MARIOLOGY 

BY REV. 
SCHEEBEN 

TRANSLATED BY REV. 
L M. J. GEUKERS 
VOLUME ONE 
B. HERDER BOOK CO. 
17 SOUTH BROADWAY. ST. LOUIS AND 
QUEEN SQUARE, LONDON, 

C. 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Printed in U.S.A. 
NZHZL OBSTAT die 5. Maii, 1945 Fr. O.F.M. Censor 

die 7. 
1945 
J. S.T.D. 
Copyright 1946 
B. HERDER BOOK CO. 
Second 
Press, 
and New Pork 
Translator's Preface 
NE of the outstanding characteristics of the Cath-
olic Church as contrasted with most of the other 
Christian groups is undoubtedly her devotion to Mary. 
The Church in her guidance and doctrine could leave un- 
questioned the fact that the faithful themselves, par-
ticularly the great mass of ordinary Catholics, have a 
number of special practices of their own to venerate the 
Blessed Mother. Here we are not faced with a more or less 
unreasoned expression or outgrowth of popular belief. It 
is an important fact that in the official liturgy the Blessed 
Virgin Mary occupies a place of honor, and that in the 
Catholic Church no other single article of faith has been 
so much developed and enriched in the course of centuries 
as the doctrine about Mary. Although the dogmatic defi-
nition of the Immaculate Conception is, relatively speak-
ing, still of recent date, among the theologians there are 
some who are already zealously occupied in endeavoring 
to obtain the dogmatic definition of the Blessed Virgin's 
bodily assumption into heaven and of her universal 
of grace. 

Among Protestants it has become a proverb that the Catholic Church is no longer a Church of Christ, but a Church of Mary. This is not the place to show the falsity of their judgment. It is sufficient to point out how the con-cept of Christ, which has faded more and more in the 
iii 
TRANSLATORS PREFACE 
Protestant Churches through denial of His divinity, has been retained in all its purity in the Catholic Church, and how this concept of Christ, precisely through its divine excellence, keeps vivid the veneration of His mother as truly Mother of God. Far from diverting attention from Christ, the veneration of Mary has proved the most strik-ing guaranty of the purity of belief in the incarnate Word. 
This close relationship between faith in Christ and the veneration of Mary is felt instinctively, as it were, bv every Catholic. The modern believer who wishes to this feeling will undoubtedly find numerous indications of it in most religious handbooks. No other theologian, in our opinion, made such sound researches into the dog-matic foundation of the Catholic devotion to Mary or elu-cidated it so profoundly, as Scheeben. With the deep and synthetic view that marked him as one of the greatest re-ligious thinkers of the last century, he incorporated the Catholic doctrine regarding Mary into the whole of Cath-olic dogmatic theology. In doing so he showed in an un-excelled way how the veneration of Mary takes root in the deepest soil of Christian belief. His Mariology not only is the best explanation known to us, of the doctrine about Mary, but it also gives a deeper insight into the most im-portant truths that ennoble and comfort Christian life. 
A brief glance at the life and endeavors of this master will facilitate a fuller understanding of the originality and enduring value of his work. 
THE 
OF 
Joseph Scheeben was born March 1,1835, at Meckenheim near Bonn. He finished the study of the hu-manities at the age of seventeen and presented himself for 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
the priesthood in the diocese of Cologne. Since he had al-ready given evidence of possessing more than ordinary talents at the grammar school, he was sent to Rome for his seminary studies. For seven years he lived there among the students of the Collegium Germanicum, garbed in the vivid red cassock peculiar to this college, which even yet attracts attention in Rome. He followed the lectures in philosophy and theology at the papal Gregorian Univer-sity, which, like the Germanicum, was under the direction of the Jesuits. At that time Father A. 
 a Fleming, was rector of the Germanicum. 
In this excellent educational center Scheeben could fol-low the lessons and profit by the influence of such men as Liberatore, Secchi, Perrone, Cercia, Passaglia, Ballerini, Patrizi, Kleutgen and Schrader. Passaglia worked with Schrader at a new publication of Petavius' 

and tried to make the positive 
method find acceptance again in theology, while Kleut-
gen, whose first two parts of the 
der ap-
peared in 1854, ushered in a fruitful return to St. Thomas and old Scholasticism. A fellow student of Scheeben, Father Tilmann Pesch, could tell later how 
gifted Rhinelander applied himself with exceptional zeal to the study of St. Thomas. During his whole life Scheeben kept a grateful memory of the Germanicum and his professors at Rome and continued to hold them in sincere affection. 
Scheeben was ordained priest by Cardinal and in the summer of the following year he returned as doctor of theology to his fatherland. After a year as rector and teacher of religion at the boarding-school of the Salvatorian Sisters at Muenste-
he was appointed by Cardinal Archbishop John von 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

Seissel as professor in dogmatics at the seminary of Co-logne. There he remained until his too early death, July 21, 1888. During the twenty-eight years of his professorship Scheeben displayed an amazing energy. In his very first year he published a booklet, in which he translated into fluent German the most beautiful texts of the Fathers of the Church and the finest writings of poets in regard to Mary. He also wrote an article in the periodical Der Kath-
on "The doctrine of the supernatural and its signifi-cance toward science and life." In it appear these noteworthy words, which indicate the leading motive of his whole dogmatic work of later years: "The doctrine of the supernatural, taken in all its depth and extent, pene-trates Christianity in all directions; it alone gives to Christianity its really divine, specific, and mysterious character; it forms the center of the glorious system of its mysteries." 
The following year, the twenty-six-year-old theologian published his 
masterpiece: 
 Gnade. Profes-sor Grabmann, who brought out a new edition in 1922, testifies about it as follows: "The young professor accom-plished here a work which, in view of the contemporary condition of theology, we must call an exceptional scien-
achievement, and it remains of the greatest impor-tance to our own time, for the solid structure of thought 
and its beneficial 
on will and life." 
In this book there appears clearly the great underlying idea of the supernatural, which rules the author's whole thought and life, and the typical characteristics of his theology. It shows a close continuity of thought with the whole preceding theological tradition, with which he be-
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
came thoroughly acquainted, having special preference for the speculative nature of the Greek Fathers. A second feature is his exceptional speculative ability and masterly skill in penetrating the religious doctrines in their deepest connections, ramifications, and conclusions, and in eluci-dating the inner order and sublime beauty of dogma. He thoroughly understands the art of developing in every re-spect the philosophical ideas and doctrines of service to theological speculation; and here the philosophy of St. Thomas serves him as a standard. A third feature is his keen sense of asceticism and mysticism giving the 
its proper sense and high value of life. 

 the book sounded a new note in the theological world of that time, is evident from the lengthy criticism, 

which the editor subjoined the following remark: "The review lying before us will make the readers acquainted with a theological trend that is to the liking of  at the present time because of the combining of the with the speculative element. One keeps this view of its timeliness in mind as an explanation for the acceptance of 
it in this 

That very year Scheeben published another book which gave an enlightening view of the serious preparatory work that he spent on his 
und 
It is a republica-tion, provided with numerous personal remarks, of a Latin booklet by an Italian Jesuit of the eighteenth century, Antonius Casini, entitled Quid 
homo.' In it the doc-trine about the possibility of a purely natural state and the 
Quid 
homo, 
finis 
ubemme 

1862. 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
essence of the supernatural are set forth according to the teaching of the Fathers. Scheeben warns us that he looked up in the original works the texts which had been often incompletely cited by Casini, that he left out the incon-clusive quotations and substituted others for them, indi-cating this substitution by an asterisk. When we consider that it contains several hundred texts of the Fathers, we get an idea of the gigantic work behind it. We also under-stand how Scheeben acquired his amazing knowledge of the Fathers of the Church. 
Scheeben wished not only to win back the professional theologians to the study of the supernatural life, which was pushed so much 
the background through the rationalist influence of the period of Enlightenment; he also dreamed of acquainting the Christian people with the treasures of the life of grace on a larger scale. He pos-
sessed, however, no ability for the task of 

writings. Therefore he conceived the idea of adapting into German the splendid booklet of a Spanish Jesuit with a German name, Joannes Eusebius Nieremberg (d. 1658). This adaptation proved to be such a free translation that we may almost speak of it as an independent work. It ap-peared in the following year under the title: Die Herrlich-keiten 
gottlichen 
and became our author's most popular book. It went through ten editions, four be-fore Scheeben's death, the last in the year 1925. It was also translated into various languages. 
This book is the first work of Scheeben which was pub-lished by Herder at Freiburg. He had met the gifted pub-lisher in September, 1861, at Ostend. Benjamin Herder, then forty-three years old, became a true friend of Schee-ben, and their correspondence throws much light upon 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

the origin of Scheeben's books and upon the his work. 
At first Scheeben intended to edit still other writings of Nieremberg for the German public. In the meantime, however, he had started a work in which his brilliant gifts could be better utilized: a synthetic exposition of the most important mysteries of Christianity. The first fruits of it appeared under the form of a series of nine articles in Der 
 1861 and 1862. About the middle of October, 1864, he finished the great work, 772 pages. It was pub-lished in 
Grabmann, who calls it 
 der theologischen Spekulation," says: "It brings before the mind's eye in an amazing fashion the fullness of Christian truth, visualized as a unity, centered in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. It is no mere copy of the great medieval syntheses, it is not an attempt to reproduce any past, it is a masterpiece pointing to the future." 
Alas, minds were not yet prepared for such a high flight. The work was given a cool reception. It throws a sad light upon the condition of theology in the Germany of those days. For example, we read the following criticism, 

To him Scheeben's book is not one about mysteries, but a mystery itself. "Through the whole work," he says, "there reigns such an indistinctness, confusion, and unintelligi-bility that it is almost impossible to read it through to the end. So the author will have worked practically in vain; some will read passages in the book, no one, except pos-sibly the critics, will read it through. Even this may be doubtful." At first, therefore, the book did not sell well: Scheeben did not live to see a reprint. 
It speaks well for the broad mind of Herder, truly an exceptional man, that he did not thereby lose faith in Scheeben but urged him on immediately to new publica-tions. From a letter of November 25, 1866, we learn that Scheeben intended to turn out a book on moral theology 
in Latin, "which would complete 
by its thorough-
ness and scientific character."This thought seems to have occurred to him, because at the end of 1866 the editorship of the 
 came to him, or rather, as he expressed it himself, "he was sentenced to it by the wishes of higher authority."But in May, 1867, he made known to Herder that this plan seemed to him unworkable on ac-count of his professorship in dogmatic theology. 
In the meantime a new plan had matured in him, which was at once endorsed enthusiastically by Herder: a com-plete Handbook of Dogmatic Theology. The letter in which he expressed himself about it to his friend Herder, is of great importance, as he sketches in it the relation of his book to the theological works then current in Ger-many. It is to be concise and at the same time as rich as possible in positive and speculative theology; strictly sci-entific and based on the classical masters. The ideal had been aimed at before but not attained. 
Encouraged by Herder's decision to introduce the new dogmatics into his Theologische Bibliotek, Scheeben started to work. He worked on it with entire devotion for twenty long years, the last of his life, but left this standard work 
 as St. Thomas did his Summa theologica. It reached three thick volumes of a thousand pages each. After Scheeben's death Atzberger added a fourth volume to it, to complete the exposition of the dogma in accord 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
with the doctrines of the Church, the sacraments, and the eschatology. 
At first neither Scheeben nor Herder had thought that the book would attain such proportions and would require so many years of work. In their correspondence we see how, time and again, the publisher urged limitation and speed, but how, in spite of this, the brilliant theologian, 
driven, as it were, 
his intellectual power, still continued 
to extend his researches, in every subdivision subjecting each question anew to a thorough preparatory study, and as progress became slower the work grew in length. The battle about the Vatican Council and the infallibility of the pope, into which he threw himself with heart and soul, required all his energies. It began with a pamphlet against Dollinger, followed by several others. After that he took over the editorship of the periodical Das okumenische 
von 1869, ushering in its second year of publica-tion, 1870, with a foreword signed by himself and with "far upward of 5,000 subscriptions."After the Council he continued this publication until 1882 under the title Perio-
Most of the anonymous articles are from his pen. At the end of 1872, to Herder, who is impatiently await-ing to print the first volumes of the Dogmatic 

he writes that, "precisely through the working out of these articles a new concept of the entire doctrine about the teaching authority of the Church has come to my mind. I therefore had to rewrite this entire chapter a third, and in part a fourth, time." The preface of the first volume is dated June 21, 1874, the feast day of St. Aloysius, patron of the Germanicum. In this date, the sixth centenary of the deaths of the two princes of medieval theology, the holy doctors Thomas and Bonaventure, he sees a favor-able sign: those two masters also worked victoriously at the temple of sacred science during an extremely stormy period. 
This first volume contains as the first book (pages a remarkable introduction to theology, under the signifi-
cant title, 
 In it the objec-

tive principles of this knowledge are studied first, namely, the divine revelation, laid down in Sacred Scripture tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church. After that the theological knowledge by itself as intellectus 
in the function of faith, is analyzed. 
outline of 
the history of theology is added to this (pages 419-62). Professor Grabmann, who incorporated these pages of 
Scheeben into his 
of Theology, does not hesitate 
to say that this historical summary, "with its rich content and strongly marked characteristics of personalities and schools of thought, gives evidence of an amazing com-
mand of the entire preceding  The doctrine 
about God in His unity and trinity is included in these 
introductory dissertations (pages 
More than three years passed before Scheeben was ready with the sequel. As yet he could deliver only one part of the second volume; the preface is dated December 8,1877. The second part was again three years in coming, May 2, 1880. Here we find as the third book the doctrine "regarding God in His fundamental and original relation-ship to the world, or the doctrine of the foundation of the natural and supernatural order" (pages 
The fourth book deals with "sin and the kingdom of sin as a contradiction of the supernatural order and as combating it" (pages 
 After a thorough study of sin in gen-eral, it treats of the sin of the angels and original sin. Book five, which could be included only in part in the second 
volume (pages 
 deals with the redemption of fallen mankind by Christ. It was November, 1882, before the first part of the third volume could appear. These 629 pages are the continuation of book five about the work of redemption by Christ. 
The fifth and last chapter (pages 
 finally deals with Mariology: 
virginal Mother of the Re-deemer and her relationship to the work of redemption." We return to this subject in the second part of this Intro-duction. 
The second part of the third volume was now five years in coming. Scheeben complains in the Preface about "the sicknesses by which he was repeatedly forced to 

interrupt the work completely, or to continue it when he was only partly recovered."This section (pages 631-1005) contains the sixth book: "The redemption realized in the 
individual through the 
 grace of Christ." A part 
of this doctrine about grace must be left for the fourth volume on account of its extent. The Preface says: "The material for it is practically all collected, sorted, and put in order; therefore the following volume will be able to ap-pear within a very short time, if God spares me."God did 
preserve his health. On July 
1888, before a year had passed, when Scheeben was only fifty-two years old and was at the zenith of his genius, he was called by God out of this world. It seemed that God wished to impress the whole world with the lesson which Scheeben had ex-pressed to Herder in his letter of November 29, 1881, as follows: "As so often in the past, the Lord let me again 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

feel strongly that He is not in need of anybody, for He makes a person 
for 
precisely when that person is at his best." His loyal friend, Benjamin Herder, joined him in heaven the very same year. 
Although the Dogmatic Theology of Scheeben, ambi-
tiously 
 remained incomplete, it may still cor-

rectly be called, with his other works, a monumentum 
which marks its author as one of the great-est, perhaps the greatest, dogmatist of these latter times. However, Scheeben did not exercise on his contempora-ries the influence that we would expect in view of his many talents. The interest of the theologians, particularly in Germany, went in another direction; the exact scientific study of exegesis, patrology, and history of dogma forced speculative theology to the background. After Scheeben's death, his works, except the "Glories" and the "Myster-ies,"were little read, if they did not indeed fall into com-plete oblivion. Only in later years there sprang up, together with the liturgical movement and under its in-fluence, a general urge to live the dogma more vividly, and consequently there followed a more profound and speculative insight into the mysteries of faith. The result was a spontaneous return to Scheeben. The appreciative introduction of Professor Grabmann preceding the re-print of 
und 
edited by him in 1922, indi-cated and at the same time partially caused this return. Karl Eschweiller, who in a perhaps somewhat too broad synthesis contrasted Scheeben as a representative of a "theology from faith with Hermes as a "theologian from reason," also contributed toward renewing the apprecia-tion of Scheeben among modern theologians. 
In 1935, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

of Scheeben's birth, the renewed interest in his theological work was clearly expressed, particularly during the ities organized in his honor in Cologne by the 

 in Freiburg by the publishing com-pany of Herder, in Rome by the alumni of the 
On this occasion the students of the Germanicum were received in audience by the Pope. 
XI recommended to them in warm words the study of Scheeben's theology and the imitation of his priestly virtues. He describes the "high and brilliant" theology of Scheeben with these re-markable words: "The entire theology of Scheeben bears the stamp of a pious ascetical theology; as another great theologian, Franzelin, said: 'I like ascetical books with much theology and dogma, and dogmatic books with much asceticism.' This is as it should be." 

