding devotion to the Mother of God. It was
this elevotion of the Egyptians, as well as that of the Syrians and
Persians thot so impressed the Mohammedan conquerors that even
they honor Mary as full of grace, as the noblest of women and the
Chosen one of God. 4
I. The Mass
Mary is honored in the Alexandrian liturgy at Mass by being
named first among the saints, and before the Lo d's Prayer at the
brealcing of the Host. At the Commemoration Mary is llalled as "she
who is full of glory, that is a virg~n unto all time, holy Mary, the
holy Mother of' God."5 A little later the intercession of Mary is aSk ed:
''Exalt the hom of the orthodox Christians through the power of the
Me-giving cross . . . through the . prayers and supplications which
our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, holy Mary,
doth at all times make for us all."B
At the incensation of Mary's icon the priest says:
Hail to thee, the faithful Dove, which hath borne for us God the Word.
We give thee salutation with the Angel Gabriel, saying, Hail, thou
art full of grace; the Lord is with thee.
Hail to thee, 0 Virgin, the very and true Queen; hail, glory of our
race. Thou hast borne for us Emmanuel.
We pray thee, remember us, 0 thou our faithful Advocate with our
Lord Jesus Christ, that he may forgive us our sins. 7
as. Congregnzione O rientale, 01" cit., pp. 41-47' King, op. oi,t ., FP' 337-495.
A. J.Butler, The Ancient Coptic Chul'ches of Egypt: (Oxford, r884), 7. vols.
R. M. Woolley (translator), Tlw C01.tic O flices (New York, 1930). D. Attwater,
The Liturgy of tJre Copts, in Ofa.te Fl'atres (Collegeville), April- Ma.y, 1:942.
Anonymous, SOlfl{! Notes on tJ~e EgyptJa11 Chri,stians, in Eastern C}.~,,·c1'Uls Q'U.arterl)l,
Vol. 7, Avril-June, 1948 , pp. 4I2.- 425 ·
For Ethiopian rite sec: King, op. cit., .pp. 497-658; G. Nicollet, Le C'llte de
Marie en Ethiopie in H. du Manoir, S.J., Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge,
Vol . I (paris, L949), pp. 365- 413; A. A. ICing, The New Ethiopic Missal, in
East,ern Clmrches QlIImerly, Vol. 6, Octobe.r-December I946, pp. 496-S0T.
<I Amba Alexamler Devot'ion t.o 01.l r La'ly in the Coptic 1Hte, in ElIstllrn C1M/.rches
Q'U6:rterly, Vol. 7, April-June, 1948, pp. 404-408. H. BeTIDe, The Great Here.tit!s
( New York, 1938), p . 79. A. kee, C.P.M., Cl.l.!te isla'tlti'ltlc an t()mbeaH de 1(1
Vierge, in Au; del. Congresso Asstl.nziol1:i.liico Or.im'l:tale (Gemsalemme, 195 1), pp.
175- 194.
5 King, 01" cit., p. 464.
6 Ibid., p. 4 66.
7 Ibid., pp. 438, 439.
212 MARIOLOGY
During the incensation the faithful sing these touching words:
The golden thurible of Aaron, the priest, is the Virgin; the sweet
fragrance which it exhales is the Saviour. She bore Him and He
saved us. 0 Mary, thou art the pure censer containing the blessed and
Holy nre. 8
When the priest unveils the oblation at the Preface the people
chant:
By the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary who bore for us the
Saviour of the world, grant us, 0 Lord, pardon for our sins. 9
On Marian feasts there are special praises in her honor.

2. The Divine Office

It is in the Divine Office that we find rich and precious doctrine
about the glory and privileges and power of the Mother of God.
According to this liturgy, Mary must be commemorated and invoked
at every ceremony. at every Office. I ence we cannot give all these
texts. Mary. is honored in a special way as the Queen and Mother of
the priest. She is invoked as such at every canonica1 hour:
Hail Mary! We beseech thee, holy one, full of glory, ever Mother of
God, Mother of Christ, lift up our prayers to thy beloved Son, that
He may forgive us om sins. Hail, holy Virgin, who didst mother the
true Light, Christ our God. Intercede Eor us with the Lord, that he
may show pity on our souls and pardon us our sins. 0 Virgin Mary I
Mother of God, faithful Advocate of the human race, supplicate for
us Christ whom thou didst mother, that we may obtain forgiveness of
our sins. Hail to thee, 0 Virgin Queen, truly righteous! Hail, the
honor of our race, who didst give birth to Emmanuel; be mindful of
us we implore thee, 0 faithful Advocate with Our Lord Jesus Christ,
that he may pardon us our sins. 10
In the prayer before the Creed at Matins and Compline Mary is
thus honored:
We glorify thee, 0 Mother of the true Light; we venerate thee,
o Holy Mother of God, for thou didst give birth to the Redeemer of
the world... .u
8 Arnba Alexander, op. cit., p. 407.
9 Ibid., p. 4 08.
10 Ibid., pp. 406, 407.
11 Ibid., p. 407.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 213

The following prayer is recited at the end of Tierce:

o Mother or God, thou art the true vine bearing the Grape of Life.
In union with the Apostles we beseech thee, 0 [wl of grace, obtain
for us the salvation of our souls. Blessed be t1le Lord our God. May
the God of our salvation prepare Our way before us. 0 Mother of Cod,
thou Porta1 of heaven, open to us the gates of mercy.l, ~
At None:
When the Mother of the Lamb and Good Shepherd saw the world's
Redeemer hanging on the Cross, she said through her tears: "The
world rejoices because it has received salvation; but my heart is broken
at witnessing this crucifixion which Thou dost suffer for all man-
kind, 0 my Son and my God."13

At Vespers:
Hail, thou who hast found grace, Holy Mary, Mother of God; blessed
be thou among women and blessed be the fruit of thy womb; because
thou didst give birth to the Saviour of our souls. 14

DUring Holy Week the following invocation is used morning and

night: "Hail to thee, 0 spotless Dove, Spouse of the Holy Spirit,
we pray thee to be mindful of us before thy Son." All bleSSings and
favors are asked of God in all the ceremonies through the interces-
sion of the Mother of God. J !!
As among other rites of the C11Iistian East Mary's image or icon
has special honor in the church and is incensed during the sacred
fllllctions. TIle Alexandrian Church alwa,ys portrays Mary with the
divine Child, Pictures of her alone me Dot in favor, for she is ever
honored as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. The Alexandrians
learned this love for God's all-holy Mother from the Council of
Ephesus and {rom St. Cyril of Alexandria, its hero. There'fore Mary
is almost ahvays present in the Alexandrian liturgy; despite age-long
schism and heresy, even among the M ODophysites. Her light shines
upon all who use this liturgy. The Catholics pray that some day this
light of Mary and love for her will bring the dissidents back to the
true Churc11.1.G
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
16 Ibid., p. 408•
16 Ibid.
 MARIOLOGY

3. Marian Feasts and Privileges

The Mari['Jn feasts in this liturgy are thirty-two and in this the
Ethiopians imitate them. But not all these feasts are observed every-
where. The thr e major Marian feasts are her Nativity, h ex Presenta-
tion in the Temple, and her Assumption. As the Mexandrians hOilor
Mary's divine MatemiL-y, so, too, they honor her Assumption as her
greatest feast. 111is is celebrated on August 22 and is preceded by a
strict abstinence fol' a fortnight1 when the diet consists of fmit and.
uncooked food. It is a little Lent, when the solemniz;ation of marriage
is forbidden, and it is a time of prayer. 17
Some feasts of Christ are also feasts of Mary, e.g., the Annuncia-
tion, Chrisbnas, the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, and the
Entry Into Egypt. 1 B Besides these, other ilarian feasts are, e .g., that
of the Holy Family, the Immaculate Conception (two feasts, July 3 I
and December 9), Death of Mary (January 16) - but among the
Catholics this day commemorates the consecration of the 'Erst church
declicated to Our Lady - the Divine Motherhood, the Commemora-
tion of the Council of Ephesus, and the days of the dedication of
Marian churches at Atrib, Heliopolis, Philipponis, and ltib. 19
Mary's privileges and power of intercession are clearly stated :i:n
the liturgy and hymns of the faithful. Egypt glories in the Mother of
God, so much so that even the Mohammedans had been influenced
by this devotion. Mary's purily is unsullied; she is compmed to the
burning bush that was not consumed. H er Immaculate Conception,
h er perpetual virginity, h er plenitude of grace, her painless childbear-
jng, ller powel: of intercession, and her heavenly glory in body and
sou1- all these privileges and graces of Mary are sta ted explicitly
many times in this dch and splendid litmgy.20 Father Gabriel Giam-
b erardini, O.P.M., gives excellent testimony to the Marian devotion of
the Coptic Church in his fine work on tlle assullptionist theology of
that cll l ·ch. n From this we see that Coptic love and devotion to the
Mother of God, handed on to them [Tom St. Cyril of Alexandria
17 King, op. cit., p. 398; Amba Alexander, op. cit., p. 406.
18 King, op. cit., pp. 397, 398.
19 Ibid., pp. 398, 399; Ambo Alexander, loco cit.
20 A. Van Lan.tschoot, O.P111em., Le ctl,ll;e de Z4 SC1illte Vierge chez les coptes, in
Alma Socia C1~r·isti, AcUl Congressus MllrioZogid·Mariani Romae Anno Sancto
MCML celebrati, Vol. 5, fase. II (R.omne, 1952), De n. V. Maria penes Ecclesias
Orientis, pp. 103-108.
21 G. Giamberardini, La teologia assunzionistica nella Chiesa Egiziana, in Atti
del Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951), pp. 41-174.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 21 5
and the Council of Ephesus, has n ver grown weaJ< but has con-
tinued strong and glorious through the centuries.
F anorable ti tles and attributes generously applied to Our La.dy
prove this devotion of the Alexandrian liturgy. Some of these titles
and attributes are :
David s Da1.1 ght r, Ark of the Covenant robed in purest gold, Flower
of Jesse, who draws down the Saviour, Garden enclosed where dwells
the Godhead, the Father's C hariot rad:i2nt with divine light, Ladder
to heaven seen by the Patriarch Jacob, having the Spi it of God at its
summit, Silver Censer enclOSing burning coals, umtem resplendent,
Light of Paradise, Suength of Samson, Rod of Aaron blossoming
unwatered, Bli sh of myrrh which Moses saw crowned with flame on
MOllilt Tor, Vase of alabaster, Precious Treasure, Tower of Ivory,
Dome of Moses, Fruitful Vineyard, Throne of God which Daniel the
Propbet saw above the Seraphim, Sacred Altar which God inhabits,
and Immacula te Virgin betrothed to the Spouse. ~2

2. THE ETHIOPIa LITURGY

In modern times revision of tlle Ethiopic li turgy h ave taken place.

In 1945 the Vatican Press completed the printing of the revised
missal, called the Boo7t of the Oblation. This missal is based or) old
man n cripts and on that of Diredawa in Ethiopia. The book contains
the O rdinary of the Mass, the Anaphora o.f the Apostl sand even-
teen otbers. The liturgical language is Ge'ez, a semitic language
l.lsed in Ethiopia lUltU the seventeenth century.2a

I.The Mass
M ary is mentioned at the beginning of the liturgy of the
Catechumens:
Blessed be the only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made man of
Mary, the holy Virgin, for our salvation. 2 4
While incensing the image of Mary the priest says:
1110U art the golden censer which diclst beat the live Coal of fire.
Blessed is he who receiveth out oJ the sa.nctuary- him that £orgiveth
sin and blotteth out error, who is Gods Word, who was made man
of thee, who offered h5mself to his Father Ear incense and an accept-
aQle offering. W e worship thee, C hrist, with thy good heavenly
22 Amba Alexander, lac. cit.
23 King, Of. cit., pp. 562-566; cf. note 3 of this paper.
24 Ibid., p. 591 .
216 MARIOLOGY
Father and thine Holy Spirit, the life-giver, for thou didst come and
save US. 25
After the incensation of the altar the priest recites the Hail Mary
alternately with the people. 26 After the epistle there is another incen-
sation of the altar when the priest prays:
Hail, 0 thou of whom we ask salvation, 0 holy praiseful ever-virgin
Parent of God, Mother of Christ: offer up our prayer on high to thy
beloved Son that He forgive us our sins. Hail, 0 thou who harest for
us the very Light of Righteousness, even Christ our God. 0 Virgin
pure, plead for us tin to the Lord, that he show mercy mlto our souls
and forgive us our sins. Hail, 0 Virgin pure, Mary, holy Parent of
God, very pleader Jar the race of mankind, plead for ti S before Christ
thy Son, that he vouchliafe us remission of U1' sins. Hail, 0 Virgin
pure, very Queen; hail, 0 Pride of OUI kind. Hail, 0 thou that barest
for us EIIllJ;lanuel. ViTe pray thee that thou remember us, 0 very
Mediatrix, before OUI Lord, Jesus Christ, that He forgive us our sins. 21
Going outside the veil the priest says:
This is the time of blessing, this is the time of choice incense, the
time of the praise of our Saviour, lover of men, Christ. The censer
is Mary; the incense is He who was in her womb which is fragrant;
the incense is He whom she barei He came and saved us, the fragrant
ointment, Jesus Christ. . . . To Michael was given m ercy, and glad
tidings to Gahriel and a heavenly gift to Mary, the Virgin .... TIle
fragrant ointment is Mary: for He that was in her womb, who is
more fragrant than aU incense, came and was made flesh of her. In
Mary Virgin pure the Father waS well pleased and He decked her for
a tabernacle for the habitation of His well-beloved Son .... 28
At the Trisagion the priest says : frHoly God, holy mighty, holy
living :immortal, who was born of Mary the holy Virgin, have mercy
on us, 0 Lord."29 The Catholics leave out the interpolation.
After the Preface the deacon re 'les a litany wherein Mary is
named first among the saints.SO A little later the priest says:
Thou who sendest Thy Son from heaven into the bosom of the
25 Ibid., p. 594.
26 Ibid., pp. 596, 597.
2 7 Ibid. , p. 600.
28 Ibid., p. 60 I.
20 Ibid. , p. 602.
30 Ibid., p. 616.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 217

Virgin, He was carried in the womb, was made flesh, and His birth
was revealed of the Holy Ghost. 51

Mary is mentioned again shortly before the words of Consecration. 52

She is named again, III a prayer before Communion. S8 She is again
mentioned at the end of a. prayer when the priest puts a particle of
the Host into the chalice. 34 Toward the end of the liturgy there is
a long prayer, wherein Mary is named as the Mother of God and
immaculate. RIr After that she is mentioned .in another prayer as
"immaculate in virginity, pure for ever and ever." SG Among the
many anaphoras of this rite there is one entitled "Of our Lady, Mary
the Virgin." The first part of it praises Om: Lady, who is typified
in the liv s of Old Testament characters, and who is the sourCe of
all Christian graces. 81

2. The Divine Office and Marian Hymns

The Divine Office in this rite needed reV1SlOn as did the other
liturgicalboo1<s. The psalter, lessons, and office of Our Lady were
published for the Catholics in 1926.a8 The de.6nitive Ethiopic bre-
via.ry will soon appear in its revised edition. The Ethiopic hymnology
and prayers to Mary are rich and numerOus. Mary is given many
splendid titles, many feasts honor her, and in all the liturgical texts
we see the wealth of oriental imagery used to glorify he.J;~ who is
above all praise. Genevieve Nicollet states that it is well-nigh impos-
sible to gather all the Marian hymns. They have a plain. chant all
their own and go back to early centuries. 3n There Wl:1S a renaissance
of Marian hymnography in the fifteenth century during the reigns
of the Ethiopian kings Zara-Yaqob, his son Baeda-Maryam, and
Naod. These kings also ordered ilie ancient hymns to be collected.
At this time many new ones were composed as well. 40
at Ibid., p. 619.
az Ibid., p. 62.0.
Ibid., p. 632.
8a
8~
Ibid., p. 633.
3G Ibid., p. 643.
30 /:l1i(t., p. 645.
37 Ibid., pp. 646-648; Nicollet, op. cit., PP' 376-379.
88 King, op. cit., P' 566.
3D Nicollet, 0p, cit., p. 39;; A Grohmann, Ae~hiopisclle MaJ'ie-tthYlllfle1l. (Lci:jY/Jg.
1919)' Three great Marian byrom aTe llere translated with a rich philological
commentary.
110 Nicollet, loco cit.
218 MARIOLOGY
The Marian hymns are a study :in themselves, for in them we
see so many influences both native and foreign, that they are a
Ji tCt<llY problem. Above all, they prove the ce,a eless ardor of the
Ethiopians to praise the ~\ll-ho]y Mother of God, to enrich tlle treasure
r her hymns, and to multiply her glorious praises. There are so
many of these hymns Fm every feast, ev n fOT every day of the
week. that it seems tlle authors must have vied with One an ther in
omposing them. And even if all the hymns are Dot original and
native to the land, yet tl1eir superabundanc mani[-ests the pro-
foundly Ethiopian sentiment of absolute confi.dence :in Mary:u
Many of these Marian hymns are in the litUImcal collections,
others are for popular usc. In the Deggua, a book of plain chant for
the days of the year, there are several Marian hymns. For example,
one hymn glorilles the birth of Christ, another compares Our Lady
to the golden candlestick seen by the Prophet ZachaJ:y in a vision
(Zach. 4:2). This latter hymn is filled with scriptura1 allusions to
Mary from the Old Testament. Another hymn compares Mary to the
burning bush seen by Moses (Exoel. 3:4). Still another one likens
her to a dove, or to the Taberncde of the Chosen PeoEle . 4.~
In the Meel'af, a book composed probably in tlle second half of
the fifteenth entury, we find other Marian hymns. This bo01{ is
really a gUide for the chanted offices. Here one hymn calls Mary the
"golden table," while there are other hymns in honor of Mary'S
Nativity. the Annunciation, and one where she is styled IrMother
of God and tlle Saviour," and another where she has the names of
"Vine and Vase filled with manna." Finally there is a hymn :in
honor of her Assl1mption. 4s Other liturgical bo01<5 containing Marian
hymns are Mawaseet (an antiT}honary); Zemmare (hymns for Easter,
Pentecost, and Ep~phany); Matsh.afa IGdana Mehrat (Book of the
Pact of Mercy); T,veddase MCl'ryam. (Praises of Mary); Argonona
Dengel by George the Armenian; E'YIzira Sebhat ( =.larp of Glory);
Weddase wa-genay la-e1lJ11il'lUI Adonay (Praises < nel humble thanks to
the Mother of Adonai); Weddase em-qala 1'I.abiyat (Praises taken
from the words of the Prophets); and the Lc!ha Maryan1. (Lamenta-
tions of Mary). The Mazmura Dengel (Psalter of Mary) has 105
strophes of four verses each. The religious sentiment is predominant
in all these works. There we see ilie profound and childlike love of
41 Ibid., p. 396.
42 Ibid.
4:< Ibid., pp. 396, 397.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 219

the Ethiopians for the Mother of God. 44 A good number of other

Marian hymns are used occasionally also in the liturgy.40

3. Marian Feasts and Privileges

From the important place Mary bas in the Ethiopian liturgy we see
that even though the Ethiopians, as well as the Egyptians and
Syrians, have erred in the past in regard to the dogmatic explanation
of the mystery of the Incarnation, they have, nevertheless, retained
intact the pl'ivilege of the divine Maternity of Mary - and this
despite all their trials and persecutions through the centuries.4.t.I
Echoes of the ounci1 of -< phesus, proclaiming Mary's divine Ma-
ternity are heal'd in all the litl.u-gies, and in a special "vay in those
of Alexandria and .. thiopia. Even the Dissidents retain this great
devotion to Mary and manifest jt in their liturgy and devotions,
In the Chronicles of King Zara-Yagob (T 431-1468) of Ethiopia
we read that after be had conquered and killed with his own hand
the terrible Mohammedan chief Arwe Badlay, an order was given
that the "thirty-two feasts of Our aely should be celebrated like
Sundays with the greatest punc tualily . . . under pain of excom-
munication."47 Later he commanded that every church should have
a tabot (altar) dedicated to the holy V:b:gin. These customs are still
in use and the Ethiopians have never failed in their love and devo-
tion to the Mother of God. 48 Even Job Ludolf, a German Protestant
scholar of the seventeenth cenlury, famous for his works on Ethiopia,
h ad to admit that the Ethiopians honor Mary much more than all
the other saintS.4U It is impossible to give an exact list of the Marian
feasts celebrated in the Dissident Ethiopian liturgy today, because
their number cbfters :in various places. Some Ethiopian Marian feasts
celebrate some famous Marian sanctuary, others some miracle
wrought at Mary's intercession. Nearly one third of the year, the
Etluopian calendar has feasts on which work is forbidden.o o The
Coptic calendar is the foundation for that of Ethiopia. Often the
same feast is celebrated many times in the year. For example, Christ-
44 Ihid., pp. 397, 398, 405; translations into French.
45 Ihid., pp. 4°6-413.
46 Van Lantschoot, op. cit., p. 103.
47 Nicollet, op. cit., p. 379.
48 Ihid., p. 380.
49 Ihid.; I. Ludolf, Commentarius ad historiam aethiopicam, 1691, p. 361.
50 King, op. cit., p. 546. Nicollet, op. cit., PP' 379-395.
220 MARIOLOGY
mas is commemorated on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of every
month except March."'l.
The principal Catholic Marian feasts are the Immaculate Concep-
tion (December 9), the Death of Mary (January 16), the Assump-
tion (August 22), the ativity of Mary (September 8). Other feasts
are the Presentation of Mary in the Temple (November 29), an.d
the Anmmciation (December 18 and evex), tw nty-s cond day of o'llier
months and lTarch 25 whi h i!i also the Feast of the Incarnation)'D2
'rom these feasts we see that the Ethiopians admit Mary's great
graces and privileges, as well as her power of intercession with her
djvine on. The Assumption is the greatest Marian feast. It is com-
memol'ated every month. Some texts for the feast are:
I salute the ssumption of thy Body which the human heart can
never conceive. Doubly surrounded with grace and clothed in a like
glory, 0 MalY, thy flesh was like to a pearl, and death itself was
shamed when with wonder it aw thee ascend ing resplendent through
the clouds to heaven. 53
I salute the Assumption of thy Body truly worthy to be ptaised, which
outshines in beauty the splendor of the S4-D and th · glory of the moon.
Except thee, 0 Virgin, and thy first-born Son of Joy, there is :no one
who has loosened the bonds of death and bas awaJ<ened the dead from
Sheal. 54
I salute the resurrection of thy flesh, twin of the resurrection of
Christ, who hid bimself alive i.n thee. Clothe me, 0 Mary, Dove of
Eplwlte, and sbelt r me under. thy wings in the day of judgment,
wben the earth will give back those whom she had taken into her
keeping. G5

4. Mary in Popular Ethiopian Devotion

It is true the Ethiopians have mixed a bit of superstition with
their devotion to Mary. This is a souvenir of ancient African beliefs,
such as all races have, but the fact remains that the Ethiopian faith
51 King, op. cit., pp. 546, 547.
62 Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 384-395.
5S King, op. cit., p. 542.
64 Ibid.
o. [bid., D. Atlwater, Eastem CatflOUC Worship (New York, 1945); H. Engber-
ding, Mar;a i1' der Froem'fl'I.igkeit d-er OestIichelz Littlrgiet'. in P. Straeter, Maria in
der Oife1lb(lT!~ng (paderbom, 1947), pp. 1I9-136; De Lacy, O'Leary, The Daily
Office and TheotoJd" of the Coptic Ch1~rch (London, 19II); id., The Coptic
Tlleoto'ldll (London, 1923)'
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 221

in Mary is stJ.'Ong and sound, and that they have a tender love for
her and an absolute trust in her all-powerful intercession. no Ethiopia
received the Faith from Alexandria and with it a great love and
devotion to the Mother of God. With Alexandria, Ethiopia, too, fell
into Monophysism, probably without fully realizing what this doc-
trine impUed . But Ethiopia has no body of doctrine in the true
theological sense as we have in the West. Hence they have no full
body of doctrine regarding the Mother of God, except that they
follow the Fathers of Alexandria. Ha)"I'lUlnota Aba'W, the Faith, of the
Fathel's, is what they call the collection of truths which forms their
belief. St. Cyril of AlexaJ)~ia plays a grea t part in this doctrin:,
as well as other Fathers of the East and the decrees of the Council
of Ephesus. Hence with this Council and St. Cyril of Alexandria the
Ethiopians believe in the Mother of God, the Waladita Malak, the
Th.eotohos. Even th.e Dissidents appeal to St. Cyril of Alexandria,
and consider him one of their Doctors. ~1 In their liturgy and hymns
the E thiopians have expressed the true faith in Mary as Mother of
God, and they echo the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the
de£nition of the Council of Ephesus. TIle Dissident Ethiopians still
honor Alexandria as their spiritual mother, receive their spiritual
di1:ectives [Tom Alexandda, and until lately received their Abuna or
metropolitan from there. TIle Catholio Ethiopians are united to
Alexandria spiritually and historically, but their bishops are appointed
by the Pope. tiS
The Ethiopians speak of heretics as "Enemies of Mary." The
great Ethiopi~' devotion to Our Lady can explain to a certain degree
why some historians wanted to see nothing in the Ethiopian liturgy
but a confusion between the cult due to God and that due to Marv. 59
The truth, however, is that th.e Ethiopians, both Catholic and Dissi-
dent, have correct doctrme regarding ilary, h er privileges and power,
and this they manifest in their practkes and hymns as well as in
their 1i turgy.
In conclusion it is well to see some of the titles the Ethiopians
gi~eMary, and thus prove their sound doctrine about her:
Permanent Temple, Sacerdotal Vestibule, Chosen Column, Verdant
Tree, Garden of the Heavenly Son, Lamp of the Universe, Light of
56 Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 366, 367; King, op. cit., p. 541.
61 Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 369, 370.
58 Ibid., pp. 368, 369.
59 Ibid., p. 396, note 63.
222 MARIOLOGY
the Stars, Unbreakable Wall, Extension of Heaven, Veil of Fine Linen,
City of Jewels, Spouse of Heaven, Golden Censer of the Seraphs,
Harvest of Prophecies, Motller of Justice, Doctdne of Peace, Vine of
Sweet Grapes, Mother of the Glorious Sllll, Book of Life, V s el of
Our Riches, Superabundance of th time of Fnlit and Compensation
for the Y ars of Famine, Satiety of Those Who Hllllger, Queen of
Love, Gate of Paradise, and Help of Sinners. 6o

Conclusion
Egyptian devo60n to Mary as lother of God is deep-moted in
all the faithful. TIleir love £Ol" Mary prompts them to abstain for
two weel<s before the feast of her Assumption. This practice is so
ancient that even the .fohammedans of the cOlmtry observe it in
great numbers down to the present day.01 Another sign of dus Egyp-
tian devotion to Mary is seen in the many temples dedicated to her
throuohout ~ gypt. In the eicrhth century there were twenty-two
MariaB shrines in Uppel; E~~t and seven in Lower Egypt. Two of
these are still d (ueat d to Mary's Assumption. They are centers of
pilgrimage and great Marian festivities a'e held there by the Dissi-
dents on the feast of the Assmnption. 02
Egypt was sancti£ed by the presence of the Holy Family. The
Egyptians are proud of this great honor and wish to be second to
none in their love for Christ and His all-holy Mother. May she lead
the Dissident back to the true Church of h er divine Son and may
s11e protect all the faithful of the Alexanddan and Ethjopian rites
who are so devote I to her wbo is the Mother of God, ever Virgin
Immaculate, and all-powerful with ber divine Son.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Black, G. F., Aethiopica and Amharica, A List of Works in the New
York Public Library, 1928.
Budge, E. A Wallis, The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin and the Life of
Hanna, 1910.
De Vries, G., S.l., Oriente Cristiano Ieri e Oggi (Roma, 1949).
Etiopia in Vol. 14 of the Enciclopedia Italiana (Milano, 1935).
Fortescue, A, The Lesser Eastern Churches (London, 1913).
60 Ibid., p. 365 et passim.
61 Amba Alexander, The Assumption of Mary in the Liturgy of the Church
of Alexandria, in Eastern Chfl-Yches Q'larterly, Vol. 9, Summer, 1951, pp. 93-101,
p. 95. (He mentions two ulIditions in regard to Mary's Assumption.)
62 Ibid., p. 99. The places ate Baret Zouela and Deir Dronka or Adronka.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 223
Grehaut, S., and Tisserant, E., Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices
aethiopici, V aticani et Borgiani, 1936.
Harden, ]. M., The Anaphoras of the Ethiopic Liturgy, 1928.
Jones and MOntoe, Abyssinia (Oxford, 1935).
Macaire, Histcnl'e de l'Eglise d'Alexandrie (Cairo, 1894).
M atshafa Oeddase (Ethiopian missal) (Citta del Vaticano: Tipograna
Poliglotta Vaticana, 1945)'
Mercer, S. A. B., T he Ethiopic Liturgy, 1915.
O'Leary, The Saints of Egypt ( London, 1938).
Pollera, A., La Stato et,'iopico e la sua Chiesa, 1926.
Rossini, C. Conti, Liber A xumae, 1910.
Strothman, Die Koptische Kirche in der Neuzeit (Tiihingen, 1932).
224 MARIOLOGY

III. MARY IN THE ANTIOCH ENE LITURGY

The liturgy of Antioch is one of the most andent liturgies. It was
modi£ed for use in Jerusalem and then this form supplanted the
older fonn at Antioch itself. This liturgy is dIe source of the Arme-
nian, Byzantine, and Maronite liturgies, and perhaps also of that used
by the Chaldeans. After the Council of Chalcedon (A,D. 451) many
of the Syrians followed the Monophysites and refused to accept the
decrees of that Council, mostly for political reasons. The Monophysite
Syrians are called Jacobites hom their organizer in the sixth century,
Jacob al-llaradai. The Syrians who remained Catholics formed that
brancb of the Byzantine rite known as the Mellites. In the course of
centuries a goodly number of the Jacobites have returned to the
true Church. At various times these Catholics have had bishops con-
finned by Rome, and in 180 I Michael J arweh became the first
patriarch of Antioch of the Catholic Syrians. These faithful are
mostly in tlle old Turkish Empire and Egypt, but there are also
several thousands in the United States, the Argentine, Chile, Aus-
tralia, and Paris.1

I. The Mass
The Antiochene liturgy is the richest of all because it has so many
anaphoras. The Catholics ordinarily use that of St. James. They
also use at times the anaphor3s of St. John the Evangelist, of St.
E ustace of Antioch, of St. Basil of Caesarea, and of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem. There aIe sixty-fouI Syrian anaphoras, of which the
Catholics use only seven. Brightman gives the list of those used by
the Jacobites.3 He also gives the translations of those of the Apostolic
Constitutions and of St. James. s
The liturgical texts are very ancient. Those used by the Catholics
received d1eilJ definitive form in the eighth century under James of
Edessa:~ In the liturgy of St. James, Mary is commemorated in the
preparation of the gilts and in the beginnin g of the liturgy of the
Catechumens followed by an incensation with the words: "With
1 D. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Vol. I (Milwaukee, 1946),
pp. 104, 152-164. Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945).
2 F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), pp. xlviii-Ixiii.
a Ibid., pp. 1-109.
4. E. Rahal, L'Assomption de la T. Ste. Vierge au del selon Ie rite syrien

d'Antioche, in Atti del Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951),

pp. 225-2 37.
 EASTERN LITURGIES 225
MARY IN THE!.
the smoke of spices be there . a rem~rance to the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God." Again inceC15J.~g the gIfts: "Let Mary who brought
thee forth, and John who ba J?tlZed thee be suppliants unto thee in
our behalf." Mary is again :o~ed before the T risagion, and in the
~eginning of the G~spe1 readi:r1,g. After the C~nsecration and prayers
for various classes of persons 7 the commemoratIOn of the saints begins
with that of the Mother of God by the deacon:
Again then we conl1nCmOr3 te her who is to be called blessed and
glotih of all generations of the earth, holy and blessed, and ever
ed
Virgin, blessed Mother oE God, Mary.
After the priest breaks th. e H ost and recites a silent prayer, the
deacon prays:
My blessed Lady Mary, beseech with thine only Begotten that he be
5
appeased through thy praye:rs and perform mercy on us all.
The Maronit.e liturgy is ~erely the ordinary part of the Syrian
liturgy of St. Jru.n es and at tlm~s some other anaphora is inserted.
6

After the Anamnesis the l\Aa:romtes have these prayers to Mary:

Especially then and firstly we remember the holy and glorious and
ever Virgin Mother of God, Mary, Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ;
intercede for me with the only beg~tten Son who was born of thee
that he forgive me my of:feL'l~S and sm.s and receive from my vile and
sinful hands this sacrifice wb lch my abjectness offereth upon this altar,
by thine intercessions Eor Jll.e, 0 holy Mother.

The deacon says:

Remember her, 0 Lord God, and by her pure and holy prayers be
7
propitious and have mercy and hear us.
After Communion the priest says:
May the prayer of the blessed one be a wall to us, Halleluia, her
prayer be with us. Bless, 0 my Lord. The ladder which Jacob saw
5 Bd,ghn;nan, 07" cit" .£p. ,73-7 6 , 9:2., 93, 9 8 . Missale Syriacum iuxta ritum Ecclesiae
A1'I tiochefiae
6
syror"WIi~ CRomal:>, ( 843) .
D. Attwnter, Th~ Gh'~'i$liall Clw:l'j'~es of th~ East, yol. I, pp. 17:4' 175; G.
Gorayet. The Ma,ron~te Mt'llrgy (13'lC1if 10 ,. 19 1 5), ~. SfelI, The Maromte Liturgy,
( Detroit, 193 6) ; Attwater, Easl'llrtt , at 'L~11C W?rsntp (New YorK, 1945)·
T H. W. Codrington , The f!,!£a'/'OIJJte_ Lttl.l.rgy III Eastern C!h'U'Tc11~ Ql~arterlr, Vol.
n ( Ramsg ), JanUlllY, 1937, pp. "7 3.1' Sacra Congregazlone OrIentale, Statistica
C(m Ce1m~ Storlcl deHa Ge.rarc/lia e deJ Fec1eli di Rito Oriellt,aJe (Romae, J932),
ate

pp. 54-6 3.
 MARIOLOGY
was a figure of thee, 0 Virgin Mother of God, for on thee God, the
hope of all of us, came down to afford hope to the hopeless. s
When the Malabar Jacobite of India began LO enter the Church in
1930 with Bishop Mar Ivanios and his suffragan Bishop Mar The-
ophilus, Pope Pius XI pel.'lllltted them to Jeep their Antiochene lit-
urgy and customs. More bishops, priests, and lay p ·op]e have since re-
tu rned to th true Churcb.o T heir litUIgy is the West Syrian rite
(Antiochene) without most of the moc1i£ications which the Syrian
Catholics have llltl'oduced. This Malahar liturgy, and the faithful
who follow it, are called Malankarese. Most of the prayers are in
the vernacular Malayalam; the priest's secret prayers are in Syriac.JO

2. The Divine Office

The Antioch ~ne OIEce is rich and complicated. Mary is honored
wit.h prayers and h ynms, especially on her feast days. At Sunday
ext we End !.his prayer:
By the prayer of Thy Mother and of all the saints, pardon u s, 0 our
Lord, and rest the departed. The memorial of: Mary be for our blessing
and her prayer be a wall to our souls.. . . Glory to Him who hath
magnified the memorial of His Mother, and may He make the s.s ints
resplendent and rest the depai:ted. By the Irsyer of Thy Mother and
of all Thy saints, pardon us, 0 our Lord, and rest the depart d.n
One of the ordinary anthems to Mary reads:
o holy virgin Mather of God, Mary, pray thine only Son to make
His tranquillity to dwell in His creation. Watchers and angels, lo!
they rej oice on the day of the memorial of the Virgin Mary who bore
the Son of God. l~
Wednesday is dedicated to Mary in this liturgy. A prayer to her
at Matins reads:
Peace to thee, who didst bear in the flesh the Word most high, Virgin
Mother, maiden pure and holy, Mary Mother of Christ, full of mercies
and grace. Peace to thee, who wast a second heaven to the eternal
Codrington, op. cit., p. 36.
8
~
Attwater. The Christian C1mrches of the East, Vol. I, p. 179.
10 [bid .• p. 180.
11 H. W: Coddngton, TIle Syri(w Litu.rgy, in Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. I,
JRDum:y- October. J936, pp. 135- 1 48 .
.:IS [bid.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 227

Word of the Father. Peace to thee, who wast the small cloud to the
Creator of all creation. But, 0 holy one, we implore of thee, pray thine
only Son, God above all, to grant tranquillity to the creation for the
sake of the abundance of His mercifulness. 13
Regarding devotion to Mary in the Antiochene liturgy, Chore-
piscopos Paul Hindo writes:
.Besides the solemn proclamation in the liturgy th Syrian Church
commemorates d1e Mother of God at the Offertory, at the ceremony
of jncensation, at the breaking of bread, at the distribution of Com-
munion, and at the nd of Mass. The canonical Office, both ferial
and f stive, contains a great number of chants and hymns in honor of
the Virgin, notably 1) at Vespers, Lauds and Prime every day; 2) at
Matins) and precisely at the GIst 110cturn, with the exception of
Fridays, nom Easter to Advent; Fridays are consecrated to the Ioly
Cross; 3) at the end of Matins, the Magnificat is recited daily with
special Marian praises called Mawerbe, that is of the Mag1dfi·cat;
4) the Wednesday Office is specially consecrated to the Holy Virgin,
above all at Vespers, Lauds, Prime and Tierce. According to Syrian
tradition, Wednesday is the day of Mary's bhth and death. u
In the litmgy of the Maronites, Maty is also frequently invoked.
Before Mass every day a prayer in the Jorm of a litany is addressed
to Christ through the intercession of Mary. Praises, after the man-
ner of St. Ephtem, are dedicated to her on Wednesdays and on het
feasts. She is also commemorated at other times with hymns, espe-
Cially at the Gospel procession. All the anaphoras mention Mary
between the Anamnesis and the Epiclesis. On her feast days she
has hymns i.n her honor, especially when the gifts are brought to
the altar .15

3. Marian Feasts and Privileges

The Marian feasts in the Antiochene liturgy are of two kinds,
movable and fixed. The movable Marian feasts are in preparation
for Christmas. In ancient times this liturgy celebrated two feasts
during Advent, that of St. John the Baptist and that of the Virgin
111 Ibid., pp. I38, 139.
14 P. Hinda, Disci.plina Antioche"ttl Ant1ca- 8m IV (Rama, 1943), p. 307, n. I,
in Cod-ificUz.jOl1(! Canonica Orie1~tale - Fonti, sene 1 I, Fascicula XXVIII, Sacra
Con grcgazioIl£ per 1a Chiesa Orientale.
J ft M. Dot+tDith, Morie (lalls l~ lit1tT'gle syro~l'IIll"onite, in H. du Manoir, S.J., Maria.

Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge (Paris, I949), pp. 329-340.

228 MARIOLOGY
(divine Maternity and lmmncolate Conception). The feast of tbe
Virgin goes back to the year 428. T he Nestorians who separated from
the true Church in the SEth century have the same tradition as the
Catholics of this liturgy and call Advent Subara or Ann unciation .
At the time of their separation the feast of the Virgin was called the
Salutation or the All-Holy Mother of God. James of Saroug (451-
521) has left us homilies for the time of Advent, on the Anmmcia-
tion of Z. chary, the Annunciation or Mary, the Visitation of Mary
to Eli z.aheth , and th - ativity of our Lord. By the seventh century
the five Sundays before Christma were dedi ated to the Annunci -
tion of the birth of th Precursor, the Annunciation of Mary, the
Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, the Revelation of the conception of
Christ to St. Joseph, and £naIly the Genealogy of Christ. T he Nes-
torians have the same feasts as the Syrians and M aronites to this
day.16
T h e fixed feasts of Mary in this rite are the Immaculate Concep-
tion, the Nativity of Mary, the Presentation of Mary in the Temple,
the Annunciation (second feast), the Praises or Felicitations to the
Mother of God (December 26), the Presentation of Christ in the
Temple, and the Assumption of M ary. For the latter feast there is a
pJ,'eparation of a fast lasting two weeks. Besides these feasts both the
SYlians and Maronites have added others of a more local character.
Thus the Syrians have added the Marian feasts of January 15, M ay
15, and June 15 . The M aronites also have that of May 15 to bless
the harvest. The M aronites have also added a fixed feast of the
Visitation (besides the one in Advent) on July 2 , the feasts of
Our Lady of Mt. Cannel on July 16, the Marriage of Mary and
Joseph on September 30; and a movable feast of Our Lady of the
Rosary on the first S unday of October.17
On September 9, after the feast of Mary's Nativity, the Antiochene
liturgy celebrates the commemoration of her parents, Joachim and
AnM. Such commemorations are made also after the feasts of Christ
to honor certain persons connected with the mystery of Christ's life
just celebrated. 1 8
Except for the feast in the cycle of Chrisbnas and the Nativity,
the feast of the Assumption is the only M arian feast celebrated in
every Eastern rite. This shows th e universality of the belief of these
16 Doumith, op. cit., pp. 331, 332.
11 Ibid., p. 332.
1 8 Ibid.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 229

ancient churches. The Dissidents have the same belief III Mary's
Assumption.1 9
The faithful of the Antiochene rite have ever had definite doc-
trine in regard to Mary's death and burial, her corporal incorrupti-
bility, her bodily Assumption into beaven, and her universal Queen-
ship over heaven and earth .20 St. Ephrem, the Syrian, Doctor of
M ary'S Immaculate Conception and other glories, is also the Doctor
of 11er Assumption. 21 The Antiochene Office testifies to Mary's death
and burial:
The Lord has chosen thee for his Mother and has glorified the day
of thy memorial. He has caused thee to pass from life through the
portal of death, so that thou mayest rejoice in the heavenly kingdom. 22
This tomb was the ladder that brought thee to heaven, next to thy
Lord, thy Son and thy God. 23
TIle Offi.ce gives testimony to M ary's corporal incorruptibility
after death : "The [burning] bush is a symbol of thy holy Body."24
H er body is compared to the Ark of the Covenant, made of incor-
ruptible wood. 25
M ary's corporal Assumption is clearly and firmly stated in this
liturgy:
Although thy Body was placed :in a tomb according to the law of
mortals, nonetheless it is not like the body of Moses ... wbicll was
hidden from the Hebrews by God. . . . Foc thy immacula te Body was
taken to heaven by the Lord, and there he placed it in the blessed
dwellings. There thou standest next to tb e throne of thy Son. Pray
for us to thy Son Jesus.26
Mary's bodily Assumption is a consequence of her Immaculate
Conception and the divine Maternity:
19 A. A. Ki ng, T ile ASS1J.,mption of O,!r Lad,}' in the Oriental Liturgies, in Eastern
CJ~~I.ml~es Q1~arteTly, Vol. 8, October-D ecember. 1949, pp. 225-231.
20 Rahal, op. cit., p. 226. M. Maldouf, La doctrine de l'Assomption dans la rite
1I1aroni~, in Atti ,lel Cong resso Awu.nzicmi,smco Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951),
pp. 197-2I2 .
21 nahal, op. cit., p. 226; Lamy, Sllncti Ephremi Syri Hymni et Sermones
(Mechliniae, 1882.-1902), Vol. 2, col. 584.
Z2 Bahal, op. cit., p. 2Z7; G . She.lhot and J. David, Fenqitho (Breviaire festival) ,
7 vols. (Mosul, I886-T896), Vol. 7. coL 3793 •
28 Rahal. op. ci.t., p. Z27 j Shelhot and David, op. cit. , Vol. 7, col. 405b.
e~ nahal, op. ck, p. 23 r; RahllUlni, Sh.il1.imo (Breviaire ferial) (Charfet, 1902),
p. 118.
2 5 Rahal, op. cit., p. 231; Rahmani, op. cit., pp. 77, 244, 245.
26 Rahal, op. cit., p. 2.32.
 MARIOLOGY
By the Holy Spirit she was freed from the curse of the first mother,
for she never opened the door to sin. So her passing is the admiration
of the whole world. 27
Blessed be thou, 0 Justice, who wast never contaminated, 0 Eve who
hast brought forth Emmanuel. 28
Mary rules as Queen of heaven and earth:
As thou, 0 Lord, hast rejoiced the heavenly armies, on tlus day,
whereon thou hast raised tip Mary, thy Mother, to heaven in body
and soul, and where thou h as t made ller to sit on a th rone elev<1-ted
over all the choirs of angels, and where thOI] hast made her Queen
of the heavenly spirits and of those who dwell on earth, we likewise
rejoice, wi th spiritual joy, f-ree from all human passion; grant us to
feel at every moment the effect of the p rayers which she maJ,es for. us
and help her that she win favor LIS, so that we will be protected and
can mutate her p Llxe and divine life and merit to rejoice, after her
eX<lropJe, on the clay of ou r parting hom this world, through thy
grace and th at of thy Fa ther and thy Spirit, Amen.29
It was the E mperor Maurice ( 582-603) who extended the feast
of the Assumption to the whole Byzantine Empire. This feas t on
August 15 is the most pop ul ar feast of dle Mother of God in all
the E aster:n rites. SO At an incensation the priest prays:
o Messias, our Cod ... Thou who hast glorified the memory of the
Assumption of thy Mothe!, the Immaculate Virgin, accept the per-
fume of our incense. . . . Gra11t that tius may be in honor of thy
Mother, Queen of Angels and Empress of Saints.31
Mary's Immaculate Conception, her utter sinlessness, her perpet-
ual virginity, her suffering with Christ, her power of universal inter-
cession are also celebrated in the various prayers of the Antiochene
rite.
The Maronite liturgy has this hymn to Mary:
Hail, Mary, ever Virgin, Mother of the Almighty who fills both the
heavens and the earth.
Hail, Mary, ever virgin, Mother of the Ancient of Days whose name
was before the sun was created.
27 Ibid. , p. 2 33.
28 1bid., p. 2.34.
2° Ihid ., pp. 234, 235.
ao 111i.d., p. 2.35.
a1 Ibid., p. 236.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 231

Hail, Mary, ever virgin, Mother of Him who made Adam from the
mold of the earth.
Hail, Mary, ever virgin, Mother of Him who formed Eve and gave
her to Adam.
Blessed art thou, Mary, the Mother of Him who gave righteousness
and virtue to the sons of Levi.
Blessed art thou, Mary, for within thee dwelt the Only-Begotten, the
Light of the Father, the Child of the Godhead.
Blessed art thou, Mary, for thou hast nourished Him who giveth to
all creatures to eat.
Blessed art thou, Mary, who hast carried in thy lap and arms the
Son of the Most High whom the powers of heaven acclaim.
All genera tions bless thy maidenhood, for He who is bom of thee
hath driven the curse of fear from the earth. We too bless thee, 0 holy
Virgin, here 1m eling before thee. Intercede with the Lord who was
born of thee that He may bestow His graces on all people and ever
have p:ity on us. Praise to 'TIlee, 0 Lord, born of a Virgin, who
became man, uniting Lwo natures and two wills in One person..
Glory be to Thee, to Thy Father, and to Thine Holy Spirit, three
I ersons in one und ivided Cod. Amen. a2
A Syrian prayer to Mary:
How can I praise tbee duly, 0 most chaste Virgin? POI thou alone
among men art all holy, and thou glvest to all the help and grace
they need. All we who are on earth put our hope in thee: sl1:engthen
our faith, shine tlu:ough the dimness of this world, while we, chil-
dren of the Church, sing thy praise. TIlione of the cherubim art thou
and Gate of Heaven; pray without ceasing for us, that we may be saved
in the day of dread. Amen. 83
A Maronite prayer to Mary:
Let thine intercession be with us, 0 Mother most pure, and come to
us in our need as is thy wont. We are exiles on this earth, with our
end before OUI eyes, anel . ven now many of us perish; help us by thy
prayers, 0 merciful Maiden, and be always om Advocate lest we be
lost through om: own ill will. Blessed and most holy one, plead for us
before God, who was carried in thy womb, that He may be pitiful
to us through thine asking. Amen.B4
Both the Antiochene and Chaldean liturgies glory in the splendid
writings of their illustrious Doctor, St. Ephrem of Edessa and Nisibis.
S2D. Attwater, Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London, 1931), pp. 17, 18.
3SIhid., p. 20.
S4Ihid.
 MARIOLOGY
It is especially in his poems and sermons on the glories and power
of the Mother of God that he is famous in the whole Church. One
of his prayers to Mary is used on the feast of Mary, Mediatress of
All Graces in the Roman Seraphic Breviary:
o my Queen, most holy Mother of God, full of grace, endless sea of
divine and secret gifts and graces ... Queen of all after the Trinity,
another Consoler after the Paraclete, and Mediatress of the whole
world after the Mediator, see my faith and my desire divinely
given. . . . Mother of God. . . . Thou hast taken away all tears from
the face of the earth, thou hast filled creation with every kind of
benefice, thou hast brought joy to those in heaven, thou hast saved
those on earth. Through thee we hold a most certain guarantee of our
resurrection; through thee we hope to gain the heavenly kingdom;
through thee all glory, honor and holiness, 0 only immaculate one,
has been derived, are derived and will be derived from Adam to the
consHmmation of the world for the Apostles, Prophets, the just and
humble of heart; and every creature rejoices in thee, 0 thou full of
grace. a5
A prayer of St. Ephrem to Mary Immaculate:
o pure and immaculate and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the
sinless Mother of thy Son, the Mighty Lord of the universe, thou who
art inviolate and altogether holy, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as
full of grace, thou who didst bear the God-man; we all bow low
b fore dleej we invol{e thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, 0
holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us
and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and
advocate at the hour of death and judgment: deliver us from the fire
that is not extinguished and from the outer darlmessi make us worthy
of the glory of thy Son, 0 dearest and mo~t clement Virgin Mother.
Thou indeed art our only hope most sure 8l1d sacred in God's sight,
to whom be honor and g~ory, majesty and dominion for ever and ever
world without end. Amen. s6

Thus the Antiochene liturgy in it'> various forms and parts gives
magnificent testimony to the faith ot the Syrians, Maronites, and
Malankal'ese in all the glories, privileoes and power of the all-holy
and immaculate Virgin Mary, MotIle! of God.
an Bre"iariull~ Roman.o-Serapn,1CT.wL ( Romae, 1943), Pars Verna, 31 Maii II Noct.
S6 The Rtlcc()lta ()f l>ra.'Yers (ind. Dev()ti()ns (edited by J. P. Christupher and C.
E. Spence: New York. )944), No. 339, pp. 252, 253. Cf. G. De Vde~. S.1.,
Orie-nte Gristjcmo leri e Oggi (Ro~a, 1949), pp. 339-356. A. A. King, The Rites
()f Eastern Christend()m, Vol. I, pp. 61-336.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 233

IV. MARY IN THE ARMENIAN LITURGY

The Armenian liturgy is used by the Armenians alone. These
people formerly lived between the Caucasus and Taurus Mountains,
the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Greater Armenia was to the
east of the Euphrates, and Lesser Armenia to the west. In later times
the Armenians also lived in Gilicia. They are an Indo-Germanic
people and so their language is of the same origin. In 294 they
received their first bishop in the person of St. Gregory the Illumi-
nator, who baptized King Tiridates. The Annenians glory in being
the &rst nation to embrace the true Faith officially and in a body.
TIle Armenian Church went into schism about the year 500, re-
pudiating for political reasons the COlmcil of Chalcedon (A.D. 451).
Toward the end of the twelfth century Armenians who had fled
from the Mohammedans founded the Kingdom of Little Armenia
in Cilicia and were reunited to Rome. More and more have entered
the Church through the centuries. Both Catholic and Dissident
Armenians use the same rite.

I. The Mass
The Armenian liturgy is basically the Greek liturgy of St. Basil,
translated into classical Armenian, and then modified in the course
of time by Syrian, Constantinopolitan, and finally Latin influences.
Thus it is unique among all the liturgies. It is a rich and splendid
liturgy and is marked by constantly uniting Christ and Mary in
the divine cult. The first invocation to Mary is at the beginning of
Mass. There is another on her feasts. After the Trisagion her inter-
cession is again invoked. In the Preface she is called the "Instrument
of the Divine Economy." In the context the Incarnation is recalled
and Mary is named tlle "Mother of God and the Holy Virgin Mary."
j
She is again invoked shortly after the Consecration.

2. The Ritual
Mary is constantly invo](ecl in the administration of both the sac- .
raments and sa,cramentals. She is the companion of all human joys
and sorrows. In the blessing 0f a betrothal we read:
Today the ineffable mystery, hidden to the nations and to the tepid,
1 V. Tekeyan, La Mere de Dieu dans la liturgie armenienne in H. du Manoir,

8.J., Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, Vol. I (Paris, 1949), pp. 355-361.
234 MARIOLOGY
has been revealed by the Annunciation of the Archangel to the Virgin
Mary, our Advocate with the Lord.
For Holy Viaticum:
By the intercession of the ever Virgin Mother of God, save me from
the snare of the invisible enemy.
For Benediction:
Thou who wert inflamed by the sun like the bush, and wert not
consumed, but hast given to men the Bread of Life, intercede with
Christ that He blot out our sins.
In the blessing for grapes, on the feast of the Assumption, Mary
is again honored.
When Thou hast willed finally to manifest Thy paternal love for men,
Thou hast sent Thy only Son, making a branch come forth from the
root of Jesse and an admirable and perfumed Flower to come forth
from the Immaculate Virgin Mary. 2

3. Divine Office
At Matins, Mary is invoked daily. On Sundays she is named ten
times at Matins and still oftener on her feasts. She is also named on
feasts of saints and on days of abstinence. An example:
o Lord, who lovest men, by the intercession of Thy Holy and
Immaculate Virgin Mother and by Thy precious Cross, hear our
prayers and save us.
After the Magni~cat there are three strophes in honor of Mary. She
is called "Holy Mother of Admirable Light." One strophe reads:
Pray for us to God, who took flesh of thee so that He would unite
His Holy Church built on the foundation of the Apostles and the
Prophets, and that He would preserve it immaculate to the day of
His second coming, we ~eg thee, Holy Mother, intercede for us.
After the T risagion there is another prayer to Mary beginning
with the words: "Holy Mary, Mother of Christ, our God" attributed
to St. Thomas the Apostle. On Wednesday, dedicated to the An-
nunciation, the final hymn is dedicated to Mary:
o Spouse offered by earth to heaven, we raise our hearts to thee.
Pray that on the day on which thou hast received the annunciation
2 Ibid., pp. 355, 356.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 235
of the Incarnation, we may be worthy to hear from thy only Son
this other message, Come ye blessed of my Father.
The final hymn of None is dedicated to Mary. At Compline:
We prostrate before thee, Mother of God, and we beg thee unchange-
able Virgin, to intercede for us and pray thy only Son that He would
save us from temptation, and from all dangers. 3

4- Marian Feasts
In the hymns used for Marian feasts we see the great love and
devotion of the Armenians to the Mother of God. There are six
classical Marian feasts, Christmas, Epiphany, Purification , Annun-
ciation, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception . The n ames and
invocations used for these feasts are similar to those found in the
Litany of Loreto, or those used by other Eastern liturgies. Thus Mary
is called "Throne of Salvation," "Dawn of Peace," "Orient of the
Sun of Justice," "Daughter of Light," "Altar of the Holy Spirit,"
"Tree of Life for the Fruit of Immortality," "Peace of the AfHicted,"
"Foundation of the Church," "Mediatress Between God and the
timan Race," "Joy of the W orld."·
The Alluenian li turgy does not go far jn the development of
M arian doctrine. But it insists on the great dignity of M ary in vari-
ous offices and titles. Some examples will sufl:1ce :
Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity
M ary is styled "Holy Mother of Admirable Light"; "Mother of
th e Only Begotten"; "Slle who brought forth the W ord"; "Mother
of Life"; "Moth er of the Spollse of the Church"; "Abode of the
Incarnation." On the Assumption she j s addressed thus:
More sublime than the Seraphs and the Cherubs with multiple eyes,
o Mother of the Saviour, Holy Virgin, Ark of the Covenant, Vessel
of Gold, Mysterious Altar of the Word of the Father, the Churches
of the world today keep festive day with hymn of benediction for the
solemnity of thy birth [entrance into heav~n].
On the third day of the octave of Epiphany :
o Mother and Virgin, Servant of Christ, who art ever the Advocate
of the world, all nations bless Thee. Pure dove, heavenly Spouse,
Mary, Temple and Throne of God the Word, all nations bless thee.
3 Ibid., pp. 356-357.
4 Ibid., pp. 357-358.
 MARIOLOGY
Mother and Virgin - these two grand privileges of Mary are ever
united in the liturgical prayers:
Three tremendous mysteries are manifested in thee, 0 Mother of
God: Virginal Conception, immaculate childbirth, and virginity after
childbirth.
Mary is called: "Delight of tbe W ord"'; "Mother of Virgins"; "Un-
consumed Bush"; "Lily of tl1e Valleys"; 'Rock cut without the aid
of human hands"; "Sealed Fountain'; "Fleece of Gedeon"; "Sealed
Door;""Incorruptl'ble T reasure. "
The divine Maternity is always the grand theme in these liturgi-
cal prayers. Mary is the final preparation for Christ, as the branch
bears the fruit. She is the "Rising of the Sun of Justice" (Assump-
tion); the "Spiritual Orient"; the "Tree 0 life planted in the Gar-
den of Eden, who has given its fruit to men, namely the Son"
(Epiphany). "Joachim and Anna have given us the Fleece that
contains the heavenly Rose" ( N ativity of M ary). She is the "Temple
of the Creator" (Octave of the Assumption); the "Temple of the
King of the Heavens" (ibid.); the "Abode of the Hol y Spirit"
(Assumption); the "House and Temple of the Spirit" (Octave of
the Assumption).
The holiness of Mary is not much developed in this liturgy. At
times it is affirmed in strong terms: Mary has received the sevenfold
grace; she is entirely blessed. Her holiness is understood in connec-
tion with her divine Maternity.6
Mary, Our Mediatrix
The Armenian liturgy often treats of the advantages we have
from God through the intercessioJIl of Mary. She is our Mediatrix,
the Patroness of the Church, the Queen of the World, the Hope
and Refuge of Christians. Owing to the many persecutions of the
Armenians, they learned to hope and trust in the Mother of God
to help them, and deliver them from all their enemies. Mary is
"She who has born Him who delivers us from the bonds of death";
Mary is the "Salvation of the human race"; Mary is the "Tree of
life, who has given the fruit of immortality to the ,first mother Eve,
deliveli ng her irom the sorrows of death"; I'Tholl art the Glory of
human Virginity, the Joy of Angels, thou , the one who liberates from
malediction." Through Mary we have a.ccess to the Tree of Life.
5 Ibid., pp. 358-359.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 237
"Rejoice, 0 Mother of God, Throne of salvation and Hope of the
human race, Mediatrix of Law and of Grace."6

Mary, Patroness of the Church

This title is dear to ' the Armenian people and has been in their
liturgy for ages. "May Christ protect -ns Church, by the intercession
of the !lother of God." Mary is the "Foun dation of the Church and
the Altar of the Holy Spirit." "By the intercession of the all-holy
Virgin, forti fy the fou;ndations o£ T h y Church , for Thou art the
uruque Sovereign Lord of the W orld." 'The Clmrch of thy Son
acknowledges th e, 'M oth er of God." "The Church co;nfesses the
Holy Virgin Immaculate." "Today the Spouse, Holy Church, cele-
brates with joy, in company with the heavenly spirits, the solemnity
of the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God."7

Mary, Queen of the Universe

Mary is the Queen of the Universe. She "carried in her arms Him
before whom the celestial spirits tremble." "Before her the Powers
ate prostra te." "The Legions of H eavens exalt the Immaculate
'temple of the W ord of God." 'We, the human race, we glorify thee,
Moth er of God, whom the angelic powers banaL" "Mother of God,
when thou takest thy place, radian t Light, at the righ t h and of thy
Son , call upon lim then, that H e save us from the horrible £Iame." 8

Mary, Hope and Refuge of Christians

There are many invocations that show the confidence of the
fai thful in Mary's power as the Hope and Refu ge of Christians.
"Mother of God, our Refuge and Qur Hope, pray to thy only Son
that H e save us ,from the £re of hell and grant us the Kingdom of
H eaven." "Never cease to pray for us, 0 Blessed among all women."
'We have placed our hope in thee; thou, who art briQ'hter than the
sun, do Dot cease to intercede for us, Mother of Christ, our God."
"We take refuge in thee, 0 most Holy One, Sublime, Admirable
One, and distributor of graces; thou art a fountain for the thirsty,
rest for the afHicted, thou who hast born the Word Divine."9
6 Ibid., p. 359.
7 Ibid., pp. 359, 360.
8 Ibid., p. 360 .
9 Ibid.
 MARIOLOGY

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary

Although the Armenian liturgy has n o theological formula of the
Immaculate Conception, th terms i t uses for Mary's sinl ssness must
be understood in the most absolute sense. M ary "alone is blessed
among all women"; she is the "Daughter of Light"; she has "lifted
the curse"; she is "The one who frees fTom the sin of Eve."
The feast of Mary's Assumption is the greatest Marian feast among
the Armenians. It is preceded by a week of abstinence and celebrated
with an octave. This feast is rooted in the mOst ancient traditions
of the Armenian Church. The liturgical prayers are explicit in regard
to the bodily Assumption of Mary:
Today the heavenly spirits bring to heaven the Abode of the Holy
Spirit, making her enter into the heavenly Jerusalem, to the immacu-
late tabernacle, to us inaccessible, close to the Holy Trinity.
Today the cele tial spiriLs h ave ci'lnied to heaven the immaculate
body of the Virgin Mother of ad, placing it among the angels to
share in delights beyond our telUng. Therefore Holy Church sings
to thee exultingly a 'new hymn of praise.
Having lived in this body an immaculate life, thou art brought by
the Divine Will to the Kingdom of thy Son, our God; pray for us. 10
An Armenian hymn to Mary:
Mother of God, gateway of Heaven to men, with a divine voice the
angel declared: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. He who
sitteth with the Father above the cherubim, was pleased to dwell
within thy maiden body; Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
He who dwelt amid the Raming seraphim was seen among men in
a woman's arms; Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.n
The many prayers to Mary and the titles the Armenians give her
prove their ancient and ardent devotion to the Mother of God. They
honor her with a sublime cult, and ask her to bring the Dissident
back to the true Church.
10 Ibid. , pp. 360-361. Ritual, Mashdotz (Vienna, 1902). Hymnodium (Charag-
TIotz, Venezia, 1898).
11 D. Attwater, Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London, 1931), pp. 16, 17.
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 239

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Attwater, D., Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945).
Brightman, F. E., Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), pp.
4 12-457.
Isserverdentz, J., The Armenian Ritual (Venice, 1876).
- - Armenia and the Armenians (Venice, 1886).
King, A A, The Rites of Eastern Christendom, Vol. I I (Rome, 1948),
pp. 52 1 - 646.
Talatinian, B., O.P.M., L'Assunta nella liturgia e teologia della Chiesa
Armena, in Atti del Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme,
1951), pp. 17-3 0 •
Weber, Die Katholische Kirche in Armenien (Freiburg ijBr., 1903).
 MARIOLOGY
The Church says to Mary: Come and we will go together to pray
the Son of the Lord for the sins of the world. Pray thou to Him because
thou hast nom;ished Him; I shall pray to Him for He has mingled
His blood with my nuptials. Pray thou to Him as a Mother, and I as
a spouse; He will hear His Mother, He will answer His bride.
The Feast of Our Lady, Guardian of the Harvest is a popular local
feast in Mesopotamia, and is celebrated on May 15, to ask Mary's
bleSSing OD the harvest. which begins at that time. There is no men-
tion of this special intention in the Office, but the powerful inter-
cession of Our Lady is brought out in the prayers:
o Christ, who has heard the prayers of Thy Mother while she was
on earth, and who now hears and helps at all times those who have
recourse to her and call upon Thee for her mediation, have mercy on us.
Mary is the source of help and the refuge of the afHicted in all creation.
And he who celebrates the feasts of Mary will be helped by her
prayers. Glory to Thee, 0 Lord, Son of God, who hast honored Mary,
Thy Mother.
The Am~rnption of Mary, August] 5, is the greatest Marian feast
for the Chaldeans. They fast for five days before it; the Nestorians
for seven days. The traditional Chaldean idea is that the Apostles,
tlle Prophets, and the angels were present with Our Lady on the
day of her death. This is based on the Eastern custom of people com-
ing together when a person is dying. Some of the Apostles rose from
tlle dead for this occasion; so, too, did the Prophets and Patriarchs,
says this liturgy.
We thank Thee and glorify Thee, 0 Christ, our Saviour, that it
pleased Thy majesty to transfer the Mothers of life from the terrestrial
world to places full of joy, so that she can rejoice eternally with the
legiOns of spirits and the heavenly powers. In Thy mercy, 0 Lord,
render us worthy of rejoicing With her j)) life that will have no end. s
Since tlle Chaldeans have returned to the Cath01ic Church, four
other Marian feasts have been added to their calendar, namely the
Annunciation tlle Visitation, the Nativity of Our Lady, and the
Immaculate Conception. For the Annunciation the liturgy has merely
a rbi.a,., pp. 344- 346. H . 'vV. Codrington, The CJ.~akl.aelm Litl~rgj, in Eastern.
Church.es Quar·terly (Ramsgate ) , Vol. II , April, July, October, 1937. M. Kyriakos,
L'AssOl'nptio~ chez Zes Chaldeens, in Atti del Congresso Assmtzionistico Orientale
(Gerusalemme, 195 I) , pp. 33-37' O. MenSinger, Mariclogisclies alu def 1701'11.·
l'h.e$inischetl Litu.rgie (Regensburg, 1932).
 MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES 243
prayers composed by the Patriarch Joseph Audo at the time of
Pius IX, and certain texts of the Advent liturgy from the Gospels.
For the feast of the Visitation (June 21) there are also prayers of the
Patriarch Audo and commentaries on the Gospel narrative of the
Visitation. The feast of the Nativity of Our Lady has prayers like-
wise of the Patriarch Audo and a hymn from the works of George
Warda.
The prayers for the feast of the Immaculate Conception contain
excellent doctrine. They are the work of Damian, a priest of the
monastery of Alkosh.
Glory to the Highest, who has done great things in Mary the Virgin,
for from the bosom of His Mother, He has brought it to pass that she
has none like to her among the angels.
o Christ, who hast freed Mary from the sin of Adam by the merits
of Thy blood, and hast effected her redemption in a manner far superio'[
to that of all the children of Adam, by not allowing her, for even a
second, to be under the rule of the Evil One, have mercy on us.
A beautiful Hower, without equal, has appeared this day on the
barren earth, full of thorns and thistles: Mary, of the race of the
unfortunate Adam and daughter of Eve, who killed the serpent, was
conceived by the power of the Lord without original sin. It is an
astonishing and incomprehensible thing which no words can describe.
Glory to the power divine!
o Queen of Queens, all rich, enrich with benefits tlly sen1 ants, 0
Mother of the Most High! For He has made thee the Dispensatrix of
His treasures, and universal Queen, for it has pleased the King of
Kings to place Thee over all. By thy goodness, pour out on all the
gifts they need, so that the whole world can prepare for thee a crown
of thanks.
How beautiful art thou, 0 Virgin Spouse, for the glorious Spouse,
the Divine Word! It is in thy bosom that He has placed His treasures,
and in thee He has gathered together graces as in a sea, and He has
made thee the source of life for mortals.... 0 Merciful One in needs,
come to the help of all the children of the Church, now and at the
hour of death. 4
4. Mary in Popular Chaldean Devotion
When we recall the important role the liturgy played in the daily
life of the Chaldean people, and how its texts and hymns strength-
4 Massonat, op. cit., pp. 348-350.
244 MARIOLOGY
ened and developed their spiritual life, we can well understand the
great love and devotion they have ever had for the Mother of God,
who is so highly praised ill their liturgy. Some of their important
chmches are dedicated to her. Thus at Mosul, the city of the Patri-
arch, there is the Church of The Pure, where the liturgy was
developed. Nearby is the Monastery of the Virgin, the largest monas-
tery of the Chaldean monks of the Congregation of abban Hormez.
Our Lady of the Harvest extends ber maternal care to the young
priests, who are generally ordained Oll that feast day May 15. Many
of the faithful bear the name of Mary or of Our Lady of the
Assumption. A frequent exclamation in time of danger, or after
long work is "la Mariam," "0 IVlary." Many persons make a vow to
fast on Saturday in honor of OUl" Lady; or to celebrate the months
of May and Octobe by reading lectures on Mary added to the
Marian Offices, or by reciting the Rosary publicly. In many churches
in Mesopotamia some women take tums reciting the Rosary dming
the day. This they do in the language;: of Christ and Mary.
Thus the liturgy of the Chaldeans agrees with the other Catholic
liturgies in praising the Mother of God and asking her all-powerful
intercession. The Catholics of this rite were once very numerous
and their litUIgy is very ancient. In fact it is claimed that their Office
is the most ancient public prayer of the Church. a The Chaldeans
brought the true Faith to the East as far as China, Mongolia, and
India. They glory ip- many saints and martyrs, hut especially in
St. Epluem the Deacon, Doctor of the Church, who is called the
Lyre of the Holy Spirit. He is justly famous for his great poems on
tJle Mother of God, ,md his defense of her ImmacuL te Conception.
Chalde::U1 devotion to the Blessed Virgin impresses the heretics and
even the Mohammedans, and it should help them to enter the true
Church of Christ.
5 Kyriakos, op. cit., p. 34. Tfi1,1kj:i., L'Eglise o17aldeene (Paris, 1913)' Rabban, La
Messa caldea detta "Degli A1.lOsto!.i" (Roma, 1935). D. Attwater, The Christian
Churches of the East, Vol. I, pp. 198-209; ibid., Vol. II, pp. 185-198. D. Attwater,
Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945). A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern
Christendom, Vol. II, pp. 251-520.
 Mary in the Western Liturgy

By SIMEON DALY, O.S.B.