In this concise outline of Scheeben's theological studies we could touch only the most important points. To be complete we really should have a look at his contributions to various periodicals and the 
 (second edition), and also at his controversies, reviews, and so on. The little we have mentioned may be 
 however, to put the Mariology, which we will now study more closely, in its place in the whole of his work. 

The Mariology is generally considered the most beauti-ful and original part of Scheeben's Dogmatic Theology. His uncommon knowledge of the Fathers of the Church 
memorial volume, 
Scheeben, 
centesimo 
Collegium Rome, 1935. 
See the circumstantial account of this audience in March 11, 1935. 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
and theologians and the creative talents of his genius are therein demonstrated most brilliantly. All this is based on a deep and fervent devotion to the holy Mother of God, of which his 
work, Marienblutten, already gives evi-dence. In his Glories of Divine Grace he dedicated a splen-did chapter to "the grace and dignity of the Mother of God,"after he had besought the grace of God in the Pref-ace "through the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin, first-born daughter and at the same time Mother of Grace." 
From the time of the writing of his Mysteries of Chris-tianity, the plan of his Mariology was always in his mind. He writes: "Before leaving the mystery of the God-man we must turn our gaze to her from whom 
received His humanity, and where He became one with the race. We must show that that heart where all began and from which the divine Savior extends His sanctifying and life-giving power over the whole body of the redeemed, had itself to remain pure, redeemed in such a super-eminent way as to be almost a new creation; really a sec-ond Eve, whose life arose again afresh from the side of her heavenly Bridegroom." 
However, Scheeben must for the present give up the development of these beautiful thoughts on account of the size of his book. But, to continue the reader's orien-tation in some degree in the matter of the doctrine re-garding Mary, he refers in a note to "the rich theological contents of the work of Nicolas concerning the Blessed Virgin." He means La Vierge Marie et 
plan divin of August 
1807-88; Karl Reiching had translated the four volumes into German immediately after their ap-pearance. By this one citation Scheeben shows that he 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

esteems the work very highly; in his later Mariology he will take many intuitions of this lay theologian and will give them a dogmatic foundation. 
It may be evident from the following how deeply Scheeben had thrown himself body and soul into the doc-trine concerning Mary long before he could work out his Mariology proper. In one of the most solid articles, which he gave in his periodical, Das okumenische 
in de-fense of papal infallibility, he dedicated not less than forty pages to a parallel between this recently defined truth and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, both considered splendid "manifestations of the supernatural 
nature of 
 Schmitz, who republished them 
recently, though separately, calls them "a gem of ology." 
Consequently, in the working out of his Dogmatic Theology we are not surprised that Scheeben could not be content even with his extensive contemplations on the divine motherhood in the course of his Christology, and could not take leave of the study of the redemption with-out dedicating a separate chapter to "the virginal Mother of the Redeemer and her relation to the work of redemp-tion."No wonder, then, that, under the urge of his fervent love for Mary, this fifth chapter of the Christology devel-oped into a monumental treatise, which up to the present has remained unsurpassed. In the Preface to the third vol-ume of the Dogmatic Theology he admitted that the size of the Mariology had become considerably greater than he himself had expected and announced. To excuse the delay in publishing his sequel to the Christology, he him-self points to the moles 
it entailed and to the fact that, with regard to the Mariology 
the form in which I 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

thought I must conceive and develop it, practically no ex-amples were at my disposal, that could lighten the labor of laying the foundation, and of consistently carrying through the main thought." 
We cannot resist the temptation to quote here the fol-lowing passage from his Preface, in which he presents, as it were, his Mariology to the reader. 
"Mariology can and must be considered a link connect-ing the doctrine of the Redeemer and His work with that of the grace of Christ and its distribution by the Church. Mariology, thus conceived, is called to occupy an impor-tant place in the system of dogmatic theology. From this viewpoint it appears as the development of the profound concept manifested in the early Christian era, which ideally beholds Mary in the Church, and the Church in Mary (Apoc. 
. . . As a treatise on the personal bride of Christ and the personal mother of mankind, Mari-ology becomes a rich source from which light is shed on the doctrine of the Church as a supernatural organism. . . . Hence the treatise on Mary, so dear to the heart of the faithful, must be treated scientifically, to avoid pos-sible critical errors of spiritual writers and sacred speak-ers, which damage religion itself. For the real sources and principles of theology constitute the sound foundation for solid piety." 
Scheeben, therefore, is indeed aware that he is perform-ing pioneer work: great merit is due to him for having changed the Mariology into a 
whole, forming an independent part of dogmatic theology. In this we see, as it were, two main ideas that give Scheeben's Mariology its originality and a lasting significance. First of 
he re-alized that the exposition of the truths which revelation 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

teaches us about Mary should have an independent posi-tion in the theological system; secondly he discovered a principle that gives to that treatise on Mary the 
unity and close cohesion of a really 
system. We will elucidate separately these two points somewhat more fully, hoping thus to guide the reader along the line of thought, which is not always easily followed in Scheeben's Mariology. 

To understand the reasons prompting Scheeben to plan the Mariology as an independent treatise in dogmatic theology, we must go back for a moment to his exposition of the essence of theology in the First Book. Theology is there presented to us as the 
knowledge of God and divine things, based on revelation, as it is given to us by the Church. It is a formal science, as it systematizes re-vealed data through reason, under the influence of the light of faith, into an essentially coherent organic whole according to a principle of unity. That principle of unity, from which "theology," doctrine about God, derives its name, is God, the absolute Good, and consequently is in-finitely fruitful and communicative. Theology considers this fruitfulness and a communicativeness first of all in the Trinitarian life that unfolds on account of the divine na-ture itself, and secondly in the supernatural life that pours itself out into creation by virtue of the divine love. 
A theological treatise is not any subdivision taken at random of that compositum of truths, grouped about this thought of God; it must also formally be an organic mem-ber of that system. It should, therefore, in its turn show a 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

systematic unity by itself and have an organic connection with the main whole. The question, then, of whether Mariology can and must be considered an independent treatise in dogmatic theology, comes to this: Do the re-vealed data about Mary really form a vital point in the organic whole of dogmatic truths? 
The answer depends on the position we ascribe to Mary in the work of redemption, 
the position of mediation and intercession of the supernatural life on behalf of man-
kind. If we attribute to Mary no other 

that she is the physical instrument of the Incarnation of the Son of God, she can, of course, appear in theology only on the occasion of the Incarnation. In that case a space can be given to Mary only in a first chapter of the ogy, which, as in the Pars 
of the Summa of St. Thomas, would bear the title: De 
in 
Most theologians who follow the plan of the Summa in their scheme of exposition, have therefore inserted at that place alone a treatise on the privileges of-Mary. This does not mean, however, that these theologians, any more than St. Thomas, have limited the greatness of Mary to her bodily motherhood; to the extent that they were guided by the living tradition of the Church, they had to treat in that narrow space the privileges of Mary, which no longer corresponded to the limiting title. 
Mary's 
 limited solely to her physical func-
tion of mother, was advanced and maintained only by Protestants. Hence their complete failure to comprehend the Catholic devotion to Mary. Scheeben sketched in clear outline their attitude toward Mary. To those among them who no longer accept the godhead of Christ and have 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

dropped the supernatural character of Christianity, Mary is obviously nothing more than an ordinary woman, and the virginal conception is a mere legend. But even to those 
Protestants who still believe in the 
of Nicaea, Mary 
is simply and solely the woman to whom the Redeemer owes His human existence. Consequently she can be com-pared only with the earth, of which the first man was formed; she is to them in no way at all the new Eve beside the new Adam. This all follows logically from the Lu-theran concept, according to which human nature is only 
of clay,"on which grace has no interior hold and 
which therefore cannot cooperate with the latter. From this also follows, linked with it, their concept of the Church, in which they are able to see only an aggregate of persons justified by faith and not at all the visible organ of the grace of redemption. Therefore it does not astonish Scheeben that the reformed Churches in his time, appar-ently in agreement, all rejected at the same 
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the infallibility of the pope. He quotes the significant words of a Protes-tant, that Catholics defend and glorify in Mary their con-cept of the Church as mother and 
of grace. 
In their laudable attempts to reconcile these stray brethren to the concept that the Church has of Mary, some Catholics went to meet the Protestants too far at times. A prominent modem theologian, sharp criticism of Scheeben's Mariology we must also mention, Professor 
Bartmann, may serve as an example. In a valuable work in apologetics, he refutes the Protes-tant allegation that Christ Himself was the 
opponent to the veneration of Mary. His detailed study of the so-called disparaging words of Jesus to Mary, certainly 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

serves every attention, even if we do not always agree with the explanation given. However, we cannot follow his opinion in the assertion taken from the last chapter, that Mary's entire dignity is conclusively expressed in the 
From this the writer concludes that, ex-cept for the fact that she gave life to the Redeemer, no other part was intended for her in the economy of salva-tion than that of intercession with the application of the merits of redemption, in the same manner as the other saints in heaven, she being in that case at their head. The profound contemplation of Scheeben regarding 

cooperation, subordinate to Christ, in the work of re-demption, is consequently dismissed with a slighting remark about the "Roman Mariologies" that had enced him. We must hasten to say that Bartmann aban-doned this narrow view of the matter, in his later writings, as will appear further. 
The concept of the Mother of God, as it is approved by the Church today and lives in the hearts of the faithful, ex-tends far beyond the boundaries of the idea that sees in her only the instrument of the Incarnation. Modem theo-logians must deal with defined, or at least commonly be-lieved, truths regarding Mary, which can scarcely be deduced from the simple fact that she was the means by which Christ entered the world. In a complete dogmatic theology one must speak, for instance, of her Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, absolute sinlessness; of 
the 
 due to her, of her 
 of grace, 
and of her bodily assumption into heaven. 
Many authors treat these privileges of Mary apart from the Christology proper and present them in other trea-tises, as exceptions to general rules, 
as exemption 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
from original sin in the treatise De Deo et 

as anticipation of the resurrection in eschatology, as a special kind of 
in the De 
sanctorum. Ap-parently they have not yet recognized the fact that Mari-
should have an independent place in dogmatic 
theology. Others group together all these truths about Mary (her divine maternity and her other privileges) in a single treatise entitled "h-lariology," and publish it sep-arately. However, a mere compilation of theses referring to one and the same subject matter is not, on that account, a theological treatise, but is called more correctly a mono-graph, such as one might write, for example, about St. John the Baptist or St. Joseph. 
As long as we do not reduce the privileges of Mary to one organic whole, in which a vital point in the economy of salvation receives a rounded exposition, we cannot speak of a formal treatise of theology. Thus it is apparent that a Mariology is possible only when we ascribe to Mary, apart from her significance as physical mother of the Re-deemer, an active role beside her Son in the very work of redemption. 
We have already indicated sufficiently that Scheeben viewed the Mariology from this broader point of view. Moreover, it is quite evident from the title he gave to this part of his Dogmatic Theology, "The virginal Mother of the Redeemer and her relation to the work of redemp-tion." We still wish to emphasize briefly the justification for this standpoint in the light of modern theology. Up to the present the Church has not defined anything regard-ing the cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption. During the last decades a powerful movement has arisen among theologians to obtain a dogmatic definition of 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

Mary's universal mediatorship of grace. they do not yet agree about the best formulation. This is not the correct place to pursue the question further. It is enough to refer the reader to the book 
by Cardinal Bit-
In general, not only the great mass of the laity, but also, in numerous instances, the ordinary teaching authority honors Mary with such titles as the following: the new Eve, Mother of divine grace, Mother and Queen of Chris-tians, 
 Coredemptrix. Whatever may be the ex-act degree of theological certainty belonging to those various names, one thing at least may be 
with certainty, that under all those expressions there lies a basic Church maintains as an inalienable part 

We think that we cannot formulate 
that basic meaning better than in the words of Professor Bartmann himself, taken from a much discussed article, in which a more profound study of the tradition regarding Mary led him to abandon the negative thesis of his book mentioned above. He remarks: "The Fathers do not stop at the fact that Mary gave the Redeemer to the world, . . . they ascribe to her a certain personal, moral partici-pation and cooperation in her Son's work of the redemp-tion as well. . . . These ideas must have been spread throughout the Church of the second century, since Justin already presents them in such a solid form, and they found a general continuance in tradition." After he has traced this tradition, beginning with the patristic writings, through Scholasticism, on to the latest papal documents, he comes to the following conclusion:  One may con-sider it a dogma, held in the Church since the oldest 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

of Christianity, that Mary is for us mediatrix of the grace of salvation." We may therefore safely consider as de 
this con-cept of the participation of Mary in the work of redemp-tion, taken by Scheeben in its entirety as the foundation of his Mariology; and this concept establishes 

the perfect right of Mariology to be treated as an inde-pendent treatise of theology. 

The fact that theologians have now generally come to realize that Mariology must be conceived as an inde-
pendent 
 treatise, proves that the problem of 
the basic principle of Mariology holds the center of inter-est.' Nothing can contribute more to the understanding of the lasting value and originality of Scheeben's basic thesis than a glimpse of the most important solutions, which were presented following his. 
 can take as a guide in this the remarkable study of Professor C. Feckes, who at present occupies Scheeben's chair in the Cologne seminary, and is attached with heart and soul to the ideas of his great predecessor. 
It was evident that the first truth, which would be con-sidered the main principle of Mariology, must be the title Theotokos (Mother of God), which expresses Mary's highest dignity and which had already been declared a dogma at the Council of Ephesus. Suarez had declared that the divine motherhood is the foundation of all Mary's privileges and had formulated the following thesis: 
See pp. 313 f. 

divine motherhood as the source of all Mary's privi-leges." 
 Monsignor Ianotta evinces the same conviction in the title he gave to his recently published Mariology: 

However, if we examine how these authors connect the various privileges of Mary with the divine motherhood, it is at once evident that the latter cannot count as a proper 
distinguishing principle of the former. 
the Immacu-
late Conception may be viewed as a material preparation for this motherhood, but not as a necessary disposi-tion. We can, therefore, connect it only by means of an 
convenientiue with the proposed main prin-ciple. From this principle we can deduce no more than a convenientiu with regard to the active role of Marv in the work of redemption and in the distribution of 
Some theologians think they can maintain the divine motherhood as a basic principle by extending the concept of it. Instead of the abstract concept applying the formal ingredients of motherhood in general to being the Mother of God, they place the concrete (others say "adequate") divine motherhood. But not all define this concrete moth-erhood of Mary in the same way. Cardinal Lepicier, for instance, premises the following stipulation: 
 Divina adaequate sumatur, scil. pro 
 omni gratiarum 

De 
2; Venice, 1746. 
Report on the first Belgium, 1932). pp. 

Theotocologia 
de 
Deiparente, 1925. 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

et 
cumulo, quem Matris Dei 
 de lege 
Dei ordinaria secumfert." 

But how shall we determine which graces or privileges really belong to the dignity of the divine motherhood? For this motherhood itself cannot be taken as a norm for it, since the issue is precisely about those graces and privi-leges that are not contained in the formal concept of it and cannot be deduced from it by convincing proof. Therefore this norm again can be only the 
Father Bover 
 would define the concrete motherhood of God differently. To him, the supreme principle of ology is the divine motherhood such as it was historically realized, and is really represented in revelation, which makes of the Mother of God, the new Eve. But no matter how closely this state of being the new Eve may appear intertwined with that of being the Mother of God, the concept "co-operation with the Redeemer" which lies in the title of "new Eve," is and remains formally from the concept of "motherhood of God." So that, as was remarked elsewhere by Professor 

 we have here to deal with a 
principle, and come to a solu-tion that will be further discussed. 
The second concept, "new Eve," by itself, is taken by some other Mariologists as a fundamental principle of Mariology. 
had moved in that direction already. In the foremost part of his Mariology, or rather in the part of his commentary on the Pars tertia of St. Thomas (De in-
he states the following thesis: 
A. M. Lepicier, Tractatus de B.V. 
Dei, Paris, 1901. 
J. M. Bover, S.J., 
de la Mariologia en 
de la de Maria a la obra redentoria de Madrid, 1929. 
Bittremieux, "De principio supremo Mariologia," in Ephemerides VIII 
250. 

"De 
generaliter tenendum est, 
in 
reparationis eum 
tenet, quem tenuit Eva in 
perditionis, . . . quo fit ut novo Adae, id Christo, indissolubili ad dissolvenda diaboli opera coniungi debuerit nova Eva, id est In a scholarly report at the Mary-days of 

Belgium, in 
Father Deneffe defends the "new Eve" 
as the basic principle of Mariology; 
 he 
 the title 
by adding, 
 in the full sense, as she is shown to us in the Sacred Scriptures and tradition," 
as Mother of the God-man also. We have difficulty in evading the impression that we have here a sort of petitw 
In the concept of Mary as it appears concretely in revelation, there lies contained all that theology 
ever be able to teach about Mary; but we are not for that reason allowed to take that concept itself of Mary as the basic principle of the theology re-garding her. Theology seeks, as the ground for its syste-matic unity, a formal concept from which can be deduced and built up to an intelligible whole the entire complex of truths that form the concrete figure of the Mother of God. Certainly the concrete figure of Mary, taken from Sacred Scriptures and tradition, is the starting point of the theol-ogy concerning her, just as the revealed data is for every theological treatise; it is also the starting point in which that same figure, now penetrated with intelligibility, stands before us as a systematic whole. But it cannot be at 
the same time the inner 
 of this intelligibility, any 
more than the revealed fact of the three Persons in the 
De 
in 
S. Thomae 
(7th ed., Rome, 
p. 386. 
A. Deneffe, S.J., Report on the 6th 

Belgium, 
pp. 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

unity of the divine Being, and their mutual relations, is the supreme principle of the doctrine of the Trinity, but in-deed, as Scheeben remarks, the principle that there is in God a processio 
per 
et 

"Starting from any article whatever of the revealed data about the Trinity,"he says, "we can deduce from it a cer-tain number of other truths, but only the proposition in-dicated contains a principle from which all other doctrines about the Trinity, objectively and completely, arise as from their root." 
Formally speaking, we must say of Father Deneffe's principle as well as of that presented by Father Bover, that the concept of divine motherhood, although blended in the Sacred Scriptures and tradition into one concrete 
with the "New Eve," 
formally from the lat-
ter. To maintain the formal concept of the "New Eve" as the basic principle of Mariology, the task consequently rests on him to deduce from it the formal concept of the divine motherhood, which certainly cannot come about in any other way than on grounds of Is it de-sirable, yes, even suitable, that we should give to Mary's highest privilege, that of being the Mother of God, the place of merely a deduced thesis in 

It is not surprising that at present many theologians, realizing the insufficiency of 
 these attempts to syste-matize Mariology under one main principle, come to the 
that we must absolutely accept two basic prin-ciples in Mariology: the divine motherhood and the con-cept of "New Eve,"or, according to the formula of Father Terrien: Mary, Mother of God and mother of mankind. Professor Bittremieux was largely instrumental in making the principium consortii, as he calls it, find acceptance next to the concept of Mother of God, with the ogists. For both principles have a far-reaching meaning, 
so that practically there is no single truth of 

that cannot be deduced from the one or the other. Fur-
 they are closely connected and mutually inter-dependent. The divine motherhood is entirely directed to the spiritual motherhood, and the latter finds its ontologi-cal basis in the former. However, this does not militate against the fact that the two concepts are formally differ-ent, and that no single strict reasoning allows the one to be deduced from the other. Complete unity is, therefore, not reached, and only when it would seem impossible to con-
nect these two concepts in a higher 
 could we 
then content ourselves with this double principle. It is this higher synthesis that is presented to us by Scheeben. He proceeds from the divine motherhood, but a more profound analysis of this article of revealed data makes him discover in that unique motherhood a formal aspect distinguishing this same motherhood, precisely as such, from every other human motherhood; namelv, here the mother is, at the same time and inseparably, thk bride of her Son. For it is absolutely proper to this unique moth-erhood that the Son, in His eternal existence as God, pre-cedes the maternal actions; that the Son gives Himself to 
 mother of His own free will, in order to be clothed through her maternal actions with a nature equal to that of the mother. 
If a human motherhood in its fullness can exist only on the grounds of a marriage in which the bride gives herself wholly and unconditionally to the bridegroom, in order to beget and educate the child in and with him, is it then 
conceivable that there does not lie at the root of this 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

est motherhood which excludes the cooperation of a male principle, the most complete, loving, and mutual sur-render between the mother and Son, who gives Himself to her as semen divinum? Because among men the complete and essentially indissoluble mutual surrender of love of two persons has its solid form in the relationship between the bride and bridegroom, Scheeben does not hesitate, any more than does the liturgy in interpreting the Canticle of Canticles, to call this relation of Mary to the incarnating Word, which is inherent to her motherhood, a bridal one. In order to call Mary's basic privilege at the same time the main principle of Mariology, he speaks of a bridal mother-hood of God, or a maternal state as bride of God. He thus unites into one formal principle the two qualities, which allowed the supporters of the last-mentioned solution to group all the Mariological truths: that of being the Mother of God, that and of being the new Eve. These two basic truths, which were regarded by them as two separate prin-ciples which could not be deduced from each other, are intrinsically united by Scheeben, 
two truths really combined in Mary, but without essential connection, to one characteristic feature of Mary with two complemen-tary aspects. 
We take the liberty of stressing this unity, because it has been presented as if Scheeben united two formally dif-ferent basic principles with words only, as if the formula "the bridal motherhood of God" were really synonymous with "Mary, Mother of God and bridal helper of Christ." But, according to Scheeben's concept, this separation is impossible: Mary's motherhood is essentially bridal, and her state as bride essentially maternal, just as man is in-separably a being of body and soul, and Christ a unity of 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
God and man. Not the individual 
 "mother" 
and "bride," are considered by him as the principle of the Mariological systematization, but their formal unity in the one basic principle. For Scheeben this being inseparably bride and mother, as contrasted with the one divine Per-son of the Word Incarnate, forms the distinguishing mark belonging to the person proper of Mary (her personal character), in which all her other privileges take the human interpretation of the eternal, simple idea of God, which underlies her creation and predestination. 
Now, how much truth is in this principle? Is it so unas-sailable that we can safely take it as basis of the entire Mariology? Let us first prevent a misunderstanding: the one and only basis of certainty of all truths about Mary is and remains the divine revelation, as authentically pre-sented to us by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. But a logical, characteristic principle of a theo-logical treatise does not need to be a revealed truth: the theoretical basic principle of the doctrine about the Trin-ity, as mentioned before, is only theologically certain. It 
that such a principle proceeds from revelation through an irrefutable reasoning. Its real use as a basic principle must be judged from the fact of whether it per-mits or forbids the arrangement of all truths which 
form a certain treatise, into one intrinsically 
coherent whole. With regard to the data about Mary, it will no doubt appear to all those who spare no pains to work their way through his masterly treatise, that the fundamental principle of Scheeben's Mariology does this indeed. 
Scheeben's Mariology is by no means easy reading; it is a book to be studied. Therefore a reader will not find in 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

it material ready to hand for sermons on Mary; many thoughts, and even the fundamental principle, will per-haps never be accessible to the mass of simple and unedu-
cated faithful. But we venture to promise 

whoever tries to enter into Scheeben's train of thought will find in it, together with a deeper insight into Mary's sub-lime significance for salvation, an inexhaustible treasure 
of vital worth and a 
 foundation on which to build 
up in self and in others a solid devotion to the Queen of Heaven. To make the reader acquainted with Scheeben's logical synthesis, we have thought it better to lay before 
him the 
 thesis almost in its entirety. Only a very 
small number of texts, which certainly were out of date have been left out. On the other hand, we have added to the Mariology proper those parts of the Christology that appeared indispensable to the complete understanding of the specifically Mariological theses, and that Scheeben himself refers to in the introduction to this part of his 
Theology. These parts were inserted under the title, 
"Christological Foundations of the 
 after the 
chapter with the introductory considerations. 
In the translation, the greatest possible fidelity to the original was adhered to. To make the reading easier, Scheeben's long sentences were almost everywhere di-vided into shorter ones; with the same end in view, many paragraphs also were divided. 
The references to the Fathers of the Church or to theo-logians, that appear with Scheeben in the text itself, are placed as footnotes, often amplified or rectified without mention of this alteration. As to the patristic quotations, we refer to volume and column of the Greek or Latin 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 

of Migne by the abbreviation PG or PL respec-
tively. Father A. Seeldrayers, S.J., was very helpful in looking up references and translating them from German into Flemish; and sincere thanks are extended to him here. The patristic texts themselves were rendered as they ap-pear in Migne; where Scheeben's quotations 
from it, this fact is mentioned in a note. 
In the additional notes, the greatest possible brevity was used; of the newer works in general, those only were cited which best give the present status of the question, and the place where the reader can find the latest litera-ture about the subject treated. 
Scheeben's theological work concerning Mary was ren-dered into Flemish by a competent translator, the Rev-erend H. B. van Waes, S.J. It was provided with the necessary annotations by the Reverend E. 
S.J., who also wrote the introduction. The present English version is a translation of the Flemish. 
In 1935, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of Scheeben's birth, Pope 
XI recommended the study of Scheeben's ascetical theology and the imitation of his priestly virtues. 
May the labor of this great theologian be gratefully re-ceived. It is sincerely to be hoped that, by means of this version, the influence of his theological aspirations will produce more abundant fruit over a wider field. 
T. L. M. J. Geukers 
Contents 
PAGE 

TRANSLATOR'S . . . . . . . . . . . 

PART I 
THE CONCEPT AND SOUKCES OF MARIOLOGY 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 
CHAPTER 
I. MARY IN THE 

TESTAMENT . . . . . . . 9 MARY IN THE 
TESTAMENT . . . . . . . 17 
MARY IN . . . . . . . . . . 42 
IV. ABOUT MARY . . . . . . . . . 49 
PART 
CHRISTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF MAKIOLOGY 
V. THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION . . . . . . . . 61 
VI. THE VIRGINAL . . . . . . . . 102 
VII. MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY . . . . . . . 110 
VIII. THE DIVINE . . . . . . . . 132 
THE MOTHERHOOD . . . . . . . . 154 
PART 
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MARIOLOGY 
X. THE DISTINGUISHING MARK OF MARY'S PERSON . . . 187 
XI. THE SOURCE 
MARY'S DIGNITY . . . . . . . 219 
APPENDIXES 
I. THE . . . . . . . . . 
THE HUMAN PROCREATION . . . . . . . . THE Actio ASCRIBED TO THE HOLY GHOST . 2A7 

IV. THE ANNUNCIATION BY THE ANGEL . . . . . . 

PART I 

THE CONCEPT AND SOURCES OF MARIOLOGY 

Introduction 

N THE Dogmatic system of the Catholic Church the Mother of Christ appears next to Christ, the new Adam, not merely as the living earth, of which He is formed, but, as the protevangelium 
 has given us to understand, she comes also into the foreground as the new Eve, 
a person who is connected with Christ through the most intimate and living communication, and who, in and by Him, presides over the whole universe, as Eve with Adam presided over the earthly world. With Christ she forms the cornerstone, the root as well as the crown of the supernatural order, and through her activity she has an intimate share in His work of redemption. 

On the other hand, the mother of the Redeemer is the first and most perfect fruit of the redemption, through the personal richness of her supernatural life and through her activity. With regard to her dignity, virtue, and activity, she prefigures the grace of redemption, to be distributed to all other redeemed persons. In other words: Mary, the spiritual mother of each individual redeemed soul and of the Church as a whole, is the model both of the divine filiation of grace of redeemed persons and of the heavenly motherhood of the Church. 
refers to the following literature: 
De q.27, Theoph. Diptycha prooem.; Conception, especially chaps. 8-9. 
3:15. 
3 

MARIOLOGY 
For all these reasons Mary occupies a place, essential and exalted, in the divine plan of the world as in the dogma and life of the Church. Mariology forms an or-ganic part of dogmatics and it is treated as such in 
Yet, from both these points of view, Mariology has ac-quired a special 
 through the contention of early and modem Protestantism against the Catholic doc-trine of grace and the Church, with which the dispute about Mary's privileges in question went hand in hand. That is why only recently heresy instinctively attacked the Immaculate Conception of Mary together with the infallibility of the supreme head of the Church. It is quite correct for a Protestant scholar to think that Catholics glorify and defend in Mary their mystical conception of the Church as the mother and mediatrix of grace. 
About Mary's place in the divine plan of the world, we should note what St. Bernard says: 
In a substantial manner Christ effected salvation in the center of the earth, namely, in the womb of the Virgin Mary who is called the Center of the Earth because of her extraordinary character-istics. For to her as to the center, as to the altar of God, as to the cause of things, and as to the economy of the ages do they look who are in heaven and those in hell, and those who have gone before us, and those who are now, and those who shall follow: those in heaven that they may be restored, those in hell that they may be freed; those who have gone before us that they may be found faithful, and those who follow that they may be glorified. Therefore all generations shall call her blessed, the Mother of God, the Mistress of the World, the Queen of Heaven .. . who has given life and glory to all generations. For in her the angels find joy, the just grace, and the sinners forgiveness. Deservedly the eyes of all creatures are turned toward her, because in her, by 
INTRODUCTION 

her, and from her the benign hand of God re-created that which He had 
Mary's exalted position in the dogmatic theology of the Church in the face of all heresies, forms the 
idea of the old adage: Thou alone 
destroyed all the heresies in the whole world, or, she alone has brought to dust every heretical depravity. This thought corresponds with the protevangelium; the heresies are regarded as the seed, or the head of the serpent. Such expressions are found in the Fathers of more ancient times: 
"scepter of right faith" in Cyril of Alexandria, in a discourse delivered at This happened because of the fact that the old 

heresies attacked Christology and that through the established position of Mary the clearest light was shed on all the aspects of 

This not only applies to the more modern heresies, so far as, by denying the ancient doctrine of the godhead of Christ, they deny in general the supernatural order in Christianity, but also to the specific Protestant heresies about grace and the Church. So far as Protestantism still believes in the divinity of Christ, it regards Mary only as the earth from which the first Adam has been taken, and not as a person who has the closest, mutually spiritual relations with Christ. This fits in completely with the doc-trine of the Reformation, according to which human 
in general is as a lump of clay," which was not changed through grace to its very essence and which could not cooperate in the reception of grace. According 
3 Serm. 2 de Pentec., 4; PL, 327. 
St. Bernard the sentence begins with 
iam. 
4 PG, LXXVII, 992. 
see in detail St. Peter De Bk. V, chap. 9. 