INTRODUCTION

Ito Frealize
ANYONE is tempted to feel that devotion to Mary a pre-
rogative of our own age, he need only look to the sacred liturgy
is

that this devotion is a part of the very stmcture of Catholic

worship. Mary's life and privileges are completely summarized in
the cycle of the Church year. 1
Among the feasts honoring the memory of her early life are the
Immaculate Conception the Nativity, and the Presentation. The
hallowed activities of her adult life are recalled in such feasts as
the Annunciation, the Espousals with St. Joseph, the Visitation, the
Maternity, the Holy Family, the Seven Sorrows, and the Assump-
tion. In the temporal cycle of the liturgical year she frequently holds
a place of veneration in the feasts of Our Lord, such as Christmas,
Epiphany, and the PIesentation. Hence, to be ignorant of her place
of llonor in Catholic life is to miss not only an essential doctrine but
the very leey to the area of Catholic worship which is so thoroughly
permeated with veneration of her.
This study is concerned with Mary's place in the Western liturgy.
Specifically, the main objective will be to find reflected in the West-
ern liturgy evidence of the dogmatic truths we profess concerning
Our Lady. One should find here the answer to the question: How
does the worship of the Christian society, which is the Church,
reflect a vital realization of the dogmas concerning the Blessed
Mother?
Our field of investigation is limited to the Western liturgies and
even here limited primarily to the Roman liturgy. This is not a
1 Henry Lawrence Janssens, O.S.B., De cyclo liturgico mariali, in Ephemerides
Litllrgicae, Vol. 38, 1924, pp. 157-161. Cf. P. Oppenheim, O.S.B ., Maria nella
Hl>urgia cattolica (Roma, 1944); Maria in der latei1'lischen Liturgie, in Katholische
Mtlrien.ktmde, ed. P. Strater, Vol. 1 (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 183-267.
245
 MARIOLOGY
structural or an historical study of the individual feasts, but rather
a factual investigation of the relation between dogma and prayer in
Mariology.
The method of procedure brieRy will be as follows: a few remarks
on the liturgy in relation to faith; a resume of the facts concerning
the initial traces of honor paid to Mary in the liturgy; a study of the
main doctrines of Mariology: Maternity, Sanctity. Virginity, Queen-
ship, and Mediation, as reflected in the Marian feasts; the presenta-
tion of a few feasts and devotions not included in the above' and,
[mally, a brief conclusion to the whole study.
The term Utu.rgJI may be taken in its primary meaning, which is
the active work of redemption that Christ continues to carryon and
to apply through the Church in the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacra-
ments, or it may apply to the concrete records of the Church's tra-
clition which fonn the basic guide or norm for current practice, such
as the texts themselves of the official books of the liturgy. It is the
latter meaning of the word that we shall use in this paper. 2
The sacred liturgy is the life of the Church. Through it she con-
tinues the divine mysteries of the life of Christ and applies their
saving graces to men. Through it she olfers worthy praise and
thanksgiving night and day througnout the world; through it she
olfers expiation and satisfaction for sin and pleads with God for all
the individual needs of this society; through it she reconsecrates to
God persons and things, as it were, lost to Him by Adam's sin . By
means of the liturgy, then, we are drawn into bonds of closest union
with the saints in heaven.
Our study of the texts of this liturgy will take us to the Missal,
the Breviary, the Pontifical, and the Ritual, which are the official
source books in the Roman Church for sacrifice, prayer, and blessings.
Getting closer to the heart of OUI study, we must first see the
important relationship between faith and worship, between our be-
lieving and our praying, between dogma and cult.

LITURGY IN RELATION TO FAITH

There are two fundamental principles that must be considered in
this regard, namely, that what is to be found in the liturgy must
have its foundation in the canons of the Faith, and that not all the
2 For the other meaning d. C. Howell, S.]., The Blessed Virgin in the liturgy, in
Orate Fratres, Vol. 24, 1949, pp. 1-8. Also published as Marian Reprint, No. 17
(Dayton, Ohio, Marian Library, 1953).
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 247
doctrines of fahh are necessarily reflected in the liturgy. The latter
is important in the discussion of our particular paper ,because we
know that at least in the Western liturgy, there is no trace of
Marian cult before the fifth cennuy, yet we know that devotion and
doctrine concerning Our Blessed Lady did exist right from the time
of the Apostles. There is no necessary demand that what be of faith
be also in the liturgy. The other principle, however, namely, that
what is in the littu'gy must have its foundation in faith, will Concern
us more directly in this study.
Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter, Mediator
Dei, points up the importance of the interrelationship between .faith
and prayer, and specifically liturgical prayer. He quotes the time-
honored maxim or principle, Legem ctedendi lex statuat supplicandis
(let the law of prayer determine tlle rule for belief). He stresses the
importance of this statement and yet warns against its false interpre-
tation. He says:
On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with
which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the
error and fallacious reasoning of those who have elaimed that the
sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of
faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare snell a
doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and
sanctity through the sacred ntes of the liturgy and to reject it other-
wise . .. . But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The
worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous pro-
fession of Catholic faith an d a continuous exercise of hope and
charity ... . The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic Faith for its
content, inasmuch as it bears public witnesss to the faith of the
Church ....
The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or detennine inde-
p endently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since
the liturgy is also a profession of etemal truths and subject as such to
the Supreme Teaching Authority of the Church, it can supply proofs
and testimony, quite clearly of no little value, to",ards tlle determination
of a particular point of Christian doctrine. 4
5 Denzinger, 139. De gratia Dei "I1tdictllus" until recently attributed to Pope
St. Celestine 1. It was probably written by St. Prosper of Aquitaine. Cf. M. Cap·
puyn~, O.S.B. ReV1(,e Bem5d.icti1Ie, Vol. 41, 1929, p. 156 If.
'Pius XTI, Encyclical Lett er of His HoUne ·s Pins XII, 01~ Sacred. Liturgy
(Vatican library translation) (Washington 5, D. C.: N .C.W.C. [n.d.]), pp. 2,0- 2I.
The official teJolt of the encyclical, Mediator Del, will be found in A.A.S., Vol.
39, 1947, pp. 5 21 -595.
 MARIOLOGY
We see here that there is an interrelationship or interdependence
one upon another, so that if we find something in the liturgy, it
should also have its foundation in Catholic faith . T his Iormula,
Legem, credendi lex s ta t1J~at supplicandi, was originally used only in
a specruc instance, against the Pelagian heresy, pointing out tha t the
sacraments and prayers of the liturgy as expressed in the liturgy were
an argument for the true doctrine of grace. T hough originally ap-
plied onl y to a specific problem, it was g:t;adually taken u p as a for-
mula of universal extent until by the time of St. T homas it wa
accepted as a general axiom or law. St. T homas himself considered
the liturgy as a prime source for doctrine, practically equating it at
times with Scripture. 5
It follows then that if we find reHected in the liturgy these doc-
trines regarding Mary's life and prerogatives, we have a very definite
witness to their having been clearly the belief of the Church
throughout the ages.
MATERNITY
Devotion to Mary must be reduced to the practical application of
the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Because this doctrine is
not contained explicitly in the Apostles' Creed, there is no ground
for surprise if we do not fin d any clear traces of the cult of th.
Blessed Virgin in the first C hristian centuries.6 In fact, at present it
is impossible to determine the first manifestation of cult shown to
the Virgin before the peace of the Church in the year 312 . ata-
comb monumen ts, frescoes, and the like, picture her with Our Lord,
hut without particularly indicating that homage was offered to her. 7
However, one might justly suppose that, granting the lact of the
universal recognition of her prerogatives,s men would extend to her
a place of veneration at least equivalent to tbat of the martyrs.
5 P. Op)?enhe.im, O.S.B., Instit~lt'iones ~J'ste7l'latico-historicae itt sacram. lit14.rgi'm~,
Vol. 7, Prmcipia theologiae Uturgicue ( T OrinO, Mnrielti, f947), pp. 98- 106. Oppen,
hairn cites forty passages where St. T homas appealed to liturgical usage or
liturgical te,xts to esta.blish his doctrine.
~ H . T hurston, S.]., Virgil' M ary, Devotio1l to tll.e Blessed, in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 15', p. 45'9.
7 H. Leclercq, O.S.B., Marie, Mere de Dieu; culte liturgique, in DACL, Vol.
10 2 , c. 2.035. Cf.: M. Annellini, Notizie storiche intorno all'antichita del culto di
Maria Vergine (Roma, 1888).
8 Primum factum [cultus venerationis] est christianorum fides relate ad principales
praerogativas et praecipue privilegia B. M. Virginis, videlicet: Eius divina maternitas,
eius virginitas, eius universalis mediatio prout clare apparet ex frequenti antithesi
inter Evam et Mariam. In symbolo (saltern inde a saeculo II in Occidente) habe-
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 249
By the second half of the fourth century, however, we have definite
indication of the recognition of the legitimacy, even the urgency of
this cult in Epiphanius. 9
The real turning po:int for this veneration comes with the Council
of Ephesus in 431. The history of this third ecumenical council of
the Church reads like the pages of a novel, not only because of its
complications, but also because of the great concern of the people
for the accurate definition of Mary's motherhood. 1 0 From this time
on, honor toward Mary was expressed in one way or anoilier-
through the dedication of churches, through the composition of
prayers to h er, and eventually in the seventh century (in the West)
through the introduction of definite feasts.
That Marian cult developed f"tom Or was a sequel to the cult of
anoels is an opinion held among scholars, but without implying that
it is anything more than a theoryl1 and likewise without implying
that there were insufIicient doctrinal grounds for the cult to give
rjse to itself. It is a fact that in many of the ancient litanies the
Archangels Michael and Gabriel are invoked after the Per ons of
the Trinity and immediately before the Blessed Virgin.12
At any rate the devotion to and veneration of Marv toole root in
the period of a few centuries following the Council of Ephesus and
expressed itself by liturgical prayer and liturgical feasts. While it is
difficult to give precise dates for the introduction of the various
feasts, it can be said with certainty that the feasts of the Assumption,
the Annunciation, the Nativity, and the Purification can be traced
to this period. 1s
The first prerogative of Mary that we turn to is her ]\1aternity
because it seems to be the final cause of all her other privileges. 14

bantu( verba: "natus e.'< Maria VITgine"i ex quo al'paret B. Virginis privilegia nedum
Patribus et DOCLOcibus sed edam fideliblls a quibus symbolum recitabatur, et quibus
lI))tequ<un . bllptizilICJJ.tU: eXEollcbnhu, ~lllb~tl.la )jter n,0ta esse. G. Roschini, O.S.M.,
C01IVpel~d'l1111; MarioLoglae CRomae: SClcnua Catholics, 1946), pp. 487-488.
o Haeres. 79. PC, 41, 749--'7;1.
10 Cf. M. Barret, O.S .B., Our Lady in the liturgy, considerations on certain feasts
of the Mother of God (London: Sands & Co.; St. Louis, Mo. : B. Herder, 1912),
pp, I:L-J 5. Por tIle history of the Council see C. Hefele, Histoi.r e des CO~tciles . . .
(PllriS: Letouzey ct Ant, 1907 -), Vot 21, 190B, pp. 2L9-42.2.
l 't H. Thurston, Virgi11 Mary, p. 459.
12 M. ~IlSset, A1.gels, in the Catholic Enc:ycloped.i'1, Vol. I, p. 4B6a.
13 H. ThutstOll. Virgi1l' Mary. p. 462..
14 A theory recently pto])osed merits consideration, namely, that the fullness of
grace is the basic principle of M:ttlology. Alois MUller Tlte hasic Pl'itlctl.'!es of
Mariology, in Theology Digest, Vol. I . 1953, pp. 139- 144. Tlus article is ' a con-
 MARIOLOGY
We look to the liturgy for a living, practical, poetical expression
of the doctrine that Mary is truly the Mother of Christ, the God-
Man, and further that she exercises spiritual motherhood over all
men, especially over the Christians.
The first place that we naturally go to for reflections of the doc-
trine of the Maternity in the liturgy is the feast of the divine Ma-
ternity itself (October II). Only in 1931 was this feast raised to
the rank of a double of the second class for the universal Church
by Pope Pius XI at the time of the fifteenth centenary of the Council
of Ephesus. 16 Before that time, this doctrine which is reflected in all
the Marian feasts was especially emphasized in the Advent and
Christmas seasons, as I shall try to indicate later. The privilege of
observing the feast of the Maternity was first granted to the King of
Portugal in 1751 and was assigned to the first Sunday in May.16
In the Mass for this feast we find the following passages:
"Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son" (Introit).
"0 God who didst will that thy Word should take flesh at the message
of an angel in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, grant unto us thy
suppliants that we who believe her to be indeed the Mother of God
may be aided by her intercession with thee" (Collect).
"There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse: and a flower
shall rise up out of his root" (Gradual).
"Virgin Mother of God, He whom the whole world cannot hold,
enclosed Himself in thy womb, being made man" (Alleluia).
The Gospel speaks of "his parents."
"When his Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, she was found with
child of the Holy Ghost" (Offertory).

densation of one that appeared in Divus ThOtl,/(~5 ( Preiburg) , Vol. 29, 1951, pp.
385-401, which in tum was the summary of the results ofru.s patristic study as a
doctolal thesis: Eccle:sia-Maffil: Die Einheit MariRs Uflli (ler Kirche (Freibourg,
195 1).
16 Pius XI, Lux veTitatis, in AAS., Vol. 23, 1931, pp. 493-517. In this
encyclical Pope Pius XI ordered that a new Office and Mass be prepared, p. 517.
They did not officially appear until the following year: AA.S., Vol. 24, 1932,
pp.15 1- 1 59·
16 F. Holweck, Calendarium lituTgicum festoTum Dei et Matris Mariae (Phila-
delphia: The American Ecclesiastical Review, The Dolphin Press, 1925), p. 148 and
passim. Cf. also his article on the Maternity in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.
10, p. 46d.
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY
"Through thy mercy, 0 Lord, and by the intercession of the Blessed
Mary ever Virgin, Mother of Thy Only-begotten Son, may this obla-
tion secure for us present and perpetual prosperity and peace" (Secret).
"Blessed is the womb of the Virgin Mary, which bore the Son of the
Eternal Father" (Communion).
"May this communion, 0 Lord, cleanse us from guilt, and by the
intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, make us
partakers of the heavenly remedy" (Postcommunion).
These passages give an opportunity to point out once for all the
sources for the texts applied to Mary in the liturgical books.17 Pri-
marily, Sacred Scripture is the fount. Some passages of the Old
Testament have their literapa fulfillment in Mary, e.g., "A virgin
shall conceive." Some of the prophetic, messianic psalms, such as
Psahl1' 44, seem to have direct application to her. Some texts are
used in an accommodated sense, as, for example, the Canticle of
Canticles, Wisdom literafure, and the Book of Judith. In each of
these the literal sense is some other more obvious fact, but for some
extrinsic reasons they are applied to Mary. This gives rise to the
mystical aura that pervades some of her feasts. The interpretation
of the applied texts comes only from a knowledge of the Scrip-
ture background, knowledge of the Marian doctrines, and quiet
contemplation.
Besides Scripture, texts from the Fathers are used, or even texts
composed specifically for some feast or occasion. Thus, the beautiful
Communion verse above is of ecclesiastical origin and is used quite
frequently throughout the Missal and Breviary. It might be well to
point out that many of these passages quoted in this paper for one
or the other feast or doctrine frequently occur in other parts of the
Breviary or M issal.
I remarked previously that this doctrine of the Maternity was
clearly expressed and even emphasized in the liturgy long before
Pope Pius XI promulga ted the feast for the universal Church. The
season of Advent, in fact, very dramatically and delicately makes
17 B. Capelle, a.s.B., La liturgie Mariale en occident, in Maria. Etudes 5Ul' la
Sainte Vierge, edited by Hubert du Manoir, S.J. (Paris, Beauchesne, 1949), Vol. 1,
pp. 23 6- 2 37.
16 For the full signification of the literal sense cf. M.-D. Philippe, a.p., Re-
marques SUT les signes divins, in Laval theologique et philosophique, Vol. 5, 1949,
pp. I I I - I 18.
 MARIOLOGY
constant reference to the Maternity of Our Ladio though always in
reference to 11er future Maternjty. Hence on days of temporal office
in Advent, the doxology Jesu, tihi, sit gloria, QUi n.at·us es de Virgin.e
in the Breviary must be omitted because of its reference to an alre ~ldy
completed Maternity. The second Collect for feria] Masses in this
season is the proper oration of the Blessed Virgin, which is identical
with the one quoted above for the feast of the Maternity. While the
words definitely affirm the Maternity of M ary as completed there is
also the "message of the auge)" to give it an "annuncjation" tone.~O
The prophecy, "Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son"
(Isa. 7: 10), which comes in the Scripture lesson of the Saturday
within the first week of Advent, the seventh :responsory of the :brst
unday of Advent, and the Communion antiphon of Ember Wednes-
day, lceeps this privilege of Mary before om: minds.
Gabriel's message co Mary threads its way in and out of the Divine
Office and the Mass in the EOUId week. Ember Wednesday and
Friday, in fact, seem to be Marian feasts, always, however, main-
taining th mph ti tone. 2 ],
The first Sunday of Advent, the vigil of Christmas, and the .first
Mass of Christmas are celebrated at the sta tional church of St. Mary
Major. This particular church was chosen for these occasions in honor
of Mary, who g'dve us Cb,rist.22
The beautiful feast of Christmas and its octave particularly high-
light Mary's Maternlty. Janua.ry I had been celebrated in Rome as
a Marian feast, the first and only one of the early Marian feasts that
originated in the West. 23 However, by the beginning of the ninth
19 Cf. Joseph Alvarez, De Beata Maria Virgine in liturgia Adventus, in Epheme-
rides Mariologicae, Vol. I, 1951, pp. 531-533, and I. Schuster, O.S.B., The
Sacramentary, translated from the Italian by Arthur Levelis-Marke (New York:
Benziger Bros., 1930), Vol. I, Advent, passim.
20 This oration is also the same as the one for the feast of the Annunciation
(March 25).
21 For an explanation of the origin of the Ave Maria as an Offertory verse for
the fourth Sunday of Advent, cf. Rene-Jean Hesbert, O.S.B., Antiphonale missarum
sextuplex (Bruxelles: Vromant & Co., 1935), pp. xxxviii-xxxix, xliv.
22 Cf. St. Andrew's Missal for the first Sunday of Advent.
~jj F. Holwecl{, Calendariu.m, p. I. Althou"b the title definitely appears in manu-
sct;ipts of calenda:rs and missals, Hesbert seriQusly questions whether the feast was
ever intended to be anything oilier than the octilve of Cluisbnas at possibly t\ mis-
reading of Na'lllUs Sanc/:a:e Mari:/nlle, who wa.s hOllored on this day. H.-J. HesbCl:t,
Atltlphonale 1ni~sa'rull~ sextuplex. p. lxxxi.
Bemm;d Batte, O.S .B., argued the other vje~ in. Let 1,rem.Mre fete de !a Uhl,rgie
romaine irt Ephemerides Li'Uj,rgiClle, Vol. 47. 1933, pp. 425- 430. holding that the
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 253
century, it was considered to be a feast of Our Lord, the Circumcision.
In whatever way the historians of the liturgy may solve the
origins, the fact remains that Christmas and its octave are replete
with striking references to the Maternity-Mary and Jesus cannot be
separated here if the fullness of the mystery is to be preserved. 24
"This is the day whereon the King of Heaven was pleased to be born
of a Virgin" (1st Responsory at Matins).
"How great is this mystery, how wonderful is the teaching of the faith!
The beasts saw the new-born Lord lying in a manger. Blessed is that
Virgin whose womb was made meet to bear our Lord Christ" (4th
Responsory) .
"Blessed is God's Holy Mother, Mary, maiden undefiled. This day hath
she brought forth the Saviour of the world" (5th Responsory).
This last prayer is particularly beautiful, expressing so succinctly
Mary's Maternity, sanctity, and virginity. The next responsories are
equally beautiful, but these will suffice to show our point.
It would seem that the psalms of the first of the two Christmas
offices are the source for the psalms of the Office of the l3lessed
Virgin. January I - the octave of Christmas (and probably a Marian
feast) - uses tl1e psalms of the first office; February 2 and other
Marian feasts have the same psalms with only two modifications. The
Office of Virgins then gets its series of psalms from these.~G
In considering the Maternity, we cannot fail to look at the feast
of the Annunciation of March 25 which was for centuries, liturgically
speaking, a feast of the Maternity.2c l30th the Mass and the Office
are replet with references to OUI Lady's Maternity:

feast of St. Martina did not appear in the calendars before the end of the seventh
century and claiming that January 1 was celebrated as a Marian feast before it was
celebrated as the octave of Christmas.
24 For passages from the Breviary, translations will be taken, when possible, from:
The Roman Breviary . .. translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess
of Bute, K.T., a new edition (Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons,
1908).
~ o Georges Frenaud, O.S.B., L.e cnlle Hturgiqlle de Notre-Dama in Revua Gre-
gorian-n.e, Vol. 31 , 1952', p. 107. This is a section from a review of the fir.t
volume of Md~ja, edited by Du Manoil, with special attention to Abbot CapeI1e~s
contributiOn On Mary in the Western liturgy. This opinion cOlUlters that of OJpell'
who feels that the Office of Virgins is the source fOI the psalms of the Marian
o.lliee. Cf. B. Capelle, La Utllrgie Mflrmla en occidtmt-, p . 236. Psalms for the fen~t
of the Ao;sumprion, see his: La fe~8 de ~'ASS01"IJticm dans l'llis/oire Ut;urgiqHe, in
Eph,8'/I~eriaes T~taologicQe L01)QtLienses, Vol. 3. 19'Z.6 PJ;1· 39-41.
~ij Qne of the fou:r earliest Marian feasts celebrated 10 the Roman ChUl'ch. It
254 MARIOLOGY
"0 God, Who hast willed that ..." (Collect - same as for Maternity,
see above).
"R.eceive, 0 Virgin Mary, receive the word. of the Lord, which is sent
thee by His angel. Thou shalt conceive and shalt bring forth God and
Man together. And thou shalt be called blessed among all women"
(3rd Responsory at Matins).
This is suffici.ent to show that the concept of Mary's Maternity is
clearly expressed in the sacred liturgy. We do not find here the pre-
cision of expression that one expects in a theology textbook, but
rather the living, pulsing expression of a praying Church animated
with love and devotion .
It is interesting to note that the privileges of Mary are frequently
mentioned in the Pontifical and the Ritual. A few expressions honor-
ing her Maternity are : Sweet Mother; Dwelling Place of God; Dwell-
ing Place of the Son of God; Mother of Christ; Mother of Oux Lord
Jesus Christ; The Word took flesh from her womb; She who bore
Him and she who nourished Him at the breast. 27
One ancient and beautiful prayer that is found in the Breviary,
the Ritual, and the Pontifical honoring Mary's Maternity is the Sub
tuum praesidium (Compline of Little Office; Versicle at 3rd Noc-
turn of Maternity and Mediatrix of all Grace).
We take refuge under thy protection, 0 holy Mother of God. Despise
not our supplications in our need, but deliver us from all dangers,
o Ever Virgin, glorious and blessed. 28
SANCTITY
The second concept or privilege of Mary we want to consider is
her eminent sanctity. Rooted in the Scripture- "Hail, fun of grace"-
this doctrine has ever been evident in the teaching of the Church. The
doctrine is implicitly contained in almost every feast honoring Mary,

probably dates from the middle of the seventh century. It is one of the f(lut feasts
for tIle celebration of which Sergius I ( 687-70I) prescribed a procession in the
.Liher Pontificalis. The other three were : the Purilication (February 2), the Assump-
tion (August 15). and the Nativity (SeptembeT 8). L. Duchesne, O rigi:/lss d4~
Cl,ate o11,r it:ilm, tftmle Sl'T 111 l.i/:t/,rgie Z"rine IIwmt Charlemagne, 2. ~dition (paris: A.
fiontemoing, 1898), llP' !l8, 261. (Thete is II fifth edition, 1925.) For the
Tecorcl of the spread of tile feast of the Annunciation, cf. Hoh;yeck, CaZendarium,
pp. 60-61.
~. A. Onofrio, De B. V. Ma'ria in precib~'5 Hi,t unlls et PontificaLis TIoman,i, in
Ephemerides Lilll'rgicae, Vol. 61, 1947, p. 104.
28 'nlis prayer will be discllssed more at length later.
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 255
tl10ugh there is no speci1ic feast honor:il~g her under this general title.
When we refer to Mary's sanctity we include all her plivileges
insofar as each, de facto, did increase her holiness, eitll,er actually,
such as her Immaculate Conception, or, at least, by providing a
means for sanctity, such as her virginity.
Mary was not only free frolll any stain of original or actual sin,
bu her soul- more than any other except that of her own divine
Son - was steeped in divine grace. The sacred liturgy expresses this
in different ways.
From the feast of the Annunciation (March 25) we have the
words of Scripture: <!Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou among women" (Alleluia, Gospel, and Offertory).
"Thou hast found grace with God" (Gospel). These phrases from
the holy Gospel interlace the whole frame\lvork of this feast and
keep returning like a theme in most of the feasts in which she is
honored. In the Common Office of the Blessed Virgin, the fifth
lesson taken from St. John Chrysostom has this magnificent passage:
Verily, dearly beloved brethren, the Blessed Virgin Mary was a great
wonder. What thing greater or more famous than she hath ever at
any time been found or can be found? She alone is greater than heaven
and earth. What thing holier than she hath been or can be found?
Neither Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Martyrs, nor Patriarchs, nor
Angels, nor Thrones, nor Lordships, nor Seraphim, nor Cherubim, nor
any other creature visible or invisible can be found that is greater or
more excellent than she. She is at once the handmaid and the parent of
God, at once Virgin and Mother.
This passage certainly high-lights Mary's eminent holiness. An-
other passage from the Common Office expresses her sanctity very
beautifully but less obviously:
"I am black but comely, 0 ye daughters of Jerusalem. Therefore the
king has loved me and brought me into his chambers" C3rd Antiphon
of Lauds).
Perhaps the feast most intimately connected with the concept of
sanctity is that of the Immaculate Conception, which honors Mary's
singular prerogative of having been conceived fro~n the very firSt
moment free of any stain of sin . It is her triumph over Satan. She is
mankind's one unspotted soul.
The doctrinal emphasis of this feast was implied in the feast of
the Annunciation where Mary's fullness of grace and spotlessness of
 MARIO LOGY
soul are stressed. A special feast seems to have developed from the
parallel feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (September
24). The step from one to the other is not h ard to recognize. The
Eastern rite here too was ahead of the West. Already in the ninth
century, in the Marble Calendar of Naples, there is a feast of the
Conception of St. Ann. Although Naples is in the West, it was
at that time under the Byzantine rule and this calendar entry repre-
sents a Byzantine feast.
Even so, the nrj<'Tin 01' the feast in the \Nest seems to have heen
independent of this and cannot be pl aced much -if at a11 - before
1060. It seems to have been E:ngland's privilege to have introduced
this feast co the West. 3D T he qu estion of heland's role as the first
to have the feast seemS to have been conclusively discounted, es-
pecially since it bas been shown that the entries in the eady Irish
calendars were jn.sertions of a la.ter date. 30
Pius IX defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in
1854 (Ine ffabilis Deus). In the document of the definition he refers
to the presence of the feast in the liturgy as a sign and a reRection
of the faith of the Church in the doctrine.3 1 Sixtus IV had in 1477
extended the feast to the universal Church. The Mass and Office
that he had approved on that occasion were replaced in 1863 by
Pius IX with the Mass formula we have today. Leo XIII, on Novem-
29 E . Bishop hinted that the extensive traffic between Rome and England in
this period may well have in£l\enced the passage of the feast from Itily to England :
Liturgica Jdstorica COxfoTd : Clarendon Press, 1918), p . 258. cr. B. del M armol,
O.S.B., Q1~elq11e.s pee/siO'n ,'u.r Ie cl~lte de la Vierge 11.I~ X11e .o;;ede, in M emoires
a
et Rapport'S du COllgrdS M"riaJ teml Bl'I.l.XeUes, 191.J , Vol. 1 (Bruxcl1es, 1922), pp.
23 1 - 2 41.
30 For a disclIssion of the whole problem of the origin of this feast, cE. Andrea
M. Cecchin, O.S.M., L'Imlllacowta ?le!7a !it.u.rgia ocoide1/.tdle Imteri.ore ,,1 SIlCO!O XllT
(Rome: Edi'l.ioni Marianum, 1943), pp. 1 '5-27. Edmund Bishop has tWO studies in
his Lit·wgica historica fP' 2>39- 2 59. The prst is a repJ;int of an article in the
Downs-ide 1{eview, Apri, 1886. The second Cpp. 250-259) is an essay on "Irish
Ori~ins" of the feast which Wll S writttm thirty years after the 6nit essay. While his
study is inteJ;esting and his mccllOds cammeJ)dable, the force of hi~ argument has
been lost DOW that Fr. Grosjean has pointed out that the entries in the Martyrology
of Tallaght (end of the eighth century) and the Martyrology of engus (end of
the eighth or beginning of lhe ninth century) relative to this feast (May 3, Con-
ception of the Bles ed Virgin Mary) tne later insertions: Analeela Bolla~ulia'na, Vol.
61, 1943, PI?' 9 ·l -9'5·
81 "By wInch illustrious act she pointed OUL the conception of U1C Virgin a~
singular wonderful, and very fll1: ren10ved [-rom the origin of the reSl of mankind
and to be venerated as entirelv holy, since the Ch urch celebrlltes festiva l days only
of whnt i~ holy." Pius IX. Offioial dOOHments conneoted wi.th. th,e defi"ition of tlw
dogma of -tll(~ h~mlaIJUlat.e Conc~pt:io'Ft of the Blessed. Vjl'gi~ Mary (in Larin and
English) (Baltimore : J. Murphy, 1855), p . 62..
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 257
ber 30, 1879, raised the feast from the rank of a double of the second
class to that of a double of the first class with a common octave.
As is usually the case, the Oration for the feast captures the
particular aspect or phase of doctrine the Church is stressing in
her celebration.
o God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin didst make
her a worthy habitation for Thy Son, and didst by His foreseen death ,
preserve her from all stain of sin; grant we beseech Thee, that through
her intercession we may be cleansed from sin and come with pure hearts
to Thee.
We may notice here even the important theological distinction con-
cerning the mer,its of Christ. It was preCisely this distinction that
cleared the theological atmosphere around this doctrine. Until it
was made, there h ad been Some hesitancy concerning the doctrine
horn fear of encroaching On the teaching of mankind's universal
need of Christ's redeeming grace.
Of even richer poetic beauty is the Introit of the Mass - taken
from the prophecy of Isaias:
I will greatly rejoice in the Lord and my soul shall be joyful in my
God, for He hath clothed me with garments of salvation and with the
robe of justice He hath covered me, as a bride adorned with her
jewels.
The use of passages of Holy Scripture referring to "the uncreated
Wisdom" (Epistle) and His eternal origin are here applied to the
origin of Mary, which waS preordained by one and the same decree
with the In carnation of the Divine "\iVisdol1l .3 '
The Gradual and the Alleluia verse for the feast are :
Blessed art thou, 0 Virgin Mary, by the Lord the most high God
above all women upon earth. Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou
art the joy of Israel, thou art the honor of our people.
Thou art all fair, 0 Mary, and there is in thee no stain of original sin.
This latter phrase - original sin - is distinctive in the liturgical
texts bf the Mass. Editions of the Missal prior to 1863, and even
in the ancient calendars,33 entitled the feast In conceptione B. M ariae
Virginis. 34
82 Pius IX, Official documents, p. 83.
93 Cf. F. Wormald, English Kalendars before A.D. 1100 (London: Henry
Bradshaw Society, 1934), Vol. I.
3 4 A Roman Missal printed in 1858 (four years after the definition) still has
 MARIOLOGY
The Serum Missal of the early sixteenth century had a special
Alleluia verse that mentioned the glorious onception of the ViToin
Mary. I t also had a sequence: "Let this day be eelebrated in which
the Conception of M ary is piously recalled."an
The Invitatory of Matins says : "Let us keep the ,feast of the staiw
less conception of the Virgi n Mary; let llS worship Christ, her Son
and her Lord and ours." This passage is 'nteresting for the explicit-
ness of i ts dogmatic reference to .fary's conception as well as for the
th eological balance it portrays by reflecting Mary'S honors to Christ.
This is a pattern that goes through the whole structure of the
liturgical t exts on M ary.
There follow some further passages pertaining to this concept - all
from the Breviary for the feast of the Immaculate Conception.
"0 Lord, how excellent is Thy Name in all the earth, Who has made
Thee a worthy tabernacle in the Virgin Mary" (1St Antiphon at
Matins).
"Grace is poured into her Conception and she is fairer than the
daughters of men" (4th Antiphon of Matins).
"By this I know that thou favorest me, because mine enemy can not
triumph over me" (Versicle of 2nd Nocturn).
"For the Lord hath created me in righteousness and hath held mine
hand and hath kept me" (4th Responsory).

And finally the first Antiphon of Lauds and Vespers:

"Thou art all fair, 0 Mary; there is no spot of original sin in thee."

In a fourteenth-century manuscript of the Sarum Missal the feast

of the Conception is in the calendar (December 8) but it does not
have a special Mass formula or Office; it is celebrated with the feast
of the Nativity.36 The Mass on that day makes no explicit reference
to Mary's conception which would seem to indicate that the latter
feast was only tacked on. Even in the later Roman Missals the two

this simple title. However, a Breviary printed in 1856 has Immaculatae inserted
in the title for this feast.
35 Missale ad usum insignis et praeclarae Ecclesiae Sarum. Labore ac studio
Francisci H. Dickinson CBurntisland, 1 l61- 1883), 1" 130.
36 In nativitaie et in conceptione Sancte Marie. The Sarum Missal, edited from
three early manuscripts by J. Wickham Legg ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916),
p. 3 18 .
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 259
Masses are very similar, being identical .&om the Introit tlrrotlgh the
Gospel except for the change of the word "Nativity" to "Conception."
111e feast of the Nativity is one of the earliest Marian .feasts in
the Western litu.rgy, celebrated in Rome during the pontificate of
Sergius I (687-701) and probably some years before. Like the feast
of the Immaculate Conception, it owes its origin probably to the
Gospel narration and the early fea,st of the birth of John the Baptist.
TIle feast had its origin in the East, probably in Syria or Palestine.
The object of the feast, namely, the birth of Mary, lacks historical
details and is based somewhat On apocryphal writings, which
abounded after the Council of Ephesus. Evidence is wanting to
show why September was chosen,37 though it is certain ly because
of that date that the feast of the Conception was celebrated on
December 8, njne months earlier. Because of this lack of historjcal
foundation, the feast was slow in being accepted universally.38
A person might ask why the birth of Mary is particularly set aside
for honor, since in the case of tlle saints the Church "celebrateth
only the day of their being made perfect at death" (6th Lesson,
December 9). The answer will be found in this that in the case
of Our Blessed Mother as in the case of St. John the Baptist, the
Church venerates even their birth since they were sanctified in the
womb. Hence every phase of her life is worthy of honor who even
at her birth was a singularly perfect and holy creature.
There follow some pertinent passages from the Office of the feast
of the Nativity:
"Today is the Nativity of the Holy Virgin Mary, whose glorious life is
the ornament of all the churches" (Versicle and Responsory at Vespers).
"Let us tell again of the right worthy Birth of the glorious Virgin Mary
who gained the honor of Motherhood without losing the guilelessness
of a Maiden" (Antiphon at the Magniftcat, 1st Vespers).
"Thy birth, 0 Virgin Mother of God, was a message of joy to the
whole world, for out of thee rose the Sun of righteousness . . ."
(6th Responsory of Matins).
"Let us keep with rejoicing the Birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary
that she may pray for us to our Lord Jesus Christ" (5th Antiphon at
Lauds).
37 F. Holweck, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. 10, p. 712.
38 Holweck, Calendarium, p. 312.
 MARIOLOGY
privilege - one of the first honored in both the Roman and Gallican
liturgies-is the one whicb in our day 11as received the most atten-
tion. Study, research, and prayer prepared the way for the definition,
and the definition has evoked more study, researcb, and prayer. 4 5
The doctrine defined j~ Marys glorious bodily assumption into
heaven and her glorification in heaven. The definition does not ex-
tend to the death of Mary - a pOint considered by some to be forever
undefinable, because of the lack of historical evidence. However, the
sacred liturgy does refer to Mary's death. Doctrinally, the Assumption
is the climax, the glorious completion of the most holy life of Mary.
It involves not only her victory over death, bllt also her glOrification
in heaven above all the saints and angels.
We shaD try to see how the Church is able to incorporate bodl
aspects of this doctrine into her prayer life-her lilurgy. But fust
let us consider the feast itself.
The Gallican fcast of Our Lady, celebrated on January 8, :most
probably came West from the Coptic liturgy with Cassjan around the
year 550.46 This was the only Marian feast of the Gallican liturgy
prior to the influence brought about by the dissemination of the
Roman liturgical books. 47
Around the tum of the eighth century the date was changed
under Roman in8uence from January 18 to August 15 .• 8
The Mozarabic liturgy seems to have depended on Homan influ-
ence for its feast of the Assumption and at a late date.iu
The object of the Roman feast at first seemed to have been only

betat'dini, O.P.M., n valore i/01l;mCltico della jitnrgia assu1wkmistica, in Atti del

Congresso Mariano dei F"ati Mi110ri d'ItaHa (Rom a, 1948), pp. 5n-557; F.
Antonelli, O .P.M., La. festa dell'Ass~m!1lione nella Uk"gia rolt/(ma, ibid., pp. 223-
239; G. Btas,o, O.S.B., Contenido i/cctt·j)tal de las f6rllw,las aStmCiOflistrls de l'a
IituTgia rmnaflCl, in Esttlilios Mar/IItlos, Vol. 6 (Madrid, 1947), pp. 147- l54 .
• 5 J. Carol, O .P.M., A Bibliography of t'~e Assr~,.n.ption, in The Thomist, Vol.
14" 1951, pp. 133-160; Recent Literatu.re on Mary's AssU'ltvptiOlt, in The A11l·erican
Eccle~iastic.dL ReView, Vol. I2'(), 1949, pp. 376--387; The Mariological Movement
in th~ World Tockly, in Marian Sr,'U(#es, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 37-42.
'6A. King, The Ass'U'l'I1ption of Our Lady in tJte Oriet~tal Liturgies, in Eastern.
Cllll/,relles Q1,arterly, Vol. 8, 1949-19;0, p. 204. Of. B. Capelle, La f~te de l'Assomp-
I,i on, p. 35; and La Messe g4lHc(me de l'Assomptioll: son rayonneme1tt, ses sources,
in Miscellanea lit> ttrgica fit honOTem L. Clmj'ber~i Mohlherg (Rome: Eclizioni
Litmgiche, 1949, Vol. z, pp. 33-59.
4T For an excellent treatment of the problem of introducing uniform liturgical
books, cE. M. Anckieu, Les Orditles Romani (lt~ HmH Moyen Age (Louvllin, 1948),
VOl. z, pp. xvii- xlix.
,& B. Capelle, La f~te de t'AssofltptiOll, pp. 35- 36.
10 B. Capelle, La litnrgie Ma,riale en Ocoidtlflt, p. 233.
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY
the death of Mary with no reference to the Assumption until the
end of the seventh century.
As mentioned above, there was a procession in Rome on tills day,
inaugurated by Pope Sel:gius 1. From the seventh to the sixteenth
centu ry, th e p apal cortege, including members of the Senate and
representatives of the people, passed from the ChUIch of Adrian on
the Forum to St. M at}'" M ajor. ~o When the people h ad assembled for
the procession, the following formula was read:
It is our duty to honor the solemnity of the day, 0 Lord, in which
the Holy Mother of God did indeed suffer temporal death, although
the bonds of this death could not hold back her whose flesh formed
the body of Thy Son, Our Lord. 51
This is truly a remarhble passage in that it is not just a prayer
but rather a declaration of the fact of Mary's victory over death
and an explicit avowal . of her bodily assumption. It is remarkable
also, because the Mass fOlnlUla ( i.e., before the new one) is rather
noncommittal- one which was derived from the Common of Vir-
gins. 52 In fact, the oration makes no men tion of the AssL1mption. 1"n e
Introit is adapted for the Assumption, but the fonnula - Ga1tdeamus
- really belongs to the Mass of St. Agatha (February 5) and OCCUIS
eight times in the Missal. The Alleluia verse an.d the Offertory aTe
the same. They repeat the nrst Antiphon of Vespers and Lauds:
"Mary bath been taken to heaven; the angels rejoice; they praise
and bless the Lord." This verse is retained as the Alleluia verse in
the new Mass which our Holy Father approved for the universal
Church for the feast of the Assumption. 58
The Introit of this new Mass is from the Apocalypse. The text is
that of the woman (Apoc. 12: I):
A great sign has appeared in the heavens: a woman clothed with the
5 0 I. Schuster, O,S.B., The festival of the Assumption into heaven of the Blessed
Virgin Mary in the ancient Roman liturgy, in The Sacramentary, translated from
the Italian by Arthur Levelis-Marke ( New York: Benziger Bros., 1930), Vol. 5,
pp, 3 2 -35.
61 From the Gregorian Sacramentary. PL, 39, 133.
5 2 Cf. B. Capelle, La fete de L'Asso~.lpliion, pp. 38- 40, wuere he cl:iSCIl~SCS the
Mass at len&th, and the fo~ Low.ing t:"'0 referen~es where he analyzes the 'pray~r,
Veneranda, Just quoted: L ora'lSo /'j V e~lerancln a UI m e.sse de l' Assomptto1f., iD
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensi , Vol, 26; 1950, pp. 354- 364; La temoig"ll4ge
de la lituTgie, in Etudes Mariales, 1949. Assomption de Marie, Part 2 (Paris :
Vrin, 1950), pp. 49-52.
53 AAS" Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 793-795.
 MARIOLOGY
King. Not just Queen-Mother as understood in kingdoms today, but
truly Queen. The fact is implied in Holy Scripture and has been
attested to by one pope after another.D8 The nature of 1er Queensbjp
is more than metaphorical; it is queenship in the proper sense. She
enjoys that power of inter ession proper to a mother and a spouse
of the Icing and enjoys personal dignity attendant on her position.
She is Queen of queens because she is Mother and Spouse of the
ling r: Icings and because by her life she helped to qttain victory for
the Idngdom.
The sacred liturgy takes explicit recognition of both her inter-
cessory powers and her dignity. There has been an active effort of
late to have a feast introduced in honor of Mary's Quecnslup - to
con-espond to the new feast of Christ the King. Until such time, the
feast of the Assumption can certainly be considered to honor her
Queenship since her glorification in heaven (which is onc of the
objects of that feast) is but the King's royal welcome an,d rewarding
of I-Jji; Queen into their kingdom.
In the Oration of tbe Mass we speak of her as having glory in
heaven: "Almighty and eternal God, Who hast gathered to Thyself
the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of Thy Son, body and soul to
heaven.l)1 glory . .. " The Epistle speaks of her eminent dignity; she
is blessed by God above all women - and then: "Thou art the glory
of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honor of thy
people." The Gradual is a verse from Ps. 44, which is the prophetic
'psalm of the new kingdom: "Hear, 0 Daughter, and see and incline
thy ear and the Icing will desire thy beauty. The daughter of the Kiner
enters w:ith all beauty; golden are ber garments."
he Postcommunion appeals to God through the merits and inter-
cession of Mary, thus bringing out the other aspect of her Queenship
-power before the throne.
Mary's pre-eminence even over angels is attested in the Versicle
and Responsory - "The Holy Mother of God is exalted above the
choirs of angels to the heavenly kingdom." Since the fifth century,
Mary's name 11as appeared after God and before the angels in the
litanies giving recogniLioll to this dignity.
68 CE. E. Carroll, O. Carm. , Ottr lAdy's Q~teensh,ip in the Maghteril~m of t11e
Church, ill Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 29-81; or, more briefly, G. M.
Roschini, O.S.M., Roya·ut.d de Marie, in Maria. Et-wles S1Ir l(l Sainte Vierge (ed .
H. du Manoir, S.J.) (Paris.: Beauchesne, (949), Vol. I , pp. 601-606. Of. also
K. B. Moore, O.Cann., The QI~eenship of ,he. Blessed Virgin in the Ut'Uirgy of
the Cltt<rch., ill 'Mar';a1l Studies, Vol. 3, 1952. pp. 2. I 8-Z27.
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY
Mary's Queenship is hers by a natural law - not just of inheritance
asa descendant of David, but in the very nature of her motherhood
of a King. "He shall be King over the house of Jacob forever; and
of his kingdom there shall be no end."lio
She has some acquired rights as queen , i.e., as a consequence of
her co-operation in the work of the kingdom, the redemption of men.
H er first "Be it done unto me accordipg to thy word" impJicitly
expressed this total co-operation. The feast of the Annunciation
honors her for this, while the feasts of the Purification and Seven
Sorrows expand on the actual role she played in the struggle for
victory.
From the Office common to the Blessed Virgin, the following pas-
sages give further evidence of the notion of queenship:
"Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold
wrought about with divers colors, and when the daughters of Sion
saw her, they cried out that she was most blessed" (Verse and Response,
6th Responsory of Matins).
"I am black but comely, 0 ye daughters of Jerusalem. Therefore the
king hath loved me and brought me into his chamber" (3rd Antiphon
of Lauds).
"In thy comeliness and in thy beauty, ride on triumphant and reign"
(Short Resp., Lauds).
The King's reign is etemal - so too shall be the queen's.
The beautiful antiphons, Salve Regi.n a, Ave Regina coelorum ,
Regina coel-i should be menti0ned here since they thread through the
Divine Office day by day thEOughol.l t the year keeping Mary's Queen-
ship before our minds.
These few examples taken from the Missal and the Breviary
should be adequate to show clearly Mother Church's desire to place
on the lips and in the hearts ·of her children prayers that express her
understanding of the doctrine of M ary's Queenship.
MEDIATION
W e come now to the final doctrines which integrate all the above
under the practical aspect of M ary'S !'Ole in the wh0le plan of redemp-
tion - her role as Coredeml'trix and Dispenser of graces. T hey are
treated here under one topic because her work as Dispenser of graces
Sows from her share in the work of redemption.
fig Lk. 1:33.
 MARIOLOGY
Her perfect union with her divine Son from the first moment of
His mission down to the tortuous way of Calvary merited for her a
unique role in the redemptive actions of our divine Saviour. Her
every act was unicJue in that its perfection and its purity rendered
it most pleaSing and consequently meritolious before God. Her
sorrows and her deep compassion with every suffering step of our
Redeemer in the course of the Passion were such that she has merited
the lit.le f Coredemptrix.
Taking this into aCcOlmt and then considering her other glOriOUS
prerogatives, Motber, Saint Virgin , and Queen, it is not hard to
understand the unique role s11e plays in heaven as the Mediatri-x
and the Dispensatrix of all graces.
We need not here proceed any further than this into the theo-
logical aspects of these doctrines, especially siJ,ce there are variation
of opinion among theolOgians on the extent of her role in the plan
of salvation. Next to the doctrine of the Assumption no other problem
has b en more fully treated in recent literature. QO Whatever tI e
theolOgical solution might be, the te.'{ts of the liturgy of the Church
will l1ardly exert more force in the final proof than to imply the
unique intercessory powers of Mary in heaven and some mode of co-
redemption during her lif-e .here on earth. U1
Mary's "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me
according to thy word" is her complete acceptance of God's plan for
her. This consent celebrated on the feast of the Annunciation
(March 25) is the foundation for her office of Mediatrix. Words do
not convey the degree of dedication contained in this consent, but
there could be no halfway measures for this soul whose intellect was
unclouded by ignorance and whose will was undivided by concupis-
cence or selfish consideration. This was the turning point in history,
and Mary consented to provide herself body and soul to the cause.
00 J. Carol, O.F.M., MariologicnI MO'VC'ltltm"t in I'he World Toda.y, Section E-
"Ml1ty's Co-l"eciemption," in MariafL Stll,dies, Vol. I , "195'0, pp. 34'-37 for the
beginnil1gs of a bibliography from both points of view.
61 Cf. G. Corien, O.S.B., La. Mntemita de grace dans la liturgie, in Q1U1lr/(~1IIe
C01'lgre.s Marial bre.UJn te,~u Ii Folgollt . . . 1913 (Quimper, 1915), pp. 244-~49;
P. Charles, S.J., L'hy,~mologie '}I,ar/ale at la Mediation de la T. S. V/erge, ill
Memolres et Rapport.s d. u COI'lgres Marial len1L (I Bn,xel1.cs, 1921 (Bruxelles, 192,2),
Vol. 2, pp. 475- 494; r. Van HOlllryve, O.S.B., La M6diutirJ17. de Marie clrms la
Iit-urgie, in La V 'ie Diocesaine, Vol. 11, 1922, FE. 3-19-360; Sempio ile Irsgm
O.F.M.Cap., La Medinoicill de In Virge,., Btl In hill/lIogra,fla latinu de /.a erlad
m.ed,l" ( Buenos Aires, 1939); D. Baier, O.F.M., The r'T'anoisct'/1'I. Office of St. Mary
of the Attgels 1m-a the Mediation of Grace, ill Orate Fratres, Vol. . 10, 1936,
pp. 399-4 02 •
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY
Later she was called upon to carry out in deed this COnsent of her
spirit, especially when she followed her divine Son to the cross. Her
oneness with Him especially here and her glorious merits conse<luent
on tIle anguish of soul she endured, give her a unique relationship
with the Redeemer, a relationship theologians have not hesitated to
jndude under a special name - Coredemptrix. It is the feast of the
Seven Sorrows, especially the one in Passion Week, that brings to
mind this mystery.
"There stood by the cross of Jesus, His Mother" (Introit). She
would not be separated from Him now. By this fidelity and co-opera-
tion at the foot of the cross "an ineffable union is made to exist
between the two offerings, that of the Incarnate Word and that of
Mary; the Blood of the Divine Victim and the tears of the Mother,
Bow together for the redemption of mankind."62
"0 God, a~ who e passion according to the prophecy of Simeon, a
sword of SOlTOWpierced the most sweet soul of the glOriOUS virgin and
mother, Mary, grant in Thy mercy that we who call to mind with
veneration hex soul transiLxed with sorrow through the merits and
prayers of all the saints faithfully standing by Thy cross, mny obtam
the blessed result of Thy Passion" ( Oration).
As Collects go, this one is a rather poor composition, and it is also
exceptional in this that it is prayed directly to Christ. The Oration
for the feast of the Seven Dolors (September 15) omits the refer-
ence to the other saints and simply reads: ". .. mercifully grant that
we who reverentl y meditate on her sorrows may reap the happy fruit
of Thy Passion."
"Holy Mary, the Queen of heaven and Mistress of the world, stood
by the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, full of WieE" (Alleluia, Sep-
tember I 5). There is in this verse a hint of the teaching of Pope
Pius XII: that Mary is "Queen" by right of conquest. aa Her Queen-
shjp is here stressed, and lier endw:ance even to the pain of S1 irituaI
martyrdom merits the victory. In connection with our thought - the
Queen has shared the victory with the King.
"Happy the senses of the Blessed Virgin ltary whkh without
dying earned the palm of martyrdom beneath the cross of our Lord"
(Communion) . This is the great paradox of Christianityl There is
62 P. Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, translated from the French by
Dom Laurence Shephard, O.S.B. (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1952), Vol. 6,
Passiontide and Holy Week, p. 175.
68 A.A.S., Vol. 38, 1946, p. 266.
 MARIOLOGY
victory in death and victory in martyrdom without death, and both
of th e s eming contradictions tool{ place at the same time on
Calvary in Jesus and Mary.
No one with even the most elementary contact with liturgical
b oks would question that they reflect the belief in Mary's inter-
cessory powers. he Offertory of the Mass we were just considering
is in itself a sul:l1cient witness. "Be mindful, 0 Virgin Mother of God,
when thou standest in the Sight of the LOId to speak good thin~gs for
us and to turn away His anger from us" (Offertory). ~aIy's word
on Our behalf at the throne of God is what we see]c, confident o:f the
power of her intercession on our behalf.
After the Salve Regina which is recited at least once a day from
Pentecost to Advent, there is this versicle, response, and prayer:
y. Pray for us, 0 holy Mother of God.
W. Tllat we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray. 0 almighty and everlasting God who by the co-
operation of the Holy Ghost, didst prepare the body and soul of Mary,
glorious Virgin and Mother to become the worthy habitation of Thy
Son, grant that by the gracious intercession of her at whose memory
we rejoice, we may be delivered frolU present evils and everla5tin.g
death.
We pray to her to intercede for us for those things most essential
to us (ou): J>rayer is really to God, but with all absolute confidence
that Mary i.s Simultaneously making our prayer her own on our
behalf): (1) that we be made worthy of the promises of Christ
(final perseverance); (2) grace to avoid the occasions of sin; and (3)
grace to avoid sin itself with its eternal consequences (everlasting
death).
There are two prayers that can be added here because of their
intercessory contents. The first is the Magnificat Antiphon of the
first Vespers of the Common Office of the Blessed Virgin:
o holy Mary, be thou a help to the helpless,
a strength to the fearful,
a comfort to the sorrowful.
Pray for the people, plead for the clergy,
make intercession for all women vowed to God.
Mayall that are keeping this thy holy feast
day feel the might of thine assistance.
Certainly this beautiful antiphon embodies in full the idea of
intercession. We pray to Mary, confident of her competence to help
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 271

all with the might of her assistance. This antiphon has been taken
from a sermon attributed to St. Augustine. 64 It breathes a deep
confidence in Mary and in h er intercessory powers.
The second prayer worthy of note is a very short antiphon that
only recently has been discussed as being a third-century witness of
a prayer of intercession to Our Lady.o5 This prayer is a translation
from the Greek original. Today its place in the Breviary is in the
Little Office, the antiphon at the Nunc Dim,ittisj it occurs once in
the PontificaJ and twice in the Ritu al. "We take refuge under thy
protection, 0 holy Mother of God. Despise not our petitions in OllI
necessi7,., hut deliver us from aJ1 dangers, ever Virgin glorious and
blessed. '611 We find in this prayer, especially interesting because of
its early date, an assertion 01: Mary's role as Mother and Virgin as well
as Intercessor. To ha¥e placed our troub1e in th.e hands of Mary is
to be assured that she will handle "OUI case" with God.
We have seen, then, that the liturgy does reflect the faith of the
Church regarding Mary's Coredemption and intercessory powers.
While the doctrines are never fully expressed in just those words,
they are contained there in substance.
Having covered the main doctrines concerning Our Lady that find
expression in the liturgy, it is not out of place al lhis time to consider
Mary's cult in general as it exists in the Roman liturgy and to treat
of a few special feasts and prayers that are pointed to her honor.
IN GENERAL
In the daily life of the Church we find Mary invoked over and
over again. The Divine Office never begins without a Hail Mary and
never ends without a Marian antiphon. In the Office and at Mass the
Confrteor seeks her intercession. Low Masses are always concluded
with the three Hail Marys and the Hail, Holy Queen prescribed by
Pope Leo XIII for the conversion of Russia. The oration A cunctis
prescribed for most seasons of the year and prayed on feria} days
and on days of simple feasts invokes the special intercession of Mary.
The daily use of the Magnificat has a Significance both in the way
of honoring Mary who first prayed it, and in urging us to pray in
64 PL, 39, 2104.
6S F. Mercenier, c.s.n., La 1'111.5 ,mcienlle priere tl Io Sainte. Vierge, in Questions
l;tllrgiq9les et 'Ptrroi$siales, Vol. 25. 1940, pp. 33- 36.
au For the placement 0.£ the comma .before or after selu.per (ever). which would
change the meaning fro.m "ever Virgin" to "ever deliver us;' cf. A. Paladini, C.M.,
in Ephemerides LitMrgicae, Vol. 61, 1947. pp. l09-Iro .
274 MARIOLOGY
feast was celebrated on the third Sunday in September un til Pope
Pius X's reform in I913 assigned it to September 15. 70
Characteristic of the Mass of September and the Office of the
Friday of Passion Week is the poignant Stabat Mater of Jacoponi
da Todi, O.F.M. C1" 1306),71 OJ; perhaps of St. Bonaventure
Ct 1274).u The hymn is very personal in expression, giving pointed
evidence to t!Jem,ore personalized ascetic:ism beginning around this
peJ:iod. It is based on the following passages of Holy Scripture: John
19:25; Luke 2:35; Ezechiel 13:6; 2 Corinthians 4:1°; and Galatians
4 : 17·
Because they both have the same object, these two feasts are some-
what of an anomaly in the sacred liturgy which has a governing
principle of never doing the same thing twice CNumquam his de
eadem).
VISITATION
The visit of Mary to Elizabeth was honored in the late Middle
Ages on Friday of Ember Week in Advent when the Gospel of the
Visitation is read. The Franciscans were the first to celebrate this as a
special feast in 1263. It was extended to the universal Church in
1389 and confirmed again in 1441 .75 Because of its close affinity to
the feast of St. John the Baptist, our feast is celebrated on July 2,
which is the first free day after the octave of St. John. The Mass,
except for the Epistle and Gospel, is taken from the feast of the
Nativity (September 8). The doctrinal implication of the Gospel is
perhaps Mary as Mediatrix. Origen did not hesitate to attribute St.
John's sanctification to her Mediation. 74 The feast is celebrated in
the Church today as a double of the second class.
HOLY NAME
The feast of the Holy Name of Mary (September 12) is closely
connected with the feast of her Nativity (September 8) just as the
feast of the Circumcision and the naming of Our Lord follows after
Christmas. However, the origin of this feast may well have developed
70 Holwec.k, C"lenaariMtII, pp. 76, 32-0, 342-.
nO. M. DJ;eves, Eir~ jahrta:uslil1lil. IA.teinj,~d~er HY" nnel'ldioh~ung . . . Nach
des Vcrfassers Ableben revid iert von Olemens Dlume S.]. ( LeIpzig: O. R. Reisland,
1999), Vol. I, pp. 390-391. ce. ]. ]uJjnn, A DicL-io/tary ot HYfll.1tology . . . ,
J;cvised edition (London.: John Mtmay, 191,), pr· 1081-1084, 1706.
1:\ A. !funser, Staba~ ma l.er, in Le:dlwn filr Th.eologie 1md Kirc1'W, Vol. 9. p. 760.
7t! Holwed.:. Calen.darhm~, pp. 2-13-214.
1~ In L11cam. homiliae, D. 7. PG, 9, 1817-1819.
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 275
as a consequence of the simple and tender love of the faithful. St.
Bernard's grandiloquent words on the name of Mary may well have
fostered that devotion:
It j said: "And the virgjn's name was Mary." Let us speak a few
words llpon this name, which signilieth, being interpreted, "Star of the
sea," and suiteth very well the Maiden Mother, who may very meetly
be likened unto a star. A star giveth forth her rays without any harm
to herself, and the virgjn brought forth her Son ,vithout any hurt to
her virginity .. .. She, 1 say, is a clear and shmino star, twinkling witll
excellencies, and resplendent with example, needfully .et to look down
upon the surface of thjs great and wide sea.
o thou, whosoever thou art, tha tknowest iliyself to be here not so
much walking upon finn ground as battered to and fro by tlle gales
and storms of this life's ocean, if thou wouldst not be overvvhelmed by
the tempest, keep thine eyes :h.xed upon this star's clear shining. If
the huuicanes of temptation rise against thee Or thou art running upon
the rocks of trouble, look to th t31:, c.all on Mary. If the waves of
pride, or ambition, or slander, or envy toss th ee, look to the star, call on
Mary. If the billows of anger, or avarice, or the enticements of the ilesh
beat against iliy sow's bark, look to Mary. If ilie enormity of thy sins
trouble thee. :if the foulness of thy conscience confound thee. if the
dread of judgment appall iliee. if tllOU begin to slip :into me deep of
despondency, into the pit of despair, think of Mary.... If thou keep
her in mind, iliou wilt never wander. If she hold thee, thou wilt never
fall. If she lead thee, thou wilt never be weary. If she help iliee
thou wilt reach home at last - and so thou wilt prove in iliyself how
meetly it is said: "And the Virgin's name was Mary" (2nd Nocturn).
The feast, first celebrated in Spain in 1513, was dropped twice,
once by Pius V and once by Benedict XIV, but was reintroduced by
Innocent XI in 1683 after the deliverance of Vienna from the
Turks. 76
PRESENTATION
The feast of the Presentation of OUI Lady (November :2 1) is a
feast honoring the corning of Mary to the Temple at the age of three
years. The only evidence for this event js taken from an apocryphal
source. And for this reason, probably, the feast was very slow in
corning from the East. It was n ot celebrated in the \Vest until after
the Crusades, even though it had been celebrated at Jerusalem since
the sixth century.
76 Holweck, Calendarium, p. 317.
 MARIOLOGY
Despite this Rimsy historical foundation, the feast cannot fail to
attract one to the inspira tional realization that Mary - free from all
stain or fault- had consecrated herself even from her infancy to God.
No doubt, it is in emulation of that dedication that some religious
communities pronounce their vows on that day and celebrate the
feast with solemnity.
It was probably because of its weak historical foundation that Pius
V dropped it [Tom the calendar. Then Benedict XIV did the same
thing after it had been in the meantime reintmduced into the liturgy.
The present feast, a greater double, dates fr m the reign of Clement
VIII.?OThe formula is very discreetly silent about Mary's presentation
except in the Oration and in the esson where St. John Damascene
refers to the legend.
The Magnificat antiphon is particularly beautiful and interesting
in that it shifts the idea of Temple to Mary he(selt and e"'Presses
pithily her major prerogatives. "0 Blessed Mary, Mother of God.
Virgin forever , TempI of he Lord, san tuary of the Holy host,
thou without any example (before thee) (HeIst malee thyself well-
pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ."

These certainly do not represent all the Marian feasts (Holweck

lists around 940), but they do give a good cross section of them,
reflecting how the lmowledge of Mary's life and her spiritual prerog-
atives pass over into the prayer life of the Church. In honoring
Mm'Y or 5011;1- phase of ber life we are honor~g Christ and, thI0ugh
Christ, God.
LITTLE OFFICE
A word should be said about the so-called Little Office of the
Blessed Virgin. Seemingly a development from the Common, it is,
on the contrary, the most ancient of the Marian Offices appended
to the Common Offices of the saints in the Breviary. From it the
Office of the Blessed Mother on Saturday was developed as some-
thing special. Even before that the Little Office had come to be
the Common of the Blessed Mother. Pius V inserted three nocturns
into the Office to be u ed on greater feasts, but the rest of the f-rame--
work was the Little Office. It was only as late as the pontificate of
Pius IX that a separate Common was drawn up relegating this
ancient form into somewhat of an appendix.
76 Ibid., p. 386.
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 277
It was in the monasteries undoubtedly that this Office began to be
recited as a devotional accretion to the Divine Office,77 but it soon
passed over to the laity so that it became their preferred devotion
down to the end of the Middle Ages. The in teresting and beau tifuJ
little volume so often represented in manuscript holdings and known
as the "Book of the Homs" was nothing more than the ittle Office
of the Blessed Virgin.
Characteristic of the Office is its one noctum of tluee psalms and
a Jesson each day. The psalms were taken from Matins of the feast
of the Assumption, three each day repeated twice in the course of the
week At Lauds the antiphons are ta}cen from the feast of the Assump-
tion except in Advent wIlen they are tal<en from the feast of the
fu1l1unciation (March 25), and after the Nativity when they are
taken from the feast of th Purification (February 2). Thus we sec
how the principal Marian feasts celebrated at that time were inter-
woven into this Office.
It would be impossible to estimate the extension of the use of this
ittle Office, but:it is safe to say that thousands upon thousands have
consecrated their day-by-day existence through praying it. Even to
this day it is the prayer of many religious communities of women
and la.y Brothers.
MARIAN ANTIPHONS
There remains for us to examine tile four Marian antiphons, gems
of doctrinal and devotional content that have always been close to
the hearts of the lay people as well as of the clergy and religiOUS.
These antiphons, each in its proper season, are preSCribed to be
recited after Lauds and after Compline. The Alma Reclemptoris
Mater is recited from the first Slmday in Advent until the feast of
the Purification' Ave Regina Coe-loTum until Easter- ilie Regina Coeli.
during PasehaItide' and finally the Salve Regina throughout the rest
of tIlC~ year. In many religious communities the antiphon aft. '[ Com-
pline is sung. Thus, the 1a t official use of the voice before the great
night silence is a quiet, tender prayer to Our Lady.
The Al1'/'Za Reclem,ptoris?9 is considered the most literar composi-
tiOl} of the group. It was probably written by Hermanus Contractus
( t 1054), a monk of Reichenau who seems to have gotten his inspi-
11 H. Thurston, S.J., Virgin Mary , Devotion to the Blessed, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, p. 463C.
78 Cf. H. T. Henry, Alma Redemptoris Mater, in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. I, p. 326; J. Julian, A Dictiomrry of Hymnology, pp. 51-52.
 MARIOLOGY
ration from the already extant hymn, Ave Maris Stella. 79 At least the
phraseology is strikingly similar.
ALMA REDEMPTORIS MATER AVE MARIS STELLA

Alma Mater Alma Mater

Sweet Mother

Coeli Porta Coeli Porta

Gate of Heaven

Stella maris Maris stella

Star of the Sea

Virgo prius et posterius Semper Virgo

Virgin before and after Always Virgin

Gabrielis ab ore Gabrielis are

From the mouth of Gabriel

Sumens illud Ave Sumens illud Ave

Accepting that greeting
(of Gabriel) Ave
Just a glance at this grouping gives evidence of the similarjty, but
it also .forcefully shows the wealth of vigorous phra.ses used to ex-
press in delicate poetic language the 1,ey doctrines concerning Our
Lady.
The versicle, response, and oration following the Alma Redemp-
toris Mater change at Christmas, adapting themselves to the character
of the season. Before Christmas: "The Angel of the Lord declared
unto Mary and she conceived by the Holy Ghost"; after Christmas:
"After Childbirth thou didst remain a pure Virgin. Intercede for us,
o Mother of God."
The second antiphon, the Ave Regina Coelorum, was introduced
into the Office by Clement VI (1342-1352), who felt he perceived
in it noble accents and aspirations of many doctors, such as St.
7n Tills hym,n is found in three ninth-century mal1U~ctipts, but is yrobably Dot
older than that. The lines of the fust verse bigh-Iigbt the ideas to be devdoped
in the suhsequent verses, e.g., A1,e, Mater, V-lrgo. 'P. I . T. Henry Ave MaN5
St.eIla, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. : '." p . I49a; G. M. D~eves, Ein Jan,rtal(.selld
Lateiniscl~er Hymnendicht'tl1~g ... , Vol. 2, pp. 238-239; J. Julian, A Dict-ionary
of HY?n1IClogy, p. 99·
 MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY 279
At11anasius, St. Ephrem, and St. Ildephonse. 8o The date of its origin
1s uncertain, t1:lOugh it is found in a twelfth-century manuscript. 8t
It has been an antiphon for the feast of the Assumption, which helps
to explain its motif: Queen of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Glorious
Virgin, rejoice, Good-by CVale ). Farewell is made to the Virgin who
is proceeding to heaven where she will reign a Queen even of the
angels, and will mru{e intercession with hrist for US. 811
The Regina Coeli is most obviously proper to the Paschal season.
The date of origin and author are unknown, but in an an tiphonary
of the twelft11 century f Ol' St. Peter's in Rome it was aSSigned to
Easter Vespers. It honors Mary as Queen of I eaven, who merited
to bear Him who has arisen fro m the dead. Queenship, Maternity,
sanctity, and intercession are all briee)' but certainly expressed.
Finally, we come to the Salve Regina. It was probably written by
I ermahus Contractus Ct 1054) or perhaps by Adhem:ar du Puy
Ct J098), but was definitely written before St. Bernard's time, and
all to the contrary notwithstanding neither js he the author of the
three final invocations, "0 Clement, 0 Pious, 0 Sweet Virgin
Mary."ss
This is an antiphon almost every Catholic knows by heart because
it is recited in the vernacular after every Low Mass for the conversion
of Russia. It is a beautiful prayer pleading ror the intercession of the
Mother of Mercy in behalf of her distressed children. The emphasis
on our distress is certainly pointed: "Vle, han.'ishel;l o7,dldren of Eve,
cry unto thee, we send up our sighs, rMt,wl'l;ing and weeping in a vale
(If tears." OLtr prayer is for the beatific vision in heaven - man's mo t
legitimate prayer.
The melodies for these four antiphons are among the most beauti-
ful in the whole Gregorian repertory. Deeply religious in spirit, this
music lends itself as an efficient means of revealing the mystical con-
tents of the texts. 84
ao H. T. Henry, Ave Regina, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 149b.
$1 J. Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology. p. 99.
82 J. Otten, A'I1.f.iph01l, in The Ca.t holic El1oyolopedla, Vol. I , p. 575C'
11ft Capelle, La lit'Urgic MarUi!e ell Ocel.dellt, p. 244. CE. Lc culte de Ma rie et
le..~ henedictillS, in ReL,; re Utitlrgsq1le at mOllas·tiq1w, Vol. 7, 1.9'2.1-1922, p. 247; E.
,nrret6n La Salve el~.la Uturgia, in Li£'/ ~rg/4 (Burgos), Vol. 6 f95l, pp. 14 1-146;
J. Julian, A Diction.ary of Hy,mw%ogy, Pl?· 991----992; d. also J. Maier, St~lCj,jetl
= r Gesc1~-ichte der Marienantiphon "Salve Regitu4" (Regeusburg, J939); S. Nuvarro.
C.M.F., El (lutor de Ia Salve, in Est'Udi,os Marianas, Vol. 7 (Madrid, 1948), pp.
425-442; C. Boyer, S.J., Le "Sa lye Regina," in Mariam/nt, Vol. 14, 1952, rp.
270-2.75·
8<l J. Otten, Antiphon, p. 575C.
 MARIOLOGY
what as unorganized data waiting to be worked up, or as raw materials
with which to construct a harmonious whole. 6
To illustrate the first factor, eminently appropriate is Mary's dig-
njty as the Mother of God, a prerogative freighted with tremendous
consequences.? "Because she is the Mother of God," says Aquinas,
"the Blessed Virgin has a kind of infinite dignity from the infinite
good which is God."8 This single revealed truth alone, Mary'S divine
Maternity, would insure the forward march of theology, specifically,
of Mariology, as John H my Newman recognized in a passage which
is almost a commentary on the statement of St. Thomas just quoted:
When once we have mastered the idea, that Mary bore, suckled, and
handled the Eternal in the form of a child, what limit is conceivable
to the rush and flood of thoughts which such a doctrine involves?
What awe and surprise must attend upon the knowledge, that a
creature has been brought so close to the Divine Essence?9
As to the second factor, Origen noted it thus in his "First
Principles" :
The holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered them-
selves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed
to be necessary to everyone . . . leaving, however, the grounds of their
statements to be examined in to by those who should deserve the ex-
cellent gifts of the Spilit . .. while on other subjects they merely stated
the fact that things were so, keeping silence as to the manner or Ol:igin
of their existence; clearly in order that the more zealous of their suc-
cess rs, who should be lovers of wisdom, might have a subject of
exercise on which to display the fruit of their talents....10
Whence, after indicating "the particular points clearly delivered
in the teaching of the apostles," the Alexandrian came to dwell on
theology's office of progress and development:
Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations
of this sort ... if he would desire to form a connected series and body
6 Cf. G. Roschini, O.S.M., La Madonna secondo la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1
( Roffia, 1953), p. 6.
1 Cf. Pius XI Ulit. Encycl. Lux vcr·jtal.'i s ( Dcccmbcr 25. 1931), AA.S., Vol. 2.3
( December 2.6, f93 I), p. 513; Pius XII, Lit£. Encye!. Fli!ge/lS corolla (September 8,
953), AAS., Vol. 45 (Octol)er 8, ~953), p. 580.
S S. Th., I, q. 2.5, a. 6, ad 4um •
n J. H. Newman, DI(fic't~lt1,es of A11glictws, Vol. 2. (London, 19T4), Pl" 8:1.-83.
10 De 1'1'tncip'iis, lib. I, praef., n. 3; PG, II, n6-rt7; Engl. trans!., The Ante-
Nicene Fllthers, Vol. 4 (New York, 1925), p. 239. Of. J. Quaste.n, op. c/;t., Vol. 2,
p. 59·
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 283
of truths agreeable to the reason of all these things, that by clear and
necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each indi-
vidual topic, and form . . . one body of doctrine, by means of illustra-
tions and arguments - either those which he has discovered in Holy
Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the conse-
quences and following a correct method. l1
The Church's '10vers of wisdom" have ever given themselves to
the glorious task of intellectual conquest so well described by Origen.
and in due course they tmdertoo1c to enlarge and to solidify the
realm of om knowledge of Mary.
Here, as in 0ther areas, the onward march of theology acquired
but slowly momentum, direction, discipline, and co-ordinationi nor
has it proceeded always at a steady pace, always inexorably forward,
always unerringly, always with even deployment along the entire
front. A variety of circumstances nOW accelerated the general advance,
now retarded it; now made for successful thrusts and salients here,
for hesitation there, for temporary withdrawals or evasive tactics else-
where, in the face of phantom foes or supposedly impassable obstacles.
Yet the over-all gain down the cen tudes has been prodigious, espe-
cially in our age, as the modem treatises of Mariology eloquently
attest. But, even so, one may still repeat Frederick vVilliam Faber's
dictum that "no province of theology will have to widen itself as
much as that which speaks" of Our Lady.12 "How many Marian
truths," exclaims Roschini, "still implicit in the sources, await a
robust and penetrating mind which will render them explicit and
present them in a more effulgent light! In this field, so vast and so
delicate, many things remain to be done, some things to be done
over."18
For those who would participate in this endeavor to consolidate
and to extend the precious conquests of the centuries, almost indis-
pensable is some familiarity with the history of Mariology.14 It is
not otherwise than with a new commander on a field of battle; to
cement his grip on the terrain already won, to plan and effect addi-
tional gains, he must first orient himself, striving to understand the
11 De "principiis, lib. 1, pracE., 11. 1-0; PC, II, 121, The rb~,te-Nic(l.t(!. Fat:hers,
Vol. 4, p. 241. Cf. Quasten, O'p. cit., Vol. ~, pp. 59-60.
12 F. Faber, Betll,lehem, 25 tl] A111er. cd. CDaJdmore-New York: J. M~hy Co.)
p. 395. Faber had in mi1.1d the enlargement of theology even here below, not
only that which comes with the beatilic vision .
.l3 G. Roscllini, op. cit., p. 6.
14 Cf. j,bld., p. 135; H. Rondet, S.J., prcfuce to J.-B. TcrriCll, S.J., Le NUre des
hommes, Vol.. I, cd. 8 (Paris, 1950), pp. 6-7.
 MARIOLOGY
posItIOn and disposition of his forces by diligent study of the cam-
paign's history.
Earlier chapters in this volume have reported the progress and
development of Marian dogma and theology during the patristic era.
It is the scope of the present chapter to continue that history, from
the Middle Ages down to modern times. Within the allotted space,
no more than a bare outline may be attemp ted . ~· Ience it will be
impossible to record all the notable contributors and contributions
to Marian thought during these centuries, or to trace closely the
movement and evolution of that thought. But one may hope that
what does come to be said will show how grossly Otten underesti-
mated the room for l)wgress when, about to devote a few pages to
the Mariology of the Middle Ages, he wrote:
With the exception of a few subordinate points, dogmatic Mariology
was fully developed dming Patristic times.... AJJ this was a matter
of Catholic belief bdore the Scholastics began to systematize the
teaching of the Fathers. Hence there was little room for development
in the Mariological teaching of the ChUICh, except by way f etting
forth certain details which had been onJy lightly touched upon by
Pa tristic writers. 16
Inaugurating as he did the scientific treatment of Marian doctrines,
St. Anselm of Canterbury is the logical point of departure for our
outline.17 The nine centuries to be traversed can be divided into three
15 The Mariological literature and developments of our century alone are im-
mense, while the magnitude of earlier materials can be estimated from the huge
collections made (somewhat indiscriminately and uncritically, to be sure) by: H.
Marracci, Bibliotheca Mariana, 2 vols. (Romae, 1648); idem, Appendix ad Biblio-
thecam Marianam (Coloniae, 1683); ]. Bourasse, Summa aurea de laudibus
B. M. V., 13 vols. (Parisiis, 1862); A. Roskovany, B. Virgo Maria in suo Conceptu
Immaculata, ex monumentis omnium saeculorum demonstrata, 9 vols. (Nitriae,
1873-1881), covering some 25,000 Marian writings from the first century down to
A.D. 1880. The contents of the above collections are indicated in G. Roschini,
Mariologia.• cd. 2, Vol. 1 CRomae, 1947), EP' 290'-29 1, !lOJ-302, 304- 305 .
OUT outline will owe much to fioschini. op. cit. Vol. I, pp. 217-30 5, 390-399;
id.em, La MadowIIQ scco,~do La Pede e 10 TeoloMia, Vol. I (Rama, 1953), pp. 88-95.
148-166; to VaDOl.lS articles in Marian Studies, Vol. 1-4 (Washington, D. C., 1950-
1953), and in the symposia edited by P. 'miter, S,J. lVltlwLlsahe Marienkunde,
Vol. I CPaderborn, 1947), and by H. du M:moir, S.J., Maria, VoIs. 1-2 (Paris,
1949, 1952). For u rapid smvey, stilJ usefu1, despite need for revision, is M .
Sclu:ebc.n, H anilb'Hch cler !wtlloN. cl'£ I~ DOgNUlI:iI~, VoL 3 ( Preiburg im Br., 1882.),
pp. 47 6-479.
16 B. Otten, S.]., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. 2 CSt. Louis, 1918),
p. 397·
17 For the period from the eighth century down to St. Anselm, cf. Roschini,
Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 211-217, 390.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 285
main periods which embrace, roughly, medieval, modem, and con-
temporary Mariology: I. the twelfth to the sixteenth century, from
St. Anselm to Protestantism; II. the late sixteenth to the nineteenth
century, from Protestantism to the dogmatic definition of the Immacu-
late Conception; III. the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from
1854 to the present.
I. MEDIEVAL MARIOLOGY
(TWELFTH TO SIXTEENTH CENTURIES)
Scienti£c Mariology, in the strict sense of the word/ 8 is of com-
paratively recent 0rigin . This rigorously scientific disciphne, enjoying
the status of a distinct anel quasi-autonomous tract within theology,lO
with its several theses systematically organized and connected under
the control of one master principle and various secondary principles, 20
did l'lot exist in the Middle Ages. 21 The Scholastics expressed their
thought on the prerogatives of Our Blessed Lady now in sermons
and other discourses, now in devotional and ascetical writings, now in
commentaries on Scripture, in letters sometimes amounting to veri-
table theological opuscula, and on other occasions, esrecially in the
course of their tracts on the Incarnation. Not unti the fifteenth
century, with the Tractatus de B. Virgine of St. Bemardine of Siena,
did there appear more or less systematic Marian treatises, which, how-
ever, were still far removed from the organic perfection and compre-
hensiveness of today's Mariological tract. 22
But let us hasten to add that, if the medieval "lovers of wisdom"
did not themselves achieve the well-rounded, highly developed, and
scientifically refined Marian disquiSitions which grace modem dog-
matic theology, they did make distinguished contributions to the
16 Of. ibid., pp. 325, 396.
10B.oschlni, aft. MlfT'iQZogia, in Enciclopedia Catr.olica, Vol. 8 (CiLts del Vatic:mo,
1952.), S.v. Maria col. 85: 'In UlOdem times, consequent upon many posilive and
speculative studies conducted with a rigorclllsly scicntilic method Ma.rio)ogy has
Teceived a development which confers upon it 11 certain autonomy." That is, while
J;ema:ining an integral part of theology, MflrloJogy is no longer treated as a kind
of appendix l'O the tract de VerlJO Incarnal'Oj c£. iae11'l, Mar/a10gia, Vol. I, pp.
3 24-3 2 5.
no cr. 11)I(l., Pl" 32.3- 326, 338.
21 J. Carol. O.F.M., The Mm-iological Mov_,ent in tIle yVorld Tod.ay, in
CEo
Ma.rial1 St'Udies, Vol. 1 1950, pp. 25-26; P. Conncil, C.SS.B., Toward. a Syste'll1Gt,ia
Treatment. of MariologJ', in Mari(1Il St.Ili1,/es, Vol. I p. 56; E. UUTlte, C.S.P., 'ntO
B eginnings of Scien.tific Mari%gy. in Mar;al~ St·ud.jes, VoL 1, -pp. 117-Il8j J. A.
d' Aldama S.J. , lVla'riologia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3 (Matriti, 195,0 ),
p. 289.
22 Cf. Roschini, La Madonna secondo la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. I, p. 151.
 MARIOLOGY
evolution of such treatises. For the Scholastics were not at all con-
tent simply to transmit, witllOut further ado, the deposit 0f revealed
Marian verities and the patristic elaborations thereof, Here, as else-
where, the doctors and other theologians of the Middle Ages strug-
gled, with no little - if incomplete - success, to win deeper insight
into the data of revelation, to clarify and to formulate the data more
precisely, to lay bate their rammcations and interrelations, to harmo-
nize and reconcile them, to l"ecognize, state, and solve new problems.
Briefly, the mystery of Mar~, too, was an object of the Scholastics'
"fides quaerens intellectum. '23 An I therewith were had at least the
beginnings of scientific Mariology.
The initial impetus was delivered by St. Anselm of Canterbury
Ct Il09), not only through the beneficent influence exercised on all
subsequent theology by the "Father of Scholasticism,"~{ but also
through his speciflcally Marian writings.~!r To be sure, tl1ese, when
spurious and doubtful wodes hay been eliminated,~G :ue but few
and, at first glance, theologically unpromising; a few passages jn 1~,r
Deu.s 1wwJ,o and De conceptu virginali et de orig) rLal:i. pecc(!,to asid ,
they are of a devotional character, Anselm's three celebrated prayers
to ux Blessed Lady.27
Yet one should not On tllat account underestimate the saint's value
as a Mariologist. His contribution at the level of positive theology
22 It could not ll.ave heen otlle.tvl/isc - the mystery 0,( Mary is, a fteT all, inseparable
from that of Christ; d. M. Mu.eller, O,F.M., Ma,rill. Ihre geistige GesUl ~t imd Pcrsoen-
lie1,hait ilt (leI' Theo7ogie. des Mlttelalters, in P. Stracter, S.l. (cd.), KathoZisehe
lVlar1ellk1l'flrle, Vol. I {Paderbom, 1947), pp. 269-27 1, developing the point dInt
in the l:eligious life und thought of the Mlddle Ages "Jesus and Mary me a
sIngle concept."
Z4 Cf. F. Cay(e, A.A. A Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, transl.
by n. Howitt, VoL 2 (paris, 1940), pp. 404-407; J. BainveI, Anselme, in DTC
(Dicliol'mnil'e de TMologie Catholique) , Vol. I, cols. 1343-1348.
25 Cf. R. Jones, Sanc:ti A1lSdmi Mariologia (Mundelein, 1937); ~. Burke, C.S.P.,
The Beginnings of a Seieal,i fic Mlldology, in J\iltU'1(111 Stlld,ies, Vol. I , 1950, pp.
117-137; Roschini, Maf'iologia, Vol. I , pp. 217-224. Anselm's Mariology is touched
on in many places in the DTC; ef, the T"bles generales, s.v. Af'lSe1~n.e, col. 176,
for references.
~Il For n convenient, not necessarily definitive, catalogue of tIle authentic wad,s
of Anselm :md other medievnl Mariologists, of. Roschini, cp. cit., p. 2.17 IF.; ide,,,,
La Mac/oH'Na seco'lldo In Fecle e la Teologia, Vol. I, pp. 88-92.
2. Or«ti?".es 50, ?~, 52 \i? PL, J ;8); the.~e. a.re DOW des~ated as Omtio~es
5, 6, 7 I II the cntu:al edmon of S. Ansetml 0rJeTa Om'n'la, ed. F. Sclmutt,
O.S.B. Vol. 3 ( Edinbm:gi, (946), pp. 13- 14, J5-17, 18-25. Cr. A. WihuBl't,
Las propres correct.ions ae S. Anselme dims sa grande pri(}re it fa Vierge Marie, in
R ec11(~1·c17e.s de n1colo~ie '1nlfienl1B et fHciliCvale, Vol. 7., 1930, pp. 189-20°4-
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 287
is indisputable.28 But, what is more, if we probe more deeply, a great
speculative theologian may be seen in the midst of prayer' Father
Eugene Burke's sensitive study has emphasized of Anselm's Marian
corpus "the close relation between doctrine and devotion and how
the whole emanates from an essentially theological approach."29 Thus
one can discover there in germ the basic Mariological principle which
theologians have used ever since, the principle that her divine Ma-
teJ,TIity is the very wellspring of Mary's dignity and prerogatives;
from tile divine Maternity Ansehn infers Our Lady' pUlity, virginity,
sanctity, and intercessol'y power. so
As to Mary's spiritual Maternity, so clear and explicit wa Anselm's
doctrine on this, as well as her Iole in the distribution of aU graces,
that he surpassed all previous and paved the way for all future efforts
to express Our Lady's meruatodal functions.S],
For all his realization that th Bless d Virgin's purity and sanctity
mllst be proportioned to her dignity as the Mother of God, Anselm
failed, as Some no less able minds were to fail after him, to perceive
the implications of this principle for the Immaculate Conception.
Texts which wOltld place him among the defenders of the latter
doctrine are not his; whereas statements surely his logically exclude
28 R. Jones, 01" cit., p. 84: "Vocati Fotest S. Anselmus magnus doctor ma:cianus,
nou quidem qui., de B. Virgiue mul ta scripsit opera theologica sed (]!lia tanta
claritate tantaqlle vi trailitionem de en protulit. Omnes veritates qllas boilie de
Maria docet magisteriuJD ecclesiasticum ipsi merunt non tam no Pones expl1cand;;te
quam facta lauclanda a.tque adhibenda.. l'rnditiouem sibi a Pauihus traditam
accepit et quasi ex Ie mortull vel donnientc 1'ecit rcm vivam et npcrt!lIlli et deincle
ex hac cloctrina viva, facilius potucl,Unt theologi POSt eum varips illius deducere
tbeologicos Ilspectus." Not that one may e:A'Pect to .G.nel reference to all Marian
doctrines: thus no direct testimony to tIle Assumption is available apart hom
ROfllilia 9 (PL. I58, 644), which is commonly regarded as spurious.
20 E. Burke, art. cit., p. 136, where the author aho pomts out that similar studies
would be rewarding fOI a better understanding And appreciation o~ such other
earlier medieval writers as Hugh of St. Victor and St. Bernard.
30 Cf. ibid., pp. UI-I36. Anselm extols ti,e divine Maternity thus in De con-
ce.pt1l 'Ilirgi.'nrlli et de originaU peccato: "Nempe decens erat ut ea puritate, qua maior
sub Dco nequit intclligi, Vil:go ilia uiteret, cui Deus Pater unicum Filium . . . ita
daTe clisponebat"; c. ~8 in Opera ol/l'/'da, cd. Schmitt, Vol. 2, p. 150; c. 17 in PL.
158, 4~jl. AJ.!ait~: ''N~il"aequale M:Wlle nihil n.isi Deus maius M aria. Deus Filiu~
suum .. . dedit Ma:nae ; O rat. 7 In ed. SchmItt, Vol. 3, pp. 21-22; Orat. 52 In
PL, 158, 956.
31 So Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, p. 219, who includes in this judgment Anselm's
teaching on Mary's part in om Redemptioll. However, that teacl,ing would not
seem to go beyond indirect, remote, medi:lte co-openltion of MRry in tlle objective
Redemption; cf. J. Carol, O.F.M., De CQrretiamptilme BeITta8 M:ari(/e Virgiltis
(Civitas Vaticana, 1950) , p. 153, nota 87.
 MARIOLOGY
that glorious Marian prewgative, while conceding a special sanctifica-
tion oE Qur Lnay in the womh. S2 Nevertheless, it is a great merit of
Anselm that he fmthered mightily the final solution of the medieval
controversy on the Immaculate Conception, through his speculations
in C1~, r De1,tS 1q,01'nO and in De conceptu virginali et de originali
peccato,33 particularly by his criticism of the Augustinian theses on
the transmission of original sin. 84
Still under the influence of that Augustinian doctrine, St. Bernard
of Clairvaux ct
I I53), likewise failed to extend Mary's sanctity,
admittedly incomparable in all other respects, to her conception. 85
His famous letter to the Canons of Lyons, while avowing a special
sanctification of Our Lady in the womb, denied, but with submission
given in advance to any contrary pronouncement the Church might
make in the future, that Mary was conceived free from original sin. 86
'82 0. Roschiui, op, cit., pp. 22-2-223. Anselm's rejection of the Immaculate
Conceptjon is not admitted by all; e.g., P. Spedalieri, S.].., /htss!mtl-s psr Eaumcruff'I,
in Mllrilll1il~lJI, 5, 19'1,3, pp. 205--:1.1.9, c()J1 ~ideJ;s it significant tllat the ab""e pciv:ilege
was upheld by the saint's thee most intimate diSciples, among them Thtdmer of
Canterbury (t I I.24?), his Frien,d and biogrnpher. The latter's Trncta~lf5 de Con-
ceptione sanetae Murine (PL, 159, 30J-318" long attributed to Anselm, is the
first munograph 011 the Immaculate COllcertion. Another work wrongly ascribed
to Anselm is Eadmer's De e.'l.:celle.ntiQ Virgi'nl$ Mariae (PL, J59, 557-580), notable
for its doctrine on Mary's Queenship and its testimony to her corporeal Assumption.
On Eadmer, cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 224 (with bibliogIflph yJ.; for some other
Benedictine writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, d. J. Leclercq, O.S.B.,
Devotion et theologie mariales dans Ie monachisme benedictin, in Maria, ed. H. du
Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 555-562.
33 Cf. E. Burke, art. cit., pp_ 122-128; A. Gaudel, Peche originel, in DTC,
Vol. 12, cols. 438-439.
a-I CE. Geudel, 1oe. cit.; X. Le Bacheler. ImmQcuUe C01~cept'im~, in DTC, Vol. 7.
cok 995-Joor. Accor<.j.i:!lg to the teacllli::!g attributed to St. Augustine, original
si.u is indivisibly constituted by conc1.\piscence and the priVlltion ot SlIncrifying grace,
Rlld is transmitt.ed by t.he fact that generation is llnl{ed with concupiscence, wl11ch
excl.udes any sanctifying activity on the pa,rt of the Holy S'pirit; d. }. Lecle~cq.
art. cit., p, 573. Althourth he criticized that teaching, Anselm's own doctrine on
original sin led to the same conclusion: only one born or a virgin is, immune fr.om
original sin.
35 Cf. C . Clemencet, [a Mariologie de S. Bernard. ( Brigmus, J909); B. Haensler,
O. Cist., Die MII,ri,e)tleh~e des hI. Bernhard CRegensburg, 19T7); D. Nogues, a.c.R.,
Mariologie de S. Bernard (Paris, 1935); A. Ra"1.lgel, La cloctrine mel'M.ale de S.
Bernard (Paris, J935); P. Aubron, S.}., L'o~lIwr6 mariQle (le S. Bernard (paris,
1935); Roschini, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 225-235; J. Leclercq, art. cit., pp. 568-574;
Dom }.-B. Auniord, C£teaux et Notre Dame, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2,
pp. 583-613. Bernard's Mariology is discussed frequently in the Dictionnaire de
Theologie Catholique; cf. the Tables generales, S.v. Bernard (Saint), col. 428.
~6 Epist. 174; PL, 182, 332-336; Engl. transl. in The Life and Works of St.
Bernard, ed. by J. Mabillon (transl. and additional notes by S. Eales), Vol. 2
(London, 1889), pp. 512-518. Attempts to interpret Bernard benignly, as a
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 289

This error is the sale blemish marring Bernard's reputation as the

most mushiollS Doctor of Mary. The influence exercised by the
Abbot of Clairvaux down through the a~es, not only on Marian
piety, but also on the theologians of Our Blessed Mother, is unparal-
leled in the annals of the Marian movement. 37
Surprisingly enough, the Abbot of Clairvaux did not write much
of the Blessed Virgin.3s His letter to the Canons of Lyons is his
only Marian work of an explicitly theological character; for the rest,
Bernard's doctrine on Our Lady is expressed in a dozen sermons
delivered on various feasts of the Blessed Mother, in the four homilies
(collected under the title De laudihus V. Matris) on the Gospel
Missus est of Ember Wednesday in Advent, and here and there in
a few other sermons. 39
Hence, to account for St. Bernard's tremendous influence one must
look to factors other than the guantity of his Mf:uian writings. Cer-
tainly the chaml of their style, their fervor and unction, help explain
dlat influence - never was their author more deserving of the ti tle
Doctor 1neW~u'U,s than when he addressed himself to the subject of
Mary. For Dam J. Leclercq that is the whole secret of St. Bernard's
success, and the only rightful basis for his reputation a "the Marian
Doctor"; according to the Benedictine scholar, the Abbot of Clairvaux
is overrated as a theologian of Mary - "Bernard expressed (save for
his denial of the Immaculate Conception) the traditional doctrine
common to his epoch, contributing hardly any new precisions or great
doctrinal originality."40

defellder of the ImmaculRte Conception eeL Roschi.ni, J',fario!ogia> Vol. 1, -p. 2.32.),
are curtly rejected. by J. Leclercq, art. cit., p. 573, with whom J.-B. Alll1io.d. art. cit.,
pp. 5'88, 591, would agree; d. also X. Le BRchelct, I tnmaClIUe Com;ep tlO1~, in DYC,
Vol. 7. eols. 10.10-1015·
S7 CE. Roschini, 01" c'it., Vol 1 pp. 2.27, 390-391 .
88 Ct. J.-B. Auniord, (lrt. elt., FP' 587-590; also J. Leclercq, art. ci.t., pp. 568-
569, who points out that the very paucity of Bernm;d's Marian writings refutes
[hose who would reduce his religion to Maciolatry. his theology to Mariolog)'; the
s.4int, Leclercq mnher obsen·es ill this connection, always considered the Blessed
Mother in relation and in due subordination to her divine Son.
'0 Epist. 174 excepted, nil are found in PL, 183; for references, d. Auniord,
"rt. c#" pp. 587-590, and Roscllini, 01" cit., Vol. J, -pp. 2.2.6-235, d. p. 2.26 for
t'he many spurious 8nd .do~.btflllly autbentic works 8sc~ibed to Bernar(l.
~o J. Leclercq, at/;. Cit., m Maria, eel. H . dll M3J)OIJ:, Vol. 2., p. 574; d . also pp.
568-569, and idefJ1>, Berttara. (le Cla.inulux, in C(ltholicis1Il.e, hi,er, II1Jjo'l"rd'!'cui,
de'main, Vol. I, col. 1478. CompaU! G, Dumeige U n,e session. d'dl>udes t}leologiques
sur sa:i.nt Bernard in Etudes, Vol. 279, 1953, p. :1.49: Bernard "est davantage
1a~ab le Docteur de In devotion .l1lilriale qu'a p(()l?r~ent pa:rIcr ]e th6010gien de
1a Vlergej" "non," the same woter conceded earh er, "qu'.il manque de seilS
 MARIOLOGY
In the opinion of most, however, and theirs would seem the more
equitable judgment, the science of Mary was considerably enriched
by her greatest troubadour. If Bernard had no penchant for specula-
tion, this was not for want of power of mind or of sound theological
instinct.41 That his Mariology is concrete in form and character is
understandable from its pulpit origins, and from the saint's close
adherence - born of his strict orthodoxy and wariness of innova-
tions, to the Bible and to the Fathers. 42 Yet if, as with Anselm, one
delves beneath the surface, a competent and even creative theologian
may be seen in action. Bernard's Marian doctrine surpasses thaI: of
his predecessors by the richness and range of its synthesis, nor is it
lacking in explicitations, new precisions, original argumentation. d '
To document this judgment somewhat, we may remark the fact
that Bernard's Mariology was evolved under the control of certain
principles, especially the composite one of the grandeur of Mary's
divine M aternity and her exa.lted lole as Mediatrix between God
and men, her association with the supreme Mediator in the work of
our Redemption; with these prerogatives he links up the purity of
the Mother and Associate of the divine Redeemer, her sanctity, vir-
ginity, her other virtues and privileges. 44 Or we may note that the
Abbot of Clairvaux was not content to be one of the stanchest wit-
nesses to the fact of Maty's Assumption and glorification: he went
on to assign. intrinsic reasons for this privilege 8l'guing it, e.g. , from
her in tegrity, from the fact that heaven is our true'home, w.hither slle
has preceded us in order to act as our advocate and to summOn us
there. 45

theologique ou de force de pensee - on s'en rend compte en etudiant sa doctrine si

solide, sur Ie Christ, et l' auteur du traite sur la Grilce et le !ibre arbitre a montre
ce dont il etait capable."
41 As was just COllceded by Dmneige in note 40; cf. also F. Cayre Ma~n1,j,Qt of
Pll~rology, ana. History of TllCology, VOl. 2, pp. 430- 432..
~2 EiipeciaIIy St. Ambrose and St. Augustine; fm other patrisriG and. Inter soUrGc s
used by Bemard. c£. Leclercq, art. cit., in Man'a, V ol. l., p. 578. Such l'.eal for
OI:t hodoxy is n gWlUmtee thHt the tWllbadour of Mal;)' did not allow his ardor
to carry Mm beyond the bounds ·of assUTed dogmll; cf. P . negamey, O.P., Les pl'l~s
beat.l% t£~tes SM !a. Vi/lfge Marie, nouvelle ed. (Paris, copyright 1946), 1" 125. On· the
other hand, mistakenly applied, it bewyed 13emard into lus denial of the Immaculate
CollCelltion; cf. Reganiey. 01'" cit., p. l2.5; Leclercq, art. cit.> in Maria, Vol. 2.,
p. 574·
43 Cf. Auniord, art. cit., in Maria, Vol. 2., pp. 587, 612.; Regamey, op. cit.,
pp. 125-126.
44 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 2.2.6-234.
45 Cf., e.g., In Assumptione B. V. Mariae, Sermo I; PL, 183, 415-417. In con-
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 291

Finally and above all, one must mention, as St. Bernard's foremost
contribution to Mariology, his development of the doctrine of Mary's
Mediation, which earned for him the title of "Doctor of Mediation,"
par excellence. To. refer to. but one aspect o.f that rich and complex
teaching,4G the Abbo.t of Clairvaux affirmed in unprecedented fashien
tlle role ef Our Lady in the distributio.n ef aU graces, e.g., in the
well-knewn texts, eft quo.ted by the So.vereign Pontiffs: Mary is
"the aqueduct" through whom all graces ceme to. US; ~7 Ged "willed
that we have all through Mary";'lS "Ged willed that we have nothing
that does not pass through Mary's hands."H
Dam J. Leclercq believes that, when the teaching of Bernard on
Mary's Mediation is cemparetl with rna of earlier Wliter , it is dis-
tinguished more by its vigor than by its precisien. GO But may we
justly expect to find in that doctrine, and in that of other twelfth-
century authors who were inspired by Bernard,51 doctrine expressed,
moreover, in sermons rather than in professedly theological works, all
the explicit distinctions and precisions of twentieth-century theo-

nection with the Assumption St. Bernard quite naturally also enlarged on Mary's
Queenship; thus in the sermon just cited and elsewhere, e.g., PL, 183, 425, 431,
43 6,43 8 .
'10 Cf. Auniotd, art. cit., pp. 601-608; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, 229-232.
According to J. Carol, De Corredemptione B. V. J'\Ilarlae, pp. 155-]:56 it is
questionable that Bernard upheld Mary's immediate co·operation in the objective
Redemption. And although he teaches in effect the spiritual Maternity of the Blessed
Vitgin, Bemard never actually refers to ber as "our moth'er," despite St. Anselm's
lIse of tllis term and its equivalents; doubtless the Abbot of C1!JiI;va,ux uvoided such
exptessions because he did not hnd tbem in St. AmbIOse or St. Augustine (another
instance of his concern for orthodoxy); d. P. Morineau, S.M.M., CO'llJl/Jlent la
doctrine de 1£1 Mate!'nit6 Spi'l'i,tltelle ,le Mcwie s'j,nstaUe da1lS 1~ ,tMologie mystique de
Saint Bernard, in Bulletin de 1£1 Societe FTan~aise d'Etudes M£1riales, 1935, pp.
121-148; Regamey, op. cit., p. 125.
47 Sermo in Nativitate B. V. Mariae, nn. 3-5; PL, 183, 439-440.
48 Sermo in Nativitate B. V. Mariae, n. 7; PL, 183, 441.

49 In Vigilia Nativitatis Domini, Sermo 3, n. 10; PL, 183, 100.

50 J. Leclercq, Bernard de Clairvaux (Saint), in Catholicisme, hier, aujourd'hui,
demain, Vol. I, col. 1478.
5;1- Other Cistercians contemporary with Bern xd were likewise strong proponents
of Mary's Mediation and spiritual Ma ternity: among them we :q1ay mention (d.
Auniord, /l,t·t. cit., Pl" 614- 617; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 225, 236-237"
DTC, TalJZes ge1!emles): Blessed Guen:ic, Abbot of Igny Ct II5) or 1155),
whose se.rmons <lIe rated almost on a pa~ widl BeJ;nard's; St. Amadeus o£ Lausanne
( t I 159), noted also for his stIong testimony to Our Lf\dy's cOJ:poreal Assumption.
wllich was commemorated by Pius XU in the Apost. Const., l\IT111n:ificentis.I'im1Is
De1lS; knold of Chartres, Abbot of Bonneval ( t J I60), regarded 3S the "Corte-
dempLionis marialis prim'us ndsertor" Ccf. J. Carol. 0p. cit., p . .1.56); nnd Blessed
t
Ailred, Abbot of Rievaulx C JI66).
294 MARIOLOGY
is, our major interest centers on fOID"tall y theological treatment of the
Blessed Mother and her prerogatives. Such treatment, theological
discussion ex profes 0, makes its appearance with the great luminaries
of Scholasticism, among them St. Bonaventure ( t £274).64
The Seraphic Do tor expressed his Marian thought not only in
oratorical works, his 27 sermons on the Blessed Virgin, sermons for
the feasts of the Epiphany and of Christ's Nativity, the Collatio VI
de donis Spiritus Sancti, but also in his Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Luke, in the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter
Lombard, and in the Breviloquium.65
Characteristic of the saint's Marian writings is their caution; in
glowing love for Our Lady, Bonaventure yielded to none, yet at the
same time he was deeply concerned not to heap unfounded honors
on her who has no need of guestionable praise. 66
The dominant prin(:jp1e in the Seraphic Doctor's Mariology is a
composite one, the divine Maternity of O ur Lady and her association
with Christ in the wor k of our redemption; from this twofold source
flow, for Bonaventure, all Mary's other prerogatives and privileges,
e.g., her plenitude of grace and of virtue; h er fTeedom from all per-
sonal sin, even venial; her Assumption into h eaven .o7
Unfortunately, influenced by the au thority of St. Bernard Chis
c11ief M ariologica1 mentor, whom he cites some 400 times) and by
his own n ative caution , the Seraphic Doctor was among those who
failed to realize tha t Mary's transcendent role as Mother of the
divin e Redeemer also called for her complete preservation from
original sin, radler than for a mere prenatal sanctification. But if
he sided with opponents of the Immacuhlte Conception, holding
theirs "the more commOn , more reasonable, and safer" view,68 never-
theless he refused to reprehend the other school of thought.o 9 Indeed,
6·1 Cf. E. Chiettini, O .F.M., Mariologia S. Bonaventurae ( Sibenici-Romae, 1942);
L. Di Fonzo, O.F.M.Conv., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de universali Mediatione B.
V irginls Marule ( llomae, 19 38) ; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 241-245; addi-
tionalliteratuIe, p. 241, nota I , and in J. Carol, De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis
MariCle, p. r62, nota 110.
0 5 CE. Roschiui, op. cit., Vol. "1 , p. 242, faT. these main repositories of Bonaventure's
M ~r:iall te~cbings, also For a list of the ~'Pu riOu.~ works once ascribed to him.
II ~ Cf. Sent . 3, t 3, p. 1, a. r , q. 2 ad 3, ,ll1d d. 4, a. 3, q. 3; in Opera omnia,
ed. Ad Clans Aquas ( 1882-1902), Vol. 3, 68 o.nd 115.
61 Cf. Rosc:hin i, 01" cit., Vol. I , pp. 2.42-243.
liS Of. Sent. 3, d . 3, p. I, a. I, q. 2.
nOC£-. Balit, De j·egll.Z" f~m damentali Theologiae Marianae Scotisticae (Sibenici,
1938) 'P ' 6, quoted in Roschini, up. cit., Vol. I, p. 243.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 295
St. Bonaventure may even be said to have helped the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception toward ultimate victory, in that he admitted
Mary's soul could 11.3ve come under the influence of the Redemption
li:om the first moment of its creation.TO
As we have already intimated, the Seraphic Doctor exalted Our
Lady's association with Cluist in the redemption of mankind, whence
he has come to shaTe in St. Bernard's title, "Doctor of Mediation."71
"The Blessed Virgin is Mediatrix between us and Christ, as Christ
is Mediator between us and God."72 St. Bonaventure insists on
Mary's personal participation in the sacrifice of her divine Son and
in its consequences, although the precise nature of his teaching
regarding the extent of her co-operation in the objective redemption
is disputed. 73 Be that as it may, the spiritual Maternity of Our Lady
is inculcated in a variety of ways, as when the Serafhic Doctor
exphcitly declares that Mary "is not only the physica mother of
GQ(~, but also the spiritual mother of men."74 Varied, too, and
emphatic, are the expressions by whicl1 be unfolds Mary's part in
the subjective redemption, her role of inteIcession,75 her association
with Christ in the actual distribution of all graces. 76 Truly, St.
Bonaventure is a D octor Medi.ation,is.71 '

At least equally deserving of that title, already shared by Bernard

70 CE. Sent. 3, d. 3, p. 1, B . . I, .9: ,,; d .. X. Le, Dachelet, ImmaclIl6e COj.lceptIOl'~, in
DTe, Vol. 7, cols. 1047- 1048; J. de Dleu, O.EM.Cap., Le cult:e 1naf'1<lI chez las
Fils de Saint Fra'/'l9ois rl' Assisll, in Muri.a, ed. H. du Manoh, Vol. 2, pp. 788-7'89;
Rosebull, Mariologia, Vol. 2., Pars 2 (Ramee, 1948), p. 56.
11 Cf. Rosch illi , Mttriologia, Vol. I, pp. 243-244.
1~ Sent. 3, d. 3, p. I, a. J; Opera omfua, Vol. 3, p. 67.
7S cr. J. de Dieu, a,r t . cit.., 'in !VIa.ria, Vol. 2, FP' 789-791; J. Cam], De Carre-
a.emptioJ'le 13eatae Mariae Virgit;is, pp. 16;>,--J 64.
1. Senna 2, In Pentec. , n. 4.
?~ "We have t1u:ee AdvoCl\tes Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin . The first
contends for t lS, the second spealts for us, the third intercedes for u.s"; In lo,m.,
c. 14; Opera o11'l,t l.ia, Vol. 6, p. 303.
7'0 E.g., Iepeating St. Bemrud's "all graces pass through Mru;y's ha.ods"; Seen,. 4,
DIl A'fl.n ·lI.ntiaI1011,e B. M. V .; Opera o·lnn';". Vol. 9, p. 673.
77 St. Bonaventure's [CP\ltB.tion in this regard remains established even thougb
he is 1.0t the author of the SlJecm.!mllo B. M. V. (se l~ Exl'osit:'io saI1,I;talJioni.s IlTigelicae),
which belongs Iather to a colJeague in 'Ieligion, Conrad of Sa.>::OIlY, O.F.M.
(t I279 ) ' Tills channing And profoond little w()J;k, Il commentary em the "flail
Mary" (as then xecited, i.e., dow.n to "I-Ioly I/ary"), is a compendium of M~riolQgjcal
qltCStiOOS, with emphasis o~ Our L~dy's medI~tor.Ial fUl1~tiol1~; c:. Rosc:hini, . Marlo-
logla, Vol , t, pp. 2,5T-257., J. de Dleu, art. CIt., III Mana, ed. H. du, Man01r. Vol.
2; p. 790. The op1.1sculum alon~ with another spuriolls work, has beeu puhlished
in English under St. Bonaventure S Dame: TIM Mir'l'OT of the .Bl.e.ssed, V 'irgj,n all,1 die
1;'sQ.!ter of Otl,r Lally (St. Louis, 1932).
 MARIOLOGY
and Bonaventure, is another, St. Albert the Great Ct I280).78 "Medi-
atrix" and its equivalents recur habitually in his Marian writings. 79
On no subject, other than the Eucharist, did the Universal Doctor
dwell more often, more at length, or with greater predilection, than
Our Lady, particularly with an eye to her role in the economy of
salvation. so He enlarged on rJle Blessed ~other 110t only in his
encyclopedic 1v1ariale su.per Nliss·us eS't/! in the CO'Inpend:ium s'tf.per
Ave Muria, in a doz n and more Malian sermons, 1 u,t aJ 'n tb
course of scriptural commentaries C~'Peciany that on the Gospel
according to St. Luke), and of theological works such as the
Commentary on the Sentences, the StJ,lwnuz de Incarnatione, and the
treatise De natu,r a boni. 82 In a word, St. Albert seized every occasion
to express his love and devotion for the Mother of God and of men;
he wrote more ir~ the sphere of Mariology than any other theologian
of his era.sa
No less admirable is the quality of these extensive writings.
Always dear, almos!' always docllinally solid, often profound, they
are further distinguished by the range of Marian questions dealt
with, and by some tendency toward synthesis, systematization, and
yet other functions proper to scient:i.6c Maliology . l!~ In this connec-
78 Cf. 1Vt-A. Genevoi~, O.P., Blb18 1'l1arlala at 1IJariologie de S. Albert 1e Grand
(Sau~t-MaJdmiu, ~9.34); M .-M. Desmarais, O.P., S. AI,bert Ie Grand, doateur de la
medial:im/. mariah, (I aris-Ottawa, !935)i J. Bittremieux, S. Albert·us Magl"ltls
Ecdesiae doc/,or, praestal1.t.issf1ll'US Mariolog1-ls, in E1!he1l1eri.d6-~ Theologlcae LOlluni-
clLses, Vol. 10, 1933, lJP' 2.17-231; M. Cordovani, O.P., fA i\Ilariologla eli S. AlbertcD
i\Ilfigno, in AngeliC'fl.1n, Vol. 9, 1932, pp. 2°3-212; Ro~chini, Mar/ologia, Vol. L,
pp. 252-2.6T; for addilio~<tJ uteratllre, cEo Roschini, p. 252., nOla I, and DTC,
Tal,ltls generu!es, S.v. JW,ert Ie Gr£/i'ta, cols. 67-68.
70 Of. Deslnar::t's, 01?' cit., p. ~35.
so Of. H. Wilms, O.P., Albert der Grosse CMuenchen: Verlag J. Koese1 & F.
1'llstet. n.d.) Pl" 178-180.
S1 This wo'r k ( in AU)el'fi mag1't'i ('pera omt/hl, ed'it. BOIgnet, Vol. 37, 1-362) is
not ro be coufused with the lVIariale of Richard. of St. Lawrence ( d. surra, note 63;
th.i~ spurious wm:k is ruso in Borgner Vol. 36). (Editor's Note. As thi~ voJuII).e goes
10 press, reliable information reach· ' us from Europe concerning the recent dis-
coveJ;)' to tlle effect that the Maria),e [ed. Borgnct, Vol. 37] long attributed to St.
Albert, was 110t rlctun1ly written by lum. Cf. R. Laurentin) CO'I l,rl tmlta de IMologi.e
lIlaria1<~ [Paris: 1953], p. 52, note 48a.)
A2 u the :m thcntic Mariologioal writings or St. Albert, cf. Hoschini, 01" C'it.,
Vol. r, pp. 2.~2-:2.53; Desmnrais, op. cit., pp. 148-167i P. MlleISseman, O.P ., 111-
ITodl/lctio ill opera omnia B. Alherti Magni, a.p. (Brugis: ap1.l.d. C. Beyae:£t, n .d.),
118- 121; M.-I\. Gcnevois, O.P., La Mariologle de Saint Albert-Ie·Grand, in Bi,lleti'll

ae la Societe Fnm~s.e d.'Etudes Mariales, 1935, pp. 27-51. Excerpts ale given in
French translation in A. Garreau, Saint Albert Ie Grand (Paris: Aubier, n.d.).
88 'Thus M. Grabmann, in Wilms, op. cit., p. 178.
84 Cf. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull. de Ia Soc. Frant;;. d'Et. Mar., 1935, p. 47, note I,
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 297
tion we may note that St. Albert's argumentation in behalf of Mary's
bodily Assumption into heaven is singled out for special praise in
the Apostolic Constitution, Mu,ni{icentissi'mu.s Deus.
Flaws there are, of course; among them, the exaggeration of Our
Lady's knowledge.8s Then too, although with SL Augustine, St.
Anselm, and Scholastics all, St. Alben acknowledged in Mary a
plenitude of grace, of purity, and of virtue secOl)d only to Christ's,86
h e also was among those who failed to perce:ive th at, consistently
with her singular mission and dignity, the Mother of God must
have been preserved n om original sin. ST Moved by the authority of
Bernard of Clairvaux, and by the Augustinian view on the trans-
mission of original sin , the U uiv ·rsal Doctor admitted only a pre-
natal sanctifIcation of the Blessed Mother.es
Such shortcomings are, however, offset by the excellence of St.
Albert's doctrine on Mary's part in the work of our salvation. The
"secretary and scribe of the Mother of God" stands as an incompara-

and pp. 50-51, regarding St. Albert's contribution to the evolution of theological
method; d. also E. Lajeunie, O.P., Quelques aspects de la Theologie mariale
actuelle, in Bull. de la Soc. Fran~. diEt. Mar., 1935, pp. 55-59; Cordovani, art. cit.,
in Angelicum, Vol. 9, 1932, PP' 210-212; Bittremieux, art. cit., in Eph. Theol. Lov.,
Vol. 10, 1933, pp. 218-219, 229-231.
85 Cf. Mariale, qq. 96-lII; Roschini, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 261.
SG De 'bono, tract. 3, (J. 3, a. 9, sol. (Alberti Magni Opem, Om.nia, cum n.
Geyer, Vol. 2.8 [hujus editionis rmmerus currens I J, Mcmast:erii Westf<.uorum, I951,
n . 302): "Impium est non credere virgini.talem et munditirun gloriosoe Ot sanctne
theotocos o'mnenl Clcaturae munditlo11'l exccllcte in quattuor. . . . PrUll1.Ull cst
liberatio ab immundante, quod est -peecal'lIm, de quo elicit Augustinus CDe IMI:. et
gratia, c. 36, n. 42; P .L. 44, 267), quod cum de peccatis agitut, nullam de benta
virgine vult hnberi quaestionern propter honotem Filii eius, domini Ilostri lesu
Christi. AHud est quan tum ad immunitatero fomitl: ot incentivi acl libidinCJTl , quia
femes penJtus fuit in en exstinctus. Be haec duo plenius ·notata sunt in q,mestione
De sanctifioati~ in l~tero. Tertium eSL puntas virguleae mentis in omni cogitatu,
verba et opere ipsius. . . . Q uartlllll mlteJ1) est $llClamlmtum "perpetuae gr(uiae in
corde et in corpore. . . ." Mar/nle q. 32 (Opera om'nia, cd. Bergner, Vol. 37,
Parisiis, 1908, p. 69) : "Nulla alia CJ;etlttL1;a plena est gratia susceptive pra.eter
beal'Rm Vitgincm, quae ·sela tantum accepit, quod punt Cleoll.n:a tecipere plus non
~potl.lit." Cf. Bittremleux, art. cit., in Eph. TI·leol . Lov:, Vol. 10, r933. pp. 22.0-2.22.
81' Postma super Isaia.lIl, c. I I, I ( Ope.ra omnia, cum B. Geyer, Vol. ~9 [lruiu
eclitionis ;numerus clirrens 2.], M01'lasterii WesLfalomm 1952, p. 162, lin. 76-78) :
"Mater CMaria) enim, quamvis in originali peccato concepta sit, tamen ante nativi-
tatem mundata ad rectitudinem deducta est." Cf. also In 3 Sent., d. 3, a. 5; a. 8;
Mariale, q. 163, 3.
88 Cf. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull. de la Soc. Fran~. diEt. Mar., 1935, pp., 37-38,