MARIOLOGY 
to the Catholic concept, however, Mary represents the living, passive and active susceptibility to the regenerat-ing grace. The Fathers acknowledge the significance that Mariology gives the doctrine of the Church to the extent that they delight to picture the latter in the image taken from the former. 
As for the name "Mary," there can be no doubt, accord-ing to the whole analogy of revelation, that it must pos-sess, as much as the name of the Redeemer, a meaning by virtue of divine inspiration, which corresponds to the dig-nity and position of her who bears it. Especially as the Fathers also attach such meaning to the traditional names of Mary's parents : Joachim ("preparation of the Lord"), Anna ("grace"). Yet it is not settled what this meaning is according to the etymology of the word. 
The ancients considered the Hebrew "Mirjam" as a compound of two words: jam ("more") and mar (from "to drop, drops"; or 
"to be bitter"). The meaning of both words inclines toward mor (a bitter, dripping resin). Hence this explanation was given: rum mare, myrrha 
stilla 
but, as it was rightly felt that "stilla" here does not imply much, it was later changed into 
 Philologically all these explanations are weak, and theologically can be utilized only with difficulty. 
The etymologists agree that the name has only one root. If the root 
is the basis of it, its meaning becomes either "bitterness"or "fatness." According to the modern way of speaking, this does not give an elegant meaning, it is true, but in its Eastern meaning it would fit in splen-didly as characteristic of her who, as the seat of the 
" 
Anointed" pre-eminently, represents the "fullness of 
INTRODUCTION 
grace'' in an eminent manner. Others have recourse to the root rum ("to be exalted), and interpret from it, "the ex-alted one," the "mistress"; in this way they apply the ex-planation of the Syrian Fathers. 
The best and richest explanation undoubtedly is the one that St. Jerome 
 gives, viz.: enlightening"or "their 
enlightening," from 
("jacere, effundere 
et 
radios," hence irrigare, illuminare"). It characterizes Mary's own position and activity, that is, her divine moth-erhood. In virtue of this privilege, according to the expres-sion of the Church, she reflects as a spotless mirror the 
eternal light of the world, which is first 
 into herself 
and illuminates her; as mother of the spiritual and heav-enly life she is the mediatrix of the light of grace to man-kind. 
In this way the meaning 
 is also sub-merged in the name "Mary." However, the full signifi-cance of the name "Mary" is first reflected in the "aurora" of the Canticle of Canticles and in the "woman clothed with the sun" of the Apocalypse. Besides, the name is closely related and is analogous to the names of the Re-deemer, "Jesus" and "Christ."On the other hand it char-acterizes strikingly the one who bears it, as the antithesis of Eve; it formally places the new Eve as mother of the heavenly and spiritual life of men in contrast with the first Eve as mother of a purely natural life, and also of sin. For that very reason it represents Mary at the same time as the prototype of redeemed mankind and of the Church. 
The term "Mariology," conceived in this way, would, 
St. Jerome, 
Nominum, PL, XXIII, 789; but in 
842 he gives preference to From 

originated later 
MARIOLOGY 
like 
 indicate not only the material object, 
but also the formal one, 
the complete content of this 

The dogmatic doctrine regarding the mother of the Re-deemer, so far as it is expressed in the definitions of the Church, may be regarded as the explanation and develop-ment of the words of the Apostles' Creed (in the old Ro-
man form) : "Natus de 
Sancto et Maria Virgine." 

For this proves that Mary, as true Mother of Christ, is truly Mother of God; and on the other hand that, not only in 
motherhood itself but also for the sake of this moth-erhood, she is in general and simply a virgin espoused to the Holy Ghost, one who in every respect, in spirit and in body, in a narrower as well as a broader sense, has always remained spotless and inviolate. In this way the definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be correctly regarded as the ultimate explanation of her absolute virginity. 
TO 
day no further meaning of Mary's name is found. It was a name much in use at that time. Probably no particular meaning was attached to it any longer. In any case the parallel could not hold, because 'Christ" was an official name (the Anointed, added to his proper name 

In that case the parallel should at least be 
CHAPTER I 
Mary in the New Testament 
PART from the history of the infancy and boyhood of Christ, the New Testament does not often men-tion the Blessed Virgin. We find Christ Himself refraining, as do the apostles, from definitely pointing out her exalted and influential position. On the contrary, some of His ut-terances, superficially considered, seem even to obscure the exalted state of Mary. 
The reasons for this comparative obscurity of Mary in the books of the New Testament lie elsewhere. It does not mean in the least that Christ and the apostles have not recognized Mary's exceptional dignity; the seemingly dis-paraging utterances have in view only this end, to pre-clude an all too human conception of her motherhood. 
On the other hand the praises of Mary from the lips of the angel at the Annunciation and of Elizabeth at the first acknowledgment of Mary's divine motherhood, hold in embryo all that can be said to glorify her. The picture that St. John draws of her at the beginning of the second part of the Apocalypse, where he borrows from her the fea-tures for his vision of the Church, is so magnificent that human imagination has never found words to improve upon it. 
In the historical narrative of the New Testament, Mary often comes to the foreground significantly in circum-stances such that she could and must show her exalted 
9 
MARIOLOGY 
position. It was thus she appeared at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple, and on the occasion of His first mir-acle, which took place at her intercession; again, at Jesus' expiatory death and in the upper room at Jerusalem, where the disciples came to pray before and at the time of the descent of the Holy Ghost.' 
That Christ and the apostles do not explicitly throw liglit upon and celebrate the glory of Mary, is abundantly explained by the fact that the complete attention of the faithful was at first directed to Christ Himself; or rather, that His glory and therefore His personal eminence above that of His mother had to be established first, before there could be any question of the glory of the mother, which from His glory alone overflows on her. At the same time it is obvious that during Mary's lifetime her humility was to be respected, shielded, and secured. 
Some explain the apparently disparaging utterances 
Christ in this way, that 
 must serve to safeguard Mary 
from the danger of pride in her greatness. This is not cor-rect. Just as in the case of Christ's glory and eminence, so was it here only a matter of practicing the virtue of 

which was the more fitting to Mary since Jesus also wished to practice it to the fullest extent. Christ intended to show quite definitely that He stood toward Mary not in the same relation as an ordinary man to his mother; and He wished this shown not for her sake but for the sake of mankind. By making His own  dignity felt, He pointed at the same time to the true and meaning of Mary's motherhood as a divine motherhood. 
About the comparative obscurity 
Mary in the Gospels, Scheeben refers to St. Peter Canisius, De Deip. 

Bk. IV, chap. 24. See J. Spencer cote, 
in the Gospels, London, 1867. 
MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
It is absurd to find something derogatory or a denial of Mary's maternal dignity in the fact that the Savior ad-dresses her as "woman" at various times-at Cana and from the Cross-particularly since Christ, when He ad-dressed her in that very manner 
the Cross, gave evi-dence of His filial love toward her. The address merely implies that Christ did not speak as a child, placed under Mary's maternal care and authority as at Nazareth, but in the exercise of His divine dignity and mission. The He-
brew expression 
 to "What is it to me and 
to thee, woman?"), intended not so much for Mary herself as for the bystanders, means simply that Christ, with re-gard to His mission, is withdrawn from the law of filial obedience: more correctly, that He will not comply with the request of Mary as Son of man, who depends on her, but as a more exalted son, the Son of God. For the words do not exclude the favorable response, but include it. This is proved by 
issue of the request as well as by the hint given by Mary to the waiters. 
When, during the exercise of His ministry, Jesus was sought by His relatives who wished to speak to Him, He said: "My mother and My brethern are they who hear the word of God and do it." 
 Again, when the woman from the crowd called the body and the breasts of His mother 
 He pointed out that all without exception are blessed, who hear the word of God and keep it. On both occasions nothing was farther from His intention than to slight His mother. He preferred to discourage an all too human and carnal idea of the relationship of His mother to Himself, for this idea was linked up with a defective 
Luke 
cf. Matt 
Mark 

MARIOLOGY 
and an entirely false understanding of His higher, divine nature; and in referring to the true character of this re-lationship He offered at the same time a practical lesson for His listeners. 
In the 
case (Luke 8: 19 ff. ), Christ's higher char-acter as Son of the heavenly Father was apparently ac-knowledged by those present. But from this character it followed inevitably that Mary could become Mother of Christ, not as other mothers through the will of a but only through obedience to the heavenly Father; her whole maternal relationship to Christ bears the character-istic of perfect surrender to the Father. 
In the second case (Luke 11: 
the divinity of Christ was indeed not excluded in the exaltation of Mary. Nei-ther was there any particular 

laid upon the fact that her motherhood distinguished itself from any other natu-ral motherhood through anything else than the fact that it had as its final term a man who performed miracles. Hence Christ gives us to understand that the loftiness of mother-hood rests in Mary on this, that she did not receive and bear a mere human being but the real Word of God; that she not only received it in her body but also in her spirit and spiritual love, or, that she also took it into her body and fed it rather through her spirit and spiritual 

The observation is rightly made, even by Luther in his commentary of 1518 on the 
 that the Gospels 
in reality exalt Mary enough, inasmuch as they call her by the name "Mother of Jesus" eight different times. When this fact is observed, the praises of the angel and of Eliza-beth speak for themselves. 
John 
For all these texts, see St Peter op. 

Bk. 
chaps. 18-23; Northcote, op. 
chaps. 8-11. 

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
In the salutation of the angel, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women," 
 are 
indicated the supernatural privileges 
 to Mary in 
virtue of her destiny to be the Mother of Jesus, which would be completed and sealed through the conception of Jesus: 
an entirely exceptional state of grace, through which she stands in special connection with God, 
and is blessed 
God above all other women. 
The angel does not use the 
 predicate, "full of grace," as apposition to the name Mary, which he only later pronounces, but as an appelative name of a person. In the salutation of Elizabeth the elevation of Mary's state of grace is most closely connected with the 
of the blessing of the fruit of her womb. Hence in former times Mary's state of grace was, with every right and for merely exegetical reasons, always considered exceptional and without a peer in its kind as the sanctification of Christ; to her the most perfect likeness to this latter was ascribed. 
The trifling distinction, already brought forward by Erasmus, and afterward time and again exploited by Protestants, is very weak, namely, that nothing is said in the Greek text of the fullness of grace and that there is no question at all of a 
 with grace, but only of a certain, vague favor or well-pleasingness. For, according to the analogy of Eph. 1 the Greek word 
 in-dicates in reality a person to whom grace has been granted 
Luke 
Eph. 
"Unto the praise of the glory of His ace, in which He graced 
in His beloved Son 
St. Luke, Paris, 
1921, pp. 28 
remarks, regarding Luke 
"Si a modemes 
mot par Eph. 
Cited by C. La de S. 

de 
(Fribourg, 
I, 8-15, where one finds a most readable characteristic feature of 
thesis. 
in the theological sense, 
a person who is equipped with grace, made pleasing to God through grace; "fullness of grace" is only a correct expression for the exceptional, entirely unique wealth of grace which is meant here. 
Again, this entirely exceptional blessing of Mary above all other women is not lessened through the fact that the following is also said of Judith: "Blessed art thou, daughther, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth." 
 In both cases the aim and of the blessing 

tremendously, and what is 
more, Judith was only a prototype of Mary. 
The three attributes in the salutation of the angel may be defined as follows: through the first one, "full of grace," Mary is characterized as daughter of the heavenly Father; through the second one, "the Lord is with thee,"as bride of the Logos; through the third one, "blessed art thou among women," as temple and instrument of the salutary power of the Holy Ghost; or further, as the likeness of God and as adorned by Him, united with God and protected by Him, filled with God and endowed by Him with the great-est riches. 
The words "thou 
found grace with God 
 indicate that the described privileges of Mary have connection with the divine motherhood as with the highest and most exceptional gift of grace given to her, and that the Son, destined for the salvation of the world, was in the first place and in an entirely unique manner given to Mary for her own glorification and salvation. Consequently as the three praises in the angel's salutation stand in proportion to this gift of grace, reversed, this gift of grace also gives 

these praises their completion: for it is the highest state of grace, benediction and communication with God. 
This passage from the Apocalypse has reference to the Church: "And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." 
 The features of the vision are borrowed from Mary; Mary is not taken merely as an ordinary example or even as a prototype of the Church, but as a prototype that is organically united to the Church and radically concerns and represents it, and also works both in it and through it. 
We should note: (1)the woman brings forth a son, who is none other than Christ, "who was to rule all nations with an iron rod." 
This can be applied to Mary only. (2) Next to the woman the dragon (the serpent) appears, which persecutes her and her Son, without being able to harm them. A clear allusion to the protevangelium. (3) Then it is not in the style of Sacred Scripture to personify abstract things in any other way but through real persons, who are treated as 
The typical and organic 

mutual relations between Mary and 
 Church lie, in general, and in particular also with regard to this text, in 
the 
and universal tradition of 
 Church. 
Accordingly the heavenly glory of the woman, ex-pressed in this great sign, must in the first place be traced to Mary, who is prophesied by Isaias as the divine 
In her each single feature of the vision is of itself obvious, having almost 
 ground without the thought of her. The main feature is the woman being clothed with the sun, 
Apoc. 
See A Letter to Pusey, London, 1866. 
Isa. 7:14. 