47-48; Lajeunie, art. cit., in Bull. de la Soc. Fran~. d'Et. Mar., 1935, pp. 59-61;
X. Le Bachelet, Immaculee Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1044-1045.
 MARIOLOGY
ble witness to her mediatorial role, even if, as M.-A. Genevois holds,
that role occupies only a secondary place in St. Albert's Mariology.89
Dispersed throughout his wl:itings are the essentials "of all the later
theo1ogical elaborations" of Mary's Mediation. 90 Albert the Great
would seem to have surpassed all his predecessors and contemporaries
in expounding Our Lady's formal and intimate co-operation in the
objective redemption.01 Emphasized, too, is her spiritual Maternity,
her Mediation in the spiritual regeneration 01= mankind. 92 No less
explicit is the teaching of this Doctor of the Church that Mary is
Mediatrix also by her part in the actual distribution of all graces. 93
From St. Albert we turn to his illustrious disciple, St. Thomas
Aquinas Ct 1274).04 N eith er the exuberance of his teacher nor the
warm effusions of his friend, St. Bonaventure, are to be found in the
Marian writings of the Doctor communis; one is struck by their
economy and their sober restraint.0 6
For, despite his great personal devotion to Our Lady/6 to her
whose cjuBsi-infinite dignity as the Mother of God lifts her above all
angels and entitles her to the special veneration called hyperdulia,97
Aquinas wo uld seem to have written more profusely of the angels
89 Cf. Genevois, art. cit., pp. 45-46.
DO Desmarais, op. cit., p. 146; for a summary of Albert's doctrine on Marian
Mediation, cf. ibid., pp. 135-147; Bittremieux, art. cit., in £ph. Theol. Lov., Vol.
10, 1933, pp. 222-227; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I , pp. 255-259.
91 Cf. Bittremieux, art. cit., p. 223; Cordovani, art. cit., in Angelicum, Vol. 9,
1932, pp. 207-208; J. Carol, De Gorredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae, pp.
164-167, 198.
n~ Po~£illa m.per Jsaiam, c. II I (Opm'a O1mlia., cura D. Geye-r, Vol. Ig, p. 163,
Un . 22- 24): ''Mater (MaJ.ia) enim figura est ecc1es:iae castis visceribus concipien s
et pnriens, nal:1.15 autem 6gura regeneratorum." Mary is the "mother of regeneration,"
the "spititual mother of the. whole hwnan race," the "mother of all Christians,"
etc.; cf. Mar/ale, q~. H, :1.9, 36, 43, "145, 148, 150, 166; cf. Desmarais, op. cit.,
pp. 128-13:1; W . 0 Conno" T he Spiri£'tlal Maternity of Our Lady in Tradition, in
Maria,~ Stllilies Vol . 3, [952, pp. :161-163.
93 See, e.g., MII.f iale, clq. 29, 5I, 146, 147, 164; cE. Roschini, op. cit., VoL I,
pp. 257-258; Bittremicux, drt. cit., in Eph. T 1rllol. Lov.} Vol. 10, 1933, pp. 22.5-
227; Desmarais, op. cit., pp. 80-114; H. Wilms, Albert cler Grosse, p. 179.
94 Cf. F. Morgott, Die Mariologie des hi. T Jromus 'VOf~ Aq!4i1'~ (Freibmg im Br.,
1878); G. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 245-251; iu.em, La Mariologia di S.
T01nmaso (Roma, 1950), d . pp. 25-33 for a complete bibliography.
95 Cf. A. Duval, O.P., La devotion mariale dans l'Ordre des Freres pr~cheurs, in
Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 753-754; Morgott, op. cit., pp. 3-4; Roschini,
La Mariologia di S. T01nmaso , pp. 34-35 .
96 Cf. Duval, art. cit., pp. 753-754; Roschini, op. cit., pp. 14-15; Morgott,
op. cit., p. 3.
97 Cf. S. Th. , I, q. 25, a. 6, ad 4; III, q. 30, a. 2, ad I; III, q. 25, a. 5, c; II-II,
q. 103, a. 4 , ad 2.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 299
DS
than of their Queen . Not only did he forego the many minor
questions which £11 a lru:ge part of St. Albert's Mariology but, what
is more, St. TI10mas has ~ven us no ex 1,rofesso treatm.ent of such
major themes as those which bear on MaliS role of Mediatrix. QO
What he did say of the Blessed Mother is found mainly in the follow-
ing: S. Th., ill, gCJ. 2.7-35; In III Se·n.t., dd. 3-4; S. c. Gentiles, lib.
4, q. 45; CO'/11,pendi'um, Th.eologiae, p. I, ce. 221-225; Expositio sahv-
tationis angeHcae; and in a half-dozen Marian sermons.~oo
As to style and presentation, the Ac!m'o te (or rather, Oro /;e de-
vote) and the Pa·1'I.ge lingua sufficiently demonstrate his powers of
exalted and poetic expression; and yet, when St. Thomas spol e of
Our Lady, even in his sermons, he eschewed the arden t language, the
rich imagery, th e forceful utterances of a Bernard, an Anthony, a
Bonaventure, an Albert.~Ol
Nevertheless, the Angelic Doctor is also a Marian Doctor, ranked
with the foremost, and deservedly 50. 102 He who gave to theology
08 St. Thomas discussed the angels ex professo in a special treatise, De S'libsl:an£iis
separatis, and in . Th.,l. qq. 50-64. 106- 114; S. o. Gentiles, lib. 2. cc. 91-101;
lib. 3, cc. 80, 103. 105-J 10. It bas been SUIIllised that this wealth of teaching
ea~ed St. Thomas his title of "Angelic Doctor"; d. F. Cayre, ManuaL of P«trology
and History of Theology, Vol. 2, p. 5'94' Revealing ale the eutries in the "Index
tertius" to the S'1I1t1111a Theol-ogica: 356 under Angdlls, 39 under Maria. Suarez
was to note and to correct the disproportion .in Scholastic treatment of angels and
of their Q ueen; d. De tn)'steriis vitae Christi, prae£8'lio, n. 2 (Opera a-lnnia, ed.
Vives, Vol. 19, Parisiis, 1860, pp. 1-2) .
09 Cf. Roschini Ln. Mariolog;a eli S. Tom11!aso, Pl)' 164- l91; idem, Mariologia,
VoL I , PI?' 248- 249; R. Bernard, O.P., La Maternite spiriu.leUe ele Mari:a et la
pensee de Sailtt Ttl.011'las, in B~lll. de la Soc. Prime. d'Et. Marialas, r 93 5, pp. 89-90 :
"Je ne vais pas essayer de dite comment saint 'I'hmnas a trait~ de la l1lJlte:rnile
spirituelle de ]\laric, pom 1" bonne raison qu'il n'e.n a pas traite, si ce n'est par
quelques nillcx:ions i ncldentes, ]Jas tres nombreuses." cr. also J. Carol, De COlTe-
demptiatte Beatqe Virgi1tis Mariae, pp. 168-1.69. Frn:ther, quinas b:m:ly tOllchcl
on Mary's Queenshipi cE. TIoschini, La Mllri.alogia di S. TammllSo, p. 192. T JJe
corporeal Assumption of Oll_r Lady i~ anothe!: topic with whid1 St. Thomas never
dealt . directly, aJthough, s Pius Xll pOted in MUlIificent iss-imm; DeliS, he did f1.".d
occaSlOIlS to upl10ld mat truth: S. Th. , ill, q. 27 a. (; g. 83, n. 5, ad 8; E.""'POSII:W
sal·utaL'ioni.s angelicae; In Symb. Apostolol'U-l'I'! e po ~U,'io) a. 5; lit IV S<tJI.t., d. 12, q. I,
a. 3. sol. 3; d. 43, a. I, a. 3, sol. r, 2.
l~O There is, of course, _much incidental treatment of M arian ma lcers throughout
the Summa Theologioa and the commentary on the Sentences; moreover, St.
Thomas adverted to the Blessed Mother some 21 times in his commentaries on
ten books oC tl c 01(l and New Test:unerl t; for a detailed invcmo(y of MArian
passages in St. Thomas, cE. Roschini, La l\Iladologia di S. Tommaso, pp. 1)'-22; ri.
pp. 23-24 for vindication of the authenticity of the F!.Xpositio sahrttrtio1J.is ,mgelic(le.
101 CF. Roschilli, La Mariologia tii . TommllSo, p . 34.
102 CPo ibid .• pp. 13-14, 34-35; MOl:gott. op. cit., TIll' r';'; Duval. art. ci.t.. , in
Mafia, cd. H. du anoir, Vol. 2, p. 754; E. Hu OD O .P. S. Tho'l IIac dllotri.na de
B. M. V. MecUatrice cmmi.11~11 gratiarm't, in Xenill ThomistiClI, Vol. 2 1925 . p.
300 MARIOLOGY
its stat'L/,t ve'l'itablement scientifi,quelOD laid the finn foundations for
the construction of a stringently scientiEic Mariology, both positive
and specll1atjve.l0~ Depth, if not breadth, solidity rather than ela'I~,
and clear, precise concepts in preference to dazzling images and
ambiguous metaphors, are the invaluable contributions of St. Thomas
to the science of Mary.
Th disciplined form which he imparted to the traditional teach-
ing On the Blessed Mother, his const(Ult effort to relate that teaching
to the whole E r "elation, made ror accurate orientation of subse-
qu en theological reflection and opened ul? new perspectiv s. His
method, principles, and inSights have guided and inspil:ed the l abors
of Mariologists ever since. Despite the omissi0ns in S. Th., III, qq.
27- 35, omissions admitting of satisfactory explanatiol1,m' the doctrine
there contained stands as tbe primitive nucleus of a special tract
"De B. Virgine"; the later elaboration of that nucleus by Suarez was
to constitute one of th major ad ances of Mariology.1OG
St. Thomas, the Mariologist, is especjally renowned as the Doctor
of the clj\rine lVlatcmity. JIis s ienti6c and xhaustive treatment of
this dogma is unrivaled. loT The dlvine motherhood is, moreover,
the centra1})oint of his Mariology. from which all else radiates, the
incomparable dignity of the Blessed Mother, her fullness of grace,
and whatever. other Marian privileges and prerogatives St. Thomas
came to discuss. lOB

540: "Concludimus Angelicum, licet non singula explicite expenderit, statuisse firma
ac salida Mariologiae fundamenta. . . ."
103 Cf. M.-A. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull. de la Soc. Pram;. de l'Et. Mar., 1935,
p. 50.
I I!" The reputation of St. Thomas as II speculative theologian should not be
allowed to obscure his concern for positive dieoJo ,in Mariology and elsewhere;
d. Roschil1i, La Nlariologia di S. Tmn1,mso, pp. 3'7-39; R. Bernard, art. cit., in
Bull. de la Soc. Fra1!~ . d£ l'Et. Mar., 1935, pp. 91- 92.
105 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., pp. 167-168.
106 Cf. J. A. de Aldama, Mariologia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3 CMatriti,
1950), p. 289.
101 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., pp. 117-162.
lOS Cf. Morgott, op. cit., p. 5. In effect, then, the divine Maternity operated liS
the primsry principle of the Angelic Doctor's tIllriO!O,gy, althougb be never ex-
plicitly discussed such 0.. principle (Jobn GeJ:son wOUld be the ££5t to do so).
Accordin 1 to Roschini, La Muriologia di S. TO'ln1llaso, pp. 35-36. the primary
Marian principle of St. ThoD13S was Lhe divine Maternity con~dered in the COD-
crete, rllat is, as historic!1l1y verified, which would include not only Maty's physical
motherhood of Christ but also her spiritual motherhood, as Tegards men; briefly, the
principle of Mary's "universal maternity"; this position presupposes, of course,
 MARIOLOGY : MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 3 01

Regrettably, Aquinas thought it necessary to exclude from among

those privileges the singular one of the l.rn.Illi"lculate Conception. lOU
"TIle Blessed Virgin did indeec.l contract original SID, but was cleansed
therefrom before her birth."l10 The Angelic Doctor based his view
ultimately on a point which St. Albert had raised without, 1lowever,
having ;r,al'ticularly insisted 011 it, the universality of the Redemp~
tion."U 'If Mary had been conceived without original sin," wrote St.
Thomas "sh e would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and
so Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which detracts
from His dignity."112
Thus ti.e genius of the Angelic Doctor did not rise to the idea of
a redemption which is able not only to hberate nom sin already
con tracted but also to preserve from contracting the guilt of original
sin at all - a more su blime mode of redemption which heightens
ra thel' than dero~ates hom the dignity of Christ as universal Re-
deemer.m On the other hand, one must acknowledge that St.
T homas contributed in nO smaU measure to the final solution 0 the
controv:ersy, by purging the idea of the Immaculate Conception from
certain false elements, by further clarifying the issues in marshaling
tile strongest possible objections against the doctrine, and by develop-
ing powerful arguments for at least a special sanctification of Mary
in the womb - arguments which can easily be adapted to the Im-
maculate Conception. ll4

Roschini's attempt, op. wt., pp. 164-191, to interpret the Angelic Doctor's mind on
the questions of Mary's Mciliation, iusof-ar as his views can be gleaned from
incidental utterances or are ;implicit in other statements.
1 0 9 Roschini, op. cit., pp. 193-23 7, refutes those who try to show that St.
Thomas was not an adversary of the Immaculate Conception.
110 S. Th., Ill, q. 27 n. 2, ad 2; d. q. 27, aa. 1-2; Camp. Theologiae, p. I ,
c. 224; etc. St. Thomas held with the opinion that Mllry's sancti£cation in the
womb was WIought "cito post conceptionern, el 1l1Jimae infusioncm," Qq~oin. , 6, q.
5, a. 7; d . Rosc:hini, op. cit., pp. 228-229 ·
.11 Cf. M.-A. Gencvois, art. cit., in Bull. de La Soc. Fr«l19. de lJEt. Mar.,
1935, p. 4 8 .
112 Compo Theologiae, p. I, c. 224; Engl. tran sl., C. Vollert, S.]., Compendium
of Theology by St. Thomas Aquinas ( St. Louis, 1947), pp. 26 3-264.
ll UPope Pius IX, J..i tt. Apost., l'He{f{/bilis Deus ( D ecember 8, 1854) : "Omnes
ponter nonmt q'uan topere solliciti fuerinl: sacrorum antistites .. . profiteD, sanctis-
simru.n Dei Gcnetricem Virgin em Mariam, ob 'pruevisH, Christi Domini Rederuptods
m erita llllmq-ll tIm ouginali $Ubiacll.isse pe~clllO, sed pra.eservntam oronino fuisse ab
originis labe, et ic1circo suhlimiou modo redemptam." Quoted from Le EtlCicliche
MllI'iane, ed. 1\. Tondlni (Roma, 195'0), p. 40.
114 Cf. E. Dander, S.]., Mariologia, in L. Lercher, S.]., Institutiones Theol.
Dogm., Vol. 3, cd. 3 retractata ( Oeniponte, 1942), n. 305'; Roschini, op. cit. , pp.
 MARIOLOGY
No history of Mariology, however brief, could fail to give special
notice also to John D uns Scotus Ct 1308).1H Few will deny to him
the title of Doctor Marictn'U.s, although it rests not on any wide
contribution to the science of Mary but rather on the great Fran-
ciscan's unique role in the development of the dogma of the
Imma.culate Conception. nCo
To be Sille, as we shallleam, other theologians before Scotus had
defended that glorious privileg of the Blessed Mother, even at
Paris-stronghold of the "macuUsts." But the Subtle Doctor is
generally credited with having turned the tide, by his brilliant solu-
tion of the theological difficulties which then prevailed against the
doctrine. 117
Decisive, above all, was his insistence at Oxford and then at Paris
(c. 1307) on the distinction between what came to be called the
'1iberativc" and, in Mary's case, the "preservative" redemption ,
together with ScolUS' insight that such preservation of Mary from
original sin was a more sublime mode of redemption, thus heigh ten-
ing rather than lessening the dign ity of 'mist as Redeerner.l.18 At

236-237; F. Cayre, Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, Vol. 2, p. 627.

Cf. X. Le Bachelet, Immaculee Conception, in Diet. de Theologie Catholique, Vol.
7, cols. 1050-1060.
L ~~ C.f. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 263-265; Vol. 2/2, ed. 2 (Boma, 1948),
Pl" 65-69; P. &lymond, O .F .M .Cap., Dlltls ScoL, in Diet. de Theal . Cath ., Vol. 4,
0015. t896-r 898; X. La Bachelet. Imm,aC1Jee Cottcepf.ion, in Diet. de T MoZ . Cath .,
Vol. 7, cob. 1073-1078; J. de Dieu. art. cit., in Maria, cd. H. du Manoir, VoL 2,
pp. 794-797; RdditioJ13 \ lite.rature is cited in Roschini. op. cit., Vol. I , p. 263,
nota. 1. T he Marian teachings of Scotus aTe contained in his commentary on the
$eTl:/.cllces, begun at Oxford (Oljl~S Oxolliense) , resumed and completed at Patis
( Repottata Pqrisiensia)j a cl,'itical edition of the relevant passages has b een rmnisbed
by C . Balit, O. ".M.; l OQ/'t1'Lis DI/.ns Scod . . . Thcologlae Mal'ianae Elementa
(Sibe.nici, 1933).
un The lV[nrian questions which Scotus w:eated ex profe.lso are these: Mary'S
Immaculate Conception; her manillge with St. J.oseJ~h (perpetual virgh;!ity); tlle
divine Matemity, treated with depth And originality; the question of fl Teal
filiation of Christ in relation to Mary. cr. Rllymond, aTL oh., ools. 1896-1898; B.
Mcrkelhach, O.P., review of Bille, 01" cit., in At.gel.icn11l. Vol 12. T935, pp. 4Q8-
409; Balie, La predestinatiOff. de la Tres,S(linte Vierge dans La doctrine ·de Jemt
nltl'ls Scot, in La Prance f'ftll'tciscaine, Vol. 19, t936, pp. 114-158; CAro), D e
Corredeml'tione Beatae Virginis Mar/ae •• . , p. [70 .
u, Cf. X. Le llachelet, art . alt., cols. 1073-to/,8, 1078-1083; F. Cayre, Manual
of i>fltr%g", etc .• Vol. 2, pp. 657- 658; Metkelbnch, art. cit., p. 409, accords Scotus
the tiue Doclol' im1l1.aculatae concep.tionis. Roschil1i, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 264-265,
und Vo l. 2/2, pp. 68-69, con rends that the Subt1c Doctor's role in regard to the
clarifiCiltion of the doctrine has b een highly exaggerated.
118 Cf. In 4 Sent., lib. 3, d. 3, q. I; in BaHe, op. cit. , pp. 20-43 (Opus Oxon.),
45-54 (Report. Par.).
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 303
Oxford Scotus had asserted not only the speculative possibility but
also the factuality of the Immaculate Conception. nn H at Paris he
wrote more cautiously on the latter point, this may be attributed
to deference on his part toward 0p2onents of the doctrine, so numer-
Oll S then in Paris and backed by such great authorities as Anselm,
Bernard, Bonaventure, and Aqumas. l.l!O T he story that the Subtle
Doctor defended the Immactuate Oonception victoriously in a public
disputation before the University of Paris would seem to have a
kernel of truth beneath the accretions of legend. 12l
After this necessary tribute to the towering figures of medieval
Mariology there is room only for brief mention of other noteworthy
contributors in this period to the science of Our Lady.122 One may
not, of course, forget other scholars of the University of Oxford
whose early support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
paved the way for Duns Scotus. Among these we may account the
Cistercian, Alexander Neckam Ct 1217), and Robert Grosseteste,
of the secular clergy Ct 1253, as Bishop of Lincoln).123 The latter's
university lectures to sons of St. Francis of Assisi are credited by
some with having laid the primary foundation of the traditional
teaching of the Franciscan theologians on the Immaculate Con-
ception. 124 Then there is also William of Ware, O.F.M. Ct c. 1300),
who lectured at Oxford, thereafter at Paris.125 Reputedly the teacher
119 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 1075.
~"O Cf. ihM., col. "1076. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 265, J10t3 I, spums this
explanation. He fwther remarks (p. :1.6 5) that the opuscuJum knoWll as the
TheorrmWfa denies the Immacula-ce Conception., and that Ibis work . "certainly
belongs to ScotLHi - as Father Balle has apoclictically demon~1:tated"; Merkelbach,
a,f t. cit., p. 408, lil[ewise represents Balle as regarding t he Theore'll:1,ai:a to be cer-
tainly authcnt1c; actually, Balic, op. cit., p. cxlv, is content to say that tlle questiQn
is not yet settled, and thqt in the meanwhile the traditional view on the authenticity
of the work remains in possession.
121 Cf. Balit, 01" cit., pp. xcvii-cxiv; X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., cols. 1°76-1077.
122 On these and other medieval Mariologists, d. Roschini, l\Ilnrio logiCl, Vol. I,
pp. 262-276; M. Mueller, O.F.M., Maria. Ihre geisti,ge GCftak ~11Id. Pcrsoe.nlichkeit
in der Theologie des Mittelalters, in Katholische Mmienlt1,mde, ed. P. Strater,
S.J. CPaderboIll, 1947), Vol. I, pp. 268-316; also the several articles on devotion
to Mary in various religious orders and congregations, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir,
Vol. 2, pp. 547-906.
123 On both theologians, d. F. Mildner, O.S.M., The Oxford Theologians of
the Thirteenth Century and the Immaculate Conception, in Marianum, Vol. 2,
1940, pp. 284-299; on Neckam, d. also supra, footnote 54.
124 Cf. Mildner, art. cit., in Marianum, Vol. 2, 1940, p. 299.
125 Cf. Gl~lidT'l;' Gu,arraeJ J. D. Scoti, Petri Aureoli, Quaestiones disputatae de
Immaculata Concept:io'rLe B. M . V. (Ad Claras Aquas, 1904). Cf. X. Le Bachelet,
Immaculee COllceptWn, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1060-1062.
 MARIOLOGY
of Duns Scotus, he is considered by some to have supplied his
disciple with essen tially all that the Subtle Doctor was to say in
defense of the Immaculate Conception. 126 Others, however, attribute
his teaching on the subject to the influence of his celebrated pupil.127
Famed chiefly as the compiler of the popular Golden Legend,
James of Vo:ragine Crather Varagine), O.P. Ct 1298, as the Arch-
bishop of Genoa), deserves also to be remembered as the author of
the Mariale aureHm and of many other Marian sermons, Scholastic
in cast, which exerci ed great influence in the Middle Ages. 128
Remat:! able on mnny other grounds, the Spanish theologian, Bl.
Raymond Lull Ct T316), a member of the Third Order of St.
Francis, merits attention for his Mariology as well.129 The latter is
found mainly in his Disputatio Eremitae et Raymundi super aliqui-
bus dubiis quaestionibus sententiarum Petri Lombardi, the Liber de
Sancta Maria, and the poems, Plant de Nostra Dona Santa Maria
and Horas de Nostra Dona Santa Maria. The Doctor Illuminatus was
perhaps the first to uphold the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep-
tion at Paris, in his Disputatio Eremitae ... (A.D. 1298) ; however,
his explanations were not without flaw, and their importance has
been exaggerated at the expense of William of Ware and of Duns
Scotus. Outstanding, on the other hand, were the Spaniard's teach-
ings on the spiritual Maternity of Mary.
That Mariology came to win a special place in theology is due in
1 2 6 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I , pp. 264-265, and Vol. 2/ 2, pp. 68-69;
X. Le 13a.chelet, Im11U1C1~lie C071CelHion, in DTC, Vol. 7, col. 107 5; M. Grabmann,
DI.e Ge chichte det kllt~lolischel1 T heologie seit dem Ausgang der Vaeterzeit ( Frei-
burg im Er.), p. 89. Roschini and Le Bachelet acknowledge Scotus' superiority in
this respect, that, unlike William of Ware, he rejected the old theory of con-
cupi~cence infecting the flesh and transmitting original sin, in favor of St. Anselm's
position (already adopted by Aquinas) which placed the essence of original sin
in the privation of sanctifying grace.
127 CE. J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, p. 794. On
the interdependence between W are and Scotus relative to the Immaculate Concep-
tion, see the interesting and well-documented paper by L. Siekaniec, O.F.M.,
William of Ware, in The Scotist, 1941, pp. 38-40; likewise M. Muller, O.F.M.,
Johannes Duns Scotus ( Gladbach, 1934), p. 12; F. Pelster, S.J., Duns Scotus nach
englischen Handschriften, in Zeitschrift fUr katholische Theologie, Vol. 51, 1927,
p. 68; J. Lechner, Wilhelm von Ware, in Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, Vol.
10, col. 910.
128 CE. P. Lorenzin, O.F.M., Mariologia Iacobi a Varagine, a.p. (Romae, I951).
1 2 9 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 265-266; E. Longpre, O.F.M. , Lulie,
Raymond, in DTC, Vol. 9, cols. 1127-1128; X. Le Bachelet, Immaculee Con-
ception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1062-1064.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 305
no sman degree to the efforts of Peter Auriol, O.P.M. (t 1322 as
Bishop of Aix).1.30 He is renowned especially for his defense of the Im-
maculate Conception, in a special treatise, Tractatu,s de Conceptione
B. M . V ., and in a vindication of the latter work, Repercussoriu.m
edit1;~1n COf/.t1'Cl~ ad.versariu·/1It innocentiae Matris Dei. Among the rea-
sons for believing that God preserved the Blessed Virgin from origi-
nal sin, Peter cited Mary's Assumption and the conviction that her
body had been spared from all corruption. TIle same author was the
first to discuss explicitly the question, destined to be long contro-
verted: Was Mary exempted from original sin not only de facto but
also de jure?m
Among others who enriched medieval Mariology we may mention
the Franciscans, Francis of Meyronnes ( t I325)1u and William of
Nottingham ( t 1336) ;138 Engelbert, Benedictine abbot of Admont
( t 1331), author of an extensive dogma tic monograph, De gratiis
et vi.,.tuti1n~s B.V.M., and of a doctrinally interestinC1 Marian psal-
ter/ 3 >1 John Bacon or Baconthorp, the great CarmeUte theolOgian
(t 1348), who, after initial opposition, became one of the stanchest
defenders of Mary's Immaculate Conception, thus bringing about
the triumph of that doctrine among the Carmelites;135 the Viennese
theolOgian, Henry of Langenstein, also lmown as Henry de Hassia,
Sr. ( t 1397 )/96 John Gerson ( t 1429), renowned as the first to treat,
130 Cf. Rosehini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 267-269; A. Teetaert, O.F.M.Cap., Pierre
Auriol, in DTC, Vol. 12, eols. 1821-1826, 1873-1875; idem, Un grand Docteur
m41-~aL rrancisCIJin: Pierre d' Aurio!: in Etu~es Pranc~c(li~es, V~~ 39, 192.7, pp. 35~
375t Vol. 40, 1928, pp. l'-4- tp., J. de Dleu, art. alt., In Manu, ed. H. du l\llInOII,
Vol. 2, p. 802.. CE. GllH~elmi G1Urrme, r D. Scoli, PeLri A~jreoli q?~a estiolles
l'utat'le ile l11'tmllCulata Conce1,?tione B. M. V. (Ad Clams Aquas, 1904) .
dis-

~31 CE. J. de Dieu, art. elL., ill Maria, ed. H. du Mallcix. Vol. 2, p. 802; Teetaert,
art. ci-r,., in DTC, Vol. 12., cols. 1873-1874 . Por the later histOlY of thjs con-
troversy. d. J. Schwane, Dagll'te'l'tge$chicl·.te, Vol. 4 (Dogme'ngesc~•. der tUl1.11mm
Zeit) (Fn~iburg 1m Br. , 1890), pp. 179-183.
1 ~ ~ f. J. de Dieu, art. clt., in MarUI, ed. H. du Manoil, Vol. 2, l? 803; M.
Mueller, Maria. l1~re geistige estaIt 'Ina Persoe11lic1ikeu in de, Theologie des
/111ittela/:ters, in K.pt,ho!ische Marilmkrm.de, cd. P. Straeter, Vol. I, pp. 270, 294,
298 F., 30 1, 310 313 f .
139 F. A. Emmen, O.F.M., Lnmacu.].ata De.i1,arae Concept:io secn»a1ttrl GuillelTfltlfll
de Not:tinghulII, in M(lriam.l1lI, Vel. 5, 1943. pp. 220-244 .
134ce. G. Fowler, 11~tellec_~r,rnl I1lteresl.s of E-l'Lgelbert of Admoflt (New York,
I947), Pl" 43-44; S. Beissel, S.)., G esch-idtt:e d'er 1reTelmmg Marias in Dellt~chJand
1~mcbre1~a, des Mit:telalters (f-reibuIg im Br., 1909), pp. 246- 248.
J.ali Cf. X. Le Bnchelet, art. 1111111acf,lee Concep#on, in DTC, Vol 7, CQl. 1082;
and DTC, Tables generales, S.v. Baco'Plthorl', col. 349.
180 f. M. Gr3.bmann, DiB Geschich.te der kath,o'li.~chen Theologie seit dC1J'1. Aus-
gll'ng del' Vlleterzcit (FreibuIg Un BL, 1933), p. I I5 f.
 MARIOLOGY
ex professo, Marian principles and to lay down sage directives for
Mariologists. 137
So superbly and completely are Marian themes elaborated in the
e
sermons of St. Bernardine of Siena t 1444), that the Franciscan
deserves to be ranked among the great medieval Doctors of Mary.us
Acclaimed as "the echo of St. Bernard," he is regarded as the greatest
theologian of the universal Mediation of Our Lady; and his doctrine
on her Assumption, applauded by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissi-
mus Deus, has moved some to salute him as "the Doctor of the
Assumption."139
Other medieval preachers and theologians to whom Marian science
is indebted include Alphonsus Tostatus, Bishop of Avila 1455);140 et
Ambrose Spiera, O.S.M. et
1455);141 St. Antoninus, a.p., Arch-
bishop of Florence et
1459);142 Cardinal John Torquemada, O.P.
et 1468);148 the Carthusian, Denis of Ryckel 1471);144 and et
Bl. Bernardine of usti, a .F.M. et
1515), with whom the period
came to a not inglorious dose.145
During that four-century span from St. Anselm to Bl. Bernardine,
Meriology registered many substantial gains. Some of them may be
briefly noted. The dogma of the Divine Motherhood, defined at
Ephesus, achieved theological deepening, especially at the hands of
t. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotm. With St. Anselm, the Scho-
137 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 270-271, 323, note 3. The Marian
contributions of this somewhat neglected theologian have been appreciated by A.
Combes, La doctrine mariale du chancelier Jean Gerson, in Maria, ed. H. du
Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 865-882.
L 4~ cr. Roscbini, Mari,ologia, Vol. I, pp. 27l- 273; G. "Polg~rait, I...ateologia
11Mrirma di Saa Berli/lriUn!) da. Si.erUl ( Mihino, 1939} P. EIllID. ab I z gent, O.F.M.-
Cap., De. dr:Jc~.,.jmJ tnal'i%gica S. B. Sel~etL'1'is, in Co!learm-ea Pra'l1.cescana, Vol.
10 , 1940 , 11 P' 383-394; L. di Fonzo, O.F.M.Conv., La mariologi'a di. .s. B. aa Si(trta,
in Miscellanea Firal·tcesca1'lli, Vol. 47. 1947, pp. 3-102; D. cammuz7.i, O.P.M., T....a
dOitriltll del B. G. Dvrr<s Sooto nella predicClzione .Ii S. BerF1.qnli.no cia S,ie'lul (Firen'le,
1930), pp. 135-141.
139 Cf. E. Longpre, Bernardin de Sienne (Saint), in Catholicisme, hieT, au-
jourd'hui, demain, Vol. I, col. 1488.
140 Cf. Grabmnnn, op. cit., p. 122.
141 Cf. Floschini, Mmi.ologia., Vol. I, p. 273.
142 Cf. i/,jtl., p. 2-73.
143 Cf. jbi(~.} p. ~73; Grubmann, op. cit., p. 100.
144 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, p. 274; J. De Wit, Dionysius de Karthuijser
over onze lieve Vrouw, in Handelingen van het vlaamsch Maria-Congres te Brussel,
Vol. I (Brussel, 1922), pp. 345-351.
145 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 275; J. de Dieu, art. cit., p. 806; F. Cucchi, O.F.M.-
Conv., La Mediazione universale della Santissima Vergine negli scritti di Bernardino
de'Bustis (Milano, 1942).
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 307

lastics emphasized that Mary's exalted office as the Mother of God

required in her the greatest pl.l1'ity. sanctity, and fullness of grace
after Christ. Implicit in sllch teachin g is the doctrine of the Immacu-
late Conception. If St. Bernard and many subsequent theologia s f
great name failed to recognize this and even denied ~.aIyJs;im­
munity from original sin at ber conception., SOme exCuse can be
found in the confused state of the question in the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries/ 4 6 and in the seemingly insoluble difficulties, espe-
cially on the score of the universality of the Redemption. The
ensuing controver~;y gradually brought about the clarification of the
true issues; the solu tion, by Duns Scotus and others, of the for-
midable objections; and the levelopment of positive arguments fa-
vorable to the thesis of the Immc.Jculate Conception. 147
Therewith the opposition, which had never been universal,14S
dwindled rapidly. By the end of the fourteenth century the original
sanctity of Mary's soul was common doctrine among the Franciscans,
who were joined in the latter half of the century by the Carmelites,
Augustinians, Premonstra tensians, Trinitarians, Servites, and by
many Benedictines, Cistercians, and Carthusians. 1 4 9 In the fifteenth
century the great majority of theologians upheld this glorious
privilege of the Blessed Mother.lOo In the meanwhile, however, they
continued to debate the manner of Mary's preservation from original
sin.151
Another significant development in medieval Mariology was the
triumph of the doctrine of Our Blessed Mother's Corporeal Assump-
tion into heaven. This Marian prerogative had been controverted
146 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. Immaculee Conception, in DYC, Vol. 7, cols. 1041-
10 4 2 •
147 Cf. ibid., cols. 1089-1093; A. Teetaert, art. Pierre Auriol, in DYC, Vol. 12,
cols. 1823-1824.
148 X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., DYC, Vol. 7, col. 1058, observes that "the opposition
was not universal, but particular and, in a certain sense, local. Alexander of Hales,
Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. T homas Aquinas, and their disciples, all
pertained to the same literary milieu, the university of Paris." Cf. idem, art.
Marie - Immaculee Conception, in Dictiotl'l'Iaire Apologetiq11e de la Poi Catholique,
Vol. 3 (Paris, 1926), col. 263 .
149 Cf. X. Le Baehelet, art. cit., in DYC, Vol. 7, eols. 1°78-1089.
150 Cf. ibid., cols. 1108-1132; J. Schwane, Dogmtl'l'lgeschichte, Vol. 3 (Dogmelt-
gesch. der mittleren Zeit) ( FIeib n:rg im Br., 1882), pp . 426- 428; Vol. 4 (Dogm.ell-
gesch. der neueren Zeit) (Freiburg im Br., 1890 ), pp . 178- 179. M . Mueller mis-
takenly declares that most medieval theo1o~ns rejected the Immaculate Conception;
d. art. cit., in Katholische. M ariell}mltde, Vol. 2, p. 295.
151 Cf. X. Le Baehelet, art. Immacu!ee Conception, in DYC, Vol. 7, cols. 1093-
1094; cf. supra, note 131.
 MARIOLOGY
from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, but thereafter it became the
common teaching, vindicated by arguments upon which subsequent
centuries would nnd it difficult to improve.' fi~ The contributions of
the great Scholastics in this sphere ate admirably summarized by
Pope Pjus XII in M1M'Lir cen£issi11"'1JS De1,~s . l-G3
As OUI. references to the great Do tors of Ma rian Mediation have
already suggested, another central preoccupation of medieval theo-
logians was the rol~ of th Blessed !lotl er in the red l1lptlve worl<
of hrist, anel, by the same token, her relations with the Church,lM
and with all men, her spiritual children.ln FruitfuJJy discusse i in
tll"is period was not on1y Mary'S part in the distribution of all graces,
but also the fact of anel the mode of her co-operation in the acquisi-
tion of those graces, i.e., her part jn the objective Redemption. 156
The elucillation of the latter aspect of Marian Mediation was facili-
tated to some extent by the theologicaJ deepening of the dogma of
the divine Ma ternity, and by the gradual acceptance of Our Lady's
Immaculate Conception.157 In its tum, the growing appreciation of
the Blessed Modler's coredemptive role contributed to a heightened
understanding of her Queenship.158
These major accomplishments of medieval Mariologists suffice to
refute B. Otten's contention that the Church Fathers had left the
Scholastics little room for further development of Marian doctrines.159
At the same time, they validate the judgment of G. Philips, that, if
11>2 Cf. G . Roschiui, n Dogmt/ den'AsS"unzione ( Swd,) Mariani, 3) , ed. 2.
(Roma 1951 ), pp . 81- 83; C. Bali~, O.F.M., T estimonia de AsslIt1Il'tio1le 13 . V. M.
ox omnibu.s saeCltUs. Par.~ rior: 11.-.: aetClf.e ante Conciti.l.lJll'l Tride'l'lt,imm~ ( Romne,
1948), l?,p. 222-387· C . .PiaD,a, a.p.M., Aswmpr.io B. V " M . at,1.il s(;ril?l'ores saec.
Xl11 ( n,hlio/,hecfl M'1J'iana iVIe(lii Aevi, Ease. 4) ( Sibenici-ltoIlli1c, 1'!H2).
15 ~ Cf. A.AS., Vol. 42 (<I. nov. 1950), pp. 762-766; Engl. tr.ansl., Ca,holic Mhld,
January, 1951, pp. 72-74.
1 54 Cf. H. Barre, e.S.Sp., Marie et l'Eglise; du Venerahle Bede a Saint Albert
Ie Grand, in Marie et l'Eglise. Bull. de la Soc. Franr;. d'Et. Mar., 1951 (Paris,
195 2 ) , pp. 59-143.
1 55 Cf. W. O'Connor, The Spiritual Maternity of Our Lady in Tradition, in
MaTi-an Sf~.~d'; es, Vol. 3, [952, pp. 153- 168.
UG Cf. J. Carol, a .p.M., De CQm~d.em'P/'iolle B. M. V. ( Civitas Vaticann, J9 50),
pp. l51'- .I98; L. Riley, Hi$~arical Cotlspec/:m of ttle DocLri1'te of MaTY's Co-Redemp-
t,;01'1, ill MarUm Slllc/.i(,-5, Vol. 2, 95r , PP' 47-54; Rosehini La Madonna. secor/do
La F ede e l-a T eo1ogia, Vol. 1 ( Roma 195 3), pp. 149-150.
1.57 C£. M. Mueller, (ITt. cit ., in Ktll;holische MarieHlmnd.e, ed. Stditer, Vol. I, pp.
282-286, 286-295.
158 Cf. W. Hill, 8.8., Our Lady's Queenship in the Middle Ages and Modern
Times, in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 135-153, 154-155 (summary).
159 Cf. supra, note 16.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 309
the theological treatise De Beata be of recent origin, its constitutive
elements have an ancient and thoroughly respectable history.160
II. MODERN MARIOLOGY
(SIXTEENTH TO NINETEENTH CENTURIES)
This period extends from the Council of Trent which expressly
excluded 'the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of
God" from its decree on original sin/o1 and thus paved the way for
the dogmatic definition of her Immaculate Conception , to th e defmi-
tion itself on December 8, 1854.
ll1e intervening enturies witnessed notab1e advances in the
science of Our Lady. Tremendous impetus to such progress was
given by the violent attacks on Marian cult and doctrines, which
were mounted fi.st by the Protestant "Reformers,"162 then by the
Jansenists and kindred spirits/sS especially Adam Widenfeld, in
1m notorious brochure of 1673, Monita salutaria B. Mariae Virginis
ad cul'tares $'1.£OS indiscretos.104
In meeting these onslaughts the defenders of Catholic orthodoxy
produced a huge volume of polemical and dogmatic literature, which,
if uneven in quality, nevel'theless grounded more thoroughly and
illumined more clearly the perfection of the Mother of God; her
urnivaled sanctity; her immurrity from all sin, bOUl original and
actual; her universal Mediation in the acquisition and th e distribu-
tion of all graces; and the speCial veneration which is her due.:J.G5
160G. Philips, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 19, 1953, p. 46 0,
reviewing the Marie et l'Eglise volume of the Societe Fran~aise d'Etudes Mariales.
101 Sess. 5', cap. 6 (June 17, 15'46); D.B., n. 792.. Cf. M. Togn tti, L'Immllcola·ta
al Conc. Tridentino, in Marian.1<m, Vol. 15, 1953, l'P' 304- 374.
16Z, f. C. DiJJenschneider, C.SS.R., La. Mario!ogie de S. AI1,hon.se de Liguori,
Vol. I (Fribol1.rg, Suisse, 1931), pp. 1-32; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I , pp. 391-
393; S. Beissel,S.J. Geso'liichte del' Vel'ehT'),m g Marias im 16 . 1~. 17. Jallilmtlael·t
(Freibul'g im Br., J910), Pl" IOO-Ill.
:1 011 Cf. illenschneider, 01," oit., Vol. I . pp. 33-104; Roscbini up. cit., Vol. I,
pp. 393-395·
lG~ Attempts at a partial rebahilitation o~ Widen.Eeld have been undertaken by P.
Hoffer, S.l\;f., La devotion a Marie ew iMclin au XVilo sic\cle aUfour tlu. Ja ns&n:is1l1e
et des 'Av'i,s salutalres ,Ie ta B. Vierge Mar,ie a ses d6vots ituliscrets' (Paris. 1938);
G. Cacciatore, S. Alfonso ,Ie Ligt,ori e iJ Giumell·j.S'lao (Fir.Cl1ze, 1942). Roschin:i
rejects these efforts in his La M ado1't?'I.a seCO'rtdo XII Fede e /.a Teologia, Vol. I, pp.
1 5 6- 1 57.
165 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., VoL 1, p. 15 3i Dillensclmeicler, op. cit., Vol. I, pp.
150-151, 194-195, 226-227, 25'0- 2:)1i Boissel, op. cit.., pp. 112-117; H. Rondet,
S.J., preface to J.·B. Terrien, S.J., La Mere des hOfmnes, Vol. I, ed. 8 (Paris, 1950),
pp. 13-44. For details on the MarloJogical progress in tlill era, confer: E. Dublanchy,
art. Marie, in DTC, Vol. 9 (Paris, 1926), pasrim, especially eols. 2355-2369, 2392-
310 MARIOLOGY
Dozens of authors belonging to this period merit special mention,
but thes pages can notice only some of the more eminent champions
of Mary's glor.ies. ~jJG The first German Doctor of the universal
Church, St. Peter Canisius, S.J. ( t I 597), unquestionably falls into
this category, thanks to his masterful J:efutation of Protestant errors,
the De Maria Virgine inco1n1?arabiU et Dei Genetri.ce sacrosanc-ta libri
qu.inq"" .e.1 0 1 This apologetical classic may be termed the first complete
exposition of Catbolic doctrine on the Mother of God.
As uch, it assures its author a high place in the historical evolution
of the science of Mary. However, the honor of having created the
first modern M ariology, rjgorously scientific and scholastic, belongs
not to Caillsius but t his confrere in religion, Francis Suarez
( t 1617).UB As 'rve have already reruarked, the doctrine of Aquinas
in the S"" .m ma 77'Leologica, III, qq. 27-35 stands as the pril1lltive
n ucleus of a special tract "De B. Virgine"; the Spanish j esuit's
elaboration of that nucleus, in the first twenty-three disputations of
his De mysteriis vitae Christi,109 is justly celebrated as a mOl umental
contribution both to the content and method of Mariology.
Among the .foremost Mariologists of all time one must number
the Capuchin preacher, St. Lawrence of Brindisi Ct 1619). Original,
yet always theologically sound, and often profound, his Mariale,
consisting of 84 sermons, amounts to a complete, if informal, treatise

2394. 7.400-2403; 2436- 2453; X. La Dachelet, Brt. Immqculie Conce,}!liol1, in DTC,

VoL 7, cols. 1150-12.09; J. Carol, Dc Corredemptione B. V. M., pp. 198-480; L.
niley, Historical Conspectus of the DoCtrille of Mary's Co-Red.e)I'/-pthm, in Marirl'/t
S~udies, Vol. 2, J95I, pp. 64-92.; W. O'Connor, Ths Spi>i.hwl Maternity of Ol~r
Lucl,. !'r l TmtUtjo'~, in Maria!'1 Studies, Vol. 3, 1.952, pp. 168-177.; W. Hill, 8 .S.,
O·Ut' Lady' Quee-nship -j·n the M.idd le A.ges a'/'Id Modern TimBS, ill Mariaft tluliBS,
Vol. 4, 1:953, pp. 155- 169; C. BaHt O.P.M., Testi'mon'iu de Ass-u,mpliol1ll B. V. M.
ex omni.lms snecltLis. P.ars al tel'll : E:\: ael.clte post Con<jililn'lt Trlo/rmtimufl CRamae,
1950); P . Renaudin, Assumptio B. Mqriae Virgl rtis Mat'r'is Dei. CTallriill-Romac,
J933), pp. 6!r9 2 •
106 For other Mariologists of the moder:n era, cr. Roschini, Mnriologia, Vol. 1 ,
pp. 276-30J ; Dillenschueider, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. I07-~54; Grabmann, 0p, cit.,
1111s -hI/.; \U1d various 8l:ticles in Maria, eel. H . elll Manoir, Vol. 2, Pl" 547-99t.
l or f. Dillen.sclmc.ider, op. cit., Vol. I, fP.' 10!r113. The De Maria V';rgi:lte
i flcomparabili is reproduced in Vok 8-9 oE . Bow:asse, S'l/lIlma aurea. de ImldiblJ~
B. fI/l. 1T. ( P arisiis, 18620).
]08 CE. J. de Aldam a, S.J., Piete et systeme {7(lI'l Ia Mariolog1.e du 'Docteur
Bx-im.·i1~s: in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 975-990, esp. pp. 979-983;
Dillenschne.icler, op. crt., Vol. I, pp. 153-154, 157-161; J. Bav.er, S.J., Suarez,
mario/ago, in Bst1UHos Eclesiasticos, Vol. 7.2, 1948, pp. 3 [1-337.
169 Opera omnia, cd. Vives, Vol. 19, pp. 1-337.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 31I

De Beata, whi h is especially remarkabJ for its thorough and

ffective vindication of the Immaculate Conception. m
The latter doctrine, champione I also by St. Peter Canisius and
Suarez, found a further supporter in St. Robert Bellarurine, S.].
e t 1621), whose el,'IDOnS and DislnM(~t.-jones de controversiis ren-
dered yet other valuable services to Marian doctrine and piety,
notably by their refutation of Protestant errors. m
Some other m<;tinguished Jesuit Mariologists of the period may
be noticed here. The science of OUI Lady owes a good deal on the
positive side, to D. Petau et
1652), whose Dogma,ta Theologica
(Jib. 14) assembled and subjected to critical scrutiny the ancient
traditions on Mary's prerogatives. 172 Also deserving of express men-
tion are the prolific heophilus Haynaud (t 1663);173 George de
e
Rhodes t J 66 r ), who incorporated in his Dispu,t;at'iones theolo gicae
scholasticae an excellent treatise De Maria Deipam;m and Paul
Segueri et 1694), author of the little classic, II devoto clella Vergine. 1TD
Dillenschneider has resclled from obscurity one of the ablest
Marian theologians of the seventeenth century, John Baptist Novati,
O .. Cam. et1648). His De eminentia Deiparae Virgin'is adopted
and developed many Suarezian theses; of chief interest is the work's
discussion of Marjological principles and axioms, and of various
aspects of Mm;an Mediation, particularly the Blessed Mother's im-
mediate co-operation in the objective Redemption, and her spiritual
Matemity.17G The latter themes also found admirable treatment in
the De hierarchia Mariana of Bartholomew de Los Rios, O.E.S.A.
Ct 16 52 ).177
]'(0 Cf. Roschiui, Mllfi.ologla, Vol. ;r, Pl" 281- 283; idem, La M:llriologia IIi S.
Lorenzo tia Brindisi cpadova, 195 I); Jerome de Pa'ds, La doctrine 11I1111"le de S.
Ltmrent de Brilliles (Paris, 1933); Dillenschneider, op. oit., Vol. I, pp. 2r3-u8.
i n Cf. Dillenschneider, ~p. cit., VoL l , pp. II3-Il8; S. Tromp, S.J., S. Roh/lrt'~s
BelInrmi11t{s at B. Virgo, h;! Gregorian1'11i, Vol. 21, 1.940, pp. 1Ih-r82; J. A.
Hardon, Bell"nnine and the Blessed Virgin, in Om' Lady" Digest, Vol. 8, October,
1953, pp. 175-183; iilem, Mary Me,lia.trix it~ 17,e Theology of BeHarmine, in The.
HO'm.i,llltic ana Plistoml Review, Va]. 48 1947, pp. 91-97.
1'12 CE. Dillenschncider, op. cit., Vol. J, lJP. 167-170.
l'7S Cf. ibia., pp. 170- 176.
174 Cf. ibid., pp. 178-182.
175 Cf. ibid., pp. 222-225.

176 Cf. ibid.., 'PP' 161- 166; J. Carol, De Corredemptione B. V. M., pp. 288-29°'
177 Cf. Roschioi, Mar/alogia, Vol. 1, p. 286; Caro) , op. cit., pp. 271-273; A.
Musters, La SOtwerainete. de la Vierge d'apres les ecrits Inariologiques de Barthelemy
de los Rios (Btuges, 1946).
 MARIOLOGY
If we assign the contributions of Cardinal John Henry Newman19T
to the latter half of the nineteenth century, Chaminade is the sole
Mariologist worthy of note in the preceding fifty years. For, despite
the defeat of Jansenism, and notwithstanding the many gains regis-
tered in the Post-Tridentine era, Mariology was in low estate in the
early decades of the nineteenth century. Jansenism, though over-
come, had, along with rationalism, semirationalism, and Josephinism,
left its mark on all theology,19B and on the science of Mary in
particular. l9D In this decadent epoch, the general works of theology
tended to neglect the traditional place given to Our Lady, being con-
tent to treat only of her divine Maternity and peryetual virginity.2QU
For their part, Mariologists were prone to e.'mlt the Blesse 1 Mother
without reference to the whole of theology . ~oi In short the unhealthy
gap between theology and Mariology, which Suarez had sought to
close, had widened. 202
However, the labors of earlier theologians of Our Lady were to be
insb·umenta,1 in bringillg about a glOlious renascence of Marian
studies. T heir painstaldng discussions on the Immaculate Conception
had ripened this doctrine for the solemn definition it came to receive
hom Pope Pius IX, in the Bull 1,,,eflahilis Deus December 8, 1854.
One of the salutary eff cts of that Papal pronouncement was the
gradual development of a rigorously scientilic and adequate Mariol-
ogy. a < n organically strucnlIed treatise distinct from, yet inteorated
with, the rest of theology. A resume of this prOVidential evoYution

Stvilzccland, 19~2); excerpt hom the same, Mury ~l/1a the Myst'icaL Bod,), (The
lMarittn Library, University of Dayton, Darton, Ohio, 19 3); F. Friedel, S.M.,
Dog'/,l'IIltic Fou,n datlon of Frtther Cha-minllde s Doctrine of Filla! Piety, in Marian
Studies, Vol. 3, 1952., pp. 208-2 17.
tnT f. F. Friedel, S.M., The Mal'iology of C(lrdhlal Newm,Q'n ( lew York, 1928);
]olm I IC'1'Iry NeW11Wll: Mtlria im Heilsplan, (eingeleitet u. uebertrngen von Birgiua
:r.u Muenster, O.S.B.) (FrdbuIg im Br., 1953); Most Hev. John J. Wright,
Mariology i,n. the Er~gUsh-speakiJ.tg 'World, in Maria.1'! St~l,d./es, Vol. 2 , 1951, pp.
11-26.
ID8 Cf. M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte deT katholischen Theologie seit dem
AHsgang del' Vaeterzeit (Freiburg im Br., 1933), pp. 206-219; ]. Bellamy, La
theologie catholiq-uc Ult XIX- siecle, ed. 3 (Paris, 1904), pp. 1-20; E. Hocedez,
S.J., Histoire de la tMologic em XIX- siecle, Vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1949), pp. 13-24.
199 Cf. Bellamy, op. cit., p. 267; P. Regamey, O.P., Les plus beaux textes sur la
Vierge Murie (Paris, 1946), p. 295.
200 Cf. Bellamy, op. cit., p. 267.
201 Cf. Theology Digest, I (1953), p. 145 (summary of article on Mary and
the Church, by R. Laurentin, in La Vie Spirituelle, 86, 1952, pp. 295-304).
202 Cf. J. A. de Aldama, S.]., Muriologia, in Sucrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3
(Matriti, 1950), p. 289.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 315
is attempted in the next and last section of our brief history of
Mariology.
III. CONTEMPORARY MARIOLOGY (1854-1954)
In the century which has elapsed since the dogmatic definition
of the Immacula te onception , many factOl:s combined to produce
the present flourishing state of Marian studies.203 But chief among
them h as been the efficacious influence of the P apal MagisteritmL.
T he initial impelu s dehvered by Ineffahilis Deus was sustained and
a~om'ented by a succession of other pontifical documents, from the
ten Rosary Encyclicals of Leo XIII to the manifold Marian pro-
nouncements of Pius XII.
To be sure, this Papal encouraoement given to renewed serious
studies of Our Lady bore C-ruit oJ;, gradually, although the harvest
in the second half of the njl1eteenth century was not as lea n as h as
been suggested. 204 Positive theology wa the first to -reap the benefit of
the definition of the Immaculate Concep tion' nos either in yreparation
for or as an aftermath of I neffabilis De'/,~s, there appeared the works of
Perrone, Gueranger, Passaglia, Ballerini, and M alou .2 1H.l On the
~03 On these factors, fl)r examplc, Catholic reaction to attacks on Marian doctrine
and CLtlt (b y PIOlestants, Old Catholics, Modem.iltt..~, the Eastern Dissidents), the
ce1ebmLion of Marian Congresses, the publiC3tion of source materials, the foundation
of MBriological Academies, Centers, aDd Societies, and the erection of university
chairs of Mariology, etc., cf. R osch.ini. MIl,ri%gia, Vol. I, pp. 396-399; idem, La
Madonna secondo Iii Fede a la T eologia, VoL I, pp. 158-166. Mariological societies
will be dealt with at length elsewhere in the present work.
2 04 On the history of Mariology in the latter half of the nine teenth century,
cf. Hocedez, op. cit., Vol. 3 ( Bruxelles-P aris, 1947), Pl" 313-3,6; Bellamy, O'p. cit.,
pp. 267-28 I. A. Noyon, S.]., art. Mario!lItrle, in Diet. Apo logeMq1'u~ de It/. Poi
Catholique, Vol. 3 (Paris, 1926), col. 31 6 contends that few of the many works
produced in this period possessed lasting signibcance; H. f\o)1 det, S.].. in his
preface to ].-B. Terrien, ~q., La Mere des hom,m es, Vol. I , ed . 8 ( Paris 1950).
pp. 46-47, believes that the Marian theology oE the period ccu1cerneci jtself almost
exclusively with the Immaculate Conception. Both jutlgments appear 100 sweepin&i
a glance at Hocedez, and at the lti.netee.o th·century authors q uoted in J. CarOl,
De Corredemptione B. V. M. , pp. 38'2-480, suffices to suggest that, between 1854
and 1900, a goodly company of writers dealt Ably with a wide variety of Manological
themes.
2 05 Cf. Bellamy, op. cit., pp. 270-273.
206]. Perrone, S.J., De Immaculato B. V . Mcrtiae Coltcep't'u (Romae. 1847); P .
Guctanger. o.s.n., Mem oire sur la question de J.'Jm1llacmlee GOllce'pLio}/. as Ie £l'eS-
sai1~le Vi,erge (P a.)is, 1850) ; C. Passaglia, De Immac'1I1ato D eiparae semper Vil'gil'lis
Conceptou Comment,arms, 3 vols. (Romlle, r854-1855); A. Ballerini. S.J., Sylloge
Monumentorum ad Mysterium Virginis Deifparae illnstrr.m.du1J1., 2 vols. ( Romae
1854-1856); ]. Malou, L'ImmacuUe C01icepti01t de la trt!s-sai1tte Vierge Marie,
2 vols. (Bruxelles, 1857). On the source conections of DOUIass~ and R oskova~)y,
 MARIOLOGY
speculative side, the science of the Blessed Moth r achieved precious
growth with the Dogmatik of Matthias Joseph Schccbcn (t 1888),
the cen tury's grea test theologian and Mariologist, in whom specu-
lative genius was wedded to a profound knowledge of the Church
Fathers, and of medieval and Post-Tridentine Scholasticism.~or Meas-
ured against the towering figure of Scheeben, of lesser importance
are J. Petitalot,208 August Nicholas,209 Louis di Castelplanio,21O and
the Dominican, Van den Berg. m
'To Scheeben goes th e distinction of having lnbored more than
any other modern theolOgian to change Mariology into a scientific
whole, distinct from, yet tightly integrated with, the rest of theology
(especially with the treatise on the Church), and given inner co-

weady mentioned ( supra, note I5 ), and on that of R. de Fleury likewise unqitical,

see Ioschini, Mari%giCl, Vol. I , pp. 30 1, 302., 304-30).
~07 Cf. Grabmann, 0p. cit., p. 2.31; C. Feckes, in Scheeben-Fec1ws, Die BTa/mWche
GotteS1n1ltter (Fteiburg bn Br., 1936), pp. VTII-IX. Scheeben's Nlar-iologie is Fomld
in tlle third volume of Iris I-I(mdbud~ tier kaLlwUsc'hen Dogml1tik (FIeiburg jm BI.,
1882), pp. 455-600 (§§ 2.74-:1.82), a~ the lifth and £nal cllapter of the neatise on
Cluisto\ogy: "The virginal Mother of the Saviol: and he\' relation to the work of
the Redemption." However, the divine Maternity and the virginal cqnception of
Christ are rreated in earlier chapters of the Chnstology. Feckes has gathered these
separated ID!lterials ~ogether and adapted them for easier Icmdil1g, in the above-
mentioned Die Brael~tliche GotteSlnntter. A silnilar compilation is the Elem:ish
inlnslation by H. van Waes, S.J., SystematisCftfl. Mariologie, ed. 2. CBruxelles, 1943),
w.ith inrrodu ct~on and notes by E. Druwe, S.J. The foregoing ha~ been Tendered
into English by T. Geukers, Mariology , 2 vols. ( St. Louis, 1946-1947), with
tC'dnSlat01:'S preface, Vol. I, pp. ill-XXXIV. An article by Schccben in the peciodical
Das oek'U,meniscn,e Kotm l '\lom Jah.re 1869, discussing the pantllel between the
de1inition of Papal infallihility alld that of ilie Immaculate Conception, has been
hailed as "a gem of Mariology" by J. Schmitz, who republished the article in
llilaria, Sch~tt2.h.errin der Ki:ro'he (Paderborn, ,1936). OJ interest aloo are Scheebcn's
early work, Marienbluethen (Schaffhausen, 1860), and a few pages in Die Herr-
lichkeiten deT goettlichen Gnade, ed. 15 (A. Weiss, O.P.) (Freiburg im Br., 192.5),
pp. I I I - I I 7, 580-582., 592., 6)1.
208 La VieTge Mere d'apres la theologie, 2. vols. (Paris, 1866).
a09 La Vierge ,M arie dm!s Ie plan dillin, 4 vols. (Pans, 1869). This work of
Nicolas, a lay theologian, was acclaimed in its day as the t1efmitlve treatise on
Marian doctrine (an exaggeration, as Roschini llotes, Mari()logia, Vol. 1, p . 304) .
Scheeben knew it in one of its many translations, and eraised its rich ilieological
content (Die Mysterien des Chri.stentu.ms, ed. J. Weiger lMainz, 193t), note 266);
in fact, he gave dogmatic found.ation to many of its intuitions; cr. Geukers, 01" oit.,
Vol. I, p. XVII.
210 Maria nel consiglio dell'Eterno, 3 vols. (Neapoli, 1872.). Scheeben applauded
the Franciscan's work as "sehr geistreich"; Handb. der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. 3,
p. 47 8.
211 Author of Beatissima Virgo Maria, one of his several excellent monographs on
Thomistic teaching; cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 2.72..
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 317
hesion by a fundamental principle of its own.212 His views on the
place Mariology should hold in the over-all system of theology are
best summed up in his own words:
1 carne to the conclusion that Mariology can and must be considered
a ]jnk connecting the doctrine on the Redeemer and Hi' work with
the doctrine on the grace of the Redeemer and its distribution by the
Church, and that, thns conceived, ManoIobl)' is called to occupy a much
more important place in the system of dogmatic theology than is
usually accorded it. As I endeavored to treat Mariology from this point
of view, it shaped itself as the development of the profound concept
of the al1dent Churcll, which ideally beholds Mary in the Church,
and the Church in Mary CApoc . .12, I) . Thus, .in my conception of it,
Mariology, as the doctrine on the personal bride of Christ and the
personal spirilual mother of mankind, when conjoined with . . . the
doctrine on Christ as the head of a Mystical Body and as the priestly
Mediator of the supernatural life of this Body, becomes a rich source
of light for the doctrine on the Church, on her inner organism and
supematural essence. 21n
Intimated in the above passage is Scheeben's conception, original
with him - at least in its formulation - of what should be the master
principle of Mariology. The Cologne professor considered it to be
the most characteristic note of the Blessed Virgin that she is both
the Mother of Christ according to the flesh and His supernatural
spouse. Scheeben erected "this 'matetnal-sponsal character,' as he
calls it, into the fundamental principle of Mariology, thus fusing in
IDost intimate fashion the divine maternity and Mary's freely willed
association with Christ, in which others prefer to see a distinct
principle."214
212 CE. E. Druwe, S.J., Position et structure du Traite Marial, in Bull. de la
Soc. fran y. a:Etwies Nlari<lles (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 24-.2.91 Geukers, 07" cit.,. Vol. I,
pp. XVIIl-XXXITI. 0. Feckes, Die Stel/.U1tg der GotteS'nmuer Maria in der Th,eologie
NI. J. Scheebll'l~s, in M. J. Soh-eeben, der Erneaerer lwt'holisoher Gla1/,ben$wissen-
schatt, ed. by K tllolischen Akademikerverband 1935.
218 Preface to Handh. der kqth . Dogtnal.i k, Vol. 3, p. VI.
2~4 £ . Druwc, S.J., La MUiati01t tt1"l.iverselle (Ie Marie, in Maria, ed.. H. du
MlUlDlr Vol. 1, p. 565 . Among those who espoused SCheeben's version of the
supreme principle pf M atiology we may mention F. Sc.hueth, S.J., Mediatri.~
(1nnsbmc1c, 1925); C. "Fed.es, Das Funilam;eit'tnf,pril'l.zip der Mnrialogie, in Scientia
Sacra, Theologische Festgabe . . . (DuesscidOJ:f, 1935), pp. 252.- 1.76; idem, Das
My~terimn des goettlic'hen Mutterschaft (Paderbom, 1937) - Engl. transl., The
Mystery of ,.he Divine Mot~terJ'lOod (London, 1941)i E. Druw6, /lrt. cit., in· B11ll. de
la Soc. Fran!;. d.'Etudes Mariales (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 24-29. Cf. Roschini, Mariologia,
Vol. I, pp. 31.8-330'
 MARIOLOGY
Druwe remarks that, whatever one may hold as regards this
methodological qu es tion (the aforesaid fusion into the one funda-
mental principle of the "bridal motherhood"), "the perfect associa-
tion of Mary with the Red erner - principium consortii - is recog-
nized today by all Mariologists as fundamental, in this double sense:
that it pertaills to the donne chretien originel and that it consti-
tu tes, with the divine maternity, the foundation of all of Mary's
prerogatives."215
Not the least among Scheeben's merits was his masterful vindica-
tion of Catholic devotion to Mary. 'With the deep and synthetic
view that marked him as one of the greatest religiOUS thinkers of the
past century, he incorporated the Catholic doctrine regarding M ary
into the whole of Catholic dogmatic theology. In doing so, he showed
in an unexcelled way how the veneration of Mary takes root in the
deepest soil of Christian belief."210 Invaluable is his insight into the
root of Protestant antagonism toward the Marian doctrines and cult
of the Catholic Church: it is the intimate rapport between Mary and
the Church.217
Scheeben's pioneering work was not heeded immediately.218 It
remained for the twentieth century to resume his efforts at organiz-
ing Marian doctrines into a complete and cohesive treatise, and, re-
discovering the ancien t and medieval appreciation of the relationship
between M ary an d the Church, to forge a strong bond between
M ariology and Ecclesiology.m By and large, the late lllneteenth-
century Mariologists were more interested in particular questions.
Understandably enough , they devoted a great deal of attention
to the Immaculate Conception, both in order to explain the n ew
215 E. Druwe, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. I, p. 565. On the
importance of the principium consortii for the right of Mariology to exist as a
distinct theological treatise, cf. Druwe, art. cit., in Bull. de la Soc. Fmnq. de
l'Etudes Mariales, (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 16-29.
216Geukers, op. cit. , Vol. I , p. IV.
217 Cf. E. Druwe, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. I, pp. 566-567;
Geukers, op. cit., Vol. I , E' XXI.
218Strange to relate, Scheeben's entbu&insm for Marian dogma was shared by
few German theologians until quite recent years; d . K. Rahner, S.J., Probleme
heutiger Mariologie, in A1~S der T heologie der Zeit, ed. G. Soehngen CRegensburg,
194 8 ), ,. 85·
:1111 • supra, notc 154; Tileology Digest, I , 1953, pp. 145- 146, summary of
the article on Mary CIlia the Ch1~rcfrl, hy R. Laurentin, in La Vie Spi-ri'tuelle, Vol.
86, 1952, pr. 29 5- 304. T he link between Mary ana the Church was also known to,
a:nd exploited by, the Berullian school, before Scheeben came to give a, m ore
tllcological expression to this tradition; ct H. Rondet, preface to T errieu, La Mere
des homm es, Vol. I , ed. 8, p. 39.
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 319
dogma to the faithful, and to defend it against the attacks of rational-
ists, Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Dissidents. 22o However,
as we have already indicated,221 the Marian scholars of this era
addressed themselves to other matters as well. With the proclamation
of the Immaculate Conception, Mary's bodily Assumption in to
heaven shone forth with a new radiance, and the study oE this pre-
roga tive became the order of the day, especiall y after many of the
bishops present at the Va tican Council requ ested that the doctrine
be dogmatically defined.222
Another consequence, at least indirect, of the momentum imparted
to Marian theology by lneffabilis Deus was a renewed in terest in
and a more penetr'Hing study of question bearing on Mary's role
as universal MedialIi):.m Paving the way for the profound develop-
ments which the twentieth century brought to these themes, man y
late nineteenth-century Mariologists, especially after the appearance
of the R osary Encycli cals of Leo XIII, gave their attenti on to Our
Lady's lJart in the acquisition and the distribution of all graces, and
to the concomitant doctrine of her spiritual Maternity.m
T hus, among the many who discu~sed Mary's co-operation , even
proxima te, in the objective Redemption, one may cite rederick
William Faber, O. Van den Berghe, J. De Cond lio, P. Jeanjacquot,
S.}., and Francis Risi.22~
}eanjacquot also deserves a place of honor in the history of the
discussion on Mary's intervention in the distribution of all graces,
220 Cf. X. Le BacheIet, art. Immaculee Conception, in DTC, Vol . 7, cols.
1209-1218.
221 Cf. supra, note 204.
222 Cf. C. Balit, O.F.M., Tes/.i monia de ASS'!I.1I'I1'tio1~e B. V . M . ex omnibus saeculis.
Pars altera: Ex aetate post Concili1l7n Tridellli H1J.fII (Romae, 1950), pp. 281-464;
Hocedez, op. cit., Vol. 3, PP 3 14- 3 15; ] . Bellamy. an. Assomption, in DTC, Vol.
I, cols. 2140-2141 ; E. Campana, MIl'ria nel dogm.a CaP/.olico, ed. 6 (Torino, 1946),
pp. 744- 751.
223Cf. Bellamy, La theologie catholique au XIXe siecle, ed. 3 (Paris, 1904),
pp. 274- 2 75.
22 4 Cf. J. Bainvel, S.] ., art. Murie, in Di.ot. A11ologelcUJ11.e de lao Foi Cat.I·lo!i.qw~,
Vol. 3 (Paris, 1.926), eols. 285-302; E. D ublanchy, art. M!rrie, in DTC, Vol . g,
eols. 2389-2409; Hocedez, Gp. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 3J5'-316.
22r. F. Paber, The Foot of tIle Cross ( London, 1857); O . Van den Bergh , Marie
·et Ie Saceraoce, ed. 2 (Paris 1875)- J. Dc Can cillo , The Kl'lolllle(~ge of Mary
(I ew Yorl.,r878); P . Jeanjacguo . S111-1plc.s expllcal:iorl$ sur la cooperation de 1-a
T tes-Sainte Vierge a Z'oeuvre de la Redel/lIP/ion et 51t-r so. qu,(llite de Mere les
Clmt!ie11s, ed. 3 ( P aris, 1 S89)- F. Risi, $,.11 motivo primario delZ'lltcarnazione clel
Ve rbo (Brescia, 1898) . On these and other nuthors. d . J. Carol, De Corredemptiotle
B. V . M.> pp. 382-480; L. Riley, H istorical Cons-pectus of the Docf;rine of l\Ill1.ry',~
Co-B ec/,emptioll,> in M l1ricln S'l'udies, Vol. 2, 19 5 1, pp. 81.-92.
 MARIOLOGY
a discussion thereafter taken up and notably advanced by R. de la
· S.J .m J B T ernen,
BfOlse, 'J .,-. J.m
S." J.-.
VB' I S.J ....
l\lnve, 'J ancI E.
Hugon, O,p,m Furthered by the celebration of Marian Congresses
dedicated to Mary's "maternity of grace:'uo and by Cardinal Mer-
cier's enthusiasm on the su bject of OU f L.'ldy·s universal M<.>diatio n, ~"
this topiC, along with that of the Coredemption, has remained the
object of intense study down to the presen t,US
Intense. in fact, have Oeen tbe labors of the past several decades
to consolidate and to enlarge the whole realm of our knowledge of
the Blessed Mother. In consequence, Marian science has now
achieved trul y marvelous development.
T hus, excellent general treatises, adequate in content and scien-
lifically organized and executed, nOw nbou nd,m Symposia, such as
t2~ R. de la Bmise, Sur celie 1'ro1'05ilio,,: Toutes les grlices nOU$ viefllleni par fa
Sainte Vierge, in ElUiles, Vol. 68, 1896, pp. 5"- 3Ij rcproduceo:l in R. de In Bmise
lind J. Bllinve.i, M'lrie Mere de sr'dce ( Paris, 192.1); R. de b Bruise, La sainte Vierge
IJII XJ X~ siecie, in ~llIdes, Vol. 83, 1900.
121 J.-B. Terrien, Marie, Merll de Die", 2. vols. ( Paris, 18<}6-lgoO), Bnd
Marie, Moire des "ommu, 2. \'ols. ( Pnis, 1899-1902); 011 this influential work see
I-\. Randel'S preface to Ihe eigh th eo:lition of Ln Mdre rles Jrommes, Vol. I, pp.
44-48.
2>& J.-V. Bninvd, Le "Fia'" rill I'It1C13mafioll. in Qllafrl6mll Cotlgru maritll vrelon
tell!' au Folgoiil en " 'lOrmeur dll Marie, Mere de grllee (4-6 ~I. 1913), c,mpte
rClld u (Quimper, 1915), pr. 139- 146; De b Braise and Bainvel, Marie, Milre de
grdee ( Pad~, 1921). cr. also Hocedez, op. cil., Vol. ], p. 316, on Uainve!'s Impel"
rC:ld at the In ternational Manall Congf1!S.'i al Fribourg. Switzerland, Augusl, 18-2 1.
1902.
2" E, Hugon, La Mllre de grdca ( P aris. 19(4).
UQ At FribOlug, 1902; Folgo.'it, 1913; etc. For a chronological list of these 0011
similar events which have spurr~c1 Marian studies in thc past f,rtr yeaf5, see J.
B€:Suni, O.S.M .• Ci"'illatUe ans ( 1900-1950), ill Marie (NiCOlet, Quebec. cd. R.
Brien). Vol. 7, NO.2. pp. 14- 16. For dota on the proceedings of the m:lny
Mnrinn Congresses, er. E. Companll, Maria lie! C1I1!o Cl!lolico, Vol. 2, cd. 1, Clirri
G. Rose/lini, (Torino. 1946), pp. 48 7-6~2.
23\ J. Coppens. DT!. Belgique. in DTC. Tables genhales ( Paris, 195"3), col. 401:
Mariology received II rcmltrkable impetus (rom what one has called Ihe "intuitiom"
of Cardinal Mercier, who wiwed the Church to proclaim the universa l Medintion of
Mary n5 a dogm3; he obtained tIle co-operutioo or C. Van Crombntgghe, n .
Merkelboch, J. l.ebon. J. Bittremicux.
U! Cf. Campana. Maria"ei dogma Cauoliw. ed. 6 ( Torillo, 1946). pp. 17/- 184,
2.5"0-2.52; E. Druwe, S.J., fA Mc!dhzticrn ,miverselle de Marie. ed. H . du Manoir,
Vol. I, pr. 4 ' 7--572; T. Koeh ler, S.M., Ma'ernile spiritllelle IJe Marie, in Maria,
ed. I-I. du Mllnoir, Vol. I, pp. 573--600; extensivc bihliogmphies MC provided in
nnd lit the end of both anicles; literature on the question of the Coreo:lcmption will
!Je cited below.
111 Cenninly the most comprehensive tll!ltlise, an d one indispensable to nil
theologians. i~ lIlllt of G. Rosellini, O.S.M" Mariologja, 4 vo1s., I,-d. 2 ( Romlle,
1947-1948), lin adaptation of this work. solncwhut more up to dale, is the &lime
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 321

those edited by Fathers du Manoir and Strater, bring together the

ripest fruits of Marian scholarship and make them available to a
wide public. "a~
The specialized literature has reached mountainous proportions;
countless are the monographs, and the studies and articles appearing
in the annuals of the various Mariological societies/so in the theo-
logical periodicals of general interest. 3 JG and in those exclusively
devoted to the science of Our Lady.237 So vast is this literary produc-

author's UI Madonna secondo la Fede e In Teol.ogia, 3 vols. (Roma, 1953); there

is also Roschini's smaJler manuaJ, Sumllmler Mariologiae (Bomae, 1952.). A select
list of other established trClltises would include: G. Alasuuey. Mariologia, 2 vols.
(Vallisolcti, J934/1942.); J. de Aldama, S.}., Mariol.ogia, iu Saorae T lteologiae
S',lmma, Vol. 3 (Matriti, 1950) , pp. 288- 418; D. Bertetto. S.D.B" Maria uel
dogma cnttoZico ( Torino. 1950} C. Boyer, S.}., Sy1'lD'J;'sis Praelecti01l1t1U de B. M.
Virgine (RoII)ae, 1952); F. DanCler, S.J.. SlI111>1"ari'um tractat"s dogmal.ici ,Ie
Matre-Socia Satv/ltoris ( Oeniponte, 1952); id.crl'l, Ma'rio1.ogia, in L. Lercher, 1"lStitu-
PiOt18S Thcologillc Dogmaticae, ed. 3, Vol. 3 (Oeniponte. 1942.); pp. 2.79-359; R.
Garrigou-Lagl1wge, 'n ,e Mother of the Sa1>io1.ll', Eng],. transl. by B. Kelly, C.S.Sp.
(Dublin, 1,949). ] . Keuppcns, Soc. Miss. Afr., Mariologiac Compendium ( Ant-
werpiae, 1938); A. ]l\llssens, De Heijige Maagd. en Moeder Gods Maria, 4 vois.
(Anvers. 192.8-1932.); H. Lennerz, S.J., De B. Vi.rgine, ed. 3 (~om8e, X939)\ B.
Merk,elbacl1, OJ'., MarioZogia (paris:lis, 1939); 1:.. Neubert, S.M., Marie aa'ns
le dogme, ed. 2. ( PaIlS, 1946); A. Pies is, S.M.M., Mam.«lZe Mnriologiae dogmat1cae
CPaotclllltea u, 1942.); Poble-Prcuss NLarioIogy (St. Louis. 1926); Pohle-GiereJ15.
Lehrblldl der Dogmatik, Vol. 2. cd. 9 (Pade,bom, 1937), pp. 248- 3 15; SCheeben-
Geukers, MarioIog)" 2. vo1s. (St. Louis, 1946-1947); M. Sch.maus, Katholi~c11,e
Dogma ti1~, Vol. 2., cd . 3-4 (Muenchcn. 1949), pp. 609-638, 879- 908. Nor. may
we overlook the classic works of E. Campana. Maria 1tel dogma C(Ittolico, ed. 6
(Torino. 1946), and Maria ne1 oult.o CQ.tioZico, 2 vols., ed. 7" C1tra G. Roschini
(Torino, 1946).
234 Maria. Etud.es sur Ia Sainte Vierge, sous la direction d'Hubert du Manoir,
S.]., Vol. I (Paris, 1949); Vol. 2 (Paris, 1952.); Katholische Marienkunde, ed.
Paul Strater, S.]., 3 vols. (Paderborn, 1947-1951).
235 cr. Roschini, La Madonna secondo Za Pede e la Teologia, Vol. I, pp. 161-
164; ]. Carol, The Mariological Movement in the World Today, in Marian Studies,
Vol. I, 1950, esp. pp. 27-29. Valuable materials are also contained in the published
proceeding of Mariological Congresses.
2 3 0 Gregoriamt1I~, &phemeriaes Tfll~ologjcae LOVQt/.1B1I5e5, NOltvel/.e Rel1'ue Theo-
logiq1.,e , TI·teological. Sttldies, The DW1I);Ist, etc. The AmMican Ecclesiastical Review
has for yeaTS included nn article on Om Lady in every issue; Q select cross section
of these <\Irides was published as Stv.ldies ';'n Praise of Our Blessed. Mot1ter (Wash-
ington. D. 0., 1952.) .
2$ 1 Mari(mW'J~ edited by G. Roschini, O.S.M., published at Rome, ~ ince .1939;
EplJemerides J\Ilariologicae, publi~hed by the Clnretian Fathers in Madrid since 195 1.
Mention TIlay also be made of Marie, edited by R. Brien at Nicolet, Quebec, since
1947; although this ]Jeri.odicu] is not primarily theological in character. it often
contaius short papers by theologians of note.
322 MARIOLOGY
tion that bibliographers are hard put to record it,238 while Marian
Cen ters are equally b ard pressed to collect and to bouse it in special
libraries. m If we may high-l ight some of the more importan t features
of contemporary Mariology, the first to be noted is the grow.ing pl'e-
occupation with the declarations of the ecclesiru tical magi ieri.um,
the OJ:ciinary as well as the xtraordlnary.n~o This is a mOst fruitful
kv lopment. For One thing, such declarations furnish the supreme
arguments in tl e01ogy, and are an indispensable safeguard in inter-
preting the data f Sacred Scripture 3l1d Tradition. w Moreover the
ecclesias 'cal 'wulgis /,eriu1n js not only the authentic interpreter of all
doctrinal evolution jn th hurch: it is at the same time, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, the principal agent of all such
evolution - a spur to the further development of doctrine.242 As
J, Dillersberger remarks:
The teaching Church from time to time in its dogmatic decisions
determines the definitive form of such progress. But long before this
there came from the teaching Church the stimuli to new develop-
29S CE. Rosch ini, La M"Ilmma secondo Ia Pede e 1(/ Teologia, Vol. I , pp. 167-
170. A critical and complete Marian bibliography does -not yet e.ust, although one
is in preparatio~ by the Seryites of the Intemational College of St. Alexl us
Falconieri in 1 orne. Some idea of their task may be gotten nom the prodigious
li rcfru:y output f just lwo of tbe cen nu:y's leading Mariologlsrs, th,e late J. Bittrmnieux
And Rosdlini; the 175 distinct publications of the fmmer aJ;e list.ed by J. Coppens,
L'ellscigtlement et l'oc1f'vrc th~ologique (Ie 1\It Ie CllCmoitfc ], Bi~t.Tctlliewx) in
Ephemf.!1'ides Theologicne Lolla~tjelZ es, Vol. 23, 194.7, Pl" 367-377i n partial
catalogue of Roschllli's writings down La J949 tuns to nine pages 'n tlle com-
pilation of J. Be uto, O.S.M., GU SLTItti del P. M.o GClbriele M. Rosch-in.i, O.SM.,
in Mar1a1I.11m, Vol. n, 1949. pp. 496- ;0;. Abundant bibliogrllphical information
is available in 't he issues of Mtrl'iamm~, EpJUl11lcrides Mllriologicne, E1?71emerides
Theo1ogicae LovrmietlSes, etc.; -ad in the Ragguaglio Maria;no, published ammally
by the Intemntiomu Mmian Center, Rome. H. Ronder gives a select bibliography
at the end of his preface to J.-B. Terrien, La Melre de~ homllles, Vol. I, ed. 8,
pp. 62- 76.
289 CEo L. Monheim, S.M., Some Marit.m Corleetiom h~ t~l~ World, in Maripn
St1u1:i.es, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 46--55. The 1949 Bookl.ist. of ~hc Marilll'l. Lihrary, Uni-
1rCTstty of Dayton, Ohio, contains [0';39 entries.
N~ As all lmow, it is 'Oot only in the solenm 1)[ODOW1CCment!i of popes and of
ecumenicAl councils but also in the exerci,e of her ordinaxy and universal teacbing
office that the Church sets fonh things to be believed WiLb divine Imd Catholic
f.aith; cf. CmLcilium Vur.icall'u1n, sessio 3 ClIp. 3 (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umb rg, E'It-
ehirirLioTI Symbolo~m/l, n. l792.) . See the valuable .article by P. FranqU.CS'a, C.M.F.,
Maglsterio Ordinar'i,o y Jlilariologiu, in Ephemel'i.des lIifl1tiDlogiCtie, Vo!' 4, .:1954,
Pl?' 25-66 .
2U CE. Pope Pius XlI, coey., H1~ma1'li gel'!eris, 1\l1gllst l2, '95"'; A.A.S., Vol. 42.,
1950, p. 567; N,C.W.C. translation, nn. 18, :U.
2d2 CE. ,DiIlcnschneicler. C.SS.R., Mllrie qu service de 1101,.e Redemption
CHageoau, Bas-Rhill, J947), p, 45 ·
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 323
ment - we experience this especially in those truths which revolve
around Mary.24.S
As concrete evidence of the keen attention now being given to
the magisteriu1n by Our Lady's scholars, one may cite the collections
of Papal documen ts on Nlaxy, 24" various studies On the Malian doc-
aine of individual popes/~If and other studies on particular questions
in the light of Papal teachings. 2 -1G To date, these explorations have
confined themselves pretty much to the Papal m,agisteriu1nj rich and
243 J. Dillersberger, Das neue Wort ~;eher Maria ( Sahbw:g, 1947), p. 10; C.
Feckes, The Mystery of the Divine Mo ~h erhood (London, 194t), p p. 137-138: the
popes "have indicated the way which the theologian must follow to complete the
portrait of Mary."
244 Cf. Le Encicliche Mariane, ed. A. Tondini (Roma, 1950); reproduces, in
their original language and with Italian or Latin translations, 56 documents from
February 2, 1849, to May I, 1948, with a complete elenchus (pp. 579-62-6) of
all documents from 1849 to July 16, 1949; R. Graber, Die marianisahen Weltl'l."nd-
schreiben der Paepste in den letzten hundert Jahren (Wuerzb1.lIg, 1951) - in-
cludes several useful indexes; W. Doheny and J. Kelly, Papal Documents on Mary
(Milwaukee, 1954) - 36 documents from 1849 to 1953.
245 f., for example, G. Roschini, 1 Papi e Maria., in M-ariall-u.m , Vol. 4, 19410,
pp. 153-t66; J. BiLtIemieux, DOCtri1U1 Mar-iana Leonls Xlll, in Ephe'l nerides Theo!.
Luvanilmses, Vol. 4, 1927 PP. 359-383; 'hle-m, Ex doctri1'la Maruma PH Xl, in
Eph.emerides Theo'l. LovM/hmses, Vol. II, 1934, pp. 95-I01; G. Roschini, La
Mado"muJ ?leI pcmiero e lleLZ'i'rl.segnam.el'l,to di Pia Xl, in Ma"icmum, Vol. T,
1939 pp. I2C-172;idemj La Mac10nna neU'E1ICic!ica 'Mysl7lci Corporis Christ;i: in
Marianum, Vol. 6, '944, p. 108--117> J. Dillexsberger, Das 7IIwe Wort fle-ber M(lria
(Salzburg, 1947} - the entire book is a commentaty on the M arian epilogue of
the encyclical Myttici Corporis Ch."Uitij C. BaHt O.F.M., De dootrin" pltilosol,hica
et tlleologiea Pii Pnpae XII eiusqw~ fllOme-ll'/'O (Ad Clatas Aquas, 1949), pp. 91- 98;
D. Berte-tto, S.D.B., La dottrina Mnria'lUt di Pia XlI, in Sale_~anl,('"', Vol I I , 1949,
pp. 1-24; J. Carol, O.F.M., Mary's Co-Redemption in the Teaching of Pope Pius
XII, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 121, 1949, pp. 353-361; and,
of course, the innumerable commentaries on the Apostolic Constitution, Munifi-
centissimus Deus, November I, 1950, defining the bodily Assumption of Our Lady
into heaven.
n.a To cite but a few, d . H. Seiler, S.J., Co'rre-dellllJt.ri;>:. Theologisc'he Stu~Iie :z;ur
Lellrs ,leI' Illtzte" Pnelwe- lleber die MiterLoeserschejft Mutiem ( Rom, 1939); J.
Carol, O_P.M., De Corretlel1l1£'tione B. V . M. ( Civitas Varicana, 1950), pp. 509-539;
A. Baumann, Maria Mater 1w~'tTa spiritualis. Eine theologische tTnters-uclHtng ~Ieher
die- ge/stige MollttllTschaft Mari e-rlS 11l aet' Ae1~sel'/,mgell aer Pae-pst,e VOtl~ Triden--
tim,l m 1,is he1,~te ( BIixen 1948); G. Shea, The Teach.ing of the. Magisteril.ltfl em
Mary's SpJril:IUll Maternity, in Marlt:m Stll(lies, Vol. 3, !9J2, pp. 35'- 110; E. Carron,
O.Carm., 01'T Lady' s Q11eetlShil' in the Magisteri'lltfl of tnll Cll1ITCh, in M(lrja'I
SllruHe.s, VoL 4 195'3, pp. 2.9-108· A. Robichaud, S.M .• The Com,maculate CO1/.-
eeprio" -j,n the Magisterillm of the hUTch before 1854, in Mt,Il-ia1t StHd.;.es, Vol. 5,
1954. pp. 73-145; A. Wolter, O.F.M., The Theology of lire z.mm acl~late CC)1I.Cll-l'-
tion in the Light of 'Il'te ffnbilis DelloS,' in Mar-ian, $ t1l!1'ies, Vol. 5, 1954, pp. 19----72.
 MARIOLOGY
inviting vein though they be, quite unexploited as yet are the teach-
ings of the universal episcopate. 2 '17
Another heartening feature of contemporary Marian studies is the
high level of biblical Mariology. Noteworthy js the conscientious
effort of scholars to determine and apply the principles hlvolved in
the explanation of the Marian texts of Sacred Scripture.248 On these
many passages210 countless new commentaries have appeared, geared
to the great progress of modern biblical s.eience. Invalllable, although
at times Ultraconservative, 's the Ma.riologia bibLica of Father Ceup-
pens, wruch endeavors to expound all the major Marian texts of the
Bible.~ijO Among the many other general works of lasting signi£cance
on must single ont for express mention those of the Dominican,
F.-M. Braun, and the Jesuit, Paul Gachter.251 11h.istrative of the
numerous major studies of particular texts are the contributions of
J.-F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., T . Gallus, S.J., and B. Le Frois, S.V.D.252
2~T J. Gt~l, a.p.M., bas ~atbered and analyz.~d episcopnl teac~illg ?U his :f~vorite
subject: Episcopor'lI'm docl,rlJL.a de Heala Vtrgl.i,e OlTedemprnce, 1.11 Mananmn,
Vol. 10, 194!l, pp. 2.10-2.$8; ie/em., De CorrCldClmpt;o/lc BY.M., rp. 539-619. 111C
mind of Pope Piu,s lX's fellow bishops on the Lnrna.clllate Conception was ex-
IJICssed in tue;iT replies to his encyclical, Ubi pl'iumm (February 2, 1849), which
were published in Pnren rJeU'Episcopalo Cattolieo . . . sl,Ha dejinizionc dogmatica
dClU'lmmacolalo Co'ltcepimefl.to delE« Bea·ta Vergil'Le .Maria., 1(;) vols. (Roma., 18; 1-
1854) . The mind of many bishops on the doclrme of the AssllDlIJtion, as inclicared
in petitions Sent to lhe Holy See between t869-l94I, can be seen in the
mOllumental work of W. Hentrich, S.J., and R. De Moos, S.J. Petitiones de
AsS'Wti~l:iofl.e Corporea B. V . Mariae i]'l cael1ml de.{lnietlda ad Sarlct(l1.'~ Scdem
delatae, 2 vols. (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1942). The materials in this work,
in the Pafm'i . . . I in the Co l.lectio Lacensis and 'milar conections, in pastoral
letters, catechisms, etc., invite study insofar as they reBect the mind of the
universal episcopate on ' many other Mariologic.al tOpics, e.g., Mal-y's spiritunl
l'vlaternlty; cr. G. Shea, art. cit., in Marian St11aies, Vol. 3, ~952., pp. 39, 53-54.
2~8 CE. O. Unger, O.F.M .Cap., Th/l Use of Sac.:red Sari,pl,ure in Mu:rio/.og y. ill
M<1:ricm Stud.ies, Vol. I , 19;0, pp. 67-1 r6' S. Alameda. O.s .B., La MarioJogta y
las fuenles de Z4 revelado1L, in EstlLditls Maricmos, Vol. 1, 1942, pp. 41-72..
~.1D cr. A. Hobert, P .S.S., La Sain.te Vierge dans l'Attcie1~ Testcnne'1'!t, in Maria,
ed . H. du Ma11oir, Vol. I, Pl" 21-39. A. Dea, S.J., Das Mari:etlbilil des Alrea
B1mues, in Kathol.j·cJle MaricmllMude, ed. Strater, Vol. 1, pp. 23-43; G. Rilion,
La Sclinte Vlerge a41:1-s le NOlwenn Testamellll, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1
pp. 43-68; A. ]'vlerk, S.J., Das M<1rienbiLd des Ieuen BlI.mles, in KatlroliscllCl
Ma rie1l1clwI'I de, cd. Strater, Vol. I, pp. 44- 84; Scheeben-Geukers, Mariology. Vol.
I, pp. 9-4[; Scheeben-Feckes, Die nmeT't~jdre GotlieSmTtl.ler, pp. 1-18.
~flO F. CCllpl'ens, a .p., De Mariowgia b£blic.a (Tlleologia biblicaj 4), cd . 2-
CfIlU1"inj, 1951.).
251 F.-M. Braun, a.p., La M ere des fidele s. Essai de theologie johan nique ( Paris,
1953); P. Gachter, S.J., Maria im Erdenlehen. Neutestamentliche Marienstu dien
Clnnsbruck, 1953).
252 J.-F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., Le mystere de M arie selon Ie Protevangile et
l' Apocalypse ( Paris, 1949) ; T. Gallus, S.J., Interpretatio m ariologica Protoevangelii
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 325

Nor has that other branch of positive theology been neglected,

study of the monuments of Tradition. The impetus which was given
to such study by the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Concep-
tion and by subsequent non-Catholic attacks on the newly defined
dogma was intensified by Modernist opposition to Marian doctrines
(A. Loisy, J. Turmel, H. Koch, and others),253 by the century-long
movement culminating in the solemn definition of Our Lady's cor-
poral Assumption, and by controversies among Catholic theologians
on Mariological questions still open to debate. Under this stimulation
scholars have produced a vast literature exhibiting and evaluating the
Marian testimonies of the Church Fathers and of the ancient lit-
urgies. 254 In addition, as our footnotes will have suggested, the Mario-
logical teachings of earlier theologians have been the object of tireless
research. 255
Discussions on the systematic treatment of Mariology are another
remarkable feature of the contemporary scene. 256 Involved here are
several questions, intimately interrelated: the right of Mariology to
exist as a distinct tract within the theological system, the proper
location of that distinct treatise within the over-all system, the organ-
ization and structure of the treatise, and the existence and nature of
a first principle which would preside over the structure of Mariology,
giving the treatise organic unity and order.257 The problem as to the

(Gen . 3, 15) tempore. 1J1l$tpa~Tist'ico 1,sq'l,e a,d Cone. Trid,e.ntimMII (Romac. 1949);
i,dem, I1vte"1.7r£!ta,tio lnaTfologica P1'O't.oellangclii posttridcnl;ina 'I~sqf~e ,a d de.{initj,01'le.m
dogmaHcllta I '/l't'Wlacu/atae C01'/.ce.pt1onts. PaJ.:s prior: aetas IIl.rea • . " usque aJ
anmPln 1660 (Romae. 1953); D. Le Frnis, S.V.D., The. Wom,a n Clothed Witl~
the. Sun (Rome, 1954); D. J. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The. First-Gospel: Ge.nesis 3, 15
(Saint BOrulventmc> N. Y., 1954).
2as CE. E. Dublan,chy, art. Marie, in DTC, Vol. 9, cols. 2345-2347; E. Campana,
Maf'ia nil! dognUi Ct:li'tolico, ed. 6, pp. 603-606, 625-652.
2M For or,ient:Jtio~1 in. this field, d. Katholische Marienkunde, ed. Straeter, Vol.
I, pp. 85-136 (artiCles on the Eastern Fathers and liturgies), pp. 137-267 (artiCles
a
on the Latin Fathers and liturgies); G. Jouassard, Marie travers la Patristique, in
Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. I, pp. 71-157; see also pp. 215-361, articles on
MalY in the liturgies.
2"5 Mention may be made here of the small but useful antbology of P . Palmer.
S.J.• Mary i1Jl the. Docmn,e.ll,ts of the Church (West:I:Qinstcr, Md., 1952). containino-
annotated selections from the ecclesiastical m,~gisteri.um. from Chmch Fathers an~
theologians.
256 Cf. F. Connell, C.SS.R., Toward a Systematic Treatment of Mariology, in
Marian Studies, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 56-66.
257 Cf. Connell, art. cit.; E. Druwe, S.J., Position e.t structure du Traite Marial,

in Bull. de la Soc. Frang. d'Etude.s Mariales (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 7-34; R. Laurentin,
Le probleme. initial de. methodologie. mariale, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. I,
pp. 695-706.
 MARIOLOGY
nature of the fundamental principle of Mariology is complicated by
various questions on the nexus between the different prerogatives of
O ur Lady/DB and h as, in consequence, given rise to a great Dumber
of opinions.m
Side b y side with th ese genera) and methodological problems, many
particular questions of Mariology have been the center of contem-
porary interest. Quite naturally, the Apostolic COl1stimtion, Munif1-
c(mtissit'wus Deus (November 1, 1950), the fiTSt centenary of Ineffa-
hilis Deus (December 8, r854), and the exhortations the or
encyclical Fulge11s corona (September 8, 1953), have focused atten-
tion on the subHme and interconnected prerogatives of the Immaculate
Conception of O ur Blessed M other and of her corporal Assumption
into heaven. &; to the many other topics currently of major interest/GO
Ihilltatiol1S of space pennit only the bare mention of two, Our Lady's
role oE Coredemptrix,20l- and her relationship with the Chllrch. 2G '
2.8 Cf, L. Everett, .SS.R ., The Ne:>:t~S bet.w een Mary's Co-Redenl'lltoion «'luI ller
other Pl·erogal,i17e.l, in MarieI/> S~/£cl:ies, Vol. I , 1950., pp. 132-137.
25U CEo for discussion an d bibliogmphy, G . Roschini, La Madonna secO?ldo 1a
Fede la Teo1.ogia, Vol. I , pp. 97-116; idem, Mariologia Vol. I, pp. 324-337; A.
Mueller, Um llie Gruncllage. cler Mariologle, in D iv-rM TIWlnas (F,ibourg), Vol. 29,
1951, pp. 385-40.1 (summary in "rheolo&1' Dige~t, Vol. I , 1953, Pl" 139-r44); E.
LedvQ(owslti, MO'terni'las d.~vi1ia fwn.dQ1I'len,i~~J/~ J\ifariologiae, in Mariam/,f l:l, Vol. 15,
1953, pp. 176-194·
2UU Cf. G. Philips, Sommes-no1/.S entTl!s d.an.~ Wl'le t)lulSe lIIariologique?, in
Marirmmn, Vol. 14, 1952, pp. 1-48; i.dem, Les l'roblelnes (loffleIs (I.e la £heologie
marta/e, in J\llarimwlIl, Vol. 1I, 1949, pp. 24--53; . Micllel, C1rf'oniqne ,le Theologie
1n.ariaLe, in L'/lIni {It,~ Clerge, Vol. 60., 1950., pp. 33-48, 97-li2j J. Carol, T he
Mario1ogicltlt M.ovement, il~ the World Today, in MI1,..i~~L Stndl.es, Vol. I, 1950., pp.
3 2 -45.
~6J Cf. J. B. Coml, art. cit., in Marian lud'ies, Vol I , 1950, Pl' 34-37; itlem,
De Corredetnpl,iolle 13. V. Madae (Civitas Vaticana , 1950), bibliogJ:'lphy, pp. 9-42.;
idem, The Problem of Om Lady's Corede'l'l11'~i(m in The Atl'J,erican. Ecc1esiostical
Review, Vol. ll3, July, 1950, pp. 32-5 I ; idem" Our LOlly's Coreilem.ptio'l~ in tlte
Mariar~ LiterapfI,re of Nine teenth CelJ,t1'-YY America, in Mariamrm, Vol. 14, 19.52,
pp. 49-63; Marian St.udies, Vol. 2, T951 (clH~ volume is devoted lThnnly to th is
question); . Boyer, S.J., Tlioug1~ts oi~ Mary's Coredempl'io'/T, in Studies in 1'raise
of O llr Blessed. Mother, ea. Penton-Benard (Washington, D. C., 1952) , pp. 147-
161; ALma Socia Christi (Actn Congressus Mariologici-m;lriani Romae almo saucto
I 9";O celebrati), Vol. 2. ( Romae, 1'952), entirely uevoted to tlri$ question; additional
b ibliogra phy in . Leloir, La meaiatim1 marlale dnns la ~lleologie eontfl'mporaine
(Bruges·Palis T93 ), and in C. Dillenschrteider, Marie au. senljce de norre R&le1fl.p-
tiOll (Haguenau. 19,17)j itle1u, POlif '/11116 Cortlc1emption mari(lle bien comprise
(Home. 1949); ';~cm Le 1I'1.ystere de la Coreil.fJl~ll,';on, '1171l1'inle. T heories nOH'udle.1
(p;nis, 1 )1;. C losely connected 1;..,ith O u ~ Lady's oredemption is ti,e speciEc
q'uestion of Mary's share in the ptiesthoorl of Christ. By Ear the best publications on
this subiect are those of Hen.!. L'lrentin, i'Jifaria, Ecclesia, Sacerrlodfl,m ; essai ,~/l.r
le developpement d'une idee religieuse ( P aris, I952); and Marie, l'Eglise et le Sacer-
doee; etude theologique ( Paris, 1953); d. also the same author's important con-
 MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 327

The theological deepening of these themes will, as has been the case
with earlier Manological developments, both reveal new facets in
the gems adorning Our Lady's radiant crown of glory and, at the
same time, yield precious new insights into the entire deposit of faith.

tribution RClle de Marie et de l'Eglise dans l'oeuvre salvifique du Christ, in

Bulletin de la Societe Frant;aise d'Etudes Mariales, Vol. 10, 1952, pp. 43-62.
262 Cf. G. Philips, Perspectives mariologiques. Marie et l'Eglise. Essai bibliographi-

que, in Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 436-511; H. Lennerz, S.J., Maria-Ecclesia,
in Gregorianum, Vol. 35, 1954, pp. 90-98; Etudes Mariales. Marie et l'Eglise, I
(Bull. de la Soc. Frant;. d'Etudes Mariales, Paris, 1951); H. de Lubac, S.J.,
Meditation sur t'Eglise (Paris, 1953), pp. 273-329; K. Delahaye, Maria: Typus der
KiTche, in Wissenschaft und Wahrheit, Vol. 5, 1949, pp. 79-92; Y. Congar, a.p.,
Le Christ, Marie, et l'Eglise (Bruges, 1952); additional bibliography in Theology
Digest, Vol. I, 1953, pp. 139-145, and particularly in R. Laurentin, Bibliographie
critique sur Marie et l'Eglise, in Bulletin de la Societe Frant;aise d'Etudes Mariales
(Paris, 1953), pp. 145-152.
 Mary's Immaculate Conception *

By AIDAN CARR, O.F.M.CoNv., S.T.D., AND

GERMAIN WILLIAMS, O.F.M.CONV., S.T.D.

T HE Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the

Virgin Mary was fonnulat d with absolute precision and for all
t.ime in the Bull of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, on December 8,
1854. The essential words of the definition are these:
The most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception,
was by the singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of
the merits of J sus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune
from all stain of Original sin. Tills doctrine is revealed by God and
therefore must be firmly and constantly l)elieved by all the faithful?
As is evident from the terms of this proposition, there are two
constitulive elements in the definition: 1. a declaration of the privi-
lege itself of the Immaculate Conception; 2. a statement of the
certitude of tha t privHege.
r. DECLARATION OF THE PRIVILEGE

In order the better to understand what is contained within this

singular privilege of Christ's Mother, one may examine the com"
ponent parts, or "causes," or the Immaculate Conception. hese are:
a) Material cause, or subject. Obviously, the subject of the mmac-
ulate Conception is the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary, considered
.in the or t instant of her conception in the womb of her mother. A
human begins to be, in the tme sense., at the moment the soul is
created by God and infused into the fetus, and this is the moment
~ Editor's Note. According to our original plans, this f,aper, and the one im-
medialely following, were robe pllbJ:isl1cd in the second vo ume of this seL, devoted
to we systematic treatment of Our Lady's prerogatives. Since an extensive pllpct all
the Marioiogy of the Ef stern Fathers, intended Ior the -fiTst volume, was 110t avail·
able in time, it was decided to exch(lnge places in oIdet to achieve the desi.ruble
balance in the over-all number of pages.
1 n.R, No. "1:641.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 329
of animation. That is called Mary's "passive conception." Passive
conception is the terminus of the parents' generative act, which act
is, by way of contradistinction, called "active conception."2
Before the human fetus is informed by a rational soul, the concep-
tion is known as "inchoate," while from the instant of the animation
of the fetus, the conception is "consummated."3 It is solely when
the fetus is consummately conceived that a person has come into
being. At precisely what stage of fetal development the soul is
created and infused by God has always provided theologians with
material for subtle discussion, but modern writers commonly favor
the opinion that it takes place at the very first moment of fecundation .
The definition of the Immaculate Conception offers no intimation
as to the official teaching of the Church on the point.
Surely it would be untenable to argue in favor of any sanctification
of Mary prior to the animation of the fetus, for until the moment
of the substantial union between soul and body there is not yet a
person, and hence no possible subject of grace. Only a r ational person
can be sanctified. The privilege accordiuO'ly affects uniquely th person
of the Virgin, and not merely the so uJ n or merely the virginal body
of the Mother of God. The initial sanctity of Mary concerns excl u-
sively her personal conception achieved in sanctifying grace. Her. free-
dom from the stain of all sin is iden tified with her being and her
personality. 4
b) Formal cause, or object. This aspect of the privilege of the
Immaculate Conception concerns the fact of the preservation of the
Virgin from all stain of original sin. The definition directly denies
that she contracted the guilt of Adam's curse, and so indirectly it
affirms, because of the diametrical opposition between sin and grace,
that she possessed sanctifying grace from the first instance of her per-
sonal existence. Original sin , according to the settled teaching of the
Church, is th e deprivation of grace inllicted upon the posterity of
Adam as a consequence of his personal sin; it is a radical enmity
between a sinful mankind and the Creator. 6 Therefore, directly to
exempt Mary from this essential effect of original sin is indirectly to
affirm that she enjoyed an original sanctity through grace, with its
2 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., Mariologia (Parisiis, 1939), p. 105 £F.
3 For a thorough treatment of the species of conception, cf. G. Alastruey, Mario-
logia (Vallisoleti, 1934), Vol. I, p. 180 If.
4 Cf. Ephrem Longpre, O.P.M., Exposition du Dogme de l'Immaculee Conception,
in Deuxieme Congres Marial National (Lourdes, I930 ) ,P' 81.
5 DYC, Vol. 7, cols. 845-846.
 MARIOLOGY
accompanying adoptive filiation as a child of God. She was ever on
terms of perfe t friendship vvith God. n
Similarly, the privilege of the Immaculate Conception i<> expressed
negatively when it is stated that Mary was always without originaJ
sin. It j exl [essed positively when it is stated that she always had
sanctifying grace. While in the words of the very definition of the
do trine the fommla employs tbe negative statement, yet in other
cognate sections of the Bull Ineflahilis De1J.s the positive aspect re-
ceives due emphasis. A li1<e duality of expression of the Virgin's sanc-
tity, two sides of the One coin, appears in the writings of the Fathers
of the Church and of later theologians, wnerehl sometimes is empha-
sized the negation of all sin, while again is stressed 'ather the posjtive
fullness of grace. 7
The a11gelS and our first parents, prior to the angelic and hlUnan
falls from grace, were immune from any sin actual or original. But
their immunity is to be distinguished hom tha t proper to the Mother
of God, for she was preserved immune. As will be seen in oreater
detail later, the immunity attributed to her was (Uvinely provided for
in view of ,the merits or Christ, Whiell were applied to her in an
exceptional and unigue manner. She was redeemed. s he grace
which adorned the angelic nature, lil{e that granted to Adam and
Eve, was 'Iowed" to them in the hypotheSiS that God had decreed the
elevation of the angels and of OUI first parents to the supernah1l'al
order. I-laving so to speal{ "obligated" Himself to give the means by
which alone such an elevation could be realized, God accOl:ding]y
constituted the angels and the 6..rs man and woman in a state of
sanctifying grace. 9 But in the case of Mary, although in fact she was,
in virtue of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, constituted
in grace from the first moment of her existence, nevertheless as a
lineal descendant of Adam's infected nature, she would have been
conceived in sin, had not God intervened to preserve her.10 This
6 Cf. Charles Gonthier, Marie et Ie Dogme (paris, 1920), pp. 26-33.
7 Cf. C. Passaglia, S.]., De Immaculata De/parae semper Virginis conceptu
(Romae, 1855), Sec. I, 2, 3. Cf. also Sedulius, I 1t C(Lrmitla Paschalia, lib. 2, v.
28, PL, 19, 596; Opera Augustini, appendix, PL, 8, IIOI; Opera Augustini, sermo
r23, PL, 5, 1990; Iva, In serm. de Nativit. Domini, PL, 162, 570. For Eastern
thought on this, d . S. M. Le Bachelet, L'Immacolata Concezione (Roma, 1904),
Parte I: L'Orirmte. Specifically for Spain, d. 1. M. Oller, Espana y la Inmaculada
Concepci6tt ( Madrid, 1905), passim.
S Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 847.
9 Cf. S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., I, q. 95, a. r.
10 Cf. Martin ]ugie, A.A., L'Immaculee Conception dans L'Ecriture sainte et
dans la tradition orientale (Rome, 1952), p. I I.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 331

miraculous preservation will be considered at length in a subsequent

part of this article.
Finally, the immunity of the Blessed Virgin Mary from.the stain of
man's primal sin is specifically different trom the ..freedom possessed
by her divine Son. u He had no hmnan father according to the flesh,
for the active principle of His carnal generation was the overshadow-
ing action of the Holy Spirit, in virtue of wlrich His Mother Con-
ceived Him.'2 Since no seed of Adam begot Christ, there can be no
question of tainted human nature in any way infecting Him. Surely
the Redeemer of mankind needed no redemptionl
c) Eflicie12t cause of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception
is God, or rather His great love for the woman destined to be the
Mother of the Incarnate Word. Tlus divine benevolent love moti-
vated God to preserve Mary from the stain of all sin, in view of her
sacred Materuity and through the merits of ChTist her Son. This
wondrous immunity effected by God's love and special providence
still numbered Mary among the redeemed, but with the unique
modalily of redemplJ."on that might better be called "prereuemptlon"
or "redemption in a more sublime manner" than that acco oded to
all other children of Adam. While in the case of tbe rest of man-
kind the merits of the Saviour are applied in suchwise as to free
them trom the guilt of original sin already contracted at their concep-
tion; in Mary's case, On the contrary, the fruit of Christ's redeeming
life and death was applied in suchwise as to I) reserve her from ever
contracting Adam's guilt. Accol"dingly, tlris gratuitous concession on
the part of God did Dot infringe at all on the formality of the
Saviour's redemptive role. la
While the redemption obtained by other humans is properly de~
scribed as "restorative" or '1iberative," that of Mary is sinlply Imown
as "preservative," and is incomparably of a nobler kind.
In this light it is evident that the doctrine of the Immaculate Con-
ception does not derogate from the universality of Christ's Redemp-
tion, for Mary, although immaculately conceived, was still redeemed
by her Son, whose theandric life and piacular death contain the
meritorious cause of Ilis Mother's singular grace. It was th e difficulty
of a seeming derogation from the universality of Christ's redemption
which had prevented theologians prjor to the Franciscan, Duns Scotns
Ct 1308), [-rom affirming the truth of Mary's Immaculate Concep·
n Cf. S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 31, a. 7.
12 Lk. 1:35.
18 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., Mariologia, p. 108.
33 2 MARIOLOGY
tion. It is the particular glory of Scotus, in regard to the entire doc-
trine of the Immaculate Conception, that h e demonstrated not only
the nonrepugnance of the dogma in the context of mankind's original
sin, but its nonrepugrumce as well in the context of Christ's universal
Hedemption. Other theologians denied that Mary was conceived in
grace because they were persuaded that to admit it would be to
detract fTom the honor du Christ. It r mained for Scotll,S, on the
contrary, to show that by denying the Immaculate Conception one
indeed would derogate from the excellence of Christ insofar as He
is a perfect Redeemer. 14
d) Final cause, in the sense of the ultimate reason for the Immacu-
late Conception, was that Mary might be a fully worthy instrument
for the accomplishment of the Incamation. 15 As to the dogmatic defi-
nition itself, its ultimate reason was as the Bull declares, "the honor
of the most holy and undivided Trinity, the adornment and dignity
of the Virgin Mother of God, and the exaltation of the Catholic
Faith and Christian religion." 16

2. CERTITUDE OF THE PRIVILEGE

The Bulllneffabilis Deus defines that the doctrine of d1e Immacu-

late Conception is "revealed by God and therefore must be firmly
and constantly believed by all th e faithful."1-? Since this truth is,
according to the words of the S vereign Pontiff, a revealed one, it
follows that it must b form ally contained in the deposit of divine
revelation, and not merely contained virtually therein as a theological
conclusion the minOt prem;ise of which is human reaSon. While Pope
Pius IX seems to indicate that the doctrine is formally revealed, still
he does not specify wh ther that revelatjon h as be ' D luade to us in
an explicit manner by God, that is to say, in an express and Hrect
manner, or whether it has been revealed only implicitly, that is to
say, indirectly and bscurely. T hat question the Pontiff left to th e
14 Cf. Carolus Balie, O.F.M., De debito peccati originalis in B. Virgine Maria
( Rornae, 1941 ), 11. 88.
15 Cf. the cogent acgtiment of Scotus on this point in Sebastianus Dupasquier,
O.F.M.Conv., 'I.It1'''''/'I(1 Theologiae SCQlift/·coll, Vol. 3 (pntavii, 1706), p. 244. Cf.
also Vincent Mayer, O.F.M.Conv., The Teachi1~g of the Ven. John Duns Scotus
(on the Immacl<late C01Iceptwn), iii Ftaitoiscat~ Stl~djes, Vol. 4 (New York, 1926),
pp. 39-4 6.
16 D.B., No. 1641.
17 D .B., No. 1641. Cf. Ludovicus Lercher, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae Dogma-
tioae, Vol. 3 (Oeniponte, 1934), p. 338.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 333
deliberations of theologians,18 reshicting himself to declaring that the
Immacula.te Conception is a truth revealed by God. That something
is in. fact contained in the deposit of revelation is one thing: the
way in which it is contained is another tIring. Since God can reveal
a truth explicitly or implicitly, it follows accordingly that this truth
itself can likewise be included in Ievelation either explicitly or
implicitly.1D
According to the principles of the Catholic Faith, all revealed
truth is enveloped ill Scripture and Tradition, and one must accept,
"with like pious affection and reverence" the two sources of revel a-
tion. 20 Hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not
merely deduced from revelation without actually being revealed; nor
is it some dogmatic fact in some way only connected with a revealed
dogma to which it stands related; nor is it a new doctrine. The truth
of Mary's Immaculate Conception is undeniably one given by God
to the Apostles in revelation, and delivered by them to the Church.21
The certitude of the do lTine is rooted not merely in the authoritative
teaching office of the atholic Church , making u se of Scripture and
Apostolic Tradition but the writings of the Fathers and later theo-
logians, together with the common consent of the vast body of the
faithful, all offer iue[,;ag ble testimony to that certitude.

ADVERSARIES OF THE DOCTRINE

Only non~Catholics stand opposed to the Immaculate Conception
of the Virgin Mary. Among them must be numbered the schis~natic
Greek "Orthodox" Church, the "Old Catholics" £olUlded by Dollin-
ger late in the nineteenth century, Fwtestants of all sects, Rational-
ists, and divers other groupings. All these object to the doctrine itself,
m.aintaining that it is nO part of tlle Christian religion, and so reject
th definition as contrary to revealed truth. As grounds for refusal
to accept the Immaculate C onception, spokesmen for the objectors
allege the same difficulties offered by adversaIies prior to the solemn
definition in 1854. This contrary pOSition is expressed su ccinctly in
the question of the Protestant theologian HaInack : '1£ this truth is
a revealed one, wh en was it revealed and to whom?"22
18 CE. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. VIII.
19 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 847.
20 D.B., No. 1787.
21 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 109.
22 Cf. Gabriel M. Roschini, O.S.M., Mariologia, ed. 2 , Vol. 2 (Romae, 1948),
p. 23·
334 MARIOLOGY

TENOR OF THE BULL "INEFFABILIS DEUS"

In his solemn pontifical document, Pope Pius IX deEmed the doc-
trine of the hnmaculate Conception to be 0 faith for Catholics in
virtue of his supreme power as Vicar of Christ, but at the same time
be acknowledged that the dennhioD reflected the universal mind of
the Church's hierarchy and of the Catholic faithful, for their opinion
h ad been asked for and found favorable. The Sovereign Pontiff, by
way of preamble to the definition -proper, statetl th.:'lt God from all
eternity chose a Mother for His Son, and because Ie loved her more
than He loved any other creature He, therefore, endowed her willl
the gift of freedom from all stain of sin, a gift most becoming to the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Pope reminded the Catholic world of the enduring attention
which the Church down thIough the centmies had devoted to the
development of the doctrine, even to the extent of havin!.7 instituted
a feast of the Conception and in other ways encouraging the piety
of the faithful toward a cult of the unique privilege of Mary. Th
doctrine was favored by popes prior to Pius IX, and Alexander VII
xplid tly declared tllat the ln1maculate Conception might safely
be defended as Catholic truth. 28 A similar opinion was consistently
h eld by various religious cOl11mtmities and eminent theologians, as
well as by many synods throughout the world. "nle Pope further
mentioned in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus that the cogency of the favor-
able testimony of the most ancient sources in the Oriental Church
contributed in no small measure to the advance in the way toward
definition.
Pius IX Singled out the force of the argument derived from the
writings of the Fathers of the Church who so greatly exalted the
sanctity and dignity of the Mother of God, referring to her immunity
Erom sin and applying to her afPosite sections of Scripture, especially
the references to "the woman' in Gen. 3:I 5, and the salutation of
the qngel to Mary narrated in the Gospel of St. Lul<.e r :28. The tra~
ditional writings of the most renowned Fathers described Mary's
plenitude of grace as a kind of climax of all God's miracles in the
order of grace. This conviction of Ma,ry's high holiness and immunily
from the stam of sin was shared by the generations of simple faithful
as well as by the Catholic clergy of the ages, all of whom found
23 Cf. Armand Robichaud, S.M., The Immaculate Conception in the Magisterium
of the Church, in Marian Studies, Vol. 5 (Washington, D. C., 1954), pp. 118-120.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 335
pious consolation in venerating the Immaculate Mother of God.
Countless petitions were addressed to the Holy See requesting a
formal deEnition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
In concluding his Bull, Pius IX spol<e of his own efforts with
regard to the doctrine, pointing out that once elevated to the Chair
ofPetel' he longed most ardently to promote the honor of Mary in
every way possible and to enhance her cult by m. king her singular
prerogatives more widely Imown. To the achievement of tlllS end
the Pontiff added that he had instituted a special commission of
cardinals to examine the questions connected with the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception, and had dispatched leuers to the bishop
of the world in this connection in February, 1849. In reply to these
Papal inquiries, the bishops confirmed the universal piety of their
people toward this privilege of the Blessed Virgin, annexing their
own petitions that the Immaculate Conception be defined by the
Roman Pontiff. The special commission of cardinals had returned a
like decision.
Accordingly, being unwilling furtller to delay a olemo pronounc
ment, and after consultation with a consistory of the cardinals, to-
gether with much private and public prayer imploring the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, the Pope determined to declare and define that
the doctrine of Mary's lnunaculate Conception is one of faith.
Finally, the Supreme Pontiff affirmed his joy and gratitude that it
was grallted to him to offer this honor to the Mother of Christ, trust-
ing that she wo'uld continue by her patronage to aiel the Chmch
yet more in its divine work. He exhorted the faithful to increase their
venera'tion and piety toward "the Virgin conceived without sin. ll2-1
ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE
Support for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as found in
the sacred writings of the Old and the New Testament is neither
abundant nor coercive. 23 Although this truth is contained implicitly
rather than explicitly in Scripture, yet when the indications therein
comprised axe carefulJy examined in the lueid context of Tradition
and authority, it becomes manifest how intimately Mary's immunity
nom all sin is joined to the inspired account of God's plan for man's
24 Cf. Paul F. Palmer, S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (West-
minster, Md., 1952), pp. 81-89.
25 Cf. Narcisco Garda Garces, C.M.F., Titulos y Grandezas de Maria (Madrid,
1952), p. 384 If,; Scoti-Guarrae-Aureoli, Quaestiones Disputatae de Immaculata
Conceptione B. V. M. (Ad Claras Aquas, 1904), p. VII.
 MARIOLOGY
redemption. As the sharp lines of a valley below may become appar-
ent only when the climber stands upon a summit, similarly the pro-
found content of God's word awaited the clarification of the passing
centuries. 26
Pertinent texts both in the Old and the New Testament are classi-
cally considered either as principal or as ancillary. The former are
clearer and more forceful and so lead more immediately to a support
of the doctrine; the latter are less cogent. The characteristic of the
Old Testament: foreshadowing the brightness of the New Testament
and representing subsequent figures through types and prefigures, is
quite evident with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Con-
ception. 27 The eminent Martin Jugie has observed that there are
some twenty-four places in Scripture which have been cited as favor-
ing the dogma, and that these various allusions have perhaps been
subjected to the least critical analysis of all proofs of the doctrine. 28

1. PRINCIPAL SCRIPTURAL PROOFS

A. In the Old Testament

The abiding enmity between the serpent, the devil, and the
woman, Mary, as developed in the exegesis of the text of Gen. 3: 15:
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and
her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her
heel," is commonly offered in support of the Immaculate Conception.
Whatever differences may exist among Scripture scholars as to the
correct interpretation of this important passage, there can be no
serious doubt but that the Blessed Virgin is "the woman" mentioned. 29
Nor can any construction placed upon the famolls i1,sa pronoun used
by the Vulgate, derogate from the force of th is text, since the essen-
tial notion of Mary's utter freedom from any diabolical dominion is
26 Cf. Jean-Fran<;:ois Bonnefoy, a.F.M., Le Mystere de Marie selon Ie Pro-
tevangile et l'Apocalypse (Paris, 1949), passim; F. Ceuppens, a.p., Theologia
Biblica, Vol. 4: De Mariologin Biblica (Romae, 1948), pp. 70, 208.
27 Cf. G. Alastruey, op. cit., p. 182.
28 Cf. Martin Jugie, op. cit., p. 41.
29 Cf. Francis X. Peirce, S.J., Mary Alone is "the W01'l'lQll" of Genes~s 3, 15, in
The Catholic BibHcat Q1~arterly, Vol. 2 . (Washington, D. c., r94o), NO.3, pp.
245-252; Antonine De Guglielmo. a.p.M., Mary in tJ1e PTiJ toe1J{mge!i~t1)l, in The
Catholic Biblical QtlQI'/;etly, Vol. 14, 1952., No. 2., FP' 104- 115; J. Coppens, Le
Protevangile, in Ephe11lerides Th.eologicae Lovan·ienses, Vol. 26 (l.ouvain, 1950),
p. 35·
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 337
sufficiently indicated in tlle phrase, "I will put enmities. , . ."30
The Blessed Virgin is the woman whose radical opposition to all that
SataJ~ stands for demands a perfect immlmity from sin, speci:.6cally
from original sin, and the reference to her is in a literal sense.S~ The
enmity described requires that Mary be finally a complete victor
over the devil and his snares, and this she would not have been if
for one instant she had been subjected to Satan through the slavery
of sin. The crushing of the serpent's head can mean nothing else
than a perfect immunity from his evil stain. 52
The New Eve, the Mother of the Messias, and Lucifer, the author
of sin, are in every way enemies, with the conquest divinely assured
to be Mary's. At no time were these hostile forces as allies; at no
time was the Virgin Mother a vanquished satellite of God's proud
rival. Sanctifying grace alone establishes man in God's friendship
and, by the same token, constitutes him Satan's bitter foe. The
absence of that grace from the soul, effected by sin, ranges one in
the ranks of the Prince of darkness by removing one from a share in
the divine nature, the essential function of God's grace. Had there
been an instrnt, J10wever brief, when Mary's soul was stripl?ed of
grace, then Scr:iptme could not properly refer to Mary as one who
vanquished the very personification of evil. Whetl1er Eve be con-
sidered as a type of the Blessed Virgin, or whether the woman
described is Mary in a more literal acceptation, there is had a clear
antithesis between good and evil, as between the state of God's
Mother and Eve after the Fall; as between Christ the New Adam,
and the old Adam, enmeshed in sin. 33
The conjoint victory of the Redeemer and His Mother over the
devil is the divine reply to the common defeat of the first parents
30 DTC, Vol. 7, col. '859. Of. Froucis J. Connell, C.SS.R., Hislorkml Develop-
ment of t7~c Dog1'na, of the ImmaC'f~late Concerdon, in S,twlies jon Ptalise of Our
}31.essed Mother, ed. Penton-Benard ( Washington, D. C., 1952.), p. 94.
$1 Of. P. F. Ceuppe:n.s, D.P., De Marl,ologia Blblica, ed. 2 ( ROlD,lle, 1951), pp.
r6-r 7; Tiburtil:ls Gallus, S.J., Intel'preta'tjo Mariologica Prot,oevangelii. ( Romae,
1949), passim; G. ATendt, S.]., De Protoe'V{lngeiii habi.hldi,?i,e u(l 111'f1l1ClC'f.(,lm,a,tI~ Dci-
parae COllcc1:'PiOn(ffl'1 ( Romae, 1904). See Father E . May's paper in this vohune.
a2 Cf. Sebastianus DupaSquier, O.F.M.Conv., 01" cit., p. 237; Raymundo Mar-
tinez y Perr.er, De 1I1iZitme et fQ#one S't~flioie1m ~II;Z dog1Jlatic,!!lt a,(l/i1lo1tiol'l(l'tfl (10-
tcramnae, 185'3), p. 61; Vesco Bertelli, L'inte1"J:'retazione mll.rioIogicll. del Proto-
IWllngelo C Ge~l . 3., 15) negli e:segeti e teo/,(Jgj, dopa la Bollll "hJeffa:biUs Dejr,s" {Ii
Pio IX (Romae, 1951), passim.
33 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, D.P., 01" cit., p. 113; P. Hitz, C.SS.R., Le sens Marial

de Protevangile, in Etudes Mariales (Paris, 1947), passim.