MARIOLOGY 
through which she receives her place in the sun, thus be-ing in the center of the heavens, and for that very reason the moon lies under her feet, while she carries the twelve stars of the zodiac above her as a crown. These grand fea-tures find in Mary their realization in the fact that she was clothed with the sun of the godhead in the conception of the Logos. As a result of it she is exalted above the base-ness and changeableness of the sublunary world and also excels its beauty. Finally, all heavenly beings and powers, the angels in particular, but also the human beings, of whom 
of all the twelve apostles come to mind, gather round her, just as the apostles were also outwardly united with her during the beseeching for and receiving of the Holy Ghost. 
The pains of childbirth, ascribed to the woman, find their application in Mary, only so far as she has cooperated 
through 
in the second birth of Christ, 
through His death and Resurrection, and at the same time in His third birth in the faithful. 
CHAPTER 
Mary in the Old Testament 
HE Old Testament speaks less explicitly about Mary than the New. Yet she is not only definitely prophe-sied as the Mother of the Emmanuel; 
 but in the vangelium of Genesis 
 she is already thus presented as the Mother of the Redeemer, that she must be, in and with Him, the guaranty and instrument of redemption. So far asChrist is concerned, the contents of the gelium are indeed defined through later prophesies; though the protevangelium has the preference with re-gard to the connection of Mary with Christ and her relationship to the work of redemption. In general it throws so much light upon the later prophesies that, in connection with 

7:14, it is rightly used as the classic 
text for Mariology. The concrete application of ""woman" to Mary in the 
protevangelium is absolutely sound not only 

but also 
 It is 
to understand 
how Catholic theologians have at times called in question its strictly 
use in favor of the privileges of Mary. Exegetically much more open to dispute would be the contention, advocated by the greater number of theo-logians and particularly by St. Jerome, that in the text 
Isa. 7: 
Gen. 3:15. 
Here Scheeben refers to his explanation of the protevangelium. See 

1. 
17 
MARIOLOGY 
"there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a flower shall rise up out of this root," 
 the "rod refers to Mary and not to Christ as "flower7' does. In view of the 

the thought contained in this figure, viz., 
that Mary forms a whole with Christ, which, as one divine work and one heavenly plant, had to be the guaranty and principle of the salvation of the world, is in complete agreement with Sacred Scripture. 
In Jeremias, "the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man," 
 the direct Messianic meaning is generally contested, by Catholic theologians too. Particularly as there is here, according to the Hebrew text, no question of mother "and child." The 
Hebrew term used here for "woman," viz., (from the same root as 
 cell"), 
 to the 

opposite, and the evident analogy with Isa. 7:14, together with the counterpart from the Apocalypse, a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun," justi-fies still more the Mariological application of the new creation "on earth" presented here. When he who is en-compassed by the woman is called "man"and not "child," it includes so little the idea of "encompass in the womb," that the "new thing"rather consists 
that which the 
prophet points out. The word "man"characterizes the be-ing, enclosed in the mother's womb, as a person who, ac-cording to the spirit, is not subjected to development, but who already possesses the full maturity of a man. It is a 
Jerome, PL, SXIV,144. 
Jer. 
This interpretation, which is also defended by Knabenbauer, among others, in his commentary on Jeremias 
Scripturae Sacrae, Paris, is at present discounted by many, among others by Condamin, in 
1897, pp. In the translation by Canisius: ''The Sacred Scriptures, O.T.," 
269, this last explanation is advocated: The woman (Israel) returns to her man (Jahweh). 
person who does not at all stand toward the woman in the dependence of a child, but is to her as bridegroom to bride; and rightly so, since this person himself also makes the woman his mother. Thus "a woman shall compass a man" runs according to the form and contents quite con-currently with "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called Emmanuel." 
Absolutely undisputed is the Mariological application 
of 
 text from Micheas: "The time wherein she that 
travaileth shall bring forth." 

Apart from the direct and formal prophecies, the Church has used a great many other references from the Old Testament to throw light upon and partly also to prove Mariological theses. Often they have been used without 
as proper and independent proofs, in the question of the Immaculate Conception-and thus their real demonstrative force has been lessened. On the other hand, notably in recent years, all conclusive force has been denied to these same texts, and their application to Mary has been considered a mere adaptation. Hence only the value of a witness has been attached to the ex-planation of the texts, as found in the Fathers and theo-logians, and also in the liturgy, for the conviction of those who thus adapt them. 
Both sides went too far: here also truth lies between the two. The more important texts serve, according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, to be applied to Mary as to their immediate object, partly in immediate, partly in indirect, spiritual or virtual sense. Thus Mary appears: in the Psalms as the "sanctuary"; in 
Canticle of Canticles as the "bride"; in the Book of Wisdom as the "first born 

MARIOLOGY 
daughter of God and as the 
 Queen and Mother 
of the world." 
The application to Mary of "bride" from the Canticle of Canticles comes closest to the literal sense; and it is partly understood in this sense. Consequently the Canti-cle of Canticles, with regard to its formal conclusive force, ought to be dealt with first. But according to the associa-tion of thought, the order of time of the texts and in gen-eral the genetic order, the division indicated above naturally aserts itself. The thought of the living temple of the Lord's Anointed and of God Himself, attaches itself immediately to the prophetic conception: a virgin shall bear 
 and "a woman shall compass a man"; on 
the other hand it tends to the notion 
of Christ"and 
"daughter of God." Just as the idea "bride of Christ" is present in the Psalms, the thought of "temple"is found in the Canticle of Canticles, in which the bride is compared 

which celebrate the glory and holiness of the chosen and privileged "temples of God," were already used in a Mariological sense. In a direct sense these temples meant: on earth, the 
of Jerusalem or mount Sion, on which the King's stronghold stood; and the temple situated there, particularly the ark of the covenant; above the earth, the sun or the heavens. These pure material and lifeless dwellings are clear types of the spiritual and living temples of God: the Church of the New Testament and in particular of Mary, the temple 
44; Cant. 4: 12; Prov. 9:1. 
MARY IN THE OWTESTAMENT 
of God preeminently. Hence these texts point to Mary in a typical sense. Apart from this, 
 that is said about the glory and holiness of the other dwellings of God, applies to Mary intrinsically, a fortiori and in the highest manner. There we have a typical and a virtual sense at the same time. 
The most important psalm which belongs here is psalm 
86: "The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains. The Lord loveth the gates of Sion above all the tabernacles of Jacob. Glorious things are said of thee, 
city of God. . . . Shall not Sion say: This man and that man are born in her? And the Highest Himself hath founded her." plementarily the following texts belong to it: "The stream of the river maketh the city of God joyful; the Most High hath sanctified His own tabernacle. God is in the midst thereof; it shall not be moved; God will help it in the early morning" (Ps. 45); 
Lord hath chosen Sion: He hath chosen it for His dwelling" (Ps. 131); "The mountain of God is a fat mountain, a curdled mountain, . . . a moun-tain in which God is well pleased to dwell; for there the Lord shall dwell unto the end (Ps. 67). From psalm 18, which undoubtedly has reference to Christ and the Church in a typical sense, the Fathers used the words: 

hath set his tabernacle in the sun, and He, as a bride-groom coming out of his bride chamber, hath rejoiced." From the connection of "tabernacle" with the "bride chamber," from which the bridegroom comes forth, this text derives a particular typical relationship to Mary and still more so according to the Hebrew text, where the analogy also shows forth "the woman clothed with the sun." 
MARIOLOGY 

The Canticle of Canticles represents in allegorical and literal sense the marriage of Christ with mankind, or with the Church in its entirety and in each individual soul. Without doubt Mary in particular is understood by the 
What is still more, in all expressions describing the glory of the bride and the closeness of her union with the royal bridegroom, Mary is to be understood before the Church. For the marriage of mankind, or the Church, with Christ is first and chiefly solemnized in Mary in the most real and ideal manner; the name of the bride, mitess,  queen of peace and peace-bearer (derived from the name of the Bridegroom, Solomon), is realized in her in the fullest meaning.' Hence the description of the bride ( Cant. 
 chap. 4; 
is with every reason applied to Mary. The first two references and 
6:9 can easily be traced to her alone. In the same way the second half of psalm 44 has also re-
lation to her, for it contains a 
to the beloved one," 
which constitutes the Canticle of Canticles in embryo. 

the origin and position, glory and activity, of Wisdom personified, are applied to Mary in the liturgy of the Church. This occurs so far as Wisdom is represented as the beginning of all the ways of God and the first-born of 
The word has nothing to do with 
("to be complete"), from which is derived 
here it is only a different reading of inhabitant of See 
Mist. 

Antiquae (Rome, 
pp. 137, 207. chap. 8; Ecclus., chap. 24; Wisd.. chap. 7. 
MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
God's whole creation. In virtue of her first and highest origin from God, she is His most perfect image and like-ness, partner and helper, thus in an eminent manner "daughter of God," 
child and bride at the same time, the one in the form of the other, and as such she is to the world queen of all things and mother of life and 
The application of these texts to Mary is a formal testi-mony that the Church considers Mary an image of Wis-dom personified. According to an entirely unique likeness to her prototype, Mary so closely resembles the latter that all the qualities of the prototype, described here, are also proportionally hers. Thus the picture of Mary's qualities, as flowing forth from the application of these texts, may be considered justified, at least on the strength of the au-thority of the Church. 
The Church does not fix offhand the real equality and similarity of the individual features of our description, merely through a comparison with the stated individual privileges of Mary from other sources. Undoubtedly from the close relationship of Mary to the person of Wisdom the Church has gathered that this representation must proportionately befit Mary as well. It may properly be ac-cepted that the application of these texts to Mary as a 
consequens has been the intention of the Holy Ghost. 
The relation of Mary to the person of Wisdom consists in this. As the "aurora of the light of wisdom" and the "woman clothed with the sun," she is to the "incarnate Wisdom," in an entirely unique manner, His "seat,""ves-sel," and "abode"and at the same time His bride. In this quality she forms a whole with Him, in an analogous way to that of Eve with Adam. Eve and Adam in contrast with 
MARIOLOGY 
the visible world belong together so essentially from the point of view of natural "image and likeness of that in this respect the description of the qualities of the man naturally also embraces the woman in a proportionate way; 
is, so far as she is with and next to the man as his image, an image of God as well. This holds good of the image and likeness of God in the incarnate Wisdom with regard to Mary. 
Indeed, in the Canticle of Canticles, where the bride-groom under the term "oil poured 
 is none other than the incarnate Wisdom, the bride is throughout de-picted as the most perfect image of the bridegroom, for the greater part even with the same features, with which Wisdom also is represented: the sweet-smelling garden, rich in oil, and the well of living 
Only one 
 presents itself. In these texts 
Wis-
dom is not merely depicted as the incarnate Wisdom, but predominantly in its being and workings before the In-carnation, 
in its supernatural origin and being. One conclusion alone follows, that the entire description, in all its parts, does not suit Mary in the same way, and that with regard to the features referred to, a further link and reason 
 do so are still required. 

Both link and reason are available. For the qualities which belong to Wisdom by itself likewise proportion-ately belong to the incarnate Wisdom and are reflected in 
Cant. 1 :2. 
Cf. Cant. 4:10 ff. with 
24:17 ff. 
The thoughts developed here on the meaning of the 
Books are taken from the personal study of Scheeben. They have an im-portant and us into a sphere of thought which is profoundly, sometimes almost so, by the modem Russian Orthodox theologians 

Solowjew, Florenski, See on that point among others Dom in 

168-205. 
MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
it. Moreover, the description of these qualities in the 
ential Books is so carried through that their application to the incarnate Wisdom as such and to Mary not only is made possible, but has become self-evident. For the de-scription is of such a nature that it presents Wisdom, al-though before its incarnation, not formally in its eternal, divine being, apart from and above all relationship with the world, but as a person who has come forth from God, who stands in actual relation to the world, and who lives and works in the world apart from God and next to Him, and likewise subject to Him. It thus occupies a place which is similar to that held by the incarnate Wisdom and which also can proportionately belong to a created person. 
Here again, the description presents Wisdom specifi-cally in the form of a female person, springing from God. In virtue of her procession from God and her relationship with God, this female person assists Him as a daughter assists her father; and toward the world she exercises an influence as does a mother in the home of the father. In other words: Wisdom appears as a principle, springing from God and resembling Him, which is "seat,""vessel," and "instrument"of God in His vivifying and enlightening 
upon the world. Furthermore, in the literal meaning of these texts Wis-dom 
does not exclusively represent the 

genita in the person of the Logos, but embraces also the Sapientia 
in the person of the Holy Ghost under the combined idea of "Wisdom proceeding from God and poured out from God into creation," namely, to vivify and enlighten creation. 
From this joining of Logos and Spirit it follows that 
Especially in Ecclus., chap. 24 and 
chap. 7. 
MARIOLOGY 
here in particular the 
genita also appears under 
the image of a female principle, because it is clothed in the 

belong to the Holy Spirit, the 
Ruah or of God. On the other hand, the ap-plication of these texts to the incarnate Wisdom as such does not limit itself naturally to the person of Christ; but at the same time it has in view another person who stands in relationship to Christ analogous to that relationship of the Holy Ghost to the person of the Logos in the Divin-ity. 
This description of the qualities belonging to Wisdom before its incarnation, namely, the predicates 
image of God and "first-born of creation,"by whom, in whom, and for whom all things are made, maintained, and completed, is held by the apostles 
as prototype of the glory of the Sapientia incarnata. Ecclesiasticus (24:3 ff. ) has already 

drawn an 
 between the indwelling and working of 
Wisdom in the first completion of the visible under the form of a mist which covers the earth and makes it fertile and of a heavenly source of light-and its resid-ing and working among men-under the form of a smelling garden and a salutary well of living waters. Thus the sacred Scriptures themselves show us that we have a right to apply to Mary the entire contents of these texts and make clear the precise manner of their application. 
Holy Writ gives us the right, in so far as the glory of personified must reveal itself in its own human-ity, which is united to it by hypostatic union as sedes and 
and likewise in the maternal sedes and 
It also shows us the precise manner of applica-

tion. It teaches us that the glory of Wisdom belongs 

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

to its human soul, since the latter's origin from 
God is inseparably connected with the procession of Wis-dom from God, in its realization as well as in God's eternal ordinance; and since 
soul, in value and rank and es-pecially in quality of its final end, is the beginning of all God's ways; and lastly, since in the natural creation the working of Wisdom which creates, vivifies, and enlight-ens, is reflected in the analogous working of the soul of Christ in the order of grace. 
Finally a historical representation underlies the entire description of Wisdom in Ecclesiasticus, namely, the fig-ure of the cloud of light, the 
 or Kebhod Jahweh, in connection with the symbol of the dove de-scending from heaven. Symbolically it points back to the invisible habitation and operation of Wisdom in the world at the completion of creation, as much as it typically points forward to the visible and corporal appearance later in the world as incarnate Wisdom. 
This symbol finds its complete, striking, and living ful-fillment in the flesh of the incarnate Wisdom. It also char-acterizes in a marvelous manner its supernatural, spiritual, and heavenly being as "daughter of God" and "mother of the world,"and embraces also in its typical and symbolic meaning, but itself and in the most natural way, the mother of Wisdom incarnate, especially since she is ex-cellently characterized in the very Canticle of Canticles by the name "aurora" and "dove," while her own name proves it as well. 
The application of these texts to Mary is very old and reaches beyond the Middle Ages to the time of the Fa-thers. So far as we know it is textually used only in the Latin liturgies, particularly in the Roman and 
The Greek liturgies advocate the idea of this appli-cation with more emphasis through the very frequent use of the name 
 the child of God, which is as typical as 
In the earlier Fathers the 
 of the texts is but 
seldom found; however there is more than one indication in favor of this application to Mary in the above-men-tioned manner. Among these indications belongs the con-cept of the ante-Nicene Fathers in particular, which was wrongly explained by the Arians. According to the view of the Fathers, Wisdom's proceeding from God, "being born"of Him, and "being created by Him cannot be ap-plied in an abstract manner to its substantial origin and its 
being by itself or in God; this can 
be applied in a con-
crete manner to a going forth and "existence"of this Wis-dom next to, apart from, and in a certain sense also under God, in the midst of God's creation, which is to be com-pleted by Wisdom. From the outset of Christianity the position of Wisdom is thus conceived as a central place between God and creation. 
According to this concept the eternal Wisdom already from the beginning of creation, notably as the Jahweh 

 who acts between God and man, and as the Wisdom who liturgically officiates with the people of Is-rael (Ecclus. 
occupies a place which resembles that of the "Sapientia incarnata," typifying and introducing it 
and finding in the latter its most perfect 
 By 
Cf. C. 
De 

(Romae, 1854). in the Vulgate Angelus Gen. 