 MARIOLOGY
through the wiles of the serpent and lhejr own malice. It is a eerfect
parallelism and on e that has traditionally been invoked to prove the
Immaculate Conception. 84 l\11ary's triumph was in virtue of her
Son's.36 The most solid support of Mary's unique prerogative is thus
based on one and the same d'vine d cree, establishing her predestina-
tion to a singular grace together with the absolute and universal
primacy of her Son. 36
Neither Christ, the Seed of the woman, nor the woman herself,
could for even a moment be overcome by evil, for then the victory
would not be entire. The probative force of this argument in support
of the Immaculate Conception is, when thus understood, considered
as strongly suasive in the conclusions presented by the Pontifical
Commission for the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Con-
ception, constituted by Pius IX, and reporting its findings on July
10, 1852.37

B. In the New Testament

When the angelic messenger Gabriel greeted the Virgin who was
divinely destined to be the Mother of the Saviour, he spoke words
manifestive of a tremendous miracle and mystery in the order of
grace: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: 'Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women.' "33
While of itself this salutation, considered in text and context, is
not a complete and explicit proof from Scripture of the immunhy of
Mary from original sin, yet it is undeniably an implicit or equivalent
statement of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. 3D "Full of
grace" can mean nothing other than "entirely replenished with Cod's
love" - "in nowise deficient." And the phrase "the Lord is with thee"
must similarly mean that Mary wa~ never without Him and that
the devil was never with her, as he indeed would have been had
she been conceived in sin. 40
34 Cf. A. I-I. M . Upicier, O.S.M., Tra.ctah'~s de Beatissima Virgine Maria, ed. 5
(Romae, 1926), p. 137; footnote; for the sense of Coredemption cf. J. B. Carol,
O.F.M., RC)11'I·Q110rl4m Ponti(tcum doctrin-a de B. V. Corredemptrice, in Marian-um,
Vol. 9 (Roma, 19.47), p. 165; V. G. Bertelli, n sen-so mariologico pieno e il senso
letterale de Pl'Otoevallgelo (Gelt. 3, IS) daUa "Ineflabilis Deus" al 1948, in
Marianum, Vol. 13, pp. 369-395.
35 Cf. C. Crosta, Theologia Dogmatica, Vol. 3 (Varese, 1932), p. 176.
36 Cf. Jean-Franc;ois Bonnefoy, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 140.
37 Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M., in Marianum, Vol. I, 1939, pp. 314-316.
38 Lk. 1:28.
39 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 238; DTC, Vol. 7,
col. 859.
40 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 239.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 339
When subjected to philological analysis the sense of this important
text auds immensely to the general force of tbe scriptural argument,
for how could M ary have been filled with God's grace in the strict
rigor implied in plenitude, and yet have been without that grace
at some moment of her existence? The message of the Annu11ciation
can mean only that the Virgin possessed as perfect a degree of grace
as would be possible for a mere creature, and that thjs unparalleled
sanctity is complete both as to its proper intensity and as to its exten-
sion in time. The English rendering "H ail, full of grace" is from the
Greek original xa'iP€ K€XapLTWP.tVTJ, and the past participle K€XapLTWP.tVTj
conectly signifies not merely tl1e preterit quality of what is modified
by it, but implies as well unvarying continuity.
A p araphrase of dIe first foUl: words of the angelic salutation might
well be: "Greetin gs to you who are so adorned wiili divine gifts and
supernal goods, so replete with God's love and friendship 'iliat its
very fullness is contained in you." In other words, such an immensity
of grace was infused into ilie soul of the Mother of God that no other
human can be compared to her by reason of this holiness, and this
unique privilege has always been hers. It is also noteworthy that
Gabriel is not described as exclaiming, "H ail, Mary, full of grace,"
but simply as saying, "Hail, full of grace." Thus the "full of grace"
is used in a substantive manner, as a title peculiarly her own, her
God-given name, somewhat the same as she spoke of herself to
Bernadette at Lourdes, "I am the Immaculate Conception." As proper
to her alone, this appellation "full of grace" is not some extrinsic
designation; rather it is her property in a radical and intrinsic sense
at all moments of her existence. There was no period of time, how-
ever so bri f, 'n which she was not (lfull of grace." 4l
T o this initial greeting tl1e archangel added "the Lord is with thee"
- 0 KVPW> p.fTa aov. Correlated with what has immediately preceded,
these words indicate an unqualified and simple union of Mary, the
beloved one of God, with the Lord. No reference is contained either
in the text itself or in the context to any temporal limitation; rather
the sense is entirely a general one: whenever Mary was, then God
was with her and she with Him in His grace. 42 Had she, on the
contrary, been even for the most infinitesimal period of time under
41 Card. Alirnonda, Il Dogma dell'Immacolat{l (Torino, ~ 886), p . u8: H • • • giacche
ivi appunto si recita e se narra a svelare la virtu divina, per la quale quei segni 0
rniracoli si operavano; laddove a Maria sola s'indirizza autollornasticarnente il
celeste saluto, che altri rnai non sord."
42 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., pp. 112.-113.
 MARIOLOGY
the domination of sin, there would have been some interruption of
this comIDlUlion with God, and acc01:dingly the archangel's uIriversal
declaration of her grace would have been itself faulty. Either the
words contain an affi:(mation of the Immaculate Conception or else
tbey are meaningless.
The fina] phrase of the salutation regarding the sanctity of dle
Mother of the Messias - "Blessed art thou among women" - means
that she is not only blessed :in herself, but blessed in comparison with
all other women. TIlls Hebraism bears the connotation of a superla-
tive degree of blessedness, so that, by antonomasia she is the blessed
one of aJI women a a con equenc f the divine Maternity and its
concomitant grace. 411 This utterly unique office carries with it a cor-
respondingly unique infusion of grace, a blessing that is an essential
link in the chain f causality that will reach its culmination in the
Redemption, blotting out the curse visited upon mankind by the sin
of the first parents. This scriptural, reference manifests how fitting
it is that she whose own gracious life was the divinely chosen instru-
ment for the Incarnation, should herself be totally free from the very
fault her Son came to remove. As 'VI!ill be seen elsewhere in this arti-
cle, this divine Maternity is always the point of reference in treating
the reasonableness of the Immaculate Conception. 4 '
The basic antithesis between the blessing of God and His curse,
with reference to the immuni ty from original sin, appears frequen tl y
in SCl·ipture. It is a fami}jar note.'5 TIns curse, a fundamental aliena-
tion from God's f-riendship, is the consequence of the primal sin and
as such is its chief penalty. As the one sin of Adam is the unique
and ultimate cause of the blight visited upon all men descended from
Adam by carnal generation, and is on that account called by antono-
masia "the sin," sin1ilarly its concomitant punishment is called "the
curse." Conversely, Mary, who is by antonomasia caJled "blessed,"
must be herself immune from that sin which caused that curse. She
cannot be both so completely blessed and yet be, at any moment,
subject to the very opposite of blessing: God's curse.
Additional support for this antithetical parallelism is found in the
words of God addressed to the serpent: "Because thou hast done this
thing, thou art cursed. . . ."4U As this malediction falling upon the
48 Cf. Henry Bolo, Pleine de grdce (Paris, 1895), passim.
44 Cf. A. H. M. Upicier, D.S.M., op. cit., p. 219.
45Mt. 5:44; Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14; James 3:10.
46 Gen. 3: 14.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 341

devil was the outcome of his sinful deceit, so the blessing bestowed
upon Mary was the reward of an immunity from all sin. As the
author of sin was cursed, contrariwise she who co-operated so inti-
mately in the divine plan of salvation is crowned with divine blessing.
TIle same inference is readily deduced from the greeting of Eliza-
beth to Mary at the Visitation : "Blessed art thou among women, and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb."d7 The Virgin is called "blessed" in
somewhat the same way as her Son, observing of course, a due
analogy of proportion between the relative plenitude of grace in
each case. TIle implication is therefore clear that Mary was always
entirely free from the baneful curse identi£ed with original sin.
The probative force of these cited passages of the New Testament,
while affording a highly effective argument of convenience in favor
of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, is rather suasive than
apodictic. According to some very competent scholars, the argument
taken from these chief texts in favor of the doctrine is not as strong
as that of the Protoevangelium. 48 Be that as it may, the clearest proof
from the inspired books would seem to be derived from understand-
ing the Old Testament as the type and foreshadowing of the New
Testament; the latter is the perfection of the former, just as Mary is
the new and sinless Eve. 49 What is said of "the woman" in Gen. 3: 15
finds its fulfillment only in Mary.50
II. ANCILLARY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS

A. In the Old Testment

There are a number of texts in the Old Testament traditiollally
cited, with varying degrees of appositeness, as supporting the freedom
of the Mother of God from the staiD of Adam's sin. They are of
minor moment as compared with the principal passage of Genesis.
Among the more notable examples of these might De mentioned:
"Thou art all fair, 0 my love, and there is not a spot in theel/ 01 -
"Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my- uncle61ed"u - "the
47 Lk. 1:42 •
48 Cf. V. Sardi, La soZerme depnizione del dogma dell'Immacolato Concepimento
di Maria Santissima, Vol. I (Roma, 1905), p. 796 if.
49 Cf. Jules Souben, Nouvelle ThdologJe Dogmatique (Paris, 1902), Vol. 4,
pp. 135- 1 37.
50 Cf. J. de Aldama, Mariowgia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa (ed. a Patribus
Soc. Jesu) , Vol. 3 (Madrid, 1950), p. 303, No. 28. Cf. also Eric May's paper
in this volume.
61 Cant. 4:7.
52 Cant. 5: 2.
342 MARIOLOGY
Highest himself hath founded her"68 - "For wisdom will not enter
into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."54 Perhaps
the best cognate text is "the most High hath sanctified his own
tabernacle." M
These and other like texts are employed in an accommodated sense
by the Church's liturgy when the Blessed Virgin is the subject of the
prayer, and specifically for the feast of the Immaculate Conception
in the Roman Missal and the Breviary. Since the manner in which
the Church prays is a criterion of its belief, it follows that the use
of these various sections of Scripture is a forcible argument in favor
of their actually referring to Mary's prjvilege in the order of grace.
Because these excerpts from the Old Testament, al though in them-
selves of minor significance, do not place temporal lllnits to her
sanctity, and indeed because several of them intimate that her holi-
ness was established already from the lJeginning, it may legitimately
be concluded that the tenor of the texts is fully consonant with the
precise sense of the Immaculate Conception. Th application of them
to Mary's immunity is in accordanc with the secondary and indirect
literal sense of the passages. 56

B. In the New Testament

The best example of a subsidiary text in the New Testament
used to strengthen the general argument in support of the revealed
quality of the Immaculate Conception, is that of Apoc. 12: the
vision of the woman clothed with the Sl1n, and of the great dragon
who is her persecutor. Authors are not agreed as to whether the
woman mentioned is the Church, or Mary, or perhaps both.5 7
Accepting the opinion, sufficiently probable, th t sees the woman
as the Virgin, it can be said that her being "clothed with the sun"
is an affirmation of her soul's grace, since grace is often compared to
the light of justice and she is enveloped in radiant light. The stain
of sin, on the other hand, is a certain deprivation of splendor mar-
ring a soul that is enslaved to anything contrary to the brilliance
offered by the light of faith and reason. 58 Sin is a worle of darkness
53 Ps. 86: 5.
54 Wisd.
1:4.
55PS·45:5.
56 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, op. cit., p. 113.
51 See the various opinions referred to in Father M. Gruenthaner's paper in
this same volume.
58 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., Ia-IIae, q. 86, a. I.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 343
because sin results in a stain; sin is found in an act not illumined
by the light of reason informed by grace. Such a want of splendor
cannot exist in one who is "clothed with the sun." Moreover, the
struggle I etween the woman and the serpent, destined to end in his
defeat, would not have been an unbrolcen combat if she had, for a
time however so brief, been conquered by him.
The devil originally made his effort to overcome Mary when h
seduced the first parents, from whom the infection 0f sin passed
down to their posterity, and would indeed have engulfed Mary except
for her special preservation through the causality of the Incarnate
Word. His humanity taken from !.laIY and f-rom the earth, became
the instrument that turned aside the tide of sin lest it sweep His
Mother into the bitter waters flowing from a poisoned source. This
is th interpretati.on of verses 15 and 16 of chapter 12 of Apocalypse:
And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it
were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away hy the river.
And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth,
and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of 11is mouth.
The total context of chapter 12 is, more than anything else, an exalta-
tion of Ilary's spiIitual Maternity, but it furnishes a confirmation as
well as an interpretation of the enmity between the 'Woman and the
serpent narrated in the Protoevangeliu,m contained in Genesis. fiU Mary
was protected f-rom falling under the serpent's inRuence through dlC
redemptive act of Christ, becoming a satisfying victim for mankind
in accordance with the prophecy of lsa. 53: 6. The piacular death
of the Saviour had a special efficacy for the Mother of the Messias,
and this is why the serpent, the dragon, in the words of Apoc. 12: 17:
If • • • was angry against the woman: and went to make war with
the rest of her seed. . . ."
This passage in the last of the inspired books thus is a classical
argument, of perhaps a lesser weight, to confirm Mary's immunity
from original sin. It is the ful6llment of the promise contained in the
'rust of the inspired books, fOI this promised relief on behalf of a
suffering human race is accomplished, according to St. John, in the
Mother of Christ and in her seed: the sacred humanity, and each
person, the Virgin and her Son, enjoyed freedom from all sin. This
conjoint sinlessness Christ's natural to His divinity, Mary's special
to her humanity, was a requisite to their conjoint victory over Satan
59 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 869; Jean-Fran~ois Bonnefoy, O.F.M., op. cit., passim.
344 MARIOLOGY
by their sufferings. The doctrine of the Coredemption thus becomes
a "aluuble asset in a proper understanding of the meaning of the
Immaculate Conception. "She jOined her own heroic sufferings to
those of her beloved Son for the salvation of manlind, and the
eternal Father was pleased to accept them for that purpose in sub-
ordination to those of the unique Redeemer."6o
ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION
I. FORCE OF THIS ARGUMENT

The question as to whether or not a particular truth is actually

contained in the deposit of divine revelation, while obviously related
to the question of the profession of that truth by the Olu.uch , is
nevertheless of a different order. The former is of the objective
order: it is (or is not) a truth irrespective of what steps have been
taken by the magisterium. of the Church to render an authoritative
statement on the point at issue. The latter is of a subjective order,
for a public a ceptance of a doctrine by the Church makes explicit
and personal what was hitherto implicit and impersonal. While it
is undoubteClly true that often these two orders do in fact parallel
each other, and tend more and more to do so in the measure that
the implicit content of revelation is made conSciously explicit, still
it is not necessary that such parallelism be always realized. One need
not suppose that he will find in the subjective order all the content of
the objective oraer.U1
In keeping with this preliminary principle, and by way of appli-
cation of it to the special question of the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, it is well to remar]' that whether there was or was not
an explicit belief in the doctrine &om the earliest days of the
Church is not something that can be resolved a priori. Rathe'r it is
a question of historical fact to be determined by a perusal of the
sources, wherein alone can be discovered such evidel1ce as will afford
a reply to a factual question. In this connection we may fittingly
invoke the philosophical axiom which affirms that objective evidence
is the ultimate criterion of truth, joined to the judgment of the
Church as to what truth is divinely revealed.
oJ. B. Carol, O.P.M., OUT Lady's COl"lldemption in the Marian Literature of
Ninetee1tth Cent1.~ry Ataerica, in Marian,l l,m, Vol. 14, 1952, p. 61. There is a
glowing emphasis in Mariology 011 MAry's rel tion to the work of her Son, the
Red erner. Cf. E. LedVOIowski, Mrrterl1itas ,Uvi71Q fundamentu1n Mariologiae, in
Marianu1n, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 176-194.
61 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 848.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 345
The word "dogma" has the meaning of something fixed and
determined in doctrine, and to merit this title a proposition must be
indeed revealed by God, and as such proposed by the Church to
the faithful as a truth to be believed. Once so pronounced, it be-
comes immutably established. The transition of a truth from the
objective order to the subjective: from implicit to explicit levels of
knowledge, does not mean that any new thing has been revealed,
for revelation temrinated for all time with the passing of the last
of the A'postles. To the Church has been committed tills deposit
of total truth, and the office of Christ's Church is to guard and to
interpret it. Willie there cau, therefore, be no increase in what is
contained in that treasury, yet there can surely be an elucidation of
obscure truths with the passing of the centuries. Tlle seed can, in a
propitious climate, produce its fruit, and this climate is sometimes
created by the rise of heresies which can alone be ref-uted by a
'fixm dedamtion by the Cburch; sometimes it is created by contro-
versies among theologians; or again by a development of a special
piety on the part of the Church's faithful. In all these instances it
must be held that the Holy Spirit is at work, guiding and enlight-
ening the teaching function of the Church. There is never a change
in doctrine. There are advances in the same line of truth.
In applying this central notion to the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, it becomes evident in the light of investigation that
this dogma was not at first expressed in technical and precise tenns,
but was universally believed as a part of her great purity and holi-
ness, and that with the lmfolding of the centuries, it became more
distinctly Mary's prerogative. A careful and 1:ecent study on the prob-
lem of the evolution of this doctrine has stressed that in the ca.se
of the Immaculate Conception the growth of explicit belief is to
be attributed rather to the inherent power of the doctrine than to
exterior forces at work. The truth of the Virgin's immunity from the
stain of original sin was "endowed with a victorious vitality which
was nurtured by divine solicitude."62
Whatever may have been the inherent tendency of the doctrine,
it annot be gainsaid that immense impetus was given the devel0f,~
ment of its explicit modality by the forces of controversy, particular y
in the sta.ges prior to the final definition. In the first ages of the
Church there were no doubts raised, since the reality of the Immacu~
B2 J. Duhr, S.J., L'evolution du dogme de l'Immaculee Conception, in Nouvelle
Revue Theologique (Louvain, 1951), Vol. 73, p. 1032.
 MARIOLOGY
late Conception formed, together with the livine M aLernity and its
necessary sanctity, One complex mosaic. It was not until the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries that the qu(;!stion was thrown into jssue in
the schools of theology, and by about the middle of the sixteenth
century scarcely anyone any longer called the Immaculate Cone pti n
into doubt. as
The value of the aroument from tradition, based on the writings
of the m.ost distinguisYled ecclesiastical writers, fogether with the
emphasis placed on the sanctity of Mary in the liturgy of th e Ohurch
affords a very precious adjunct to the scriptural evjdence ]]1 favOT
of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, independently of the inter-
pretation and comment of the Fathers, the inspired texts remain of
linUted force jn tllis respect. °~ For this reason, the Current of tradition
must be painstakingly examined in order to discover in what way
and with what degree of unanimity the various streams of Catholic
thought formed the lmiversal conviction that Mary ,"vaS conceived
in grace. Founded ultimately upon revelation written and oral and
coupled with the public prayer of the Church, these sources prepared
the way for the formal definition of the Immaculate Conception. The
historical and liturgical development of the doctrine is conveniently
divided into chronological periods.
II. PERIOD OF IMPLICIT FAITH - Up TO THE COUNCIL
OF EPHESUS (431)

a) Parallelism between Eve and Mary

This oft-repeated comparison between the first woman, the sinful
Eve, who was seduced by the serpent, and the Second Eve, the
blessed Mary, whose vital role in man's redemption made her the
"Socia" of tlle Saviour, is rooted in a similar antithesis between
Adam and Christ. Thus St. Paul declares, "For as by the disobedience
of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one,
many shall be made just. " G6 The juxtap i ti n f th two WOIn 'n,
one vanquished by Satan, the other victorious over llilll, ws as a a
natural corollary to the disobedience of the old Adam and the perfect
submission of the New Adam, the just Redeemer.
Perhaps the first to invoke this beautiful antithesis was St.
Justin (100- 167):
6S Bernard A. McKenna, The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Washington,
D. C., 1929), p. 89.
64 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 473; DTC, Vol. 7, col. 871.
6~ Rom. ;: 19.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 347
While still a virgin and without corruption, Eve received into her heart
the word of the serpent and thereby conceived disobedience and death.
Mary the Virgin, her soul full of faith and joy, replied to the angel
Gabriel who brought her glad tidings: "Be it done to me according to
thy word." To her was born He of whom so many things are said in
the Scriptures. 66
Similar passages appear in the writings of St. Irenaeus (I 30-202)G7
and Tertullian (160-240).68
The contrast between the two women implies a double comparison,
one of likeness; one of unlikeness. Eve and Mary are indeed similar
insofar as both were stainless as they came from the hand of God,
each was integral, each without corruption, each a virgin .69 They
are unlike insofar as Eve, by her disobedience and pride, became
an instrument for the downfall of the human race, while Mary,
humble and obedient, was found worthy to assist in the salvation
of the world through her office as Mother of Jesus. If taken in an
unqualified sense (and the general tenor of the antithesis warrants
it) , then Mary's utter freedom from corruption argues a correspond-
ing freedom from original sin. St. Irenaeus would seem to interpret
the high holiness of the Virgin as contrasted to Eve's betrayal into the
snares of the serpent : the complete confOrmity of the all-pure Mary
to the will of God effectively untied the knot of sin introduced by
Eve.70 This contrast would be imperfect and its chief characters
would be inadequately in opposition if Mary had herself been
stained by the sin of the first parents. From a broader view there
would be a distortion of perspective if the Mother of the Messias
were held to have fallen under the primitive curse, since together
with her Son she forms a team that is destined to achieve a conquest
over the evn resulting from the transgression of its counterpart:
Adam and Eve.

b) The Sanctity of Mary in a General Sense

Among the Fathers the theme of Mary'S exal ted holiness aplJears
very frequen tly and wi th considerable elaboration, and nearly always
with the purpose of thereby enhancing the digni ty of the Son , and
defending the reality of lis earthly life, suffering, and death. Many
G6 Dja!ogus cUln TrJ'phone J1~,laco, N o. 100, PL, 6, 710 D.
67 Contra haereses, lib. 5. cap. I, N O. 2, PC, 7, II22.
68 De ClIme ChriSt.i, cap. l7, PL, 2, 78.1-782.
G9 Of. Ed . H ugon, T ract(thlS Dogmatici, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1935), p. 718.
70 Contra ~laereses, lib. 3, cap. 22, PC, 7, 959 b-c.
 MARIOLOGY
of these truths of the Saviour had been called into doubt by the
early heresiarchs, and one mode, and a forceful one, to combat errors
concerning the Son was to emphasize truths about the Mother. l1
The conviction of the writers relative to her holiness is founded,
necessarily, in revealed truth which became more explicit with the
passing of time. 72 In denying th at she herself had ever sinned, the
Fathers placed her merit in a distinct class above the rest of h mnan-
kind, and no eulogy was too great to describe her, nor were any words
adequate to convey the measure of her holiness. She was "most
pure; mvlOIate;
" II. • ""unstame. d" ; "unspotte;
d" "blarneIess;" "entIre
. Iy
immune from sin"; "blessed above all"; "most innocent."73 If she was
free from sin without qualification, then why not also from original
sin? Assuredly, this freedom excluded deliberate venial sin, and hence
with greater reason it should exclude the deprivation of grace implied
:i:n original sin, for while venial in is more voluntary, nevertheless,
simply as sin and with its conjoined ignominy, the consequences of
Original sin are more serious and more unbecoming to the Mother of
Christ si.nce it would p ut ber at odds with God. 74 As St. Anselm
stated (and he reflects the common mind of the writers on this
point): "It was fi tting that the Virgin should be radiant with such
purity that under G0d no other can be greater."76
The argument for the immaculate quality of the soul of Mary
receives a rather strange support from a species of the doctrine of
traducianism) prevalent in some quarters in the early centuries. This
taught that human souls were generated by the parents along with
th e body, and thus in some way the 0fFspring received their souls
from the parents. Corporeal traducianism taught that the soul derived
from the material element of the parents, and lertullian, while a
Montanist, proposed this heretical theory to explain the origin of
the soul. 76 Spiritual tradudanism taugh t the origin of the human
soul to be from the soul oE the pal'ents. Even St, Augustine seems
to defend this doctrine, but he admits that his opinion is obscure. In
either case, if Mary herself had been stained by sin, her Son would,
71 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 873.
72 Cf. G. Jouassard, Le probleme de la saintete de Marie chez les Peres, in
Etudes Mariales (Paris, 1947), pp. 13-28.
73 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., Tractatus de peccato originali et de Immaculato
Beatae Virginis Deiparae Conceptu, ed. altera (Romae, 1904), p. 244.
74 Ibid., p. 263.
7 5 Cf. De cone. virg., c. 18; PL, 158, 451.
76 D.B., No. 170.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 349
in some way, have been affected in His own soul by the taint that
marred His Mother's person. In this connection St. Hippolytu.s insti-
tutes a comparison between Christ and His Mother, developing, with
considerable complexity, the need for perfect innocence on the part
of Mary because of the supreme san ctity of Him whom she begot.
He compares the Messias to an arl< of incorruptible wood, formed
from the stainless stock of Mary who gave to I-lim His humanity and
who knew no corruption herself. T his writer's use of the sameplnase
to describe the sinlessness of Mother and Son is a bold parallelism,
and contains a forceful implicit affirmation in Mary's comJillete free-
dom from the stain of all sin. Since the "incorruptibility' of Jesus
must include, of course, immunity from original sin, and since H is
soul (in the opinion of Hippolytus) was derived from her , she
too, must have been immaculate.71
One of the most direct and unqualified testimonies for the Immac-
ulate Conception to be found among the early ecclesiastical writers is
that of St. Ephrem of Syria (t 373). In his Carmina Nisibena he
categorically declared, in his poem addressed to Christ, "Thou and
Thy Mother are alone in this: you are wholly beautiful in every
respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy
Mother." 78 This use of the accommodated sense of Cant. 6:7, affords
a clear affirmation of the exemption of Mary from all sin, rooted in
the fact of the divine Maternity. Further to single out the exclusive-
ness of this prerogative of the Blessed Virgin, in the context of this
phrase of her freedom from spot or stain, St. Ephrem emphasizes
that she alone, of all mankind, possesses such a privilege. Thus
exalted above all mere creatures in the order of grace, her pure soul
came immaculate from the hand of God, "like Eve before the fall,
endowed with the fullness of grace, by reason of her anticipated
motherhood of the Son of God." 79
The firm stand of the Syrian Church regarding the utter sinlessness
of the Blessed Virgin, as evinced in the writings of such renowned
figures as St. James of Sarug (452-519), who denied that there was
the slightest defect or stain upon the soul of Mary, reiterated sub-
stantially the teaching of St. Ambrose (333- 397) who has Christ
to say of His Mother: "Come . . . receive Me .in that flesh which
fell in Adam. Receive M e not from Sara., but from Mary, a virgin
77 Alma T heoQoret1/.11'/., in dialogo Eranistes, PC, 10, 610.
78 Ct~rm1na N isibella, ed. Bickell (Leipzig, 1866), p. 40.
79 Cf. TIle. iUnerkan EcclesiC/stical Review, Vol. 9 (Philadelphia, Pa., 1893),
pp. 4 06-40 7.
 MARIOLOGY
incorrupt; a. virgin by grace; entirely free [-rOIn every stain of sin."EO
In a celebrated passage of St. Augustine (354-430) the Doctor of
Grace appears to enunciate a principle upon which might be predi-
cated an argument that Augustine taught, in an implicit fashion,
!faIy's Immaculate Conception. He states: "(Concerning the Virgin)
I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sin, out
of honor to the Lord, for from Him we know what abundance of
grace to overcome sin in every way was confen d u on 1er who
undoubtedly had no sin."8J Logically, the idea of the Immaculate
Conception is contained herein, but for reasons of prudence relative
to the Pelagian polemic on the transmission of original sin, Augustine
evidently did not consider it prudent to place the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception in a precise formula. s2
IL cannot of course, be successfully maintained tlLat the truth of
Mary's immunity from aU stain of Adam's sin was at all explicitly
taught by these and many other similar early writers of the Churcn.
For closeness to tl1e doctrine and for clarity of eA'-pression, implicit
affirmation of the Immaculate Conception is perhaps found most
vividly stated in Augustine. Surely the continuity of unguaJi£ed
endorsements of Mary's holiness in general provides a very solid
and entirely legitimate conclusion that the writers intended, in some
way, to make the Immaculate Conception an integral part of their
teaching. s8
c) The Divine Maternity
The early Church Fathers are strong in their defense of the
motherhood 0f Mary and of the incomparable sanctity ,~hich accom-
panied it. By her God-given grace sbe merited to be the Mother of
the Saviour, an unique honor that would never have been realized
had there not been, on her part, an intimate union with her Son
through the grace and charity in her soul. The Virgin perfectly pure
in body and soul, she ,first bore Him in her heart before she con-
ived Hlm in her womb: "She alone is cnlled 'full of grace' since
she alone obtained a grace none other can clalm: to be filled with
80 11~ Ps. r IS Expositio, PL, :1, 782.
81 De flal'U.ra et grMia, cap. 36,No. 42, PL, 44, 267.
82 Cr-. Phillipp Friedrich, Die Mariologia cies I-n. A1lg14srin1JS (Kiiln, 1907), pp.
I83-238. Also B. Capelle, Q.S.B., La pe11see de sai.nt A11gUSti1t concernant l'Imma-
cuzea Concllption, in Recherches de T1tcologie (tnciewll,e et m.Uievale, Vol. 4, 1932,
pp. 361 -37°.
83 Cf. A. Dufourcq. Comment s'eveilla la foi a l'Immaculee-Conception et a
l'Assomption aux Va et VIe siecles (Paris, 1946).
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 351
the very Author of grace"a~ - "Consider the holy Mary, w110 was of
such great purity that she merited to be the Lord's Mother."aD Such
statements are typical, for it is only to be supposed that the fact of
Mary's being the exalted Mother of the Redeemer would be acknowl-
edged by even the earliest writers, and with unanimity, as the center,
the l ey of all the admirable privileges of nature, of grace, and of glory
possessed by her. Considered in itself, the Maternity could be, abso-
lutely speaking, without th e personal holiness of the mother, since
the divine Maternity is mainly a grace given for others (gratia. gratis
data). As such it is not directly sanctifying (according to some) and
does not necessarily demand utter sinlessness on the Mother's part.
But the digni ty of h er office in the light of the sublime dignity of
the SOD of God, could scarcely allow that she who bore ·the Incarnate
Word would be other than completely stainless h erself.sa This aware-
ness fOID1ed a basic theme in the profound stress placed by the
writers on the Virgin's exceptional sanctity. It is a further reaSOn to
see the Immaculate Conception woven into the warp and woof of
the pristine Marjology of the Fathers and lesser apologists.
III. PERIOD OF INCIPIENT EXPLICIT FAITH - FROM THE
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) TO ELEVENTH CENTURY
During the period of time covered by the middle of the fifth cen-
tury up into the eleventh century, the belief in the total sinlessness
of the Virgjn a.mong the great body of the faithful, by the writers
of this era and by the teaching Church, became considerably more
explicit. Nevertheless, due to the denial of original sin by the Pela-
gians, a heresy condemned in 4 I 8 at the Council of Carthage, the
wr~ter~ who oppos~cl Pelagius, Celc:stius and, J~lian, B.ishop of Eclan~,
seem ill some fashion to have deDled Mary s unmumty from Adam s
sjn. This del1ial stems, pemaps, nom an overly literal intel1Jfetation
of these early writings, and a failure to weigh duly the polemical
exigencies of the epoch. It was held that Christ alone was free -from
original sin and that all other children of Adam inherited it.87 This
insis-tence on the universality of the taint is attributable to the ten-
dene to attach the disOl·der inherent in the generative act to the
transmission of original sin . T he element of inordinate concupiscence
84 S. Ambrose, In Expositionem Evangelii secundum Lucam 1:29, NO.9, PL,
15, 1556 A.
85 Pseudo-Jerome, Epist. 22 Ad Eustochium, No. 38, PL, 22, 422.
86 J. Mahieu, Sainte Mere de Dieu (Bruges, 1940 ), p. 45.
81 Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 225.
35 2 MARIOLOGY
characteristic of active generation was believed to carryover neces-
sarily into passive generation. Post-Augustinian Western writers were
measurably influenced by this doctrine, and it Iather eITective1y
preve,nted what might well have been the logical conclusjon to their
general teaching on Mary's exalted sanctity: that she received from
God a special dispensation that exempted her from the consequence
of Adam's sin. S8 The wen-established "all-holy" quality of the Mother
of Christ, fonnlllated and developed with such amplitude in earlier
times, and assuredly emphasized between the Council of Nicaea
(325) and the Council of Ephesus (431 ),80 offered abundant ma-
terial for the conclusion that Mary was conceived in grace.
The Church in the Orient appears to have escaped largely from
the stream of post-Augustinian thought that checked the writers :in
the West from a willin.gness to concede Mary's utter freedom from
all sin. While prior to the Council of Ephesus, before the divine
Maternity was unequivocally defined, many of the Thl tem theologi ans
appear to have spo]<en of imperfections in the Virgin, and even of
positive faults. Such assertions can hardly be reconciled with a sup-
port of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and are probably
the direct result of the authority of Origen (c. 185-254). This apolo-
gist interpreted the words of the prophet Simeon, "And thy own
soul a sword shall pierce ... OG as indicating that Mary was under
/I

some sin, and had to be in order to be herself redeemed. This unfor-

tunate (or perhaps fortunate) error had a profound influence on
subsequent Oriental writers, and only St. Ephrem (c. 310-378) and
St. Epiphanius (t 403) seem to have escaped succumbing to the
renowned authority of Origen.01 After the Council of Ephesus, r -
flection on the consequences of the divine M atemit led to definite
conclusions concerning the entire purity of the Mother of God. The
dissenting voices of certain of the Eastern writers who held that the
Virgin did contract Oliginru sin and was delivered of irs stain only
at the moment of the Annuncia tiOD , never gained any measure of
wide acceptance among the better authors.92 The latter, in the course
of time, formulated the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Con-
ception in surprisingly clear terms, although these often took the form
88 Cf. The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 114, (Washington, D. C.,
1946), p. 346.
89 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 893 ff.
oOLk. 2:35.
91 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 474.
92 Ibid., p. 475.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 353
of statements in the positive sense of her unrivaled sanctity, rather
than in the negative sense of a simple rejection of original sin
from her. 03

A. The Immaculate Conception in the Doctrine of the Eastern

Church

1. Theological Argument

a) Fifth Century
The Third Ecumenical Council, that of Ephesus (431), declared
Our Lady to be the Mother of God (Dei genitrix) and thereby served
as an important stimulus to the development of the doctrine of her
singular sanctity and unique prerogatives, both from the theological
and the liturgical aspects. The condemnation of Nestorianism, the
heresy that denied the genuine sense of the Incarnation, set the
stage for an ever more explicit belief in the Immaculate Conception.
While references to Mary's immunity fTom original sin are not
wanting even eadier,91 few of them equal in clarity of expression
the teaching of Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (t 430):
"In place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most
pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A
Virgin included in woman's sex, but without a share in woman's
fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless;
undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns."05 In a similar
vein of praise of the Saviour's Mother, St. Produs, Patriarch of
Constantinople (t 446), compares the action of God in preparing a
dwelling place for the Word to the work of a potter who would
not fashion for himself a vessel of tainted clay. Hence, whatever
might stain the purity of the Incarnate Word must :first be removed
nom her who was destined to bear Him. "He came forth from her
without any Raw, who made her for Himself without any stain,"
wrote St. ProcIus. 06 And again: "Mary is the heavenly orb of a new
creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished
from her entire soul all the night of sin."91
03 Cf.DYC, Vol. 7, col. 935.
Cf. Dominicus Cerri, Enchiridion ex quibus exurgit triumphus B. Mariae Vir-
04
ginis Matris Dei in originale peccatum CTaurini, 1851), passim.
95 Homil. 6 in S. Deiparam, No. 1 I, PC, 77, 1427 A.
960ratio I de Laudibus S. Mariae, PC, 65, 683 B.
97 Ibid., Oratio 6, PC, 68, 758 A.
 MARIOLOGY
This .predestination of Mary was a special decree of Divine Provi-
dence; hom all eternily God had loved her and chosen her as the
Mother of the Son, and because of this sublime office she was
promised a Me more excellent in the order of grace than human
nature itself warranted. Should she, who was thus a most special
object of God's loving solicitude, have ever for a moment been
displeasing to him?108
This position is further tTessed when we see an intimate con-
nection between Mary's conception in the womb of St. Anne and.
her initial grace therein. St. John Damascene writes of the Virgin
as "the earth's most divine bud"/u~ "the germ of justice";110 "the
divine grace in her whom St. Anne was privileged to bear."1l1 He
explains, in effect, that a person is conceived without stain only if,
under God's grace, a stainless seed has been the instrumentality lor
that conception. This was the case, and uniquely so, in the daughter
of Anne and Joachim. 112 In a parallel passage the Doctor calls Mary
"the most holy daughter of Joachim and Anne, hidden from the
1iery dart of Satan, dwelling in a bridal chamber of the sRirit, pre-
served without stain as the Spouse and Mother of God. 'm From
what stain other than original sin could Mary have been preserved?
And why would Satan have sought, through fear, to harm her,
except because she was his enemy through the perfect abundance
of her grace?
Just as she was inunune from original sin, so she was not subject
to the disorders of its guilt in the mat.t r of carnal concupiscence;
utterly pure jn ITlind 1H and body:u ~ As Adam was in his innocence,
with the whole intent of 1us intellect devoted to contemplation of
thingS divin.e,n6 similarly Mru:y repelled any movement toward any
vic .117 The penalty of death, so directly the consequence of Adam'
fall, is exacted of every offspring of the .first parent who inherits his
fault. Christ the Hedeemer could not be subject to death ince I e
108 Cf. ibid., PC, 96, 675.
109Homilia 3 in Dormitionem Reatae Virginis Mariae, No. 5, PC, 96, 762 A.
110 Homilia I in Nativitatem Reatae Virginis Mariae, NO.9, PC, 96, 674 C.
III Ibid., Homilia I, No.2, 663.
112 Cf. Ibid.
118 Homilia I in NatiV1t1item Beatae ViTgi~tis Mariae, NO.3, PC, 96, 675.
114 Homilia 2. in Dormiti01lem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No.2, PC, 96, 726 B.
11B Homilia I in Nat/vitatem Beatae Virgi111s Mariae, No.8, PC, 96, 674 B.
116 De Fide Orthodoxa', lib. 2, PC, 94, 978 C.
117 Homilia 2 in Dormitionem Reatae Virginis Mariae, NO.3, PC, 96, 727 A.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 357
was sinless and death comes through sln.:L18 In the case of the Blessed
Virgin, St. John Damascene declares, she also was not subject to
the universal law of death, but submitted to it out of lOving con-
formity to the chosen lot of her Son, "-the Lord of nature who did
not refuse to experience death." nD Thus her death indeed resembled
that of sinful man, but was not associated with the humiliation of
punishment for sin, for "in her," the Saint exclaims, "the sting of
death, sin, has been extinguished."120 The evidence is forceful that
Damascene taught substantially the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. 121

e) Ninth Century
Witnesses in the Eastem Church at this pedod are numerous in
support of what must be considered a very widespread, if indeed
not universal, acceptance of Mary's immunity from original sin in
the Orient. m St. Tarasius (t 806), Patriarch of Constantinople,
speaks of Mary as "predestined from the creation of the world;
cll0sen from among all g neration that she might be the immaculate
domicile of the 'Arord ... the immaculate oblation of human nature."
"This Virgin,' the author adds in the same conte.'{t, "is immaculate
by her excellence."12s
Epiphanius in his sermon on the life of the Blessed Virgin,
affirms her entire immunity fmm concupiscence, a freedom joined
to original justice.1 l!'1 Joseph I ymnographus Ct 833) describes Mary
as immune from all sin; wholly pure and immaculate; en tirely with-
out stain. U5 Georgius Nicomediensis whose theological opinions par-
allel in most matters those of his friend and contemporary Photius,
the father of the Greek schism, exempts the Mother of Christ from
all stain of sin and from the consequences of the fall of Adam.126
Lis De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. 3, cap. 27, PG, 94. 1095 B- C.
llP Hcnnilia I in DD,,",itionerl~ Beatae Virginis Marine, No. TO. PG, 96, 714 D.
1 2 0 Hom.ilia 2. in Dormitiofiem Beatae Virginis Mariae, NO.3, PG, 96, 72.7 C.
H;t CE. Stephen O. Gulovich, Th.e l1rl1l1'lClOIJlate COllceptio'n in the Eastern
GhMrches, in Mariafl StluUes Vol. 5 (Washington, D. C., 1954), p. 160.
122 Cf. C. Octavil.ls Valerius. De superstitibsa timiilitate "itanda (Tridenti, 1751) ,
p. 2.8: "Oriente SQCJ;11l;D hunc stHtmnque Conceptio.nis diem orones summ.o con-
~ordique pieratis studio amplexati SllDt nemine disentientc aut J:eclamante, quod
ego quidem noverirn Aut usquanl legerim."
128 In SS. DeipaHle Praesenl.a.~io,".em, PG, 98, 1498; 1482; 1490.
"12~ Cf. SemlO de v ita Sanctissi.mae Deiparae, PG, 120, 1941 198.
125 Cf. Mariale, PG, 105, 983 if.
126 Cf. Oratio 7 in Sanctissimae Deiparae ingressum in templum, PG, 100, 1454;

1443·
 MARIOLOGY

f) Tenth Century
The can tinuity of belief in the immunity of Mary nom the heredi-
tary stain is manifest during this century among authors of perhaps
less renown than those of the preceding century, but whose state-
ments in the sources are equally uncompromising where the Mother
of God is under consideration. Euthymius ( t 9 17), a patriarch of
onstantinol)le, held, togethe~' with Petrus Ct c. 920) Bishop of
fugo, that Mary was liberated from the infeotion of original sin
from her conception in the womb of t. Anne.127 A contemporary,
Joannes Geometra, wrote that the Mother of the Saviour "was con-
ceived in joy," and "joy he understood, as the context shows, as
synonymous with sanctifying grace. 128 In his celebrated hymns he
yet more clearly affirmed that Mary had no sin as other men do,I2D
but rather that she came U1 to the world in the state of Original
jl'lStice, a "new creation" who was the supreme work of God and
the personification of ideal beauty. ISO
Th se and like expressions among these writers convey a very
distinct idea of the Immaculate Conception, often enclosing it in
positive formulas by insisting on the fullness of her grace; its un-
broken continuity; its resemblance to the condition of Adam prior
to sin; its entirely unique character. She needed no reconciliation to
God since He had already intervened in a singular fashion in order
to sanctify His Mother in her very conception. Such is the tenor of
these pertinent texts.

2. Argument From Liturgy

a) Relation of Liturgy to Faith

The value of liturgical worship as an index to the beliefs of the
Church and the faithful is founded in the axiom lithe law of prayer
is 'the law of faith" - Ie,;, ; ora·ndi. est lex C'l'edendi. This liturgical
worship consists in the public performance of an act of worship of
God in forms laid down by the Ohurch, in the name and on behalf
of the whole Christian people. It is thus the social exercise of th
virtue of religion, and manifests in a very definite fashion the reli-
gious creed of those who partic.ipatem it. The liturgy expresses its If
127 Cf. Oratio in conceplionem S. AU1'\ae, PG, 104, 1351; 1359.
128 Cf. SermD in San.ctissimae. Deiparae )\nmmtiatio'net/'l., PG, 106, 819; 846.
129 Cf. Hymnus 3 in Beatissim4ltn Dei Gcmetricem, PG, 106, 862.
130 Cf. Hymnus 2. (and) 3 itJ Beatissjm,a11~ Dei Genetricem, PG, 106, 858; 862.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 359
in the forms of prayer and various ceremonies of the Church, par-
ticularly in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the recitation of the
Divine Office, and the liturgical books such as the Missal, the
Breviary, the Ritual, among others, contain a rich fund of Catholic
doctrine. Whatever names may be attached to these sources (as in
the Eastern Church the Euchologion does the work of the Missal,
the Pontifical, and the Ritual of the Latin rite), the basic idea is the
same: the people pray as they believe and as the Church teaches
them. It may very well happen, as it seems to have happened in the
case of the Immaculate Conception, that the great body of the faith-
ful tend to develop in their devotions an awareness of a truth not
yet universally agreed upon by theologians. 131 But such a devotional
development, while important in assaying a trend in the sensus
comm'/Jmis fi delium, is not strictly speaking a part of the Church's
official prayer.

b) Liturgical Development in Eastern Church

The liturgical celebration of the feas t of the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin preceded, as migh t be reasonably expected, the feast
of her Concep tion, although in the order of time the latter mystery
would naturally be prior. The evidence is convincing that Mary's
N ativity merited a spedal day in th e liturgy of the Orient already
by the middle of the sixth century, or certainly by the seventh , and
shortly afterward there is testimony of the celebration of the feast
of St.. Anne's Conception. By this was meant Anne's active concep-
tion of her daughter Mary,lR2 A homily on this feast was composed
by John of Euboea, a contemporary of St. John D m.nascene.m By
the time of Photius the feast was observed universally in the Greek
Church, a conclusion easy to reach by a perusal of the widely read
homilies of George of Nicomedia Ct9 17) and the import of the
M enologium compiled in 984 by the edict. of Emperor Basil II,
ac1mowledging the feast of the Conception as celebrated on De-
cember 9. 134
As analyzed by J ugie, the object of this feast includes the heavenly
message that Mary would be conceived, through a miracle in the
natural order, in the sterile womb of Anne, as well as the recognition
131 Cf. H . du Colombier, S.J., A la ClaiTe de MaTie (Paris, 1936), p. 24.
132 Cf. Canones PTaecipui et Triodia, Conceptio Sanctae ac Dei Aviae Annae,
PC, 97, 1306-1318.
133 Cf. Senno in Conceptionem Sanctae Deiparae, PC, 96, 1459-1499.
184 Cf. Stephen C. Gulovich, aTt. cit., p. 169.
 MARIOLOGY
of the exceptional graces that accompanied the Virgin's passive
conception. The most noteworthy element of this liturgical celebra-
tion is the emphasis placed upon the passive conception by the
hymnographers and orators who referred to the significance of the
feast. Among the Greeks and the Slavs, cspeciaJly in the Middle
Ages, this day of "the Conception of the Mother of God" was one
of solemn observance, providing occasion for panegyrics on the
sanctity of ur Lady, extolling her immunity from all stain, even
from the first instant of her: existence. 135
The firm conviction among the Catholics of the Orient that Mary
was ever lloly and completely so, a conviction that was consistently
reSected in the theological and liturgical movements of the Greek
Church, was not altered by the schism begun under Photius in 867
and consummated under Michael Cerularius in 1054. This sad
estrangement from the center of Catholic truth did not retard
the development of Marian theology from the eleventh to the fif-
teenth century, which continued certainly up to the fall of Constan-
tinople to the Turks in 1453. Indeed, one might truthfully assert
that the Byzantines were stranger:, to the controversy on the Immacu-
late Conception that raged in the West. 186 And almost all the
(unedited) sources of this later period agree with the earlier edited
material in formulating expressly or in equivalent terms the doctrine
of Mary's total immunity from all stain of sin.137 It is but another
evidence of the dreary consequence of the East's separation from the
See of Peter that the modem Orthodox Church has forfeited its
allegiance to Mary's singular prerogative. The polemical and nega-
tivistic mentality which has for centuries characterized the Oriental
Christians has obscured, to a large measure, the glorious past of the
devotion in the East to the Mother of God. 18s

B. The Immaculate Conception in the Doctrine of the Latin Church

From the Council of Ephesus (431) until the middle of the
eleventh century is the epoch of preparation for explicit belief in
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was during
this era in a stage of incipient explicit profession. 139 In the West the
development was less rapid than in the East, due perhaps to the
185 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 959.
186 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 473.
181 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 936 £F.
188 Cf. Martin Jugie, A. A. , op. cit., p. 476.
189 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 979; J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 306-310.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 361

incursions of the barbarians as an historical cause, and to an anti-

Pelagian reaction as a theological cause. Many authors feared to
press too eagerly the immunity of Mary from all sin, lest they seem
thereby to lend credence to the errors of the Pelagians on grace and
original sin. But cogent evidence is available to support the argument
that adequate basis for the Immaculate Conception is discoverable
in the writings of the noted theologians of this period, even though
it be simply incipient belief that is contained therein.

a) Fifth Century
St. Peter Chrysologus taught that Mary was destined to holiness
beca:use of the divine ilaternity, an.d that this sanctity was with her
from the beginning of her existence.HO St. Maximus of Turin
Ct c. 470) writes of the Virgin as "a worthy dwelling of Goel by
virtue of her original grace," and without this grace she would not
have been the Mother of the Incarnate Worel.1-n Sedulius, noted as
a writer of hymns, institutes a comparison between Mary all pure
and the tainted nature of the rest of men, for she is "as the tender
rose bloom amid sharp thoms."u2 St. Fu]gentius, Bishop of Ruspa
Ct 533), contrasts the sinfulness of Eve with the perpetual sanctity
of Mary.uB And in a commentary On the angelic salutation, he ex-
plains with considerable pl'eciseness, the significance of llfull of
grace," making it practically equivalent to what is now understood
to be immunity from original sin.144

b) Sixth, Seventh, Eighth Centuries

The line of growth in the development of the teaching on the
Immaculate Conception continued during these centuries with much
the same impetus as in earlier times, with an augmenting insistence
on the initial quality of Mary's grace. St. Venantius For tun atus ,
Bi hop of Poitiers Ct 609), called the Virgin era new creation," the
"just seed" promised by God to Jeremias the Prophet.1405 St. Ildephonse
of Toledo Ct 666), in a Cdoubtful1y authentic) work on the privi-
leges of dle Blessed Mother, stresses the unbroken continuity of her
140 Cf. Sermo 140, De Annuntiatione D. Mariae Virginis, PL, 52, 576.
141 Homilia 5, Incipit dictum ante Natale Domini, PL, 57, 235 D.
142 Carmen Paschale, lib, 2, PL, 19, 595-596.
143 Sermo 2, de duplici Natillitate Christi, No.6, PL, 65, 728 C.
144 Cf. Sermo 36, De laudibus Mariae ex partu Salllatoris, PL, 65, 899 C.
145 Miscellanea, lib. 8, cap. 7, PL, 88, 277-281.
 MARIOLOGY

e) St. Bernard
Whatever authorities may be thus ipvoked in favor of the cele 8

bration of a feast honoring the conception of Mary as ,a legitimate

and sufficiently trarutionalliturgical observance, th, historical fact js
that the power and inBuence of St. Bernard (1°91-1153) was
despite his great love for Mary, aligned with the forces that oppos d
such a feast. e f01'ffiulated his objection in a celebrated letter to
the Canons of Lyons. lul Probably this stand of Bemad was ~ provi-
dential one, for it set off a controversy about the Immaculate Con-
ception that ultimately resulted in the universal acceptance of the
doctrine of Mary's immunity hom original sin. It is dispnted among
students of Bernard's letter whether the saint intended Simply to
oppose the introduction of the feast as inopportune and not approved
by Rome, or whether he intended to take issue with the doctrine
itself of the Immaculate Conception. More probably his objection
was against the doctrine as then understood. 162
It must be remembered that at the time St. Bernard wrote, the
notions concerning conception, animation, the time of the infusion
of the soul, the nature of concupiscence and its relation to original sin
were neither as clear nor as well settled as they later became espe-
Cially in the course of the controversy. The feast about which the
Doctor complained had for the object of its cult the seminal concep-
tion of the daughter of Anne and Joadrim, and this conception, in
the phYSiological teaching of the era (and accepted as correct by
theolooians), prece led animation. Bernard did not believe (as
indeed one cannot) that sometbing (the person of Mary) could be
sanctified before it existed. And this interpretation prevailed among
most 0f the later Scholastics. IDS The Acta of the feast under dispute
emphatically indicated that the object of the feast was precisely the
conception of the seed. 1M Moreover, it was believed by Bernard and
other renowned theologians that in some way sin was connected
with the generative act of the parents. This would disallow sanctin-
161 CE. Ep. 174 Ad Cllnollicos Lt'gdunenses, PL, 182,332-336; but see Sebastianus
Dupasquicr, O.F.l'vLConv., op. cit., p. 241: " ..• Bemardus non tam arguit opinionem
de Immaculata Conccptione, quam institutionem illius solemnitatis inconsulta Sede
Apostolica, et ex propria auctoritate."
io~ Cf. C . .Octavius Valerius, op. ci.t.~ p. 27; ~ • .Raugel, IA .docr,n ne de Saint
Bernarel ( Pans, 1935), p. 34 fF. ; Donumcus PalnUen, S.]., op. CIt., p. 236.
16 9 Cf. Antonius Bl;Illerini, S.J., De S. Bernardi scrip~is oirca Deipllrae Concep'
ti01'1e'1tt (Romn, 1856), passim; Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., 0p. cit., p. "36.
1'''' Cf. M. J. Soheeben, op. cit., p. 89'
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 365
cation as concomitant with generation. Accordingly, since Mary
could not be sanctified before she was conceived, nor when she was
conceived, the only conclusion must be, in the mind of Bernard,
that Mary was cleansed from original sin after conception but before
birth. 16G
St. Bernard's position carried great weight with the writers who
came after him. They followed his doctrine -whenever they wrote
about the question of sanctification b efore animation /co holding too
that the soul was infused (animation) from forty to eighty days after
seminal conception. 16 ? Even allowing for this difference between the
opimon of the writers of those days and the opinion that subse-
quently prevailed, that animation is simultaneous with conception,
neverth eless the Scholastics did not all admit Mary's sanctification
in the instant itself of animation. Indeed, St. Bonaventure declares:
" . . . teneamus, secundum quod communis opinio tenet, Virgin is
sanctificationem fuisse post originalis peccati contractionem."168
In substance, then, when the better known Scholastics examined
the question of the Virgin's mode of conception, it was not discussed
whether she was immaculately conceived, but whether her sanctifi-
cation occurred before the infusion of the soul into the flesh, by
some sanctification of the flesh itself. The freedom of the soul from
the stain of original sin would be the necessary consequence, it was
felt, of such a carnal sanctification. Or, further, it was discussed
whether the sanctification took place after the infusion of the soul,
removing from her soul that stain of sin to which union with un-
sanctified flesh necessarily subjected it. The first view: sanctification
of the flesh before the infusion of the soul with the consequent
preservation of the soul from sin, was unacceptable, both because
inanimate flesh is not susceptible of sanctification, and also because
such a pl'eservation as would foHow, if 't hat sanctmcation were pos-
sible, would exempt Mary from the uruversal law of sin and the
need for redemption. The accepted opinion was that not only did
conception of the flesh take place in sin, but that the soul itself
in its infusion into the 1ll1sancti6ed flesh, was contaminated by sin.
166 Cf. Pierre Aubron, S.J., L'oeuvre Mariale de Saint Bernard (Paris 1935),
pp. 177-184.
188 Cf. S. Bonaventura, in III Sent., d. 3, a. I, q. Ii S. Thomas Aquinas, in III
Sent., d. 3, q. I, a. Ii S. Albertus Magnus, in III Sent., d. 3, a. 4i Alex. Halensis,
Summa Theol., III, d. 3, a. 4.
167 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, op. cit., p. 237.
168 Cf. in III Sent., d. 3, q. 2.
 MARIOLOGY
After Trent the opposition to the Immaculate Conception became
greatly moderated, and even those who previously had been against
it either changed their view or else discontinued any serious attacks
on the complete orthodoxy of tb doctrine. One of the most zealous
rrnd brilliant defenders of the doctrine during this period was the
Dominican Ambrose CatarIDo. 199
. Pope St. Pius V (1504-1572) condemned the error of Baius
wherein the latter had stated that the Mother of God was subject to
original sin,194 and in the Constitution Quod a nobis (1568) the
Pontiff put the feast of the Immaculate Conception in the calendar
of the Roman breviary.
Alexander VII in the Constitution Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum
(166 I) described with remarkable exactitude the sense of the doc-
trine of the Immaculate Conception, in words similar to those later
used in Ineffabilis Deus. 195 Pope Clement XI, in the Constitution
Commissi Nobis (1708), instituted the feast of the Immaculate
Conception, December 8, as a holyday of obligation. 196
The Sixth Provincial Cou.ncil of Baltimore in 1846 declared Mary
Immaculate to be the Patroness of the United States, and con-
firmation of this dedication was furnished by Pope Pius IX on
February 7, 1847, less than eight years before the solemn definition
of the dogma. 197
THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Any doctrine that con tributes so richly to the spiritual, lilurgical,
and intellectual life of the Church as does the doctrine of Mary's
Im maculate Conception, quite properly would be expected to have
abundant theological reasouino in its favor. 109 Among the various
argumen ts traditionalJy invoked in support of the dogma, despite th
diversity of th it force, all may be rceluc d t two general classes :
e.I ) the pOSSibility of the doctrine ea) on G d's part; (b ) on Mary's
Jart; (c) on the part of mankind - (2) the fittingness of the doctrine
ea) on God's part; (b) on Mary's part; ec) 011 the part of mankind.
1 93 Cf. Giacinto Bosco, O.P., L'Immacolata Concezione nel pensiero del Gaetano
e del Caterino CFirenze, 1950).
194 D.B., No. 1073.
19 5Ibid., No. I100.
196 For history of the Papal acts, cf. Dominicus Palmieri, op. cit., pp. 293-298.
For complete treatment of acts prior to 1854, cf. J. Annand Robichaud, S.M.,
art. cit.
197 Cf. Paul F. Palmer, S.]., op. cit., p. 79.
1 98 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 119 ff.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 371

1. The Possibility of the Doctrine

a) On God's Part
Strictly speaking only that is impossible for God which ;implies
a "metaphysical contradiction." Thus even God obeys tlle principles,
for example, of sufficient reaSOl) and of identity. God can do what-
ever does not include some inherent repugnance, simply because He
is utterly omnipotent. With regard to the Ilmnacu]ate Conception,
while this required a miracle in the order of grace, it is surely not
impossibJe that God would preserve a human person from incurring
the 'penalty of Adam's sin, if He so decreed. This was an unique
e.xception grMted to her because of her office as the Mother of the
God-Man. Since the laws governing the dispensation of grace are
formulated by God, He can accordingly relax the operation of such
laws as He deems fit.199
It does not matter whether one consider the possibility on the
part of anyone of the three divine Persons, for all acts of God which
take effect outside the divine nature are common to each of the
three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 200 This mystery does
not derogate from the dignity of the Father, who must prepare a
hmnan nature as a .fit channel for the Incarnation. Nor do the pre-
Iogatives of the Incarnate Word suffer 21')Y diminution, n r is His
essen6al sanctity affected by the great grace accorded His Mother.
As the second Person of the Trinily H e is substantially sanctified
willi the full holiness of the Godhead, and born into the wodd as
man, He has the absolutely unparalleled distinction of being born of
a woman who was without any stain of sin and a virgin. Christ's
immunity from sin 'was by natural right as proper to the divine
nature, and since He was not of Adam's seed, He can in no manner
be considered as even under tlle law of original sin. Mary had her
immunity by way of privilege. This priviJege enjoyed by her did not
diminish the efficacy of Christ's redemptive act, but instead exalted
it, since the Immaculate Conception was in virtue of her Son's merits
which preserved her in a more sublime manner than other humans
enjoy.201 Finally, the possibility on the part of the Holy Spirit cannot
be impugned, for in His role of Sanctifier He is able to cleanse
Mary's soul from sin in any way and at any time He so elected, just
199 Cf. St. Thomas, S. Th., I, q. 105, a. 7.
200 Cf. ibid., I, q. 31, a. I.
201 Cf. Joannes Duns Scotus, op. cit., p. 192.
37 2 MARIOLOGY
as He is fully able to preserve her entirely from contracting any stain
of sin in the first place.

h) On Mary's Part
No impossibility can be alleged insofar as Mary is concmcd, for
as a crcatme she is subject to the Creator ?cconlin:g to His will, and
therefore she can be used by God to help in the achievement oE His
desicrns an d thereby to manifest His powe r, wisdom, and got)cincss. 202
As seminally descended [r In, Adam there was some relationship to sin
established by this very fact, but that she did not ever actually incur
this hereditary taint was :indeed extraordinary and miraculous. While
it was in itself extraordinary and unique that she should have been
immune from original sin, yet in virtue of her office as Mother of the
Messias and of her total subordination to the decrees of God in that
regard, there was assuredly no impossibility on her part. And in a
sense her Immaculate Conception might be termed ordinary precisely
so far as she herself is concerned: merely another tremendous gift in
the totality of her elevation over all the accustomed ways of God's
dealings with mankind. This singular privilege remains in itself in-
ferior to her divine Maternity, since the former was on account of the
latter. 203 Exalted above all the rest of men by her preservative libera-
tion from the law of sin, she was further exalted above all angels by
the privilege of becoming the Mother of God-made-Man.

c) On the Part of Mankind

While it is a divinely revealed truth that in Adam "all men have
sinned,"204 still this "all" need not be so rigorously understood as to
disallow any exception whatsoever, as is plainly evident from similar
uses of the inclusive sense of certain words: " . . . every man is a
liar ... ,"205 " ... there is none that doth good."206 Hence, while the
Virgin Mary is a member of the human race and as such was in
some way associated with the disabilities incumbent upon mankind,
nevertheless this fact raises no insurmountable obstacle to her being
exempted from the common lot of other children of Adam, if God so
willed to exempt her.
202 Cf. Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (Milwaukee, 1951),
p. 201.
203 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 105 ff.
204 Rom. 5: 12.
205 Rom. 3: 4.
206 Rom. 3: 12 •
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 373