ff. See on this point art. 
de Yahweh,"in de 

(Paris, I, 
St. Contra Noetum, PG, X, 817 
812 ff.), characterizes her as 

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
inversion of the process, the post-Nicene Fathers have es-pecially brought the creation of Wisdom directly in con-nection with the origin of the incarnate Wisdom, here pronounced against the Arians. These Fathers explained 
origin by means of the eternity of the 

divine ordinance, on which it depends and which put it in connection wth eternal Wisdom's going forth from 
More than one of the ante-Nicene Fathers understood by Wisdom, not Logos, but the Holy Spirit. Since several post-Nicene Fathers specifically consider the origin and position of Eve as ectype of the Holy Ghost, this holds a fortiori of the new Eve. St. John Damascene explicitly makes the application to 
Furthermore the symbol of Wisdom, the cloud of light, prevails with the Fathers of all ages as a lasting symbol, or rather as a typical figure, of Mary. 
To throw more light upon the applicability of these texts to Mary according to these doctrines of the Fathers, we will enter a little deeper into their beautiful and 
meaning. If Wisdom were depicted here under the names of Logos and Son of God as equal to the Father and the principle of the Holy Ghost from which it is sharply distinguished, or formally in its eternal existence with the Father and in Him, with its action ad 
in the same manner as the Father's-that is, as first principle permitting all things to proceed from itself or calling them 
these views of the Fathers, see especially St. Athanasius, Or. 
contra 
11468); Cornelius a Lapide, in Prou. Thomassinus, De chap. 23. For the present state of this cf. S. J., du 
6th Paris, 
1927. 
See St. John Damascene, De in 
no. 30; PG, XCV, 68. 
MARIOLOGY 
into existence from nothingness by its authoritative utter-ance-the application to Mary would either be absolutely impossible or possible only in a quite artificial way. 
Evidently this text does not deny this concept of the Second Person of the Deity, as the Arians claimed; on the contrary it is obviously implicit in it. But the full signifi-cance of this text would be lost if this representation would be considered as its formal meaning. The formal meaning is rather the one which the ante-Nicene Fathers have attached to these texts. 
The Book of Proverbs 
 does not formally present the origin of Wisdom as an internal origin from God and in His substance from all eternity, in contrast with the origin of creatures apart from God, which in time were called into being from nothingness. The origin of Wisdom is rather taken together with the origin of creatures under the combined idea of an ad extra procession from the power of God. It is distinguished from the origin of other beings by this, that it is 
among the creatures proceed-ing from God, 

dignitate, et causa, and that it conditions and operates on all the 

The bringing forth of Wisdom is thus regarded as a creation or, still more clearly, as a coming forth from the spirit of Him who creates. In this sense it is characterized 

Old Testament, are formally used as having the same 
does not 
here the translation of the me in initio . . . 

but the one which he himself 
the rendering of the text, 

me The "ways of God"are called the 
by the 
ex Deo. 
value. So the expression of Ecclesiasticus, "the first-born before all creatures," 
 first-born among all that by God is brought forth ad extra, answers to the principium Dei from the Book of Proverbs (8 
It must be noted that Wisdom itself here speaks to men about itself in order to make clear to them the position it occupies toward them, and not to explain its being in an 
abstract way. Hence it does not wish to 
its position 
by its being. Wisdom explains the fact that it occupies this position by referring to a divine act which in and per modum 
simultaneously established the and actual position of its person. So also with man: birth includes in a concrete manner both the exterior appear-ance and the act of being brought forth from within. 
Thus the position of Wisdom answers to that of the 

in contrast with the 
 inasmuch as 

it has proceeded from God to the outside. More correctly it corresponds to the position of an aid brought forth by God from Himself and equal to Him, of a "help like unto himself," 
 simile, which, by virtue of its own proceeding from God, is enabled and called to apply the influence of the Creator to the forming and ordering of the world; like-wise to impart to all things, through the power given to it by the Creator, that perfection of being and life which the decree of creation ordained for them. 
Wisdom thus occupies a central place between God and creation in which it appears as existing and working 
Cf. Col. 
By applying to God certain Stoical terms for the human psyche, many early Greek Fathers distinguish the internal word 
Verbum 
from the Word spoken to the outside in creation 
Gen. 2:18. 
MARIOLOGY 
side God, not haphazardly, 
under the name of the Son of God sent ad extra, but in a most particular way, similar to the essential characteristics and working of a mother. It is like a mother, who in the fulfillment of her task, the arrangement of her household, the care and gov-ernment of the inmates, and above all the care of the chil-dren, acts as the main figure of the family and becomes a child with and among her children. In such a Wisdom, too, with regard to its origin, ought to be thought of not as "son"but as"child,"more correctly, as "daughter of God." In this quality it is indeed represented here in a beautiful way, and rightly so, for its affectionate habita-tion and association with men comes forward as the con-tinuation and crowning of that action by which with God it constructed the cosmos in the beginning and continu-ally rules and governs it, "playing before Him," lightly and lovingly. 

This train of thought is more deeply and richly ex-tended in Ecclesiasticus, where the origin of Wisdom is described as something appearing ad extra from the mouth of God,"not in the form of words but as aspiration, namely, the breathing out or pouring forth of the breath of God ad extra. The procession ad extra here assumes the character of inspiration and infusion into an outside sub-ject. The full meaning must be understood in accord-ance with the representation of the 
chapter and in consideration of Wisd. 
f. also as a pouring out of 
vapor" and "fragrance," and of ''water" and "oil," and 
7
of "brightness' and "light." Here one thinks instinctively of the pouring out of the 
and splendor 

for, 
an allusion to 
 Wisdom at once 
becomes active in the visible world as an inexhaustible source of light from heaven and as a mist 
covers the earth and makes it fertile. Consequently under this double form Wisdom was rep-resented in the light-giving cloud 
 in which, as in its tabernacle, it established itself among the people 
of Israel as Maleakh 
 As it had lived and worked 
in the world from the beginning, so henceforth it would live and work there forever, as a priest in "the holy dwell-
text makes possible the allusion to it, even demands it. This figure brings us particularly to the contents of the fol-lowing verses and defines their meaning as follows: through its planting and establishment among the people of God, analogous to the implanting of the soul in the body, Wisdom has made for itself on the earth a fragrant Paradise and a spring of living waters, just as, at the time of creation, floating over the earth as a mist, which drenched the entire face of the earth, it covered the earth with plants and poured out, as the breath of God, the sun-light over the earth. 
So Wisdom very significantly appears in this figure as a spiritual being which, by virtue of its proceeding from God, is related to Him by nature and resembles Him. Likewise it is at the same time image and likeness, the abode of God and His instrument in vivifying and enlight-ening the world and making it fertile. Toward the world, Wisdom acts as a heavenly principle of life and light 
Gen. 

cf. 
and 

24:14 ff. 

MARIOLOGY 
poured out over it by God and from God. In this way the position of Wisdom in relation to God as "daughter"and to the world as "mother"is elucidated in the most beauti-ful manner. This is especially shown when we consider that to the figure of the "cloud of light"answers also that 
of the dove of 
which proceeds from God and moves 
between God and the earth. Attention must likewise be given to Gen. 
where the Ruah Elohim sat brooding over the waters as principle of light and life, and also to the resemblance between the two revelations of the Blessed Trinity at the river Jordan and on Mount 

Both symbolic representations, taken together, again reflect the metaphysical analogy of the central position of Wisdom between God as its principle and the world as the sphere of its activity, namely, the analogous place of the soul, Nephesch, more correctly, of the spirit-soul, 
 in man. In its function as the life-giving prin-ciple of the body, 
its spiritual essence by itself, the soul stands in relation to the spirit as a force which arises from it, or as a breath which spreads itself from it over the body, and is its daughter; in relation to the body, however, it is, as the immanent principle of its formation and life, 

the dove at Jesus' baptism, see Matt. 
Mark 
Luke John 
It is not clear to us how Scheeben can see in that a "dove of light"; perhaps because in the narrative of the transfiguration there is mentioned a 
 " from which the same words rang out as at the baptism: My beloved 
(Matt. 
Mark 
Luke 
f.). 
The fact that this analogy, which completely corresponds to the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures, was wrongly used or understood in the teachings of the pagan philosophers about the world soul, is no reason to deny or ignore its profound truth. Even in the wrong 
such as is found in the Pythagorean and Platonic, the world soul still reflects the sublime doctrine of the holy philosophy of Wisdom, 
is the best, the most beautiful and fruitful, product which both mentioned schools delivered. 
In reality the soul in man, to which the figure of the 
cloud of light splendidly applies in this 
 is also in 
a very special manner an effect and reflection of the effica-cious indwelling of the Wisdom of God in the world. It is effected, in contrast with all other created principles of life, in an unusual way, through the breathing in of the breath of God. It is in its own way breath of God, and in that respect, as daughter of God, it is queen in relation to the world. 
It is self-evident that this description from Ecclesiasti-cus, chap. 24, and from the Book of Wisdom, chap. 7, is principally applicable in form to the Holy Ghost as it re-flects His qualities, even as the texts from the Book of Proverbs, chap. 8, are applicable to the Logos. How-ever, the Logos is not thereby excluded. On the contrary, He is the immediate subject of it, but in such a way that He acts in the form of the Holy Ghost, both with regard to His inner origin from and in God through mere emana-tion, and with regard to His proceeding from God, ef-fected by the Holy 
 In this the Holy Ghost is also poured forth and the Logos appears with the Holy Ghost as a force of life and light which pours out from God. Hence what is said of Wisdom in chap. 24 of Ecclesiasticus refers in the virtual or typical application to the incarnate Wisdom, directly indeed to Christ, but indirectly also to Mary, the living 
and 
of Wisdom. 

Finally, a great number of prototypes were taken from the Old Testament to illustrate this doctrine. These pro-
Only the 
in 
.. . et 

opera 

MARIOLOGY 
almost in their entirety, are found in the Fathers from the fourth century on, and have since then remained 
in common and 
 use. In general they possess the 
particular value of holy symbols, and as such they have 
the 
 of a witness for those who attach to 
a relationship to Mary. If we presuppose the common pre-paratory character of the divine dispensations and revela-tions in the Old Testament, the most important ones can be or less considered as proper "types," 
proto-types willed by the Holy Ghost Himself. As such they can be recognized, partly by their clear likeness to their coun-
genuine in this respect and at the same 

are: Eve and Paradise, the ark of 
Noe and the dove with the branch of an olive tree, the burnng bush and Gedeon's fleece, the ark of the covenant and the throne of Solomon, ancl lastly, Esther and 

The symbolism of Eve has been used in a theological 
where Adam is represented as a prototype of Christ. Like Adam, Eve also is a prototype: partly as a positive and immediate figure in her unity and association with Adam and in the privileges belonging to herself before the Fall, in her supernatural purity and virginity, as well as after her fall, in her position as "mother of all the living," 
 or as one who communicates natural life to 
mankind; partly also as a negative and contrary figure in her fall 
its pernicious results. 
34 See a choice of these prototypes in the bull 
8, 1854). Most of them are collected by Theodore Studita, Or. 2 de 
(under the works of John Damascene), PG, XCVI, The patristic material is collected by Passaglia, op. 
I, 
3. 

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
Taking 
consideration that the new Adam as seed of the woman (cf. Gen. 
had to be formed of the woman, dwell in the woman, and be born of her, the Fathers complete the figure of Eve with the one of the earth not yet desecrated and cursed, of which the first Adam was formed by God Himself; or also with the figure of Paradise, planted by God and designated to Adam as 
Moreover, since the new Adam, in 

contrast with the first Adam, was prefigured by the tree of life or by its fruit, we find Mary represented by the earth of Paradise. According to Genesis the earth had then not yet been made fertile by rain and human labor, or even by natural seeds, but only by the mist of the primordial waters. In this earth Christ had to be planted by God as the tree of life. And in this tree we also find Mary repre-sented, so far as she was to bear Christ as the life-giving fruit. 
The use of the symbol of the newly created earth, sub-jected only to the hand and breath of God, out of which was formed Adam, or the tree of life, is in tradition as early as the symbolism of Eve. In addition to the 

byterorum 
it is found in Irenaeus and and quite frequently in later As heavenly prin-ciple of the celestial life of mankind, Christ is also repre-sented in the first creation by the sun as the source of light. Mary is likewise represented by the light of the aurora, which precedes the appearance of the sun; and also by the 
moon, as the second 
in the heavens, which receives 

3, chap. 4, art. 1 and 2. 
MARIOLOGY 
its light from the sun; and finally by heaven itself 
the 
abode of the 

As the counterpart of sinful Eve, Mary, the instrument of the redeeming victory over the enemies of God, is clearly represented by the women of the Old Testament who at various times had an important part in the delivery of Israel-more especially by Esther and Judith; for all victories over the temporal enemies of the people of God represent the spiritual victory of Christ. These illustrious, victorious women, who were instrumental in the saving of God's 
 have a-special relationship to Mary, who by prophecy was to be partner of Christ in battle and in victory. Indeed the most significant allusions to the privi-leges of Mary are found in both these figures, which mu-tually supplement each other. 
In agreement with the part Mary played in the salva-tion of mankind, the symbolic meaning of the Noe's ark presents itself in a natural way, inasmuch as it floated on the waves of the Deluge and saved the people who were in it, and again as it released the seeds from its bosom for the repopulation of the world. Likewise in the symbol of the dove with the branch of an olive tree, which an-nounced to the people who had escaped from the Deluge the deliverance of the earth from the curse of sin and its renewed blessing, the seed of the woman mentioned in the protevangelium seems to be very significantly repre-
sented as the 
olei 
as symbol of the off spring of God 
which had to be given to the world by the virgin mother. 

p. 57. 
MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
The symbolism of Noe's ark brings us to the symbolism of the ark of the covenant. The latter is apparently as much a prototype of Mary as of the humanity of Christ, both with regard to her unique union with God and to her position between God and man, which arises from it. 
According to the Fathers this union with God is pre-figured in the ark of the covenant as the throne of God, through its being enveloped by the "glory of the Lord," through its containing the tables of the law and the manna as figures of divine truth and grace, just as the staff of Aaron is a figure of the priesthood. To Mary's perfect virginity and fullness of grace they likewise apply the building of the ark of the covenant, which, in keeping with its dignity, was made from imperishable wood and was plated with gold inside and out. They also frequently con-sider the golden cover of the ark, the propitiatory (throne of grace), directly as a prototype of Mary, although it is rather a prototype of Christ. 
Even more impressive with regard to Mary are the symbols of the golden vessel which was kept in the ark, and of the holy of holies, in which the ark itself stood, or the figure of the Tabernacle as the holy dwelling or royal palace of God or as "tabernacle of the testimony." We should note also the symbols of the holy utensils and ves-sels used in the Temple, particularly those in the holy of holies, but especially the golden altar of incense, the seven-branched candlestick, and the table of proposition. In these figures Christ is considered as the real contents of the vessels or the object placed on them, which are filled with the fire, light, and life of the Divinity; namely, as the spiritual offering of incense or the burning coals, as the 
MARIOLOGY 
lamp of eternal light and the bread of eternal 
 With these figures is also associated that of the "gate that looked to the east," described in the Ezechiel's vision of the Temple, by which the glory of the Lord entered the Temple and which, for that reason, had to remain closed to all 

In with the ark of the covenant and the Tabernacle as a place of meeting, the symbolism of the ancient signs or means by which God came to men follows of itself. We should note especially Jacob's ladder touch-ing heaven, and the words: "Quam terribilis est locus iste; vere non est 
 nisi domus Dei et porta coeli"; 
 the "holy ground,"where God appeared to Moses in the burn-ing bush, and also the bush itself; 
 lastly the "holy moun-tains," those of the south: Sinai, Seir, and Pharan, on 

which God revealed Himself to the entire 
 as well 
as the "mountain of the Lord at Jerusalem, that is, Sion, which at the same time is the symbol of heaven as the throne of 
 to the symbols of the sanctuary are those of the royal glory of David and Solomon, espe-cially the throne of Solomon, made entirely of gold and 
Through a striking resemblance the familiar types con-nected with miraculous occurrences are justified; namely, the blossoming staff of Aaron, Gedeon's fleece bathed in heavenly dew, and the "little cloud which 
saw rise 
Cf. 
chap. 2,art. 
et 2. 
Ezech. 44: 1-3. 
Gen. 28:17. 43 Exod. 44 Deut. 
Hnb. 
Cf. Ps. 67; Isa. 
St. Gregory the Great, in I Kings, I, no. 5; PL, 
25. 
Kings 10: 18 ff. 
MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
out of the sea "like a man's 
and from which the de-

sired rain 
The typical character of several other common symbols lies deeper. With them belong the stone tables of the law, the sealed book in Isaias, the sundial of Ezechias, the cloud of light that guided the Israelites into the Promised Land. 
2nd noct., 	ff.; Judg. 4). 	ff.; 	Kings 	(cf. 	July 16, 	
Cf. H. 				"nubecula" and 		

X (Paris, 

CHAPTER 
Mary in Tradition 

ITH regard to the qualities and position of Mary, the tradition of the Church 
 follows the 
doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures that whatever is of a dogmatic nature and fundamental significance in tradi-tion, and whatever belongs to the proper doctrinal tra-dition, can be regarded as a further development of scriptural doctrine. In other words, this tradition unfolds from the doctrine of Sacred Scripture, either exegetically or through theological conclusions, that is, with the aid of the idea of Mary's perpetual and perfect virginity, which the Church has always expressed in the Apostles' Creed: 
natus ex Maria Virgine." 
Three important facts from the life of 
have such 
a relation to the doctrine of Sacred Scripture: her Im-maculate Conception, her freedom from all personal sin, and her preservation from 
 or the assumption of her body into heaven. Concerning these the Sacred Scriptures do not say anything explicit, and for that very reason these points have later become, to a greater or less extent, the object of controversies. For these are not mere facts which, as analogous to events in the lives of other saints, can be known only through definite and explicit 
mention; they are truths of fundamental 

which for that reason are contained in the Creed and are 
implied in Sacred Scripture when it speaks of Mary's 
42 
MARY IN TRADITION 
position, and wealth of grace. With regard to the Im-
maculate Conception and Mary's preservation from all sin, this docrinal development is acknowledged; but with regard to Mary's assumption it is still often overlooked. 
Whatever, besides these three truths, is handed down apart from Sacred Scripture, concerning further details of Mary's early life and death, does not belong to the doc-trinal tradition of the Church and is in general very un-certain. From earliest times the Apostolic See has taken a stand to reject detailed information of this sort, which claims to 
a historical supplement to the facts we know concerning Mary. On the other hand, many Greek Fathers of the Church and, since the Middle Ages, also many Latin theologians admitted much of the contents of these narratives to be historically reliable.' 
Books bearing the 
of several apostles and pur-porting to give detailed information about the early life of Mary, and also the book ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis re-
to the end of her 
 were declared not only un-
reliable, but objectionable, both by Pope Innocent I and by Pope 
 After enumerating the canonical books, Innocent I says: "However, the rest, which have been written under the name of Matthew or James the Less . . . or under the name of Thomas, . . . must be not merely rejected, but even condemned." Gelasius: 
The attitude of the Fathers and theologians toward the Marian ha has been thoroughly examined. The conclusion may be drawn that no 
value can be ascribed to the facts related in these books, unless these facts are by trustworthy testimonies apart from the of the apocrypha. 
B.M. 

PG, V, 123140. 
Innocent I, ad no. 7;PL, 
502.The so-called 
(PL, 
175ff. ) is certainly not from Pope Gelasius; it 
by an 
in the sixth century;it was 
Pope 
and the 
of 
MARIOLOGY 
"The Catholic and Apostolic Church does not at all accept the rest, which have been written either by heretics or by schismatics. A few of these, which come to our mind and must be avoided by Catholics, we believe to be spurious." After that follow, among others, the collection of Gospels or narratives concerning the early life of Mary and the book De transitu. 
Although the Greeks frequently used these legends in their liturgy, the Latin liturgy has taken only one event from the early life of Mary, the presentation of Mary in the Temple. Here the object of the feast is less the outward ceremony than its significance, that is, Mary's complete dedication to God at an early age, which can be concluded from the Gospel narratives and from the very nature of the event. The fact has nothing incredible about it, and it is not at all necessary that the tradition regarding it be based on the protoevangelium 
For lack of reliable historical sources, the writing of a life of Mary embracing the periods before and after the earthly life of her divine Son is an impossible task. It has often been tried in the past. Trombelli's volumes form the best strictly critical work of this kind. But the results in most cases must be called merely conjectural 

In all such instances and also in devotional writings we should always point out the legendary character of the "traditions"referred to. The expression "tradition tells should be avoided lest someone confuse mere historical traditions and the dogmatic. We should avoid giving the impression that tradition, embracing facts outside the 
C. vita 

gesta, Bononiae, 1761, re-printed in 
I and In 
is also reprinted 
V. (exceptionally uncritical). 
MARY IN TRADITION 
frame of the Gospel narratives, has no better support than these legendary sources. Likewise we should refrain from presenting as historically probable matter which before-hand appears fabulous, by introducing this or that testi-mony, disregarding whether it is true or fictitious. 
As for the development of Mariology in tradition, the person of Mary quite naturally remains more in the back-ground during the first four centuries in both the doctrine and the worship of the 
 Yet significant allusions to her position, in particular to her share in the work of re-demption, are by no means wanting. In the controversies of that period about the natures in Christ, the person of Mary came to be more particularly considered. Mary as Virgin Mother pointed on the one hand to the godhead, on the other to the true humanity of Christ. In the fourth century the perfect and perpetual virginity of Mary was explicitly declared to be a privilege demanded by the god-head of her Son and as such was defended against here-tics. The perfect holiness of her interior life was likewise upheld. 
Finally in the fifth century Ma 
true greatness is fully 
recognized in the fight against Nestorius regarding the way Christ is composed. The divine motherhood was con-sidered as a criterion of the hypostatic union in Christ. The definition of the hypostatic union of the human na-ture of Christ to the Logos was understood to glorify the person of Mary, as against the doctrine of the Arians; and 
the definition of the divine 
 of the Logos placed 
the person of Christ in His full glory. In the definition of the hypostatic union, the humanity of Christ was pre-sented as lacking its own personality, but the divine 
Cf. E. Neubert, Marie 
Paris, 1908. 
MARIOLOGY 
son of Christ as communicating, or hiding, His eternal, personal glory, not as receiving the same. In these defini-tions Mary, not Christ, stepped into the light as the per-son glorified through this privilege. 
Thus it is true and significant that the first three general synods of the Church have glorified in a natural succession the honor of the Son of God, of the Spirit of God, and of the Mother of 
 the honor of the two divine persons, who proceed from God, and of the created person who is taken up by God in the closest union and who appears in the Apostles' Creed as third next to both of these, united with them in a wonderful alliance. 
Since the Council of Ephesus Mary appears in the doc-trine and public worship of the Church in full splendor as the 
amicta sole. As she was celebrated in public worship by a series of feasts, these again brought about a thorough discussion of her privileges, until in the twelfth century such festive sermons particularly represent the development of tradition. From then on, in addition to an unlimited number of edifying writings, a more thorough, scientific, dogmatic, and theological treatment of was developed. 
This scientific treatment had as its first aim the question 
of the sanctification of the person of 
as befitting the 
dignity and position of the Mother of God. It focused on the question whether this sanctification of Mary, as that of Christ, coincides with the first moment of her existence and henceforth preserves her from all stain of sin. Through the decision of this question by the Apostolic 
Council of Nicaea 
Council of 
and Council of 
(431). St Thomas, Summa theol., 
q.27. 
MARY IN TRADITION See, the foundation of Mariology has been firmly estab-
lished. The bull 
Deus of 
IX, which is rich 
in its contents and refers to this dogma, sets forth the en-tire concept of the Church regarding Mary through the explanation of this one point. 
The most noteworthy allusions to Mary's sub-lime position are found in the writings of Ignatius of och and in the Epistola ad Dwgnetum, in which Mary is brought into prominence in the Christian Church. St Ignatius declares: 
Our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary according to God's dispensation, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized that by 
 Passion He might purify the water. Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring and likewise the death of the Lord: three famous mysteries which were wrought by God in 
The closing words of the 
ad Diognetum read 
thus: Bearing this tree of the true Word inwardly received and dis-playing its fruit, you shall always reap those things that are desired by God, which the serpent cannot reach and which de-ception does not approach. And Eve is not then corrupted, but is trusted as a virgin; salvation is manifested; and the apostles are filled with wisdom; and the pasch of the Lord approaches. The choirs are gathered together and arranged in proper order, and rejoices in teaching the saints, by whom the Father is

Henceforth such a contrast between Eve and Mary is often found, even before the Council of Ephesus, but still more frequently after it. 
St. Ignatius of Antioch, ad 
PG, V, 659. ad Diognetum, PG, 1185. 
MARIOLOGY 
During the first four centuries the relative obscurity in wliich Mary remained caused a positively misleading picture to be drawn of her, sometimes even by significant 
Fathers, 
 a misunderstanding of some of the bibli-
cal texts, notably with regard to her moral perfection. After the Council of Ephesus every trace of such stains disappears. 
CHAPTER IV 
Literature a bout Mary 
ACOMPLETE collection of Mariological literature has been made by Marraci, Bibliotheca and Roskovany, Beata 
Virgo in ceptione irnmaculata (1873-81). However, Parts I and 

 of the latter work have embodied the more ancient writings without any critical discrimination. There is also an encyclopedic work of Marraci, Polyanthea ana, in which the titles and dignities of Mary are alpha-betically arranged together with abundant texts relating to each, taken from the Fathers and the writers of the Middle Ages; this is to be found in volumes IX and X of the Summa aurea de 
Beatae Virginis, which is likewise a sort of Mariological encyclopedia in thirteen volumes, containing the best works on Mary. Unfortu-nately the judgment of the editor of the later edition is not always correct.' The work of Dr. von Lehner, in spite of some theological oversights, is a highly valued account of Mariology 
to the Council of Ephesus, from the viewpoint of the history of the dogma of Mary's divine motherhood. Most of the Fathers' material on this sub-ject, with a few exceptions also critically discriminated, is collected and arranged in Passaglia's De irnmuculato parae semper 
conceptu (3 
1854). 
Compiled by J. ed., Migne. The work was published in Paris, 
MARIOLOGY 
As in some of the more ancient works, so also in almost all Mariological writings of the present time, even in those which are regarded as having scientific value, some texts from the Fathers are indiscriminately quoted. Sometimes under the names of highly esteemed Fathers of early times, writings are cited of which some undoubtedly, others at least probably, belong to a later period; whereas the genuine writings are richer and more beautiful sources. 
Indeed some of these documents are, through their age and contents, so valuable that they cannot be completely neglected; but they must be presented in their real char-acter. In general it is certain or at least more probable that a later origin is to be accepted for all the sermons for special feast days of the Blessed Virgin bearing a date earlier than the fifth century, for these feasts came into existence only later. This is unquestionably true for the feasts of the Nativity and Assumption. On the other hand, the argument that the feasts of the Annunciation (or the Incarnation) and of the Purification or the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple-usually called 
 meet-ing" (with Simeon and Anna)-cannot otherwise be traced to that time, is not convincing proof for the later origin of the sermons in question, especially when the title alone and not the text itself points to the special feast. Many Christmas sermons dating from that time are formal sermons on Mary, and it is probable that on some days of the festive seasons of Christmas and Epiphany attention was directed to the mysteries connected with the Christ's nativity and manifestation, as, for example, the mystery of the annunciation and others mentioned in Sacred Scrip-ture. As a consequence of the special consideration given 
LITERATURE ABOUT MARY 
these mysteries, an honorable place was ascribed to the mother of Christ. 
Thus the excellent sermon De hypapante can still be credited to St. Methodius of the third century, as is stated in the 
 On the other hand, the origin of the homilies of Gregory Thaumaturgus De annuntiatione 
is very 
doubtful, as are the homilies of Gregory of Nyssa, 

Eusebius 
 Athanasius, and 

All the homilies on Mary under the name of St. John 

and also the sermons and letters De 
tate and De assumptione which are ascribed to St. Je-rome and St. Augustine are undoubtedly spurious and 
XVIII, 348-81. For the following annotations of Scheeben, see J. de Ghellinck, "Une programme de lectures patristiques" in theol.. 
1933, pp. 	assimilated in 		1936, pp. 13-16. 	
There are three of them in 	X, 	Cf. 	Jugie, "Les 	
S. 		in Anal. Boll., 1925, pp. 	
86-95. 			

Pseudo-Gregorius Nyssenus, De XLVI, 
44-60. 
Under the name of Eusebius Emesenus a series of 145 homilies came into circulation, edited for the first time by Fremy (Paris, 1554). They are taken from the Gospel commentary of St. Bruno of 
 Pseudo-Athanasius, 
in occ. Dom., 
XXVIII, Epiphanius, De B.M., 
XLIII, 48-01; a Coptic sermon on the Blessed Virgin by Epiphanius was published by Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, London, 1915, pp. 
English translation, pp. 699-725. 
Pseudo-Chrysostom, In 
L, 791-96; In L, 807-12. 
Pseudo-Jerome, De (as epist. 50 in the appendix of the letters of St. Jerome), PL, 
308-15. It is a free compilation of Matthew, De 
beotae 
made by Paschasius Radbertus. Cf. Lambot, du sur et 

la 
de Marie 
une 
 in 
XLVI 
265-82; De assumptione (epist. 9 ad et 
beginning with the words, 
me), PL, 
Pseudo-Augustine, De assumptwne B.V.M.,PL, XL, 1141-48 an un-writer, probably directed against the Pseudo-Jerome letter 
me of Radbertus). By Pseudo-Augustine, De natioitate B.V.M., Scheeben perhaps means 
App. 194 (PL, XXXIX, 2104-7), which appears in the breviary on September 8 in the second It is from Ambrosius Aut ertus 1275 
Cf. Dom G. Morin, "Les 
apocryphes romain"in 
VIII 
278. 
MARIOLOGY 
of a much later date, being either compilations in part or deliberate forgeries. 
But a great deal of reference to 
is found in the 
Christmas sermons,-both the Theophania and 
nia 
 in those of 
 of 

of 
 which was read out in the Council 
of 
 and of Augustine.'' 
 some of the 
Christmas sermons attributed to St. Augustine are genuine. The first of the famous of St. Proclus, 

as disciple and friend of St. Jerome may be said to his point of view, appears to have 
 given at Ephesus in the presence of Nestorius on 
 "feast of the 

the homilies ascribed to Proclus, the 
at least is certainly spurious on account of its partial lack 
of taste. 
beautiful passages concerning Mary can 
be found at other places in the works of Augustine, Je-rome, and 
 in their writings about virginity. For a long time after the Council of Ephesus the 
Regarding St. Ephracm of Syria (ed. Asscmani, Rome, 

it is 
settled how much of this is for certain authentic. See 
Ghcllinck, op. 

p. 435. 

Theodotus of Ancyra, Hom. 1 and 2 in die nativitatis PG, 
LXXVII, 
also 
3 contra ibid., 
4 in et ibid., 
to St. 
(serm. 