2. The Fittingness of the Doctrine

a) On God's Part
If all the just are children of God in virtue of their individual
share in the divine life through sanctifying grace,207 then Mary is,
to a pre-eminent degree and because of the divine Maternity/os God's
most beloved child. The nature of her mission required that. 20Q She is
the .first-bom of all mere cl"ealures and to her may properly be accom-
modated the words, "I carne out of the mouth of the most Hiah, the
first-born before all creatures."HO Chosen from all eternity for her
sublime Iole, as Mother of the only-begotten Son of God, what-
ever hOllor'd her, necessarily honored Him, and whatever would
lessen her dignity would, in SOme manner, reflect unfavorably ttpon
her Son. Had she been affected by sin and so subject to the devil, she
would scarcely have been worthy to be the Mother of God: each one
is given grace according to the need or
that to which God has chosen
one. 211
God the Father associated Mary to Himself in the generation of
the Son in time, and the analogous relationship thereby resulting
calleel for a very high share in the in.6.nite purity and holiness of
God. It is incongruous to suppose that He who from aU eternity was
begotten in the hosom of the heavenly Father should assume a human
nature in the body of a woman who at any time had been marred
by sin's guilt. The same divine Person is the Son of God and the
Son of Mary, and as she was similar to God in generating the Word,
so she ought to be similar to God in sanctity, in that measure possible
to a mere human. 212
If the propriety of Mary's immunity from original sin be exanlined
in the light of Mary's relationship to the Word, an equally cogent
argument is derived. Had the Son chosen to be l-Iis Mother one
unworthy of that exalted dignity (and original sin would make one
unworthy) then such a selection would be attributable either to a want
of wisdom on the part of the Son, or to an inability to provide other-
207 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I-II, q. 110, a. 3.
208 Cf. Chan. ]. Mahieu, op. cit., p. 47.
209 Cf. R. P. Poupon, D.P., Le Poeme de la Parfaite Consecration a Marie (Lyon,
1947), p. 12 3.
210 Ecclus. 24:5.
211 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., III, q. 27, a. 5 ad !Urn.
212 Cf. Arthur Martin, S.]., Vida Y misterios de la Bienallenturada Virgen Maria
Madre de Dios (Mexico City, 1950), p. 17.
374 MARIOLOGY
wise. Obviously, neither of these alternatives is possible in view of
the infmite knowledge and power of the Son. Therefore, Mary
must have been sanctified From the frrst instant of her existence.21S
The filial piety of the Son toward His Mother would aSSL~re that
the arnability of Mary in the eyes of God should never suffer any
interruption Dor be any less than possible. Had she, even for the
briefest interval of time, been under orjginal sin, she would not have
been constantly lovable to the Father. Radler she would have been
an object of Jis wrath. The Word Himself obeyed the command of
God, "Honor thy mother," and this H e would not have done had
He, although able to preserve His Mother from the stain of sin, not
done so.
C hrist carne to taj{e away the sins of the world, and so He was
destined to be segregated from sin 2U an d from all dishonor flowing
from a personal relationship with sinners : "For it was fitting that we
should have such an high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated
from sinners. . . .'~nD Had His own Mother been a sinner, this
revealed truth would be difficult to reconcile with her condition, for
her stain would be, in some way, to His dishonor.216
Christ was a perfect Mediator, fulfilling to the highest degree the
office of atonement and reconciliation decreed for Him by the
Father : "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men,
the man Jesus Christ."217 P hYSically, Christ is between the two
extremes of divinity an d humanity: rustinguished hom each and yet
having something in common with each. M orally, the perfection of
meruation is attributed to Christ, because the Word became Incarnate
to reconcile mankind with God. As Man, the Son of Mary, Christ's
suffering and death merited reparation for aJl, for His human actions
and sufferings have a redemptive value in that they ru:e proper to
the W ord, who sustains and directs the assumed nature. Christ,
therefore, is Mediator according to His human nalure which He
received from dle Virgin, without, of COllise being independent of
H is divinity. This perfect meruatorship of Christ postulated that His
M other be preserved from sin, since He would effect in h er beh alf
213Cf. Bishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
(Baltimore, 1855), passim.
2 14 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., III, q. 4, a. 6 ad 2um.
216 Hebr. 7:26.
216Cf. St. Peter Damian, Homil. in Nativ. B. M. V., sermo 46, PL, 144, 755.
2171 Tim. 2 : 5; cf. D.B., No. 790.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 375
whatever was needed for the excellence of her person: she was the
first fruit of His redemption. m
Additional support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conce})tion
is found in Mary's own coredemprive life. As Mother of the Incamate
Word, she participates subordinately in the mediation of Christ with
God, and is also Mediatrix between Christ and men. While her
Mediation consists principally in praying in order to obtain for us
the application of the fruits of the Redemption, yet she is not
restricted to this office, because as associated with Christ, she co-oper-
ated with I-lirn in the work of the Redemption, contributing accord-
ing to th · measure of God's will to the acquisition of the fruits of
saJvation. 2U While this function could, absolutely spealdng, be carried
On without freedom from the stain of oricrinal sin, jt is far from fitting
that it should have been so.
The -preroga tive of exemption from the sin of Adam placed Mary
under the highest obligation to Christ the Mediator, since to be pre-
served from that sin is the greatest good the Redeemer could bestow.
If no one had been thus perfectly redeemed, then no one would be
perfectly indebted to Christ. Mary is Christ's debtor more truly than
the rest of mankind because she is more perfectly innocent than any
other.2ao And she is so holy because her redemption, her share in
Christ's merits, is so excellent. Other humans are freed from the
power of dru:lmess; she never knew anything except the light of a
supreme creatural sanctity.
The intimate Unl0n between Mary and the Holy Spirit furthel;
shows tlle entire fittingness of the dogma of the Immacula~e Con-
ception. It is, by analogy, like the union of spouses, for H e "over-
shadowed" her and she conceived by I-lim.221 Just as every spouse
expects to find unblemished pmity in his beloved, Similarly the
Spirit of God would take care to preserve His spouse from any
spiritual detriment: from sin of any land. How better might the
great 10ve of God be manifest than by giving Mary such Singular
grace as would reqLUl'e her having been conceived with a fullness of
grace? As the daughter of God the Father, and Mother o£ God the
Son, and as spouse of Gael the Holy Spirit, it is tll0IOugbly befitting
218 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquiez, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit.} 243.
219 Cf. Juniper Carol, a.F.M. Romanorum Pontificum doctrina de B. V. Corre·
demptrice, in Mariant~7Il, Vol. 9 (1947), p. 165 If.
220 Cf. Chan. J. Mahieu, 0'[1. cit.} p. 51.
221 Lk. I: 35.
 MARIOLOGY
But this includes, implicitly, the positive element of the presence
of h abitual grace in her soul. 2~ i<
An additional argumen t for the li ttingness of Mary's Immaculate
Conception is found in the fact of her Q ueenship over the anoelic
world : "Queen of Angels" is a glorious title, and it applies to
her in the order of grace and not in the order of n ature. N aturally
she is in ferior to them; supemattiially she is exalted above them. God
preserved the good angels from th e rebellion of sin. Would He not
similarly. and with even greater reason, preserve H is Mother from
the stain of any sin? If she h ad not been exempted from the guilt of
origjnal sin, then she would hardly be superior to the good angels
who are sinless, and would be subjected to the maUgn power of the
chief of the fallen angels. This would be an incongruity of unthink-
able proportions. 235
Further, there were some humans other than Mary who were born
without original sin, as Jeremias and John the Baptist. But Mary's
excellence is of a higher order than that of either of these, and accord-
ingly it is fitting that tlle mode of her sanctification be higher than
cleanSing in the womb, namely, a total preservation from sin by
her Immaculate Conception. 2~11
The freedom enjoyed by Mary from the consequences ordinarily
associated with original sin, her immllllity from disordered motions
of the Hesh;237 from even the slightest deUbera te fault; her Maternity
without anguish; the non corruption of h er body upon the completion
of her mortal course;238 her virginity together with her motl1erhood
- these wonderful privileges, presupposin~ fus t of all the divine
Maternity, have their root in the privilege f the Immacul ate Concep-
tion and are a complement of it. While her corporal 'Virginity cannot
2 84 Cf. Alexius H. M. Upicier, D.S.M., 0t'. cit., p. 2.2. I. This author observes
that since it is more noble to move oneself ( tmder actual grace) to sanctification
than simply to be moved (as an infant ordinarily would), therefore the MOtlleI
of God was sanctiJied by her own motion of will at the moment of her con-
ception, this being due to the dignity of the divine Maternity. Since this would
be simply a motion of will to God, it wowd be meritorious. St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, I, q. 9 5, a. 1) holds a similar motion on the part of our
first parents.
2 3 5 Cf. Eadmerus, De Conceptione B. M. V., PL, 159, 307.
2 3 6 Cf. ibid., 30~.
2 3 7 Cf. L. Lercher, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 3 (Deniponte,
1934), p. 346.
238The question as to whether Mary actually died or not is still an obscure
question, with supporters on both sides. Cf., v.g., Gabriel M. Roschini, D.S.M.,
Did Our Lady Die? in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, August, 1953, pp. 73-88.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 379
be directly attributed to the Immaculate Conception, yet they are
fittingly associated. Her virginity of soul finds a counterpart in her
virginity of body. If God suspended, by a miracle, the operation of
the natural laws of human generation so that a virgin gave birth,
then with greater reason might it be inferred that He would 111ake a
special provision for her in tlle 0rder of grace. Such a dispensation
is both to God's and Mary's honor and glory, and it is fitting in a
pre-eminent way that she who begot Him who is all just, should
herself be totally just. 289

c) On the Part of Mankind

The becomingness of the Immaculate Conception insofar as man-
kind is concerned, stems from the proposition that such a divine
arrangement is a culmination of God's gifts to our race. Having
determined to give His only-begotten Son as a Victim for our sins,
and therefore having willed that His Son should assume our sinful
nature, it would seem fitting also that He create some human who
would be perpetually innocent, never a captive of the devil. Such a
person would be the Immaculate Mother of the Son, co-operating
with Him in the sublime work of redeeming her fallen fellow men.
Such a one would serve as a perfect model of holiness although
entirely human herself. She who would thus be an example for
humans yet pilgrims on earth would at the same time shed luster
upon the glory of the blessed in heaven, for their Queen's dignity
would be enhanced by a perpetual fullness of grace. Thus her whole
human family, the Church militant, and suffering, and triumphant,
can truly say of this unique Mother of God: "Thou art the honored
one of our people."240
THE POSITION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN RELATIVE TO
THE LAW OF ORIGINAL SIN
Adam, on account of his transgression of the divine precept,241,
committed a grave sin of pride and disobedience, the guilt of which
has been communicated to all his posterity who form, together with
their father Adam, a human solidarity. The common origin of all
mankind from this infected seed makes all men to share in a com-
mon sin, even as they would have shared in a common heritage of
239 Cf. Narcisco Garda Garces, C.M.F., op. cit., r. 391.
240 Cf. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories ot Mary (New York, 1931), pp.
287-308 .
241 Gen. 3: 6.
 MARIOLOGY
justice, had the first parents not fallen. 242 Adam was our head, and
in his sin we have all sinned 21 :l and accordingly have forfeited our
claim to initial sanctifying grace and the gifts which accompanied it:
freedom from concupiscence, from suffering, from ignorance, from
death.
With regard to Mary and her Immaculate Conception, the ques-
tion presents itself under the form of her obligation to incur this
stain of sin. Was she subject to this general law of inheriting sin?
It is not asked, of course, whether she contracted sin, but whether
she should have contracted it, and in what sense must that possible
debt of contracting be understood. The solution of this problem
reHects upon the dignity of Mary, and effects a logical reconciliation
of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the universality
of C1lfist's Redemption.
One must distinguL h on the one hand the "debt" to contract
original sin,. and on the other hand the actual contracting of it. It is,
in other words, the distinction between what should be and what
actually is, as we might say of someone who has been exposed to a
particularly contagious disease, "he should be sick in consequence,"
but to the amazement even of doctors, he is not in reality infected
by the g rrn in guestion. AlI ar agreed at least since the definition
of the doctrine or the Immacul ate Conception, ;Jnd indeed well before
the Bull lneffal?ilis Deus virtually no Catholic held otherwise;"'"
that Mary never actually was touch,cd b the stain of any sin
whatev r. But whether 01' not the Blessed Virgin ought to have con-
tracted original sin, that is wh eLher Ot not she had a .debt ot con-
tracting it, has for lon been a matter of controversy amon gtheo-
logians. 245 This discussion, never having been settled by any official
statement of the ChllI h, and being left open by tlle terms employed
in Ineffabi1is Deus, is properly ;J matter of divergent speculation
amono theol gians. Tb cOlllroversy had its beginnings in the four-
teenth c ,utmy, and by the sixteenth centUry ther 'were consid Glble
discrepnnci s in the tenninoJogy relative to the debitwrn, and th re
were variou.s schools of thought on the correct pOSition to t.'lke COllcem-
jng OUI Lady's relation to such a debt. At the basis of. the controversy
242 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 3I3-3I4.
24SCf. Rom. 5:I2-I9.
244 Cf. L. Lercher, S.J., op. cit., p. 344 if.
245 For a remarkable Colder) treatment of the question, cf. Joannes Pedinus, S.J.,
Apologia scholastica pro magnae Matris ab originali debito immunitate cLugduni,
I630).
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 381

were two distinct but related problems: tb e predestination of C hrist

and H is Mother, and the exact nature of originnl sin.:!JlQ
In its most general sense, th debt of contracting originaJ sin is an
obligation, a necessity, a;n e.xigency of a hllman pers n's 1eing subject
to an initial privation of sanctifying grace. Tbis obligation is Tooted in
the universaJ law of solidarity existing between the common carnal
head of all mankind, Adam, and each of his progeny descended from
his seed. The seed of the first man thus becomes a baneful heritage
for all his posterity. 241 That much is clear. But Jess eviden t is the
question as to precisely how this obligation mises. os it arise from
the mere fact of carnal generation? Or does the necessity of our
incurring Oliginal sin arise mther from he law or God directly operat-
ing, to the operation of whicll human gen eration is simply a conditio
sine q'tta non? Stated .in other words : does the law requiring our
being conceived in sin operate as a cause of our incurring that sin
even apart From the fact of human generation as a necessary con -
dition? O r do the law and the fact of human "en-eration from an
infected line logelher cor slitLl te Lhe all e for the tran wssion of
original sin?
The solu tion to these questions h as prompted most theolOgians to
make a distinction between a "remote" and a "prOximate" debt. If
the law of God which places all men under the obligation to incur
original sin lepends ulon generation merely as a conditio sine qua
non in order for the sin to be contracted, then one would hold. that
the Blessed Virgin was under a remote debt to contract that sin. It
would be remote in the sense that God, while excluding Mary from
the law of sin, would nevertheless leave her under the conditioning
obligation of incurring sin for the reason that she had a human nature
derived from Adam through seminal generation.
If, on the contrary, one considers that the law and carnal genera-
tion taken together comprise a joint cause for the transmission of sin,
then Mary would have a proximate debt of contracting original sin.
It would be proximate in the sense that God would include her in
the law of sin, but exclude her from the application of that law,
The remote debt is also termed "conditioned" debt, since under it
sin would follow absolutely from the law and conditionally from
seminal generation, that is to say, immediately from the law and
mediately from human generation, It is also called a "potential"
216 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., p. 3 I I.
241Cf. Rom. 5:I2-I3.
 MARIOLOGY
dcbt 2d8 because, even if one be excluded from the law of inheriting
sin, nevertheless, because of the fact of seminal generation necessarily
rendeIi-ng that law operative, one would actually incur the sin unless
again one were exempted by God from the operation of the law.
Proximate debt is also called "absolute" debt because of the law's
being one with the fact of seminal generation, in such wise that the
act of generation is not merely a condition which enables the law to
operate. Rather it is the law operating. 10 this notion, origioBl sin
follows absolutely upon the fact of seminal generation, unJess it
happen that the law is divinely prevented from the actual applica-
tion of its effect. 249

I. Opinions of Theologians Relative to the Debt of Original Sin

in Mary
Some theologians hold that the distinction between the remote
and proximate debt is useless because Mary was certainly a daughter
of Adam, and since the law of contracting original sin is identified
with the derivation of human nature from Adam, to exclude her
entirely from the law would be to deny that the Virgin was a child
of Adam. And this would, in effect, assert that she in no sense needed
to be redeemed, even preservatively.25o

a) Proximate Debt
According to the opinion which teaches that the Blessed Virgin
had the proximate debt of contracting original sin, she was included
in the law of transmission of sin in such a way that she ought to
have contracted it, not only by reason of her human nature as derived
from Adam, but also by reason of her person. She had, if this be
held, not only a natural debt, but even a personal debt of incurring
the sin of our first parents. 251 In the theory of the proximate debt,
the divine law was decreed in such a manner that original justice
was so conferred on Adam that he would either keep it or lose it for
himself and his posterity, including Mary. Thus she, as all other
humans, ought to have been deprived of conception in grace because
248 Cf.' Carolus Balit, a.F.M., De debito peccati originalis in B. Virgine Maria
( R01l'l;!c, Ig.p). p. 74·
~.O CE. Evaristo de lao Virgen del CaJ.meu, a.c. ., Sobre eL rlebit.Q eleI pecllIdo
original. en Mor/rl. in Estud.ios MCITianos, Vol. 5 ( Madrid, 1946), pp. ~93-30B .
n~ Cf. A. 11 M . Uplcier, a.S.M., 0:1'. o;,t ., pp. T34- I.3); Dtlminicus Palmieri .
.J., 01" cit., p . 334i Eel. Hugcm, op. cit., p. 713·
2'1 I FOl: an interpretation of SC0tUS' doctrine on this question of the Hnd of
dl.lbt in Mary, c.r. Sebastionus Dupasqltier, O.F.M.Coov., op. cit., p. 7.5I.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 383
of Adam's sin. But, this opinion continues, she actually did not suffer
thls privation because she was preserved by God: in her case the
law did not apply . ~52 According to this view, the preservation of the
Blessed Virgin was accomplished, not by excluding her from the
Jaw of the transmission of original justice (which was a universal law
without excepu0n), but from the etppHcCI.t:ion of the bw. The theot '
that M ary had a proximate debt of contracting sin is held by not a
few ancient and contemporary theologians.~ ~·

b) Remote Debt
In the opinion favoring a remote debt in the Virgin, Mary was
entirely exempted from the universal law of original sin because the
law was never intended for her. 254 She had a remote debt of incurring
original sin only insofar as she had a human natrne derived from
Adam. T herefore , tills debt was only a natural one not a personal
one on her part, because she, as a person, was never subject to the
law : she was preserved entirely from being subject to the law in
virtue of the u1erits of Christ the Redeemer. In tills theory, original
justice was so bestowed on Adam that under the law of its transmis-
sion he would keep it for all those natmally begotten f hjm, and if
he lost it by sin, he would lose it for himself and all his posterity
except the Mother of the Saviour."IYr. Hence, in consequence of this
law, even under Adam's sin, Mary ought not to have been subject
to the privation of grace. True enough, the opinion adds, as a natural
offspring of our father Adam, she should otherwise have been in-
cluded in the law, yet in fact God excl uded her from the law of
.origina] sin in v1l'tue of the foreseen m.erits of Chr:ist. ~t;ij
c) No Debt Whatever
The theologians who hold the opinion that there was no debt at
all in the Mother of the Saviour explain their position by declaring
that Mary was constitlLted a distinct order hom the rest of manlind:
She was simply outside the order of sin, either original or actual.
Many distingUished Sparusb scbolars have supported this theory.257
252 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 313-314.
253 Cf. G. M. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 2, pars 2, p. 92; J. Keuppens, Mariologiae
Compendium ( Antverpiae, "1938), p. 65.
254 Cf. G. M. Roschini op. cit., pp. 92-93.
255 Cf. Ed. Hugon, op. cit., p. 710 if.
256 Cf. Christianu$ Stamm, Mariologia (Paderboma, 1881), pp. 48-51; J. de
Aldama, op. cit., p. 313 if.
257 For a lucid summary of the position of leading Spanish theologians during
 MARIOLOGY
necessity to incur sin by reason of a debt in Adam's sin? She was
surely "indebted" to her first parent for the possibility of her contract-
ing sin, insofar as he surrendered one title she might have had to
original grace.
"Mary lost ne titl to the grace of an immaculate conception but
she gained another . The very fact that the Ineffabilis De'us cites Mary's
relation to Christ the Hedeemer as her title to grace at the moment
of conception, a title she possessed as it were [-rom all etcrnj ty in the
plan of Divine Wisdom, is it meaningful to speak of a need, a neces-
sity an obligation to contract sin? . . . Mary never seems to have
had any genuine debit1~11't. It was grace not sin, that sbe should have
bad."3G2
In substance, it might be pointed out in this connection, that it is
in virtue of the merits of Christ that batll- Mary and all the Tedeemed
have anotl1er title to grace in place of the title lost by Adam's sin.
It is the title, of course, from the Saviour's Redemption. There is this
vastly important difference, however, between Mary and ourselves:
we have the title to be re tored t grace in virtue of Christ's merits,
whereas by God's special decree with regard to His Mother, she
had the title in virtue of her Son's merits to be preserved, not merely
from actually incurring original sin, but even from the obligation or
debt of incurring it.

THE IMMUNITY OF MARY FROM CONCUPISCENCE

I. Nature of Concupiscence
The consequences of original sin, in addition to the chief loss, that
of sanctifying grace, include the forfeiture also of certain immunities
enjoyed by our first parents, freedoms that we ourselves would have
possessed had Adam not sinned. These immunities are from con-
cupiscence (called the "fuel of sin" - fomes peccati), from death,
from malice in the will, from darlm ss of the in tellect in ignorance,
from sufferings of an
kinds. Man is naturally subject to inherent
disabilities of this kind, and the function of the preternatural gifts
which were joined wi th sa nctifying grace and rooted in it, was to
relieve man of such disagreeable impediments to a full and com-
pletely happy life. By the sin of our first parents we were made
subject to the penalty of their loss. These gifts are not regained when
the soul is restored to sanctifying grace through justification, the dis-
262 Ibid., p. 69. Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M., Recent Literature on Mary's Assumption,
in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 120, 1949, pp. 381-385.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 387
abilities remaining in the person, with greater or less force, through-
out life.263
The most noteworthy of these penalties is that of concupiscence,
which is from Adam's sin and leads us to sin, so much so that St.
Thomas describes original sin as consistiug ma.terially i~l con upis-
cence.~M Insofar as holiness is concemed, the wound of concupiscence
plays a greater part than do the other penalties, precisely because
of its proclivity to male actual sin a dreadful reality in human life.
1L is not formally or properly in the body, but rather in the lower
powers of the soul, which we call the "sensitive" faculties, haVing a
profound inBl.lence on the hody. While it is therefore matetiaJly in
the body, formally it is in the soul. The entire human person is
infected by concupiscence because of our deriving a corrupted nature
from our first parents: "naLure infects the person."2G5
The movement of the sense appetites, which was controlled easily
and connaturaliy by our first parents so long as they retained grace
and the accompanying gifts, became so disordered in consequence of
original sin that these passions are in a state of revolt against m~U1's
higher faculties. This rebenion while not en tailing a complete cor-
ruption, leads senSe desires to assert their demands contrary to the
dictates of man's rational appetite, the will. The irnmoderate ten-
dency of the lower potencies of lUan to seek their adequate sensible
objects in opposition to the higher faculties, results in concupiscence
"in nrst act" (in act'u prim,o) or "in second act" (in actu secundo).
Concupiscence in actu prim,o is the radical state of the sense appe-
tites, their condition of being always prOximately disposed to a.ct
contrary to reason. In act~t secundo} concupiscence consists in the
actual motions themselves of the appetites. 266
llan's soul was essentially rectilied and oriented to God by the
gift of sanctifying grace, and this supernatural elevation f the soul
and its faculties was perfected in the preternatural order y the
giFt of integrity, which rendered sense subordinate to sphit even as
spirit was, through grace subordinated to God. The subjection of
lhe uperior part of the hum:m composite effected by grace once
removed by sin, the ]oss of the graluitous subjection of the inferior
263 Cf. Petrus Bardus, De Immaculata Conceptione, in Monumenta antiqua
Immaculatae Conceptionis, ed. Petrus de Alva et Astorga, O.F.M. (Lovanii, 1664),
p. 357·
264 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I-II, q. 82, a. 3.
265 Hugolinus StortI, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 26.

266 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 314-315.

 MARIOLOGY
part followed as a necessary part of the puni:;hment visited up 11 man
by tll e Crea tor. 26 7 Thus in a formal sense, original justice consisted in
habitual grace; in a material sense, it consisted in the h ierarchy of
int grity within man.
lhe ioher nt pronenes f mankind toward all unreasonable satis-
faction of sensible desi.res of wh atever kin I, called in a,ctu 1"1';1110 by
tl1cologians, may be "released" by God simply when He permjts the
normal baneful effects of original sin to tal(e their com e 'n the
lltunan person' or it may 'be "bound)) through the special providence
of God preserving one from the inroads of oncllpiscence, although
dIe "fuel of sin" is allowed to remain; or [mally it roay be "extin-
gui hed" by being totally removed from the subject by a special act
of God . Wh n concupiscence is tht)s extinbruishecl ,tbere is realized
an habilual and immovable lisposition in the suhject by which the
inferior powers never move against Teason, their proclivity to do so
being completely taken away.llUB
oncupiscence in actt~ secundo, the very movements of sense appe-
tites, may be "indeliber'He," when tllere is no 'luestion of the will's
consent to the movemen ts provoked, and therefore indelibel'ate mo-
tions are without any direct moral reference. These motions may be
"semideliberate" when they occur wi th imperfect advertence or im-
perfect con ent, and ordinarily are venial sins. Or final ly, concupis-
cence in ad'!-! seC,!-£11do may be "deliberate" if it is joineJ to hill
advertence and consent, and where grave matter is in question
mortal sin res ults.2UU

2. Relation of Mary to Concupiscence

TIle f undamental principle to be bome in mind with regard to
the position f Mary in relation to the wound of concup iscence is
this: Our Lady was constitu ted in an unique state of grace, and in
virtue of this most special condition she was Ielated to all the PTe-
tematlll'al gift'S durract tistic of the state of innocenc . ~70 T o what
extent the Bull Ineffabilis Deus may be considered as excluding con-
cupiscence from Mary is controverted among theologians. 271 There
2 G7Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op . cit., I-II, q. 82, a. 3.
2GB Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 340.
2 6 9 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I-II, q. 73, a. 6.

270 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., L'Immaculee Conception dans I'Ecriture sainte et

dans la tradition orientale (Rome, 1952), p. VIII; L. Garriguet, La Vierge Marie

( Paris, 1933 ), pp. 155-179.
2 71 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. I I (footnote).
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 389
can stareely be any question with regard to the Blessed Virgin's being
subject to any concupiscence in act'u secundo in any form, since
such disordered. motions are intimately associated with the stain of
original sin and too immediately related to actual sin: actual con-
cupiscence is the "motion of sin," as St. Thomas xpresse it.m The
suggestions of sudden movements of the flesh, springing from the
violent inclinaLion of 0ur flesh toward sensible objects, were found
among the saints, all of whom weJ;e conceived in original sin. In
lVIarv there was no trace of such motions, even in a materia] sense.
Thu~ it does not suffice to assert simply that Mary never consented
to disordered carnal activity; she never in fact experi -nced the
sligh test actual revolt in her lower natnre.27R
Concerning the question of Mary being subject to concupiscence
in. actu prhno, the'e has not always been such complete lmanimity
alllong theologmns, at least with Teference to the time when even
this ndical form of concupisce;nce was 'emoved from the Mother
of God. In the doctrine of the Scholastics, whose teaching pJ:evailed
generally up to the era of the definition of the dogma in 1854, the
wonderfully inteW'al nature of the Blessed Virgin lmew a Irbound"
concupiscence from the moment of her £lrst sanctification (either at
the moment of her conception or else subsequently while in the
womb of Anua) lip to the moment of her second sanct.i.£ication (when
the Word assumed flesh), when all concupiscence was totally exLin-
guished.274 This is the position of St. Thomas Aquinas, who explains
that the fomes pecca'Li remained in Mary according to its essence after
her justification, but that insofar as any actual operation of concupis-
cence was concerned the fo·mes was impeded. At the instant of her
conceiving the Son of God, all concupiscence was totally removed. i 7 r.
Later theologians, at least since the date of the definition of the
dogma oj! the Immaculate Conception, teach lhat tllere was neve~· in
Mary the sligh test b.·ace of disordered sense appetite, for the pleni-
tude of grace possessed by her was such that her euLire sen e life was
always perfectly in accord with the dictat - of her immensely graced
wilp76 This interpretation appears more generally consonant with
the honor of Christ whose flesh is of the most pure flesh of Mary;
27 2 St. TbolIllls Aqll iD II,S, op. cit., III, q. 27, a. 3.
273 Cf. Van NOOI t, or. cit., p. 189; Ed. Hugon, Marie pleine de grdce, p. 127.
2 74 Cf. Bozzola·Greppi. S.l., 01'. cit. , p. 103; Alexius Martinelli, O.F.M., De
primo instOltti, COllcepl,icn/is B. V. Mariae ( Romae, 1950), pp. 1-2.
275 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, 01'. cit., III, q. 27, a. 3.
276 Cf. I. Keuppens, 01'. cit., p. 65; Ephrem Longpre, O.F.M., 01'. cit., p. 86.
 MARIOLOGY
with the fact that, being totally immune from all stain of original
sin, she ought therefore to be similarly free from one of its chief
consequences; and since this immunity was had by our first parents,
then Rttingly it may be claimed for her.271 It should be remembered
that Mary's Freedom from concupiscence is not a result of the Immac-
l..uatc Conception, at least dlrectly. It is attributable to the graces
that accompanied the singuJa.r ]Jrerogative of the divine Maternity.278
But insofar as her immunity from concupiscence is related to her
being conceived in grace, modem theologians acknowledge an extir-
pation of all disordered sense tendencies as concomitan t with M ary's
initial grace. This element in her sanctification is a negative thin g:
the removal of the "stain" of sin effected by the inFusion of grace :into
her soul at the instant of its union with the body, and trus j s some-
times called her "first perfection." Her "second 1 erfection" became
a reality at the instant of the Incarnation, by which she received
consumm.ate grace, jtself capable of yet great augmentation. 279 Her
first -perfection, the Imma.culate Conception, predisposed her to the
second serving as a means for the Word to come among men.280
And since the Word's flesh ·was hers, all inordinate carnal tendencies
should have been removed, and were removed even in a radical
sense, at the first moment of Mary's existence as a person. 281
In the Bull Ineffahilis Deus it is said that the Mother of God was
free "from all stain of original sin."282 While it is not entirely certain
that it was thereby intended to declare Mary's freedom as well from
concupiscence, nevertheless it may be said that concupiscence is
truly part of original sin in those not yet justified, and so in Mary's
case the use of "all" in the definition may have a special value. 283
2 77 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., p. 3 15.
278 Cf. Albert Kippe5, O.M.I., The Immacu'!ate COllCeptiOfI a.nd the Preternat'Un:tl
Gifts, in MariaH SIJudies, Vol. 4, p. 198i Ed. Rugon, Tn:rot{~Mls Dogrl!fl iici , p .
72.3; GastoD D6maret, Marje de qui est ne ] em.s CParis. 1937), Vol. 2, p. 43 If.
2'1 9 Cf. J\chjlle cocrino. Maria SUrltissi1YUI ( Torino. 1938), p. 4 2 cr.; H. Dl!poix,
S.M., Beata Maria Virgine (Paris, 1866) . p. 12011-.' F. O'Neill, T I,c Blessecl Vil'gi-rl
Mary (ma the Alleged Debt of Sin, in Tile Irish &ck.-iasticat Hecora ( Dublin,
Jul y, 19:!.3), p. 83 ·
::80 Cr. A. M. Mayer, O.S.M., A{11ta'Mced Mariology ( Portland, 1934), p. 132..
21n CE. Annandus Plessis, S.M.M., op. cit., p. 78; Dominicus Palmieri, S.J.,
op. cit.., p . 338; A. H . M. Upicier. O.S.M., 01" cit., p. 195.
282 D.n., No. 1641.
283 X. Le Bachelet in his article on the Immaculate O :),pCCptiOD in DTe, Vol.
7, cols. 845-846, attributes no special importance to the omni of the definition in
Ineffabilis Deus. Martin Jugie disagrees with this position in L'1'ln1f1aclIUe C on-
ception dans l'Ecriture sainte et dans la tradition orientale, p. 1 I (footnote). Cf.
also Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., 01" cit., p. 2.2.1.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 391
Aside from any consideration of the possible quality of concupiscence
in the state of pUl'e nature in man, a condition that h as sligh t rele-
vancce to the actual economy of mankind's fall en and redeemed na-
ture, it sllOuld be affinned that where there was never original sin,
there was never concllpiscehce. uch was Mary's prerogative . l!8~

THE RELATION OF MARY TO THE STATE OF

ORIGINAL JUSTICE
Our first parents were constituted by God in a state of innocence,
and this condition existed more probably from the first moment of
their existence, although some theologians h ave taught that this eleva-
tion did not take place until some time after God made man. 286 This
establishment of Adam and E ve in such a perfect condilion of super-
natural and natural being, in which their natura] powers were per-
fected by the pre ternatl~ral giI1:S, is called the state of "original jus-
tice." It implies the presence in their souls of sanctif-ying grace by
which they were children of God and sharers in the divine nature,
together with infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity. They lilce-
wis po sessed imm.unity from certain disadvantages natural to the
human composi te: freedom from the necessity to di.e, from di.sorder
in the sense appetites, £rom the illness and sorrows of life, from
darkness of mind and trom malice of Will. 286 This totality of inno-
cence and wondrous gifts was entirely a gratuity on the part of God,
in no manner owed to man. 281 God could have allowed man to
remain simply in the state of pure nature, with natural means to a
natural end. But He did not; in His liberality He gave human nalure
sanctifying grace as the formal element of original justice, and added
the blessing of integrity, completing and elevatinu man's natura.l per-
fections. All this would have been h'ansmitted to Adam's posterity as
their heritage, had he not forfeited original justice by his originating
284 Cf. Ludovicus Lercher, S.J., Gp. cit., p. 347. It should be noted that,
strictly considered, the deletion of original sin and the p'reservauon fTom concllpis-
cence are distinct and separable g~fts. As humaD, Mary aLight t? ~]llve been ~ubject
to at least some degree of concnplScence, hut because of die;: divme Mlltetnl'ty slle
was exempt. This is the ( proba]l1e) opinion of Van Have, De i1JJ.1mmit.lTt.e B. M.
Virginis a concupiscentia, In Collectarllul Mechilniensia, Vol. 14 (Malines, I940),
pp. 4 1 -4 2 •
285 Cf. J. M. Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1949),
p. 314 If.
286 Cf. E. Doronzo, O.M.!. , De Baptismo et Con~rmatione ( Milwaukee, 1947),

P·9 0 •
281 D.B., Nos. 1021, 1026.
392 MARIOLOGY
sin, communicated to us as original sin through infected human
nature. 288
The extraordinary grace accorded Mary in the divin plan of our
Redemption as the Mother of the Messias presents the problem of
comparing her status with that of original justice enjoyed 1,y our
protuparen ts. Specifically in ligh t of h er Im.mac u.la te Concevtion ,
removing as it did all stain of original sin , an it be roperly af:Iinned
tll at Mary was constituted in the same situation as Adam and Eve:
a condition of primitive innocence? Theologians are not agreed.
Some contend that the Mother of God was entirely a new Eve,
endowed with all grace and privtleges of first innocence, even to the
extent of having a title to personal immortality. That she actually
died, this opinion h olds, is simply because of her role of Co-
redemprrix. And had he no died, Christ would Himself have en-
dured something that is a characteristic human experience which
His Mother would not have known. 289 Still other writers deny that
such was Mary's state. 290
In substance, the determination of the Blessed Mother's position in
this regard may turn on her relation to her Son as her Redeemer,
who has restored her to a singular level of sanctity because she was
destined to be His Mother in the Incarnation. She needed His merits
in Ql'der to be the recipient of God's grace, the formal element of
her holin ess . 20~ Consistently with the opinion supporting a debt in
Mary, it would follow that the grace given the Blessed Virgin was
110t in virtLle of the pr imitive elevation of man, but in virtue of a
new and special elevation through Christ. 292 She was neither in the
state of original justice, nor in a state f (personall y) lapsed bue
redeemed nature. H er state was totally unique and proper to her.m
Even if M.:-rry had been placed si:rnply in the state of original jnstic
throuoh some special deccee of God 't would not be n ecessary t
concJl.1de tha t she would thereby h ave some or all f the gifts tha
constitute inteori ty, for the possessjon of sanctifying gl'ac , however
o exalted in deQrec, does not postulate the presence of the immunities
288 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I-II, q. 82, a. 4.
289 A. H. M. Upicier, O.S.M., op. cit., p. 358, holds that the Bull Ineffabilis
Deus states that Mary was in the state of original justice. Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit.,
p. 3 I6 .
2 9 0 Cf. n. H. Med,eTbach. Q.P ., op. cit., p. 246 if.
29 1 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 222.
2 92 Cf. J. de A1dama , 01" cit., p. 316.
293 Cf. iv/d., p. 317; B. H . Med{elliach, O.P., op. cit., p. 1I I.
 MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 393
that make up integrity. The participation in divine life which is
grace is quite separable from the immunities from death, suffering,
and the rest. 294 The grace of the Immaculate Conception, a grace
"of Christ" contrasted with the grace "of God" received by our first
parents, did not constitute Mary in the condition of first innocence.
Nor did she, on account of that grace, have any strict title or claim
to the preternatural gifts. 295 Having been lost through the fall of
Adam, they could subsequently be enjoyed by one whose role in
God's plan was such that the presence of the gifts, or of some of
them, would be fitting and quasi-necessary in view of some special
destiny of that individual. Mary's divine Maternity meets this
requirement, as well as her office of Coredemptrix. 296 Similarly,
because of her propinquity to Christ, the source of grace efficiently
according to His divinity and instrumentally according to His
humanity, and because she gave Him that humanity, therefore Mary's
grace was supreme as compared to that of any man or angel. 297 With
this grace she received all the theological virtues, since she was still
a pilgrim despite her office, and also the moral virtues, except pen-
ance which concerns sorrow for sin. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit
were hers, of course, and actual graces beyond estimation. 298 But all
these incredible manifestations of God's solicitude for the sanctity of
His Mother did not remove from her such human infirmities as her
Son deigned to take upon Himself. 299 As He, she was acquainted
with suffering and death and the manifold trials of soul and body to
which each human is, in this time of probation, subject. But what-
ev r would truly be out oFpJace in the Mother or the Saviour, what-
ver wouIcllessen that dignity or be sugoestive o'F sin, must be rigor-
ously excluded From llcr. In addition, therefore, to 11er freedom fTom
concupiscence, we ihould acknowledge her immunit From igno-
Hnce Rnd from any debility in the irascib1e appetites, from all malice
294 Cf. Albert Kippes, O.M.I., art. cit., p. I97.
295 Cf. ibid. But Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. VIII, seems to hold otherwise,
at least with regard to concupiscence.
296 Cf. Juniper Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae
(Civitas Vatican a, I950), pp. 550 , 559.
297 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., III, q. 27, a. 5; A. A. Paquet, Disputationes
Theologicae (Quebec, I922), p. 273.
298 Cf. Bozzola-Greppi, S.I., op. cit., pp. I02-I03; J. B. Petitalot, La Vierge Mere

d'apres la Theologie (Paris, I904), pp. 85-88; Chan. J. Mahieu, op. cit., p. 50.
299 Cf. Albert Kippes, art. cit., p. I99.
394 MARIOLOGY
of will or error of intellect. soo Mary is, under Christ, God's gracious
Masterpiece. In the words of the Franciscan Doctor, St. Bonaventure:
Mary the Virgin is the advocate of sinners
and the glory and the crown of the just.
She is the spouse of God, the abode of the Trinity
and the most special resting place of the Son. 301
300 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 141.
301 III Sent., d. 3, p. I, a. 2.
 Mary's Immunity From Actual Sin

By SALVATORE BONANO, C.M.F.

S ANCT'ITY, while implying a positive, inner transformation of

the soul, presupposes as well a negative aspect, namely, the
freedom l;'"om sin. Justification contajns two simultaneous acts: the
remission of sin and the infusion of grace. In the soul of Our Blessed
Lady there was no need for the Erst of these two acts, for she was
immaculately conceived and sinless during h r whole life. Since the
dogma of the Im:maCLIlate Conception bas been studied in a previous
article ( d. pp. 328-394) we shall con 'ern ourselves here 'with the
truth of her perfect sinlessness.
T be thesis may be stated as follows : Our Lady, through a special
privilege, avoided. during the whole course of her life, all personal
sin, marta] as well as venial, and was free from every voluntary im-
perfection. More, she was in a unique way impeccable.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Impeccability. By this tenu we understand indefectibility in the
moral order, or the inability to sin. It can be either direct, deriving
immediately from the absolute, essential perfection of a being; or
indirect, based upon some quality of the subject to whom h is attrib-
u ted or tlpon a state or condition in which be Jlnds himself. The
fonner belongs to God alone who is subsistent sanctity and the
supreme principle of all holiness. The la ter, as the definition makes
clear, 9.dmits of varying degrees which are determined both by the
dignity of the person and the principles that aCCOtmt for the complete
removal of the possibility of sin.' Thus we distinguish:
a) T he impeccability that is Christ's as mall because of the hypo-
static union. There is only one Person in Christ, that of the Word
1 Cf. J. Voste, O.P., De mysteriis vitae Christi (Rome, 1940), p. 21 ; G. Roschini,
O.S.M., Mariologia, Vol. 2 ( Romae, 1948), p. 106; G. Alastruey, Tratado de la
Virgen Sant{.sima ( Madrid. 1945), p. 253 .
395
 MARIOLOGY
to whom all actions, both divine and human, are attributed. Were
there even the slightest sin in that sacred humanity, the sinful act
would have to be attributed to the Divine Word to whom that
humanity belongs an attribution that would be absurd. This we
calJ 'I'I'Ietaplqsical impeccabili ty.a
b) The impeccabiliLJ that is proper to the angels and the blessed,
who are confinned in good and incapable of turning away from the
immediate and intuitive vision 01: the divine essence. This intuitive
vision is made possible to the intellect of the blessed through the
light of glory, a supernatural power infused by God. It brings about
a permanent adherence to God as the highest Good and since sin,
which makes man an enemy of God, consists in placing one's last
end in created goods, the beatific visioDconEers a state of impotency
in regard to sin . This is called physical i.mpeccability,n
c) The impeccability of th Blessed Virgin. A majority of authors
designate this as tnora.l jmpeccahility. That is, be elise of her personal
title and dignity as Mother of God she could never inem the tain
of sin. Mary is no inLrinsically impeccable; the divine Maternity is
not a physical form that intrinsically affects and transforms her soul.
All theologians admit the existence in Mary of a real predicamental
relation that defines her motherhood in facto esse, i.e., from the mo-
ment that she conceived Christ. There was, moreover, a quasi-tran-
scendental relation of Mary to the Word in virtue of which from all
eternity the entire reason for her existence is to be the Mother of
God. This determines her motherhood only in fieri. It is a relation
based on the infallible predestination of Mary to divine motherhood. 4
Thus from the first moment of her existence there is moral incom-
patibility with sin, for were she stained with the least sin it would
reflect upon the honor due to Jesus. Suarez maintains the possibility
of a divine motherhood in a state of sin, 6 since between the two
there is neither metaphysical nor phYSical opposition.
2 Secondary causes of Christ's impeccability are the fullness of habitual grace and
the beatific vision.
S The possession of God in the beatific vision is a state of perfect happiness, and
as such excludes all sin, mortal as well as venial. Cf. P. Richard, art. Impeccabilite,
in DTC, Vol. 7, col. 1275.
4 Cf. G. Rozo, C.M.F., Sancta Maria Mater Dei (Mediolani, J943), p. 66.
6 De mysteriis vitae Christi, op. omn. (Pnri$is, 1860), Vo1. 19, q. 38, n. 4, disput.
'2.2. , sectio 2, p. 327. It is beyond the scope of this article to enter into a stlldy
of the precise nnnrre of the <livine Maternity ana whether or not it is a forma ex
se j·t/sti.(rct/rt$. FOl: Scheeben, the grace of Mary's motherhood I'ICCOUDt~ for in-
C!l.pabillty of ~inning on the analogy of that of Chl;'ist's humanity. HllndbtlCh der
hatholischB Dogmatik. Vol. 3 ( FribUIgi i. Br., 1'88 . . . ) nn. 1602- 160 ; Mario1.ogy,
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 397
A final division is that of antecedent and consequent impeccability.
The former demands in a person direct opposition to the disorder of
sin through some title or added intrinsic principle of deliberate moral
acts. The latter impJies the infallible divine prevision that a man
or an angel will de facto never sin. Our Blessed Lord, the angels,
the blessed in glory, al1_d the Mother of God possessed an antecedent
inability to sin, not merely the inability due to divine prevision.
Sinlessness. 111is may be defined as actual freedom f-rom all per-
sonal sin. As distinet from impeccability it has 31'1- aspect that relates
it to the order of fact. For a person may avoid in de facto through
an abundance of grace, the gift of integrity, or a special assistance
of Divine Providence; none of these reasons, however, can remove
the power itself to sin. This sinlessness embraces freedom from all
mortal sin only, whereby sanctifying grace would be lost, or from all
venial sin as well. 6
Privilege. Our Lady's absolute sinlessness is a special privilege, for
it is of faith 7 that the just man is unable to avoid all venial sin during
the whole course of his life. If Mary did so, we have a clear exception
to the law, and therefore, a privilege. T his mean that neither
ord inary nOr special h elps which are gratuitously given to those who
persevere to the end. were sufficient, bu t that a very unique gift was
required conSisting in a con tant as istance of Divine P;rovider,lce
influencing her will in the clireCliol1 of good . The fall of our first
parents is clear proof that the state of innocence does not of itself
confirm the soul in good. It is called a special privilege-no one else
rulS had it as extensiv ly nor to the same degree. After the descent
of the I oly Ghost into th eir souls, the Apostles were so confirmed in
graceS that they avoided all mortal, and even, in the opinion of some
th eologians all deliberate venial SllJ.. Yet they were able to experience

tl;!IDSJ. by T . Geukcrs. Vol. I (St. Louis, Mo.), p. 205i.; Vol. 2, p. 135 f. The
Sixteenth-century theologi-an S. Saavedra proJ~unded the ul.eor)' of an intrinsically
supematunu fonn that rai ed Mary to the dignity of Mother of God. J. Delgado,
.La ma/;eNddlld div iHa segun Silvestre de Saavedra, in Est·udios Marianos, Vol. 4,
1945, 521; J. Alonso, C.M.F., Gracia de Maria: naturaleza y fundamentos, in
E.m~(lios M(ll'ltmos VoL 5, 1946, p. 104. De Rhodes holds that the divine Maternity
excludes sin from Mary more efficaciously than habitual grace, but that of itself
it is nol (l Poml that sanctifies. Disputationes Theologiae Scholasticae, Vol. 2 (Lyons,
1661), Tract. 2, q. 4.
6 G. Roschini, op. cit., p. 107.
7 D.B. , No. 833.
8 St. Thomas, De Veritat'~, q. 24, a. 9, ad 2; B. Merkelbach, Mariologia (Parisiis,
1939), p. 149·
 MARIOLOGY
the rebellion of the Besh and a deceptive influence on the mmd.
Actually, throllgh an ablmdance of grace and special helps, they
succeeded in repressing these inordinate movements of the sense
appetite, but conclIpiscen e itself HS an effect of original sin was
always present and therefo;r~ also the possihility f having th · lis-
ordere.d acts arise . Rcgard:ir)g St. Joseph, theological debate cent .
on whether he was free &dm all actnal sin and co.nfumecl iJ:i grace
during his entire life or oply from the time of his 'ntarriage to OUT
Lady.9 .
ERRORS
The Lutherans and Calvinists protested against, and belittled the
import of the Catholic attitude toward the idea of Mary's utter sin-
lessness. Erasmus 10 had already prepared the way fm: the Reformers
with the introduction of his religious humanism and derisive attacks
against devotion to Mary. The imputation of sin to ur Lady was
due, among other factors, to false conceptions entertained by the
Reformers on the nature of theology which they considered an illegiti-
mate body of deductions from Scripture. For them the Bible and the
Bible only was the literal expression of God's word for all men. The
Scripture, they claimed, contains very little about the Blessed Virgin
and certainly does not authorize the belief in the surpassing holiness
and great gifts of soul and body that Catholics attribute to her.
Moreover their views on orioinal sin, the intrinsic o.rruptlQO of
nature, and j"tlstification led logically to a denial of Mary's sinless-
n. 55, Christ I imself being the only pure an.d perfect God-Man .
T urmel (under the pseudonym H erzog) attempted to prove that
the traditional teaclung of the Church prior to the thirteenth centmy
was that Mary, like any other human bein g, bad sinned. Sacred Scrip-
ture and the primitive Christian community, he holds, teach the
same. 11
The Jansenists, in rejecting the cult of Mary as an effect of super-
D Garrigou-Lagnrngc, O.P .. The Mother of the Savior, transl. by B. Kelly, C.S.Sp.
eSt. oujs, Mo., 1948 ) , p. 32.6; A. Michel, art. Joseph, in DTC, Vol. 8, col. 1518;
Lt':picier, Trnctalrl~$ de $11110/.0 Joseph (paris, 1908), a. 2, pp. 153-161; Alastruey,
op. cit., p. 254. It is commonly held that in particular virtues some saints were
free fro m all sin, e.g., St. Thomas in chastity and humility, St. John the Baptist
in speech. Cf. Breviarium Ordinis Praedicatorum, feast March 7, Second Nocturn,
First Antiphon.
10 Erasmus, Oeuvres, Vol. 1 ( Basle, 1540), p. 663. Cf. also A. Noyon, S.J., art.
Mariolatrie, in D.A.F.C., Vol. 3, col. 315.
11 La Sainte Vierge dans l'histoire (Paris, 1908). Cf. the condemnation of this
work in A.A.S., Vol. I, 1910, p. 554, and Vol. 22, 1930, pp. 517-520.
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 399
stitiOll and a deterrenr I.om a true interior p iety, also taught that she
stood in need of puri£cation at the time she presented Jesus in the
Temple; ber Son contracted this stain from herP Highly derogatory
to OUI Lady's moral perfection was the work of A. Widenf ld
Mon.ita saZutal"ia B. Mariae ad cu,ltores suos indiscretos, put on the
Index in 1676.13
Pope Pius V condemned the proposition of Baius which states
that the death of the Blessed Virgin is to be attributed to the fact that
she incurred the stain of original sin.14

MAGISTERIUM
The Council of Trent has solemnly declared that Mary, by special
privilege, was preserved free from all actual SID, mortal and venial,
throughout her whole life. '1f anyone asserts that man, after he is
once justified . . . is able to avoid throughout his lifetime all, even
venial sin, except by a special divine privilege, as the Cb LlIch holds
in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.U16 According
to Merkelbach this decree does not define MaTY's immunil-y from all
sin because of the use of the word tenere rather than credel·e. It is
not, therefore, an article of faith but certain Catholic doctrine. 16 J.
de Aldama, S.J., bolds that the Council is here defining the belief
of the Church ID Mary's privilege: "defonitur {Ides Ecclesi.&le circa
'hoc privilegiu'In."17 Roschini has an excellent study on the 11istory
behind the formulation of Canon 23, and his conclusion is that Trent
has defined the Marian privilege as well as the general law of which
it is an exception. ls
12 D.B., No. 1314.
13 Ibid., No. 1316. Cf. Grenier, Apologi.e des divots de la Sainte Vierge ( BIUssels,
1675), p. 3. The Monita influen'ced the reform of the Gnlliean l1ttrrgy. Outstf.m ding
opponents of Mariological Jallsenism were De Montfort (1716). A. Liguori. (1787),
G. Crasset, S.J .• (1618-1692), Bossuet (1628-17°4). Th. Raynaud ( 1583-1632),
G. of Rhodes (1661), Coutenson (1641-1674), P. Poi~e (:I584-r637) .
14 D.B., No. 1073.
15 Session 6, c. 23; D.B., No. 833.
,O Op. cit., p. 143.
u Sacrae T11eo1ogiae S1.ltrlma, Vol. 3 (Matriti. 1953), p. 363. Cf. also his El. valor
dog1llotico d.e la doctrirta sobre la inm'lmidad de peaado venial en Nu,estm Senora,
in Arch,i va Teol6gico Granatlh,a , Vol. g. 194,6. pp. 53-67.
16 °1" cit., pp. I to-II!. Fr. de Aldama, S.J., shows conclusively that tlJe verbs
tellollre and credere have equal value f-or. the Pathers of Trent, loc. C"it., p. 58 f.
On the Ineaning of "anxili~"n" s1,eciale/' it,n:ag11,utn, perseve-ran.tiCie c101lu.1nl,," and
similar Tridentinc expressions cr. Hefner, Die EmtehU'ngsgeschid~te der TriantcT
Rcc11fcrtigung Dckretes (Pader.bo~, 1909), p. 352. This Canon does not touch
the question of Mary's impeccability, nor the cause of her absolute sinlessness.
 MARIOLOGY
The soul in the state of grace can avoid any venial sin considered
separately, but cannot avoid all venial sins cumulatively taken. The
Council adds "throughout his ]jfei ' so as not to exclude the possibility
of fTeedom from them over a given period of time.
Pope Pius IX in th ll lJ Itl·effubilis Deus declares that God filled
MaTY "far more than ill the angelic spirits and all the saints, with
an abundance of all heavenly gifts from the treasury of His divinity,
in such a wonderful manner thnt she would always be free from
absolutely every stain of sin."19

SCRIPTURE PROOFS
TI1e privilege of Mary's absolute sinlessness is implicitly revealed
in the Book of Genesis in the words spoken by God to t])e serpent
(Gen . 3:15): '1 will put enmities between thee and the Woman,
between thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head and thou
shalt lie in wait for ber heel." The en.mjty that is set up between
th Woman and the serpent must be absolute as the text demands. no
Now, were Mary even for a moment a slave to sin she would not
share in t'he complete victory of her Son over the devil. All sin,
0riginal and actual, mortal and venial, is absolu tely incompatible
with the state of her perfect enmity.2l.
Her sinlessness is again implicitly contained in the words of Lhe
angel to MaIY: "Hall, £'ull of grace . . . hl essed art th u among
women" eLk I :28). Traditional teacl1ing on thjs point is that the
words expl"ess a fullness of grace that extend to the first momen
of her life, a fullness that warded off from her nIl contact with sin. 22
The Greek perf ct pmticiple KExttptTwp.ElIr/ signiJies a state fully realized
and still perseverulg in its effects, a state of bein a "endowed with
grace," or with "divjne good pleasure" in an extraordinary way. The
Latin quivalent would be tota gratlctta. Th phrase "the Lord is
19 Cf. Ineffahilis Deus; in Col. Lac., Vol. 6, p. 836. Cf. also Mystici Corporis of
Pius XII, A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, 247.
20 Though the pronoun "she" in the Hebrew text is masculine and stand$ COT
the posterity of the woman, there is no essential difference hem1ecil it and tbe
Vulgate ipsa, sin.ce the womnn is to achieve perfect I>ictory III association with
her seed.
21. J.-B. Terrien, S.J., La Mtlre de Dietl. et la Mere des hom'mes, Vol. 3 Pads,
ilk. I. pp. 26-49. F. Peirce, S.J., Mar}' Alone 'I s "the 1i\Tomtm" ot Genesis 3, 15,
ill The Cail/oUe Biblieal Qllqrterly, Vol. 2., 1940, p. 245.
2~ E. Ineffahilu Dell,. Hence thc Church ap'pl1e.~ [0 hcr, as the spo'llsa Ch.'I'isti,
this text from the Canticle of Canticles, 4: 7: "Thou art all felt, 0 my love, and
th ere is no stain in thee."
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 401

with thee" is to be understood as a statement of fact, not as an

indication of desire: "Dominus est," not "Dominus sit tecum."23
Difftculties. Some of the Fathers, in explaining certain passages
of Scripture that refer to the Blessed Virgin, implied or asserted that
she sinned venially or showed some weakness. 24 The Reformers of
the sixteenth century seized on these passages to belittle the Mother
of Christ in the eyes of the people. The biblical texts are the
following:
I. St. Luke I: 34: "But Mary said to the angel, 'How shall this
happen, since I do not know man .'" Mary shows signs of unbelief
in the message of the angepu
Answer: Our Lady knows, on the one hand, that ber YOW of vir-
ginity is God's will for her, and, on the other, that tlle angel's mes-
sage means the Infant will have Joseph as H is father. There is no
con.8.ict between her will and God's will, but between an antecedent
clivine will approving her virginity and the manifestation tl1Iough
Gabriel of a subsequent will of God revealing a plan apparently in-
compatible with a virginal state. She is at a loss as to how t reconcile
the two, an 1 so, not wishing to displease God, asks which course
should be followed. 26
28 M. Jugie, A.A., L'Immaculee Conception dans l'"Ecriture Sainte (Rome, 1952),
p. 48 f.; U. Holzmeister, S.J., Dominus tecum, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 8, 1928,
p. 36 3.
24 Fathers and early writers who seem to have e:m:d: ( 1 ) Tenullinn says thRt
Mary for a short time failed to believe ill Chrisco "vVith dIe btetnten of Jesus,
Mary did not believe in Him and he.n ee must yield. to Martha ami 1ary Magdalen
in faith," De carni Christi, 7; PL, 2, 766. ( :',) St. Bas il : Epistol/l, l60 9; PC, 32,
965. (3) St. John Chrysostom appears to have thought that there was taint of
vainglorious self-assertion in Our Lady's action at the marriage feast of Cana:
Homilia 44 in Mathaeum; PG, 57, 463. (4) Maximus of Turin: Homilia in Epi-
pha.nia DOJflj:)l:i, :I; PL, 57. St. Cyril of Alexandria inteq)"(ers the sword of sorrow as
the scandal she experienced on Calvary: In JOImne1f1., 19, 25; PG, 74, 661. Origen
says that the sword of sou-ow were the doubts and seanilal that shook the faith
of Mary dming the Passion. : In. Le. 1~OJnilia (7; PG, 13. "1845, Cf. Biblica, Vol. 29,
(948, p. 2.2.6. He influenceu several writers of the time.
25 Thus Harnack, Zu Lc. I, 34-35, in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentlich Wis-
senschaft und die Kunde der iilteTen KiTche, Vol. 2, 1910, 55 f. He parallels Lk.
I: 34 and Lk. I: 18. But there is a marked difference between the two. Zachary
dmlbts the word of the angel and asks for a sign that be may believe. Bence the
punbhment that follows. Mary believes from the start and inquires o'nly as to the
lIIay in which the fact is to be accomplished. Su;irC"Z, op. cit., q . 27, a. 6, displ.ltatio
4, sectio 3: Zachary asks, "How shall I know this?" Mary, "How shall this
be done?"
26 Cf. P. Joiion, S.J., Note d'Ecriture Sainte, in Nou'VeUe Revue Theologique,

Vol. 66, 1939, p. 794. This question implied no positive error on her part, since
 MARIOLOGY
2. St. Luke 2:35: "And thy own soul a sword shall pierce."
Origell, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others interpret the sword as
meaning the uncertainty, unbelief, scandal that affiicted Mary at the
foot of the Cross.
Answer: There is no basis for such an interpretation either in
Scripture or in the general teaching of tradition. The sword of sor-
row, 10oJ{ed at in the light of her faithful vigil near the cross, is a
revelation of h ~r compassion and Coredemption. The Passion of
Christ and the compassion of Mary fonn a unity that Teveal her
destiny of aS50ciation and conununion with the dying Christ. The
Greek term for sword pl.lp.rpa[a is never used to mean 'doubt,"~1 nor
does it ever symbolize restlessness or vexation. 28 Its real and obvious
metaphorical meaning is deep sorrow. 29
3. St. Luke 2:44f.: In losing the Child Jesus, Mary (a) was
negligent: (b) gave way to excessive sorrow; (c) was unduly dis-
turbed as shown by her words to Jesus.
Answers: a) The parents of Jesus left Jerusalem on the third day
of the Paschal solemnity with other Galilean pilgrims. The older
children were free to join any of the various groups that formed.
Mary and Joseph, therefore, were not anxious as to where Jesus was,
"thinking that he was in the caravan," and so traveled the first day
alone. In the evening, noticing that He was not among the friends
and relatives, they were greatly disturbed and the next morning set
out for Jerusalem to search for Him. 30
b) It was a case of motherly concern. Mary had the tender love
of a pure soul for her Son. Her sorrow cut deep, but it was not
inordinate.

she interpreted the words of the angel in their natural meaning. Her perfect
conformity to the will of God is shown by the words: "Be it done to me according
to thy word."
21 G. Estius, Annotationes in praecipua ae difficiliora S. Seripturae loea (Ant-
werp, 1652), p. 349.
28 T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas (Leipzig, 1813), p. 157.
29 W. Bauer, Wiirterbuch zu N.T. (Berlin, 1937), p. 284; Zorell, Novi Testa-
menti lexicon graecum (Paris, 193 I). Note also that the text has ate"hd'O'Era., which
means not merely a blow that wounds but that pierces all the way through bringing
certain death, so that in relation to sorrow it means "unto death." Cf. T. Gallus,
S.]., De sensu verborum Le. 2, 35 eorumque momenta Mariologico, in Biblica,
Vol. 29, 1948, pp. 220- 2 39.
30 L. Fonck, S.]., DtlOdennis inter doctores, in Verbttm Domini, Vol. 2, 1922,
p. 21.
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 403
c) Mary's words: "Son, why hast thou done so to us?" are ex-
pressive not of impatience, but of deep love, of a mother's genuine
sorrow, of maternal authority. The answer of Jesus is not a reproach,
for His parents were not at fault. It is the answer of Jesus as a
teacher. He is giving them to understand that His subjection to them
must always be conditioned by the will of the Father in matters that
have reference to His messianic mission. To this will Mary was by
no means opposed. But even though aware in a general way that
He must be about His Father's business, she may have been ignorant
of the time, the place, and the precise manner for the accomplishment
of that business. s1
4. St. John 2:4: "What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My
hour has not yet come." Literally: "What to me and to thee?" The
tone of the reply seems to be a rebuke and an implicit admission
that the Mother's request was uncalled for.
Answer: Our Lord uses the term "woman" in six other passages
and in the same meaning as that given to it in the present text. It
is used in contexts where He is sympathizing, healing, consoling,
affirming, praising, but never when reproving. 52 Both in Greek and
Semitic the term indicates, not domestic intimacy, but an honorable
address, with sentiments of filial love and piety, as shown from its
use by Our Lord on the croSS. 33
The words "What to me and to thee?" have to be understood from
biblical, not modern, usage. The phrase does not mean: "What con-
cern is it of ours?" nor "What do you have against me?" In all the
biblical passages where it occurs, it signifies, according to context, a
greater or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the parties con-
31 Cf. B. Bartmann, Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? (Freiburg, 1909),
pp. 47-52; Maria im Lichte des Glaubens und der Frommigkeit, (Paderborn, 1922),
pp. I2.3- 126; Lagrange, V:Evangile- selo'n saint Luc (Paris, 1948), p. 94. On the
meaning of "my Father's business" d. F. Fields, Notes on the Translation of the
N.T. (Cambridge, 1889), pp. 50-;6; P. Temple, "I-io'use" at "B11<sincss" in Lk. 2,
49, ill The Catlialic.BiblicaL Q1~(jr~erly, Vol. I. 1939, pp. 342.-352; U. Holzme.ister
Q~laestio1!es Biblicae de S. Jose'Pl~, in Verbi~m Domini, Vol. 24. 1944, p. 241.
~ z E. Power, S.J., Q1dd. mihi et tibi, muHer? nonchm~ '1IImit tl,ora mea, in V 'erbll1n
Domini" Vol. 2, 192.'2., p. 129. P. Glichter, Maria in Kana, in Zeitschrift fur
Ka.~lwli.sche T1~eologie, Vol. 55, 1931, pp. 351-402; E. Zolli, Quid mihi et tibi,
mulier?, in MtrrianuiI'n, Vol. 8, 1946, pp. 3-15; E. eli Cristo He, Che slgniflCCI
"QIl1a mLhi et tlbi"? in Scuola Cattolica, Vol. 75, 1947.-PP, l37- 142-.; P . VanutelH,
Alle nozze di Cana, in Marianum, Vol. 10, 1948, p. 72; G. Roschini.. O.S.M.,
La vita di Maria (B,oma, 1945), p. 245.
33 Cf. A Catholic Comme",tary on Holy Scripture. Th.e Gospel according to St.
John (London, 19$'3), p. 983. 786 h.
 MARIOLOGY
cerned. With Ceuppens84 we may translate it as: "What have I in
common with you?" The answer was expected to be in the negative
and taken as a conditioned refusal, for immediately Our Lord adds:
"My hour is not yet come." Christ's hour for His messianic work,
for His public career, had not yet arrived; the time to prove by
miracles that He was the Son of God was to be reserved for a later
date. Mary, confident of obtaining what she has asked, tells the
servants: "Do whatever he tells you." It is clear, then, that Jesus
neither reproached His Mother, nor denied her petition, but rather
showed that the mere mention of a need from her carries great
weight with Him.
5. St. Matthew 12: 48: "Who is my mother and who are my
brethren?" Commenting on the text, St. John Chrysostom (later the
Reformers) remarks that Our Lady gave in to a feeling of vanity in
the presence of the crowd. The words of Our Lord are a rebuke.
Answer: This is a completely gratuitous assertion as a study of the
LOntext shows. Mary is His Mother and wants to be near Him as
she was on Calvary. The meaning is that He must not neglect to
fulfill the mission for which He came into the world and therefore
must set forth an example of complete detachment in the interests
of the Father. Recall Lk. 2:44f. concerning His "Father's business."
Spiritual affinity is superior to natural kinship - His Mother is to be
numbered among those related to Him spiritually.35 The text of St.
Mark 3: 2 I gives no grounds for the assertion that she shared in the
opinion that "He h as gone mad," for it is not certain that the Greek
oi '1I'Up U~TOV necessarily means relatives or friends,36 or if understood
in that sense, it still remains doubtful whether we are to see in the
persons referred to, the "mother and brethren" of verse 31. 37 At
any rate, we could very well expect His Mother to be concerned,
but we see not the least indication of any desire to take advantage
of her position as His Mother to receive the adulation of the crowd.
34 De Mariologia Biblica (Romae, 1948), p. 184. P. Joiion, Notes philologiques

sur les Evangiles, in Recherches des sciences religieuses, Vol. 18, 1928, p. 356.
86 Cf. F. Friedel, S.M., The Mariology of Cardinal Newman (New York, 1928),
pp. 281- 282. M. Scheeben, Mariology, transl. by T. Geukers, Vol. 2, p. 13 1. J.
de Aldama, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, pp. 365-366.
36 La Sainte Bible, L. PilOt-A. Clamer, Vol. 9, Evangile selon S. Marc, pp.
438-439. The Greek term eEtuT'I} under the inRuence of the Vulgate has been
given the meaning of "mad," but the true meaning is "was beside himself."
37 J. Steinmueller, Exegetical Notes, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol.
4, 194 2 , pp. 354-359·
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 405
Concerning the Fathers who attribute either venial sin or imper-
fection to Our Blessed Lady, we note:
a) They are not speaking as witnesses of tradition, but rather pre-
senting tentative explanations to solve an exegetical difficulty.
b) They do not interpret one and the same text.
c) They do not speak of sin in the strict sense of the term, but
rather of feminine frailties. s8
TRADITION
a) During the first four centuries we find the tradition of Mary's
sinlessness in an implicit state, contained especially in the doctrine
that she is the Second Eve. She is also compared to the Church and
both are said to be without stain or wrinkle CEph. 5:27), that is,
completely sinless and all-holy. In the Oriental liturgy, said to have
originated with St. James, and endorsed by the Sixth Ecumenical
Council, Our Lady is referred to as "most pure, immaculate, ir-
reproachable in every way."89
The tradition becomes explicit with St. Ephrem the Syrian. His
authentic works, as well as those put out in his name, are replete
with texts that extol her sinlessness: "In thee, 0 Lord, there is no
fault, and in Thy Mother there is no stain."40 Classical is the text
of St. Augustine which is universal enough to exclude sin of any
kind from the Blessed Virgin. In controversy with Pelagius, who
had appealed to the saints of the Old Law as examples of sinlessness,
St. Augustine states emphatieally that all saints must confess with
one voice that they ha.ve lmown the de£lement of sin, "with the
exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect
for the Lord, I do not propose to have a Single question raised on
the subject of sin."41
38 C. Boyer, S.]., Synol}si~ praeleotio'i'tfliltl de B. Maria Virgine (Romae, 1946),
p. 23. Friedel, S.M., Gp . oit.., p . 2.83.
39 J. D. Mansi, Sllcrol'!m~ C(mOiliOT1~m n011a et amrlissima collectio, Vol. II
(Florentiae, 1775), canon 32., col. 958. The universa tradition of the Eastern
Church has ascribed this liturgy to St. James in which we find many prayers and
invocations to Our Lady. The Jacoban Syriac litUrgy has the following: "The
Father sent Me the Word . . . and Gabriel, as a husbandman, sowed Me. The
womb of Mary 8S the good ,soil received me . . ." J. Camper, A Handbook of
Lit1lrgles ( Edinburgh, 1 898), p. 74.
40 Carmi'P!a Nisibeu~, ed. Bickell (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 2.8-29. St. Ambrose
describes her as endowed, through grace, with an integrity that rendered her
sinless. R~os/.tio il~ Ps. Ir8, Seml,o 22, D. 30' PL, IS, 1521 .
rl De 1la,twra et gratia. c. 36, n. 4:.t· PL, 44, 267. TIle opinion of St. Augustine
dominated the whole of tradition. Cf. Le Bachelet, art. MIl.rie-lmma~llee Concepti()1.~,
in DTC, Vol. 3, cols. 210-2.75.
406 MARIOLOGY
b) 'The second period comprises the fifth to the thirteenth cen-
tu ries. TIus period reveals an explicit profession of faith in Mary's
immlmity from all sin during the whole course of her life. We also
have a more accurate interpretation of Scripture texts which in the
lhird and fourth centu.ries had offered some difficulty to this uni-
versal belief.
The sanctification or purification of Our Lady which, according to
some writers, took place at the moment of the Incarnation, was not
to free her from actual sin, but to completely extinguish concu-
piscence (fomes peccati) which up to then had only been restrained
(ligatus). SS. Leo the Great and John Damascene4Z speak of the
purifying action of the Holy Spirit on her soul at the moment of
the lncarna tion.$B This is to be interpreted in the light of the general
teaching of the writers of thjs per,iod, as meaning that, prior to the
conception of Christ, she was not free from inordinate concupiscence
in actu primo) as a habit or tendency that of itself inclines to evil
and retards from the practice of virtues. Yet this habit was bound
and hindered from eliciting acts contrary to right reason. After the
conception of the Saviour she was freed entirely from the very habit
or essence of concupiscence.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, Eadmer and Hildebert
of Mans explicitly assert that Mary was exempt from all stain both
in body and soul all her life. 44 In a letter to the monks of Lyons,
St. Bernard writes that Mary was granted a privilege accorded no
other creature, that of being exempt from all fault during the whole
of her life. 45
c) In the period extending from the thirteenth to the sixteenth
century, there is an attempt to determine the immediate principle or
cause of Mary's sinlessness and impeccability. For St. Albert the
Great that principle is the fullness of grace.'16 St. T homas Aquinas
42 Sermo 22, PL, 54, 196. De fide orthodoxa, I, 3; PC, 94, 986; In dormit. B.
Mariae Virginis, 1.3; PC, 96, 704.
4 8 Thus Venerable Bede writes that through the operation of the Holy Spirit
she was purified from carnal concupiscence. Homilia, Opera paraenetica, lib. I,
Homilia I; PL, 94, 12.
4 4 De excellentia B. V. Mariae, 3; PL, 159, 560. Hildebert, Sermo 69; PL,
171, 677.
45 St. Bernard, Epistola 174, 5, PL, 182, 334. Richard of St. Victor, Explicatio
in Cant. Canticorum, 26, 29; PL, II6, 482 and 416; De emmanuele libri duo, I;
PL, 196, 660.
46 M ariale, q. 134; OpeJ'a Omnia (Paris, 1898), Vol. 20, p. 91. Alexander of
Hales, Summa theologiae (Venetii~, 1575), part 3, qq. 8-9, m. 3, a. 2, p. 32.
According to St. Bonaventure, Our Lady was powerless to sin from the moment
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 407
holds this to be inadequ ate. A special assistance of Providence is
needed to keep her free from the occasion. of sin and to influence
her will in. the direction of moral good. I-lis reason is that the human
will is not sufficiently confirmed in good prior to the beatific vision .4 7
In this life the beatific vision is given to no one in a permanent
manner, save the case of the privilege conferred upon the sacred
humanity of Christ. T11e abundance of grace, he says, makes the
commission of sin difficult, because of the infused virtues which
give the soul a strong inclination to the net of the love of God and
the state of constan t con tern,plation which with draws the soul £rom
sin . ~8 But previous to the Incama tion this grace, granted to the
Blessed Virgin, while contributjng to the suppression of inordinate
acts that allticipated the act of reason, did 110t render im.possihle
movements of the sensitive appetite.'~D In addition to grace, she stood
in n eed of a special protection from God for the "binding" of con-
cupiscence, Le. , to pIevent the disordered acts from arising. After
the Inc.'tmation she received a fulln ess of grace that confirmed her
soul in good by the complete extinction of concupiscence and by the
gift of perfect perseverance through the special assistance of Divine
Providence. 6o
d) After the declaration of the Council of Trent concerning Our
Lady's perfect immunity from actual sin, theological elaboration
centers mainly on providing solutions to the objections of Protestants.
Prominent in this field was St. Peter Canisius who wrote the monu-
mental Opus Marianum directed against the Centuriators of Magde-
burg. 51 The first book studies the childhood and perfectly sinless

of the Incarnation, the reason given being that the closer one comes to the source
of grace, the greater are the supernatural gifts that one receives, and the more
remote the possibility of sin. Mary, as the Mother of God, came into immediate
contact with the divine Person and saCJ:ed humanity of her Son, and thus received
the perfect fullness of grace that con non,e d her in good while extinguishing con-
cupiscen ce. D e P111'lfic(lbiom~ B. M . V., setma I , (lX, 634 ab); in 3 sent., d. 3,
pars 1, q. 1., quaestio 3. Cf. E. Chiettini, O.F.M., Mariologia S. Bonaventurae
(Romne, 1941), p . 150 f. As corroborative arguments of fitness he gives the
following: lie! absol utevirginlty, lhe impo sibility of damnation, and a holiness
surpassing that of the angels.
47 S. Th. 1, q. 100, n. 2.
4B De verilllte, q. 24, a. 9.
~Il S. Th. , 3, q. 27, a. 4 ad I.
GO Co'ntm entiles, lib. 3, Chap. 155. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception
makes it clear tllat M ary was free from concupiscence in actu primo et secundo
from the fus t insta nt of her existence.
bl Opus Marianum, first put out in 1577, p . 780 under the title De Maria
Virgine incomparabili et Dei Genetrice sacrosancta libri quinque, Secundus Com-
 MARIOLOGY
life of Mary, while the fourth examines and interprets in an orthodox
ense various Gospel texts, the so-called Protestant loci. com'yn,unes,
such as Our Lo 'd's words to His Mother in the Temple an.d at the
marriage feast of Oana. G' In defense of traditional Mnriology, he also
develops masterfully the Patristic an tithesis of the first and S con 1
E"e.~3
It is the unique merit of Suarez to have been the first to study
systematically and by use of the Scholastic method, the divine
Maternjty of Our Lady with all its eminent prerogatives. In his
Di put:atio1'1es de myster-i';s vitae Christi, we 119'1rc a Marian theology
in the strict sense of the term, wherein not only Mary's actual sin~
lessness, but also her in:pe cability are ~ri~antly ~olmded and
7
defended.b • The Ioot prmClple of Mar s lffipeccability for these
theolOgians generaJly is the absence of concupiscence, the fullness of
grace, a special protection of Divine Providence, and a. constant flow
of efficacious graces that kept her faculties free from all fault.
The Marian rnovement that arose during this period is still in
progress. Bascd on a more accurate cxpos.ltion of the theology of
Christ and His Chmcb, Maliology presents us with the Mother of
God as stainless and perfectly holy as tile Mystical Body.
THEOLOGICAL PROOF
1. St. Thomas gives the f'undamental reason for this privilege
when he says: "God prepares and clisposes those whom He h as
chosen for a speCial purpose in such a way as to make them capable
of performing that Ear which He selected them" (3, q. 27, a. 4) .
N w God haC! chos n Mary for the Mother of His Son. Were she
at any time under sin she would h ave been unfit for her high office.

de. verbj Dei cOI'T1Aptelis (Ingolstaat l583), lib. I, c. 10 lib. 4, c. If.

m ,e1/,tm'i01'1£ln
Vol. 2, p. 73, 386 If.
r.21n Bourasse's Sl£mnl/l lI1,1Tea de lalltHli-us Beat1,'lSimae V irgtHis Mariae, Vot 8,
col. 1210 fF. Cf. O. Braunsberger, B. Petr,j Ca.llisii Societatis Jcsu ep'istlUlae et acta
(FribuIgi 1. BI., 1896- 1923), .g vols.; VoL. 7. p. 392..
un cheebeu, op. cit., p. 488.
B O,}el'a omnia, Vol. 19 (ParLc;jjs, 1860). r.
Manteall-Bonnmy, O.P., Maternlte
di1lf'le 'et rlUlam(,!t.ion. ( Paris, J.949) p. '75; J.
ilover, S.]. SlIarlJZ Mari6logo, in
E.1t1ll1ios Eolesiasticos, Vol. 22, 1948, pp. 3 J 1-337. Anodlct noteworthy Marian
theologian of this period is St. Lawrencc of Brindisi. His Mal"iale de\1elops the
Eunda.mental Mariological principles, wkile his Ll,r.hera!l,iSlll'iHyp(1),POS1S (3 vols.)
traces the historico"<loctrinal gen.esis of Lmhetanism. 011era omnia, 9 vo.1s. (Pat~vi,
1928- 1944) , Gf. G. Roschini, La Mario1ogin ai
S. LorelltD da Bri.ndisi (Pad la,
1951 ). Cf. also Roberti Bellarm ini opera omnia, Vol. 3 ( Parisiis, Vives, 1870),
preface, pp. 134 and 137; book 3, ch. 16, pp. 319 and 321.
 MARY'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN 409
Hence God gave her grace sufficient to make her always a fit Mother
of Jesus.
2. If she is the Mother of God, then "for the honor of the Lord"
she was absolutely sinless. Dishonor in pal"enl"S reHects dishonor upon
the children. Aquinas remarks that the "\iVord who is W isdom and
Light could dwell only in a womb that was sinless (3 , q. 27, a. 4).
3. Mary was chosen by God to be the associate of Christ in he
work of Redemption. Now sin certainly does not contribute to co-
redemptive mediation, much less does it have any satisfactory value.
4- Where there has been no mortal sin there can be no venial sin,
for the latter arises from a revolt of the sense appetite against reason,
whereas the former is a revolt of reason against God. Now the sense
appetite is perfectly subject to reason as long as reason remains
subject to God. Thus the first sin of Adam and Eve had necessarily
to be a grievous sin. As it is absurd to admit a grievous sin or even
its possibility in the Mother of God, we conclude that she was free
from all venial sin.
T his imrmmity from aJl mortal sin was due more proximately to a
very hjgh degree of habitual grace and charity which gives the soul
a very strong inclination to the act of the love of Goel, while ,vith-
thaWing it from the attractjoD of sin . Our L ady'S freedom f'Tom all
sin, due to a special priVilege, demanded also a special assistance of
Divine Providence through actu a.l and special supernatural helps
that gave her a prompt and generous state of soul. She was 'n this
manner confirmed in good and rendered incapable of cOmmitting
any sin. Thus, though our first parents in the state of original justice
were unable to sin venially, they could sin mortally, because they
lacked this confirmation in grace.
There are three reasons, deriving ultimately from her dignity as
the Mother of God, that show, not only her de facto sinlessness, but
also her absolute inability to sin. This impeccability was caused by:
(I) the extinction of concupiscence as to its very essence, (2) the
abundance of grace, (3) a special assistance of Divine Providence. 55
FREEDOM FROM IMPERFECTION
T heologians debate the question as to whether there is a real dis-
tinction between positive moral impeTfection and venia] sin . T he
more probable opinjon holds the affirmative: Imperfection differs
from venial sin, for the latter, being a disordered act, cannot be
55 Cf. St. Thomas, Scriptum super sententias, lib. 3, d. 3, q. I, a. 2, sol. 2.
412 APPENDIX
of its bearer. The Hebrew fTequently ~used the name as a1nost an
equhralent of the personality, or charact ·r, or nature of the person
or thing named. When, ror exrunple, a prophet wished to express
forcefully the character of a person or place, be said he ,.vil] be called
"so and so," or its name will be "such and such.' Isaias indicates the
personality and dignity of the future Messias by telling us he wm
be called "Emmanuel" (God with us) (lsa. 7: 14; cf. also 9:6). The
New Jerusalem, we are informed by Ezechiel, will bear the name
"Yahweh Shamah" (God is there) (Ezech. 48:35).2
The contemporaries of Our Blessed Lady had inherited the ld
Testament cultme and concepts. It is not urpdsing, Uten, that the
ancient Hebrew concept of the relation of name to person existed
in the New Testament era. Faith in the mission and person of Jesus
is eA'Pressed simply as faith "in his name" (e.2'., In. 1: 12; 2:23). In
Acts 1: 15 "names11("()1IopaT'IJ.) Slmp
. 1y rep1aces ;rpersons. "
VVhcn speaIdng to manldnd thrO'l.lgh men God accommodates
Him IF to he thought patterns of His spokesmen and their audi-
ence. In both Old and New Testaments God indicates the missions
of the heroes of the history of salvation by the names which He
imposes on them. (For a few Old Te tament examples d. Gen.
17:5, 15; 35: 10.) The angel instructed Zachary that the child who
was to be born to Ehzabeth should be caned John (Yahweh is
gracious) (Ll. I: 13). Joseph is commanded to call Mary's SoP,
Jesus (Yahweh saves), "for he shall save his people from their sjns"
(Mt. I: 20- 21). Qur Blessed Lord presages the position of the Prince
of the Apostles ill His Church by changing his name to Peter
(Cephas), 'the Rock" On. 1:42; Mt. 16 :18). Therefore, as St.
Lawrence of Brindisi observes, "it would be a mistake to think that
this glorious name of Mary does not abound in mysteries, or that it
was not divinely imposed, as was the name of Christ and John
Baptist." B
It is not necessary, as St. Peter Canisius thought, to posit a special
revelation of Mary's name to her parents, such as the revelation of
2 Many e.'(ampJes could be cited. CI. the article "Name" 'by G. Il. Gray, 1-1ast;,h~gs
Dictionary of the Bible; Vol. 3, pp. 478-481j also "Nom," H. Le.~~e, Dict.ion:nalrc
de III Bible, Vlg01irOUx, Vol. 4, cols. 1669-1677.
S The thesis e"'Pressed as follows by Roschinl is common with mano1ogists: "Mariac
nomen nb aeterno, ab ipso DI:lQ, prae.finitum mit, tamquam expressivum diguitatis
ad ~uam pmedestinata £nit" (op. ok, p. 58). m. M . J. Scheeben, Mario!ogy, ttansl.
by r . Geiikers, Vol. ~ ( New York: B. Herdct, 1948), p. 6j n. Merke1bach, a.p.,
Mflriologill (Paris: Descl~e, 1939), p. 103. Cf. S. Laure,ntil.ls II B=dusio, M«riale
(Patavii, 192.8), p. 177.
 THE HOLY NAME OF MARY
Jesus' name to Joseph (Mt. 1 :20).4 It suffices that the parents of
Our Lady, inspired by God (an influence of which very likely they
were unconscious), called their child Mary.6
THE FORM OF THE NAME MARY
Mary is a proper feminine name borne by only one person in the
Old Testament, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Exoel. 15:20 t.;
Num. 12 : 1-5, 10, ~5; 20::t; Mich. 6:4).° In the Massoretic text the
name is vocalized Miryii1'l'l.. The Septuagint renders it M,rriam
(Maplap.) . The ch~mge of the first vowel probably represents the pro-
ntmciation current in Aramaic-speaking Palestine during the two
centmies preceding Christ.1 In the Vulgate the name becomes Maria.
When one considers the prominence of Mary the prop11etess in
the history of d1e Exodus, it seems strange that the Old Testament
Hebrews did not honor her by conferring her name on their daugh-
ters. Bu t the sister of Moses is not alone in her biblical isolation.
The names of Abra11 am, Isaac, ] acob, Moses, and Aaron were also
avoided, and, it seems, from pious reverence for the heroes of dle
Bible. A similar sentiment restrains Christians (Spanish-speaking
Catholics are a singular exception) from giving tIle holy name of
Jesus to d1eir sons. And the early Christians would not call their
daughters Mary.s The New Testament era saw a reversal of the
Old Testament practice. The contemporaries of Our Lady honored
tlle great men and women of their history by calling their children
after dlem. Perhaps there is also in this practice an indication of
their 1<een expectation of the proximity of tlle Messiallic Age. In
the New Testament we meet, e.g., several individuals called Jacob
(James) and a number of Marys .
., S. Petrus Canis.ius, De Mnria. Virgins 11lcoll1parabiti et Dei Genetrice Sacra-
sa1~ct'l.lihTj q'W!ll~lIC
(Taurini, I934) p. 1.
• Cf. Roscbtm, op. cit., p . 5B.
cThe Massoretic text of I Par. 4:I7 mentions a Miryiim, apparently a:male
descendant of Ezra of Juda. The text is evidently conupt. The L,,{X lists, in place
o£ this Miryiim, a son of Jether called MarCIn according to most codices and pre-
IeI;red by Ralphs; or MaWn acconling to Vaticanus and Ale.-xandrious and prefcn:ed
by Swete, or MdeIJr according. to Colbeno-8am1vianus and Purpureus Vindoboncnsis
and preferred by Lagarde. Thus it is quite certain that the only bearer of the
name Mary in the Old Testlunent is the sister of Mo~es.
7 The 'targum f OIDl of Mary's name was Mdryc1m . Cf. Strac1c-Billerbeck, KOt'l'l-
111entur zum. Nctllm Testam.ent am Talmud tmd J'\.1j.drasc7r., Vol. I , p. 36.
8 There is no evidence that nny Christian WOlDiln was named Mary in the
early Christian centuries. Cf. Rohault de Fleury, La Sainte Vierge. Etudes ar-
cheologiques et iconographiques, Vol. I (Paris, I878), p. 4I; also F. Zoren, 8.J.,
Verbum Domini, Vol. 7, I927, p. 257.
 APPENDIX
In the Greek New Testament the form of Our Lady's name is the
S ptlulgint rendi tion of the name of Moses' sister, Marial1't (Mt.
13: 55; Lk. 1 :27, 3 0 , 34, 38, 39, 46, 56; 2: 5, 16, 34; Acts I : f4).
The 'e is only one exception. Most critical editions of the text (e.g.,
Tischendorf, Westcott-Hart, Merk, Bove) read, on the authori ty
of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae, Maria in Lk. 2: 19. When it
is not indeclinable Our Lady's name becomes in the oblique cases
Map{a~ and Maptq. (once Maptav in the accusative, Mt. 1 :20). The
fonn Maria is employed for the Magdalene anel for Mary of James
and of Clopas (Mt. 26:56; Mk. 15 :47; 16 :r, 9; LIe 8 :2; 24:10j
In. 19:25; 20: I). The sister of Lazarus is called Mariam, by both
Luke and John (Lk. 10:39, 42; In. 11:2, 19, 20, etc.)' Once John
employs the form Mariam for the Magdalene On. 20: 16; perhaps
also 20 : 18). Josephus uses the fonn Mapufp.p/Yj, whether he refers to
Moses' sister or to the women of the Herodian family who bore the
name (Ant. J1.£cl., II, 9, 4; III, 2, 4; IV, 4, 6).
W. Smith (11 Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 2 [London, 1853], p.
255) thinks that Maria is a distinct form, a shortened form of the
more archaic Mariam, somewhat similar to Nathan, a shortened
fonn of Jonathan. Authors generally, however, are agreed that Maria
is merely a Hellenization of the Semitic Maryam . Maria gives a
regular Greek feminine form of the first declension. TIle MCl1"i .a1'J'I(l'l'te
of Josephus has been styled a "coquettish H ellenization."" It is pos-
sible that Matthew and Mark, in reserving the Semitic form Maria'm,
exclusively for Our Lady, intend to distinguish her even in name
from other women and to insinuate that she is the Miryiim of the
great liberation, which was prefigured and promised by the Exodus. 10
As in the Old Testament, so in the New, Maria is the only form of
the name in the Vulgate.
THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE NAME MARY
No convincing argument has been adduced against the claim of
the Massoretic NI:iryam to be the oldest and very likely the original
fODll of the name Mary. While this is generally admitted, there is
no agreement ill1 the lneaning of the name . .M.ore than seventy
etymologies have been proposed (in 1885 Bardenhewel' listed sixty-
9 Cf. Deissmann, U1'geschichte, p. 2.2., cited by Moulton-Milligan, T he V ocabulary
of the Greek New Testament lllu$tratetl from tll.e Papyri ana- O tl~er Non-Lit.erary
Sources, edition of W. Eerdmans Publishing Company ( Grand Rapids, Mich.,
I949), p. 3 88 .
10 Cf. H. Les~tre, "Marie," Diet. de Ia Bible, Vig., Vol. 4, col. 774.
 THE HOLY NAME OF MARY
seven)! This confusing variety is due to uncertainty concerning the
derivation of the name, even uncertainty about the language to which
it belongs, and to the pious avidity of preachers and writers to see
Mary's prerogatives mirrored in her holy name. While some derive
the name from ancient Egyptian, and a few from Syriac, the
majority of exegetes have assumed that it is of Hebrew origin.
Ancient and medieval authors generally took it to be a composite
name, i.e., derived from two Hebrew roots. The moderns, who attach
the name to the Hebrew, usually consider it·a simple name. 11

THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES A.D.

The earliest 'extant writer to concern himself with the meaning of
the name Mary was Philo Ct A.D. 50), the learned Alexandrian Jew.
The statement of Exod. 2:4 that the sister of Moses was "standing
afar off, and taking notice what would be done" to her baby brother,
lying in his basket in the sedges on the river's brink, leads Philo to
observe that Mary's name means "hope." His comment on Num.
12: 1-3, which records that "Mary and Aaron spoke against Moses
because of his wife the Ethiopian," is that Mary signifies "brazen
and bold sensuality."12 As is evident, Philo is not giving the etymology
of Mary's name. Rather he is assigning an allegorical and quite arbi-
trary meaning to her name because of her actions.
The ancient rabbi~ saw in Mary's name a symbol of Israel's bitter
sel'vitude in Egypt. Mary means ''bitterness'' (Hebrew, Merllr).
She was given trus name, say the rabbis, because ller biIth coincided
with the beginning of the Egyptians' hard treatment of the Jews.13
The ancient Onomastica Sacra have preserved the meanings
ascribed to Mary's name by the early Christian writers and per~etll­
ated by the Greek Fathers. "Bitter Sea," "Myrrh of the Sea," 'The
Light Giver," "The Enlightened One," "Lady," "Seal of the Lord,"
"Mother of the Lord" are the principal interptetations;H
11 Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 16, points to the Hecht hebraisches Geprage" of
Miryam: three radicals and the denominative tennination Am, like Shephupham
and Bupham sons of Benjamin, 'amram father of Moses. The root, he holds, is
M R', Mara'.
12 Philo, De somn., II, 20, cited by Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 17.
13 The loci of the rabbinical literature are given by J. Levy, Neuhebraisches und
chaldaisches Worterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midraschim (Leipzig, 1876-
1889), s.v. Merllr.
140nomastica Sacra, Paulus de Lagarde edidit (Gottingae, 1870), S.v. Mapla,
176, 49; 179, 31; 183, 34; 195, 66 lists the meanings: Kvp,evovCTa, 7r'KPa. e&'i\aCTCTa,
Kvpla .qp.wv, a7ro aopart./v, rpwrlKovCTa; s.v. Map'&'p., 175, 22; 179, 32; 195, 66; 203, 17,
 APPENDIX
Obviously influenced by the Septuagint Mariam, these etymologies
suppose that the Hebrew form of the name is Maryam, not Mityam.
"Bitter Sea" derives the name from Mar (bitter) and Yam (sea).
Aside from the fact that such an etymology does not explain the
first syllable of Our Lady's name (Mir could hardly be derived from
Mar), this combination violates the usual Hebrew word order in
which the noun precedes the adjective. "Myrrh of the Sea" supposes
Mor (myrrh) and Yam. This also fails to account for the first
syllable of Our Lady's name. And what is myrrh of the sea? Isn't
myrrh a product of the vegetable ldngdom, the resin o.f trees? "The
Ligh t Giver" ( cpW'rl~ouua) regards Mary's name as a cnsuative Oliphil)
participle of the verb 'or ( to shine) or of the verb rii'iih (to see). But
it is only with violence to the language that one can get Miryam
from Me'ir or Mar'eh. The interpretation "Lady" and "Our Lady"
derives the name from the Aramaic word for Lord, Mar'e (Mar).
The feminine of this word, however, would be Mar'a in the absolute
state, Marth'ii in the emphatic state. In fact, this Aramaic word.
does occur as a feminine proper name in the New Testament. It is
the name of the sister of Lazarus, Martha. Absolutely impossible is
the meaning "Mother of the Lord" (Deus ex genere mea ) , which
would derive the name from the Hebrew Yiih (God) and Hiiriih
(to conceive). "Seal of the Lord" supposes a bizarre combination of
the Persian word muhur or muhr (seal) and the Hebrew Yah.
Among these interpretations of the Onamastica the Greek Fathers
preferred "Myrrh of the Sea" and "Lady."15
ST. JEROME TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY AD.
About the year A.D. 390 St. Jerome made available to Western
Christendom the Onomastica of the Greeks. Jerome's Liber Inter-
pretationis hebraicorum N ominum is a Latin translation and re-
vision of a similar book of Origen, which in turn was based on a
work of the Alexandrian Jew, Philo.16 On the name Mary in Mat-

</>wTtfovl1a, </>wTlfo,uv't/ 1/ </>wrLfovl1a dVTOUS, 1/ KUPLOS eK 'YfVOVS /J-o v, 1/ l1/J-vpva IJa>">"al1ta.,

Kuplov l1</>pa.'Yls.
1 6 Cf. PC, 43, 488 f., (attributed to Epiphanius); PC, 94, 1I57, John Damascene;
also PC, 96, 689. J. Knabenbauer, S.J., Evangelium secundum S. Matthaeum, Pars
Prior (Cm sus Scrip. S.), 1892, p. 44, is one of the very few, if not the only
modem, who prefers the meaning "myrrh": ''Nomen mYTIhne ex eo multum com-
mendatur, quia puellarum nomina ex arberibus pl:mti$que deprompta revera in
usu erant."
16 Cf. Jerome's Preface to this work, PL, 23, 771 f.; also A. Penna, S. Cirolamo
(Roma, 1949), p. 151 f.
 THE HOLY NAME OF MARY
thew's Gospel Jerome writes in the Li.ber Interpretationis: "Mariam
Elerique aestimant interpretari, illuminantme isti, vel illuminatrix, vel
smyrna maris, sed mihi nequaquam videtur. Melius autem est, ut
dicamus son are eruu stellam maris, sive amarum mare: sciendumque
quod Maria, selmone Syro, domina nUllcupetUJ;."1.7 With the excep-
tion of Stella Maris all these interpretations occur in the Greek
O,'tomastica. OF course Stella Maris may have been in Jerome's copy
of Origen's work, but more probably this is his personal contribution
to the treasury of Marian etymolomes. Jerome's indication of his
preferences among the meanings he listed influenced all subsequent
Latin writers. "Lady," "Bitter Sea," "The Light Giver," and especially
"Star of the Sea" are the interpretations common in the West from
Jerome untiJ the sixteenth century.u Stella Maris was by far the
favored interpretation.
The question has been raised whether Jerome wrote St'illa (drop)
Ma,ris rather than Stella Maris. The Hebrew language contains no
word for star even remotely resembling Our Lady's name. There
is, however, a Iebrew word Mar, meaning "drop" (d. 1sa. 40: 15).
When Jerome wrote the Li'ber lnterpretationis he was already well
versed in Hebrew. The conjunction sive in the text of Jerome sug-
gests that lle is offering alternative meanings for the word Mar, i.e.,
"drop" or "bitter" (Mel'it-!'s autem, est, ut dicamus sonare earn stellam
maris, sive amarum mare). 111e text of Jerome in the ninth-century
Codex of Bamberg reads S-trilla. The change to Stella is an under-
standable scribal error, especially when it is remembered that com-
mon speech confounded the vowels e and i. Countryfolk said vea
for via, vella for villa, speca for spica, le'ber for liber.tO St. Gregory
the Great on the text of Job 36:27 "qui au£ert stil1as pluviae" gives
a commentary that supposes stell as pZ'IIwiae. TIle "stillas pluviatum"
of Jer. 3: 3 becomes in Gregory "stellae pluviar1,tm."20
The "Star of the Sea" of Jerome's text is therefore very probably
due to the lapse of one or several early copyists, who substituted
stella for st-illa beca use the two words were identical in pronuncia-
11 Libel' 'i1'lterpretationis hebraicorum nomimw~J PL, 23, 841-842.; 789.
1$ Peter Chrysologus, PL, ;2, 579; Isidore of Seville, 82, 289; Venerable Bede,
9"2 316; Wala&,id Strabo, 114, 85'9i Rabanus Maurus, I I I, 75i Notker Balbulu$,
131 , 1005; Fulbett of Chnl'tres, 151, 322; Herman Contra.ctus) 143, 443; Peter
D~~fl.n, 144, 508i Rupert of Deutz, 168, 36J; Bernard of Olairvaux, rRz, 1142 and
183, 70; Amadeus of Lausanne, 188, "1344; Innocent III, 2.-17, 499.
10 CE. Qulut:illian, Inst. Ora.t. , Vol. 1 , iv, 17; also Vanon, Rer. rustic., I, ii, 14,
xlviii, 2, cited by Lest!tl;e, "Marie," op. cit., col. 775.
~ o PL, 76, 405 and 76, 867.
420 APPENDIX
mind the hiphil participle Me'ir of the verb 'dr. This etymology is
no more successful than the ancient ~WT{'OV(Ta. 28
ornelius a Lapide commenting on Exod. 15:20 rejects the Mas-
soretic vocalization. Maryam, be thinl{S, is the origjnal £Olm of the
name. It means either "C/:marit1,tdo 1naris" (f-rom Mar the construct of
the noun Miirtih and Yam) or "Magist'fCt aut Dom,i11a maris."
Christopher Veg , S.]., offered au original interpretation, "domina
diei" or "domina crihri," deliving the name from the Aramaic Mar
( r d) - (yA)
,' an d Yam um meanmg . ltd ay,"01'Y am·
- meanmg. "Sleve.
. " '-9
At the beginning of the eighteenth Centllry Matthew Hiller pro-
· '''thereben'10US""th
pose d tlle mterpretaoon or ." d
e contumaClOllS,e-
riving Mary from Merl (rebdlion) from the verb Miiriih.30 The
final Am, of Our Lady's name he held to be simply a termination used
in the formation of nouns. (J\1ern intel1sivu,m he called it.) Philologi-
cally there is no objection to tllls etymology. The meaninO' is also
quite apt for the sister of Moses, who murmured against her brother
in the desert. But such au interpretation could hardly be applied to
ur Blessed Lady. 3.1
Gesenius, the m'aster of Hebrew lexicographers, in the first edition
of his celebrated Neues hebriiisch-deutsches Handworterbuch identi-
ned the name Mary with the form Miryii:m (their rebellion) of Neh.
9: 17· The name would be composed of the noun MeN. and the
third plural pronominal suffix a1n. In later editions Gesenhls silently
adopted Hiller's interpretation, explaining a1'/'1, as a substantive ter-
mination (Bin Bildungszusa,t z ) ,U
In ~856 P. Schegg in his c mmentary on Matthew s Gospel pro-
posed the verb Mara' (to be fat) as the root of Our Lady's name.
Arguing that to tlle Semitic eye a "well-developed," even a corpulent
woman was beautiful, he gave as the meaning of Mary's name lithe
beautiful one." With Hiller and Gesenius h e considers the fmal am
28 St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., pp. 2-5.
29 Christophorus de Vega, S,J., Theologia Mariana, Pars II (Lugduni, 1653),
pp. 85-11 4.
30 M . Hiller, Onomasticum Sacrum CTubingen, 1706), pp. 173, 876, 886. As
early as 1577 St. Peter Canisius had proposed Marah as the root of Mary's name.
Cf. above, note 28.
3 1 Roschini's attempt to apply this meaning to Our Lady seems very arbitrary
and farfetched, op. cit., p. 64.
32 Cf. Gesenius, Neues hehriiisch-deutsches Handworterbuch, also Thesaurus
philologicus criticus linguae hebreae et chaldaeae veteris Testamenti, Editio Altera
CLipsiae, 1835-1839), Vol. 2, p. 819.
 THE HOLY NAME OF MARY 421

of Mary's name a simple denominative termination. 33 Like I-liller's this

etymology, from the viewpoint of philology, is probable. Normally,
however, a nOUn E0rmed hom Miirii' with the aid of the tennination
am would be Mir' am, not Miryiim. While Aleph can be changed
to Yod in certain cases, there is no proof that pronounced consonantal
AJeph follovving a consonant and preceding a vowel, can be changed
to pronounced consonantal Yocl u. Moreover, is it true that corpulency
j

was associated with beauty in the Semitic mind? In lebrew litera-

ture there is no example of the root Marii' meaning "beauty." But
quite a few authors have accepted Schegg's interpretation (e.g., FUrst,
Gildmeister, Bardenhewer, Lesetre, Janssens, Scheeben).1llI "The
Beautiful" is certainly an appropriate name for her who was im-
maculately concejved and endowed wjth grace and holiness surpass-
ing that of the highest angels, and who, in all probabiliLy, was also
phYSically the most beautiful of the daughters of Eve. Tota pulchra
es) Maria! In this interpretation the angel's greeting to Our Lady,
X aipt KEX,o.pLTWP.E:VTJ, Ave gratia plena, would express aptly the meaning
of her holy name (Lk 1:28).
Is Mary an Egyptian name? May not Mary, born in Egypt,
have received an Egyptian name as did hel' brothers Moses and
Aaron? Father Frana Zorell S.J., proposed the hypothesis that the
name Miryiim is a composite word made Up of the perfect passjve
parliciple of the Egyptian verb tnr (to love), i.e., mer1(t) and the
Hebrew divin name Yam (i.e., Yahweh, as in Abiam for Abi-yahu).
The holy name Mary would tllerefore have the most appropriate
meaning, "The Beloved of Goel."se
Father Roschini, O.S.M., embraces Zorell's etymology as "most
probable, not to say c~rtain" (Ifirobabilissi:YI'.La, ne dicamus certa).87
Moses is certainly an Egyptian name, and the name Aaron, which
cannot be explained from the {ebrew, is probably also of Egyptian
origin. It is possible that their sister also received an Egyptian name.
33 P. Schegg, Die heiligen Evangelien ubersetzt and erklart, Vol. I, Evangelium
nach Matthaus (Munchen, 1856), p. 419; also Jacobus der Bruder des Herrn
(Miinchen, 1882), p. 56.
ft' Vogt, art. cit., p. 167.
M C. Beckecnann, O.S.A., Et " omen Virginis Maria, Verbum Domi1zi, Vol. 1,
(1921), pp. 130-136, g,ives arguments contra; BardenheweI, Gp. cit., pp. 147-151,
gives the arguments pto, the assodation· of beauty and. corpulence.
30 F. Zorell, S.J., Was bedeutet der Natrie Maria? in Zeitsohr. far I<athol. Theol.,
30 (1906), pp. 356-3&0.
31 Roschini, op. cit., p. 65.
 Index of Authors
Abarzuza (see Francis X. of) Audroniuus II, Emperor, 2.02
Abd-el-Jalil, J.-M., 177 Anselm of Canterbury, St., 2.84-288,
Abel, J. M., 80 297. 306, 34 8, 362.-363, 376
Adamnam of Iona, 152 An thony of Padua, St., 29 ..-293, 368
Adhemar du Puy, 279 Antonelli, P., 262.
Adrian I, Pope, 26, 45 An toninus of Florence, St., 306
Ailred of Rievaulx, 292 Anysius of Thessalonica, 10, 131
Alameda, S., 52, 324 Arbez-McGuire, 157
Alastruey, G., 321, 329, 336, 395, 398 Aree, A., 2 I I
Albert the Great, St., 19, 27, 293, 296- Archangelus a Roc, 3 I 2
298, 365, 406, 4 18 Arendt, G., 337
Alcuin, 272 Arendzen, J., 54
Aldama, J. de, 17, 285, 300, 310, 314, Arias, H., 63, 66
34r, 360, 380-381, 38 3, 3 87, 390, Arintero, J. G., 70
39 2, 399, 40 4 Aristides of Athens, 118, 186
Alexander, A., 211-215, 222 Armellini, M., 248
Alexander of Alexandria, 135 Amobius, r21
Alexander of Hales, 307, 365, 406 Arnold of Chartres, 29 I
Alexander VII, Pope, 21, 23, 334, 370 Asearius, Bishop, 153
Alexander VIII, Pope, 16 Asmussen, H ., xi
Alimonda, Card., 339 Assaf, M., 188
AlIo, B., 107 Athanasius, St., 141, 279
Alonso, ]., 396 Attwater, D., 2°9, 210, 211, 220, 224,
Alphonsus Liguori, St., 313, 379, 384, 225, 226, 2.31, 238, 239, 244
399 Aubert, R., 23, 24
Alphonsus Tostatus, 306 Aubron, P., 45, 365
Altaner, B., 145, 148, 149, 15 I, 157, Audo, ]., 243
166, 167, 174 Augustine, St., 15, 17, 54, II4, 120,
Alva y Astorga, P ., 312, 387 123, 12 5, 13 2, 136, 143-149, 155,
Alvarez, J., 25 2 290, 297, 34 8, 350, 405
Amadeus of Lausanne, St., 291, 417 Auniord, J. B., 288, 289, 291
Amann, E., 157, 159, 160, 161, 169, Auriol, P., 305
176, 177, 180
Ambrose Autpertus, 362 Baconthorp, J., 30 5
Ambrose of Milan, St., II, II3, 123, Badlay, A., 2r9
124, 130, 131, 136, 140, 142, 147- Baier, D., 268
149, 155,29 0 , 349, 35 1,40 5 Bainvel, J.-V., 286, 319, 320
Ambrose Spiera, 306 Balie, C., 166, 171, 174, 294, 302, 303,
Ambrosiaster, 129, 141 308 , 3 10 , 3 19, 3 23, 332, 367-368,
Ameri, G., 4 3 82
Anastasius, St., 354 Ballerini, A., 315, 364
Andrew of Crete, St., 153 BandelIi, V., 20
Andrieu, M., 262 Bardenhewer, 0., 121, 411, 415, 421
 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Eudes, St. John, 313 Gaude, D. F., 366
Eugene IV, Pope, 19 Gaudel, A., 288
Eusebius, 82, 91 Gavrilof, M., 203
Eustace of Antioch, St., 224 Geenen, G., 23, 27, 28, 29, 44
Euthymius of Constantinople, 358 Genesius, W., 420
Eutyches, II, 12, 137 Genevois, M.-A., 117, 296, 298, 300-
Evaristo de la V. del Carmen, 382 3 01 , 3 13
Everett, L., 326 George, E., 313
George of Nicomedia, 357, 359
Faber, F. W., 283, 319 Germain of Constantinople, St., 153
Faller, 0., 10, 131, 148, 153, 154 Gerson, J., 300, 305
Falls, T. B., 45, 118 Geukers, T., 316
Feckes, C., 316, 317, 323 Gherardi, G., 105
Fenton, J. C., 3, 45 Giamberardini, G., 214, 262
Fernandez, J., 95 Gildmeister, 421
Ferraironi, F., 312 Giovanelli, G., 186
Feuillet, A., 64 Gleason, R. W., 62
Fields, F., 403 Gonthier, Ch., 330
Filograssi, G., 2, 25, 45, 49 Goossens, W., 115
Flavian of Constantinople, 12, 13 Gorayet, G., 225
Fleury, R. de, 316, 413 Gordillo, M., 187, 209, 264
Florit, E., 55, 108 Gordon, C. H., 419
Flynn, T. E., 18 Gorrino, A., 390
Folgorait, G., 306 G6tz, J., 145
Fonck, L., 402 Graber, R., 323
Fortescue, A., 209, 223 Grabman, M., 296, 304, 305, 306, 310,
Fortunatus of Poitiers, St., 15 I 3 14, 3 16
Fowler, G., 305 Gray, G. B., 411
Francis of Assisi, St., 303 Grebaut, S., 223
Francis X. of Abarzuza, 384 Gregory of Elvira, 141
Frangipane, D., 85 GregolY the Illuminated, St., 233
Franquesa, P., 322 Gregory of Tours, St., 150-151
Fregentino. G., 89 Gregory I, St., 17, 146, 417
Frenaud, G., 253, 265 Gregory X, Pope, 14
Friedel, F. J., 5, 18, 75, 3 14, 404, 40 5 Gregory XV, Pope, 21
Friedrich, Ph., 114, 145, 350 Grenier, P., 399
Fulbert of Chartres, St., 362, 417 Grignion de Montfort, St. Louis, 50,
Fulgence of Ruspe, 146, 361 3 13, 399
Furst, 421 Grohmann, A., 217
Grosjean, Fr., 256
Glichter, P., 83, 101, 104, 324, 403 Grosseteste, R., 303
Gald6s, R., 53, 68 Gruenthaner, M., 342
Gallagher, E., 60 Gueranger, P., 269, 3 I 5
Gallus, T., 58, 101, 104, 107, 324, 337, Guerra Lazpiur, 1. de, 3 I 2
4 02 Guerric of Igny, 291
Galtier, P., 9, 116 Guidaldi, L., 292
Garda, J. R., 58 Gulovich, S., 357, 359
Garda Garces, N., 62, 335, 379 Gumbinger, C., 207
Gar\;on, J., I I I
Ganeau, A., 296 Hadji-Burmester, O. H. E., 210
Ganigou-Lagrange, R., 33, 321, 398, Haensler, B., 288
4 10 Haessly, M. G., 264
Garriguet, L., 388 Haller, W., 124
 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Hapgood, I. F., 189, 195-196, 199-202 118, 119, 120, 122, 132, 133, 138,
Harden, J. M., 223 140, 155, 186, 347
Hardon, J. A., 3II Isabella II, Queen, 28
Harnack, A., 112, 333, 401 Isidore of Seville, St., 152, 4 I 7
Hasset, M., 249 Isserverdentz, J., 239
Hassia, H. de, 305 Ivanios, Mar, 226
Haymon of Alberstadt, 362
Healy, K., 28, 48 Jacob al-Baradai, 224
Hefele, c., 249 Jacoponi da Todi, 274
Hefner, 399 Jambois, L., 45
Heinisch-Heidt, 62, 66 James, M. J., 80, 150
Helvidius, II, 84, 124, 129 James of Saroug, 228, 349
Henry, H. T., 277-279 Janssens, A., 10, 321
Hentrich-de Moos, 27, 324 Janssens, H. L., 245
Hermanus Contractus, 279, 417 Jarweh, M., 224
Herve, J. M., 391 Jean de Dieu, 295, 302, 304, 305, 306
Herzog (see Turmel) Jeanjacquot, J., 3 1 9
Hesbert, R. J., 252 Jerome, St., II, 27, 34, 71, 84, 91,
Hesychius of Jerusalem, 354 114, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 136,
Higgins, M., 272 142, 149, 153, 351, 362, 416-418,
Hilary of Poitiers, St., 122, 123, 128, 4 18
136, 140 Jerome de Paris, 311, 369
Hilary of St. Ahatha, 104 John Chrysostom, St., 15, 113,255,401,
Hildebert of Mans, 406 40 4
Hill, W., 308, 310 John Damascene, St., 113, 153, 201,
Hiller, M., 420, 421 276, 355-337, 359, 4 06 , 4 16
Hillion, G., 108, 324 John of Euboea, 359
Hindo, P., 227 John Geometra, 358
Hippolytus of Rome, St., 6, 119, 128, Jones, E. M., 203
134- 1 35, 13 8- 1 39, 349 Jones-Monroe, 223
Hitz, P., 337 Jones, R., 286-287, 363
Hocedez, E., 314, 315, 319 Joseph Hymnographus, 357
Hoffer, P., 309 Josephus, 414
Holweck, F., 250, 252, 259, 261, 273- Jouassard, G., 7, 10, 14, 17, 121, 128-
27 6 132, 134, 140, 141, 145, 148, 151,
Hohmeister, U., 83, 85, 105, 401, 403 154, 163, 186, 325, 348
Homes Dudden, F., 131, 142 Jouon, P., 60, 401, 404
HopH-Gut, 52 Jovinian, II, 123, 124
Howell, C., 246 Jugie, M., 7, 27, 147, 149-153, 166,
Huber, R., 77, 292-293 168, 171, 174, 185, 188, 201, 203,
Hugh of St. ViCtor, 287, 376 330, 33 2 , 33 6 , 34 6 , 352, 359-360,
Hughes, Ph., 7 376, 3 88 , 390, 393, 401
Hugon, E., 299, 320, 347, 377, 382, Julian, J .• 274, 277-279
3 8 3, 3 8 9, 390 Julian of EcIanum, 144, 351
Hugueny, E., 410 Julius Firmicus, 123
Julius II, Pope, 20
Jurgens, H., 170
Ignatius of Antioch, St., ll8, 186 Justin, St., 34, 110, II8, 120, 133, 155,
Ildephonse of Toledo, St., 279, 361 186, 346-347
Innocent III, Pope, 14, 417
Innocent IV, Pope, 27 Kannengieser, J., 313
Innocent XI, Pope, 275 Karalevskij, C., 170
Irenaeus, St., 34, 110-113, ll5-II6, Kelly, J., 32 3
43 2 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Paulus Warnefridus, 362 Poupon, R. P., 373
Pauwels, P., 369 Power, E., 63, 64, 71, 403
Peeters, P., 161 Prado, J., 10 4
Peinador, M., 57, 108 Proc1us of Constantinople, St., 353
Peirce, F. X., 58, 59, 61, 64, 336, 400 Prosper of Aquitaine, St., 247
Pelagius, 15, 143, 351 Prudentius, 143
Pelster, F., 304 Prommer, K., 410
Penna, A., 416 Przybylski, B., I I I
Perlinus, J., 380 Pseudo-Evodius, 169, 170, 178 , 183
Perrella, G. M., 107, 363 Pseudo-J llm e~, 158, 175, 180, 183
Perrone, J., 5, 3 1 5 Pseudo-John, r:6C2, 164, 165, 168, 171,
Petau, D., 31 I 177, 182
Peter of Argo, 358 Pseudo-Matthew, 159-161, 176, 180
Peter Bardus, 387 Pseudo-Melito, 149-150, 152, 162, 164,
Peter Canisius, St., 310, 407, 411-412, 168, 171, 172, 177, 180-182
4 18 Pulcheria, Empress, 13
Peter Chrysologus, St., 114, 126, 132,
146, 3 61 , 4 17 Quain, E. A, 139
Peter Damian, St., 374, 417 Quasten, J., 6, 119, 120, 157, 161, 167,
Petitalot, J. , 3 16, 393 281, 282
Philippe, M. D., 251 Quintillian, 417
Philips, G., 308-309, 326-327
Philo of Alexandria, 411, 415, 416 Rabanos, R., 89, 103, 104
Photius, 357, 359, 3 60 Rabanus Maurus, 417
Piana, C., 27, 308 Rabban, 244
Pirot-elamer, 404 Raes, A., 209
Pius IV, Pope, 20 Rahal, E., 224, 229-230
Pius V, St., 16, 21, 27, 275, 276, 370, Rahmani, E., 229
39 8 Rahner, H., xi, II, II7, 134, 135
Pius VI, Pope, 63 Rahner, K., 318
Pius VII, Pope, 42 Ram6n, P. S., 376
Pius IX, Pope, 17, 21-24, 28, 30, 32, Ranwez, E., 410
35, 39, 4 0, 4 1, 46, 59, 73-74, 7 6 , Raugel, A , 288, 364
243, 256, 2 76, 301, 314, 324, 328, Raymond, P., 302
33 2 , 334-335, 33 8 , 3 6 9-37 0 , 4 00 Raynaud, Th., 31 I, 399
Pius X, St., 24, 29, 35, 36, 39, 42, 46, Recla, E., 148
274 Regroney, P., 290, 314
Pius XI, Pope, 4, 9, 29, 32, 35, 36, Repetti, G. 58
37, 3 8 , 39, 4 0 , 42, 43, 47, 226, 250, Rboiles, G. de, 3 tI, 396, 399
282 H.hodes, P. G. M., 14
Pius XII, Pope, I, 8, 24, 25, 26, 28, Richard, P., 396
29, 37, 3 8 , 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 57, Richard of St. Lawrence, 293, 296
77, 79, II 7, 175, 210, 247, 261, 281, Richard of St. Victor, 406
292, 299, 30~ 308, 315, 322, 400 Riley, L., 34, 36, 1I5, 308, 310, 319
Plessis, A, 32 I, 366, 390 Rios, B. de los, 311
Plumpe, J. C., 120, 122, 160 Risi, P., 319
Pohle-Gierens, 321 Rivera, A., 70, 107
Pohle-Preuss, 321, 384 Riviere, J., I I 5, 171
Poirt~, P., 399 Robert, A, 58, 68, 324
Pollera, A, 223 Roberts, C. H., 132
Polycarp, St., III, 130 Robert-Tricot, 1 57
Pope, H., I I Robichaud, A, 20, 323, 334, 370
Pouget-Guitton-Lilly, 70 Robinson, P., 161, 163, 169
 INDEX OF AUTHORS 433
Roddguez, 0., 102 Sfeir, P., 225
Romeri, C., 293, 369 Shea, G. W., 38-39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
Rondet, H., 117, 283, 309; 315, 318, 10 4, 3 23, 3 24
3 22 Shguanin, c., 312
Rongy, H., 87 Siekaniec, L., 304
Rosales, E., 66, 71, 72 Simon-Prado, 72
Rosch, C., 107 Simon Stock, St., 50
Roschini, G. M., x, 2, 17, 28, 36, 52, Siricius, St., 10, I I, 123, 124, 130
53, 58, 104, 105, 1I5, 147, 249, Sixtus Ill, St., 10
266, 282-313, 315-317, 320-323, Sixtus IV, Pope, 19, 20, 45, 256, 369
333, 366 , 37 8, 38 3, 395-39 6 , 399, Sixtus V, Pope, 20
403, 408, 4II, 418, 420, 421 Smith, E., 72
Rosini, C., 222 Smith, W., 414
Roskovany, A., 284, 3 I 5 Smyth, K., 66-67, 69
Rozo, G., 396 Sola, F., I I 5
Rupert of Deutz, 417 Sophronius of Jerusalem, St., 354
Rush, A. C., 45, 150, 166, 167, 168, Souben, J., 341
174, 175 Spedalieri, F., 288
Spellman, F., 45
Saavedra, S., 396 Staerk, W., 110
Salaville, S., 185-203 Stamm, Ch., 383
Saltet, L., 145 Stanley, Th., 313
Sanchez del Villar, M., J08 Stano, C., 368
Santonicola, A., 175 Stegmiiller, 0., 133
Sardi, V., 341 Steinmiiller, J., 52, 404
Saydon, P. P., 70 Storff, H., 367-368, 387
Scaramuzzi, D., 306, 369 Strack-Billerbeck, 83, 84, 94, 99, 413
Schafer-Brossart, 63, 66, 69, 71, 108 Strater, P., ix, 284, 321, 324
Scheeben, M., 68, 75, 77, 260, 284, Strohman, 223
316-318, 321, 324, 363, 364, 366, Suarez, F., 299-300, 310, 314, 396, 408
369, 396, 404, 408, 41 I, 421 Suarez, P. L., 66, 89
Schegg, P., 420, 421 Sutcliffe, E. F., 53, 58
Schellinckx, A., 410
Schmaus, M., 321 Talatinian, B., 239
Schmitt, F., 286 Tallachini, F., 105
Schmitz, J., 316 Tarasius of Constantinople, St., 357
Scholz, A., 68, 69 Teetaert, A., 305, 307
Schonstein, E., 18 Tekeyan, V., 233-238
Schueth, F., 317 Temple, P., 403
Schuhmaier, A. M., 105 Te6filo de Orbiso, 58
Schuster, 1., 187, 252, 263 Ternus, J., 167
Schwane, J., 30 5, 3 0 7 Terrien, J.-B., 117, 283, 309, 320, 376,
Schweitzer, V., 132, 163 4 00
Scotus, John Duns, 19, 27, 302-304, Tertullian, 34, 110, 1I3, 1I9-12r, 126-
306-307, 331, 366-369, 371, 382 13 2, 134, 138-140, 155, 186, 401
Sebastian, W., 40 Tfinkji, 244
Sedulius, 1I4, 147, 176, 330, 361 Theodosius, Emperor, 12
Segneri, P., 311 Theodosius of Alexandria, 164, 165,
Seiler, H., 35, 39, 47, 323 16 9, 172- 175, 178, 179, 182
Serapio de Iragui, 268 Theodotus of Ancyra, 353
Sergius I, Pope, 26, 263 Theophane Graptos, St., 201
Sericoli, Ch., 19, 20, 369 Theophilus, Mar, 226
Setzer, F., 313 Therese of Lisieux, St., 39
434 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Thiel, A., 149 Van Waes, H., 316
Thomas Aquinas, St., 19, 27, 33, 248, Varagine, J. de, 304
29 8 - 30 1, 3 0 6, 33 0 -33 1, 34 2 , 3 6 5- Varron, 417
3 66 , 37', 373, 377, 3 8 7-3 8 9, 393, Vecchierello, H., 62
406-409. 4J 8 Vega, Ch. de, 420
Thornton, L. S., 63 Venantius Fortunatus, 147, 361
Thurston, H., 248, 249, 277 Villeneuve, R., 48
Tischendorf, C., 150, 158, 160, 164, Vincent of Lerins, St., 136-137
177, 414 Vitti, A, 58, 66
Tisserant, E., 223 Vogt, E., 418, 419, 421, 422
Tognetti, M., 21, 309, 369 Vollert, C., 40, 301
Tondini, A., 2, 17, 24, 33, 37, 41, 46 , Voste, J., 395
50, 323
Torquemada, J., 306 Walafrid Strabo, 417
Trinidad, J., 58 Ware, W., 19, 303, 304
Tromp, S., 3II Weber, 239
Tunnel, J., 325, 39 8 Weisweiler, H., 14, 152
Welykyj, A. G., 203
Ullathorne, W. B., 374 Westcott-Hart, 414
Unger, D. J., 17, 24, 29, 36, 39, 4 6 , Widenfeld, A, 309, 31.2, 398
52, 53, 57, 59, 74, 104, 10 7, 147, Willms, H., 296
3 24-3 2 5 Wilmart, D., 141, 171, 286
Wolter, A., 18, 323, 384
Vaccari, A, 63 Wooley, R. M., 2II
Vaggagini, C., 4 Wormald, F., 257, 272
Valerius, 0., 357, 3 6 3, 3 64, 369 Wright, J. J., xii, 25, 3 1 4
Van Crombrugghe, C., 320, 377 Wright, W., 151, 171, 178
Van den Berg, 3J6
Van den Berghe, 0., 319 Ximenes, F., 422
Van H oonacker, A., 419
Van Houtryve, I., 268 Zahn, T., 402
Van Hove, A., 391 Zamoro, J. M., 312
Van Ketwig, J., 312 Zara-Yaqob, King, 219
Van Lantschoot, A., 172, 214, 219 Zatkovich, Th. A, 208
Van Noort, G., 384, 389 Zeno of Verona, St., 123, 129, 142
Vannucci, G., 133 Zolli, E., 403
Vanutelli, P., 403 ZorelI, F., 402, 413, 421, 422