G. 

still another: S. post in ( Rome, 1930 ), I, 
1. 
St. of Constantinople, 
Dei PG, LXV, is not genuine to some theologians. It is the first of the twenty-five given in Migne; the 
one is also about Mary 
(ibid., 
St. Augustine, De sancta virginitate, chaps., 2-7; PL, XL, 397400; St. Jerome, De B. Helvidium; PL, 
183-206; 
St. Anibrose, 
PL, 
(especially Bk. 
chap. 2, 
208-11); De 
institutione 
S. virginitate PL, XVI, virginitatis, chap. 5, nos. 
ibid., 343. 
LITERATURE ABOUT MARY 
ature becomes much richer, especially the Greek liter-ature, partly because in the East the number of feast days of Mary increased at that time, the feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of the Presentation. Of fore-

most 	are the sermons of 	Modestus, 	
and 	all of Jerusalem; 	Andrew of Crete, 	
John 	Gerinanus of 	Constantinople, and 	
Theodore 	The Latin literature 	richer only 	

in the eleventh century. The sermons on 
ascribed to 
St. Ildefonse are of a much 	date; only one, De 	
	is genuine, but in every 	
respect it is an important 		

In century Fulbert of Chartres, in-vestigates legends of Mary, and Peter Damian, who is 
important for his 
 depth and 
loftiness of his 
ideas, excel as preachers of 
Then follows St. 
De S. Maria Deipara duae, PG, XCIII, In ibid., 1468-78; In occurstrm, PG, LXXXVI (11), 3276 ff.; In ibid., Sophronius, In 
PG, (111), De ibid., 
3302. 
St. Andrew of Crete, In diem 
Deiparae orationes PG, 
In annunt., ibid., 
913; In dormitionem or. 

ibid., 700-61. Of this last one alone 
authenticity is certain (De 
op. 
p. 436). See also C. Chevalier, La 
S. Jean 
Rome, 1936. 
St. Germanus, In praesent. B. 
hom. 
PG, 
XCVIII, In ibid., In or. 
ibid., 340-72; In S. ibid., 372-St; St. Studita, In Deiparae obitum, PG, XCIX, 539 ff.; In annunt. duo, ibid., 592-97; In dormitionem, ibid., It may 
 to distraction that Scheebcn does not mention under the Greek Fathers St. Cyril of the 
champion of the 
of Ephesus. One 
 especially read 
his 
particularly the fourth one 
LXXVII, 

96). 
St. Toletanus, 

PL, LIII, 110. 
St. of 

de PL, CXLI, 319; 

tioitate B. 
ibid., 320-25; De 
B.M.,ibid., 

ibid., 
St. 
Damian, In 
duo, PL, CXLIV, 
740--61. The other hiarian sermons printed there are from Nicholas of 
as a note of remarks, 
505 
MARIOLOGY 
selm with his Orationes ad 
some of which develop into grand and profound panegyrics. Among the other works ascribed to him is the beautiful little book De 
Beatae Virginis, by his disciple Eadmer, and also the opusculum De conceptione Beatae 

reached its height in St. 
These works remain classics for all time, because they are always accurate and thorough as well as vivacious in sentiment and language. He is joined by his disciple St. Amadeus, bishop of Lausanne, by Guerric, abbot of Igny, and Arnold, abbot of Bonneval, and by the unknown writer of the beautiful 
super 
Regina, which are wrongly ascribed bv many to Bernard of Toledo, who lived before St. At the beginning of Scholasticism, St. Albert the Great 
St. Anselm of Canterbury, Oratwnes (ad beat. Virg.), PL, 
66. Those 
are genuine were published in a French translation by 
D. A. 
Mdditations de S. Maredsous, 1933; see also Auteurs 
du 
(Paris, pp. 
Eadrner, De B.M. Virginis, PL, CLIX, It is now defi-nitely certain that the de conceptione sanctae Mariue (ibid., 301-18) is also from Eadmer. Cf. H. Thurston and T. Slater, in the foreword to their critical edition of this treatise 1904). 
St. Bernard, Super est" hom. PL, CLXXXIII, 55-88; 
Dom. infra Oct. Ass. de B.V.M., ibid., 38; Serm. in natio. B.V.M. 
ibid., 437-48. There has been 
much written about the Mariology of St. Bernard. See A. 
La 
de S. Paris, 1935. A concise compilation of the Marian 
sermons of St. Bernard is offered by 
sekcta Vol. 
(Innsbruck, 1894). 
of Lausanne, De 

octo, PL, Guerric, In festo sex, ibid., 187 ff.; In natio. B.M. serm. duo, ibid., 199 ff. 
D. De Wilde, De beato 
abbate 
de formatione Christi in 
1935); Arnold of Bonneval, De B.M.V., PL, 
De 
Christi, cap. I; De natioitate Christi, ibid., 
1616-21; De 
Christi in 
tract. 
De oerbo 
tutu," 
PL, 
LITERATURE ABOUT MARY 
carried out a thorough, scientific study of the Mariological question, complete to the smallest detail, which excels in originality, depth, and wealth of 
Yet he often allows himself the liberty of a mere edifying representa-tion, often unites the pro and the contra, and inserts many superfluous details. The contemporary work, De Beatue Virginis, of Richard of St. Lawrence, which is 

sometimes ascribed to Albert and has been 
 among 
his 
 gathers all conceivable features, figures, and symbols, systematically grouped, to describe the glory of Mary. St. Thomas has thoroughly dealt with the logical questions 
 as 
has St. Bonaventure in the 

Beatae 

Most of these writings have a predominantly edifying tendency and an oratorical form. The following especially 
possess these characteristics: the treatise 
et 
virtutibus Beatae 
by Engelbert of 
(d. 1331); the Mariale by Archbishop of a contemporary; the treatise De Beata Virgine in the 
St. Albert the Great, Mariale quaestiones Evangelium (oftenappears under the title: De B.M.V.),in Opera omnia, ed. 
A. Borgnet, 1890 ff., Vol. 38. See further, among others, Genevois, Bible Mariale de S. Albert-le-Grand, Saint-Maximin, 1934; 
Brussels, 1936. Ed. Vol. 36; about this see Genevois, op. pp. 24 ff. St. Thomas, de Aue Maria, ed. by Parmensi (1832ff.), XVI, 
133 ff. 
This work is not genuine, as Scheeben himself it is by and was published in Bibl. aevi, Vol. 11, Quaracchi, 1904. From genuine works one should consult the 
B.M.V. 	in the Opera by Quaracchi, 1882, 633-721; his in the first two chapters, ibid., 3-69, and in 
Sent., 		1, p. 1, ibid., 	60-80. 	
Publis	hed by Pa, The	saurus 	anecdotorum 		Vol. I, Augsburg, 	
1721. 								
St. 		of Prague 		Mariale 	liber de 		et 	
	SS. 		. . . 		ex 	S. 		
SS. 								

Prague, 1651. 
of St. Antoninus (d. 1459); 
 several opuscula of Denys the Carthusian (1471) 
 the extensive 

of the Franciscan, Bernardine dei 
(d. 1500) together with the work of Richard of St. Lawrence was later used as a main source by preachers and ascetics; and in the seventeenth century the even more extensive work 

Toward the close of the Middle Ages, Bernardine of 
Siena and Thomas of Villanova 

selves as preachers on Mary by their deep and sublime conception of the matter. Against Protestantism, St. Peter Canisius delivered a classical defense of the entire Catho-lic doctrine on Mary in his five books De Maria 

Medina and Suarez 
 wrote a sound treatise 
St. Antoninus, Summa theol. 
pars 4, tit. 15; 
916-1270. 
 Dionysius Carthus., especially De praeconio 
and 
De dignitate 	B.M.V., 	in Opera 	and 	
XXXVI, 13-176 (Tournay, 1908). 		
Bemardine dei 	63 de bb. V. 		
modo per 	eius 	et 	per onznia anni 	ad 	
4 vols., 1494. 		
John of 	de 	Deiparae 	

Mariae et 
Paris, 1614. 
grandeurs de la T. S. 

Paris, 1877, translated into various languages. See Dillenschneider, 
La de S. 
de 
I, In the first volume, 
 we cite in the following notes, Dillenschneider places the work of St. Alphonse in its proper historical background. 
St. Bemardine of Sienn, Sermones de b. 
in 
(Lyons, IV, separately Nuremberg, 1473 (a critical edition does not 
exist). See P. la Paris, 1896; A. G. Ferrers-Howell, St. Bernardine of Siena, London, 1913; de 

S. de Sienne, in Collectanea (Assisi, V, 5-44. S. Thomas de Villanova, Opera 

Augsburg, 1757 (Marian sermons, pp. 499-512; 
Published in Summa 
VIII and IX. Cf. 
op. 
I, 109-13. 
 For Suarez as see Dillenschneider, 
 I, 
Summa 
27 ff. 
LITERATURE MARY 
based on St. Thomas' treatment of the question. On this 
later built a rich scholastic 

collected the material of the Fathers 
regarding the main questions of Mariology. 
century produced a vast number of written for the greater part in a scientific form, though frequently lacking scientific sin-

cerity and circumspection. 
these the writings of 
Spinelli, 
Dei, and of 
De eminentin 

have 
reputation of excelling because of their 
soundness. On the other hand, the 
 Mariana 
(1866) of the Jesuit, Christopher de 
 strikingly 
represents 
eccentric "'wig-theology" which at that 
time was 
 permitting much that was arbitrary 
and in bad taste and 
a display of new and fanciful 
ideas. 
Against the frivolity and search for novelty, the learned 

Jesuit, Theophile 
 whose taste did not com-
pletely escape the influence of the "wig-period," then wrote in his caustic way 
solid work Diptycha Mari-so called because in it the farina and 
 in Mari-

teaching are distinguished. In the seventeenth 
century, 
 is treated in a sound and profound 
de 
S.J., 
8, De 
Deipara. For this excellent work, see Dillenschneider, op. 
Petavius, theol., 
by 
1866, Vol. VII, De Bk. XIV, chaps. 1-9. 
Dillenschneider, op. 
I, 167-70. 
The mere enumeration of the works produced during this period occu-pies 500 pages in Roskovany's catalogue. 
Spinelli, 
Deipara 
1613; 2nd ed., Rome, 1637; much praised by Dillenschneider, I, 160 Cf. Dillenschneider, I, 
B. 

a 
Patres accurate Lyons, 1654. In 
MARIOLOGY 
way in some of Cardinal 
opuscula and in suet's 
 Marian sermons, which next to those of St. Ber-nard and St. Thomas of Villanova are indeed the most important of their kind. 

ana of the German Benedictine, 
sound theoretically, but from a critical viewpoint it is rather 
Of modem writings the following should be pointed out as particularly 
monographs: Passaglia, De deiparae semper 
conceptu (3 vols., 1854);Ventura, La 
di Dio (2 vols., 1841); 
La maternita diuinu (1874);Ludovico di 

nio, Maria nel consiglio dell' Eterno 
of which, unfortunately, only two of the four volumes have been finished; Auguste Nicolas, La Vierge Marie (4vols., 

Haine, De 
(1864);Bishop Laurent, Die 
gen Geheimnisse Maria (3 vols., 185670); Morgott, Die Mariologie des 
Thomas (1878). 
VII of his Opera 
(Lyons, 
under the general title are 
also collected his and De retinendo 
conceptionis Virginis. See Dillenschneider, op. 
I, 170-76. 44 For as see Dillenschneider, I, A. Molien, 
Les de 
de 
Paris, 1936, 
where the texts of and his school regarding Mary have 
collected. 
For Bossuet, cf. Dillenschneider, op. 
I, is also men-
tioned, 
I, 
published in Summa 
VII and VIII. 

PART 
CHRISTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS 
OF 
MARIOLOGY 

CHAPTER V 
The Virginal Conception 

HE doctrine about 
incarnation of the Logos by 
the Holy Ghost implies in its full extent that the union itself is accomplished by a supernatural action of God, and also that the 
"flesh did not exist be-forehand, but that it is especially formed and produced for the incarnation at the very moment of the union. This, again, is brought about through a supernatural action of the Holy Ghost, and not through the action of a natural principle of production. Thus in the realization of the incarnation of the Logos, or in the begetting of Christ, the 
and the actio unitiva com-

bine to form one complete divine action. 
At the same time the doctrine indicates that the Holy Ghost formed Christ's flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in such a way that Christ according to His humanity is 
produced and born of her. Hence the supernatural action of the Holy Ghost did not exclude the cooperation of a ma-ternal process in producing the humanity of Christ, or Christ himself, but rather explicitly intended it and di-rectly brought it about. 
According to the Creed, the divine action of the Holy Ghost and the action of Mary as mother appear next to 
Literature: 
3 S., dist. 3; followed by St. Bonaventure, Estius, St. Thomas, ibid., and Summa theol., 
q.9, and Suarez, Sylvius; Thomassinus, Dogmata theol., Bk. 
chaps. 3 f.; Raynaud, Diptycha Bk. 
2, chap. 3. 
61 

MARIOLOGY 
each other and in each other. Mary is a principle of Christ's humanity, or of Christ Himself according to His humanity-a principle subservient to the I-Ioly Ghost, in-fluenced by 
 and working in union with To elucidate 

character and meaning of these differ-ent actions, each one by itself and in its relation to other, and also in connection with those actiones through which the person whom they have in view as their object became Christ, namely, the actio and the tio aeterna, we begin with the lowest and from it ascend to the highest. Taking first the principle which presents the matter for the fonning of Christ, from it we proceed to the principle out of which the form which 
Christ the Christ. 

Considering Mary's part in producing Christ's ity, the Nicene formula "born of the Virgin Mary" means especially the following: (1) Mary was the 

of the flesh of Christ, His matter or substance being thus taken of her flesh and not brought from heaven or directlv formed of the earth as was the flesh of Adam. 
J 
This origin alone, at least in a general way, is not sufficient to enable one to say, according to the Apostles' Creed, that Christ is brought forth from and by Mary. Otherwise it 
de Spiritu sancto ex 
Virgine (ancient Western form of the Apostles' Creed). Cf. Denzinger. 1937 ed., no. 2. 
Spiritu 
Maria Virgine ( Eastern form of the Creed). See 
no. 9 and no. 86 (the Greek text of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed). 
TI-IE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
must also be said that Eve is brought forth from Adam. 
(2)In 
 Christ's body Mary cooperated mainly by 
her natural activity, in the same manner as every other mother cooperates in forming a human body. 
The cooperation consists in this: (a) The natural activ-ity of the mother prepares the formation of a human body, even before the influence of an external principle which cooperates in procreation. For that formation it delivers an organic seed susceptible of impregnation as 
 which then needs only a fitting determination from without to 'effectively become a human body and thus to develop into a living fruit of the mother. (b) The natural activity of the mother accomplishes the complete 
 development of the fruit, thereby enabling it to live independently and apart from the mother, and then bringing it into the world. 
The first of these actions, the one through which the mother at conception, 
in receiving the impregnating influence, cooperates in the originating of the fruit, is the fundamental and most important; 
 this cooperation is therefore preferably called "productive action." The sec-ond action, however, 
of developing and bringing into the world, is secondary. As bearing (parere), or for the birth (parturire) of the fruit, it 

from produc-tion in the strict sense, as regards both the mother and the father. Yet, even in the parturire it is a productive action, because it includes a communication of the substance of the mother to the fruit. Together with the first, the fundamental action, it thus forms the 

productive process natural to the mother. Even the "bearing" in a narrower sense, the bringing 
into the world, as the conclusion to the mother's 

MARIOLOGY 
tive action, is sometimes called "producing,"particularly in the old languages. Vice versa, the entire productive activity, since it is natural to the mother, can also be called 
bearing,"for it is intended to give full form and develop-ment to 
 seed of a living being assumed into the mother from an external source, and then to bring it into the world. 
To understand the dogma of the motherhood of Mary it is important that we measure her productive activity, not according to the abstract idea of propagation, as it belongs also to the father, but according to the specific idea which belongs to the mother as 
Almost all the difficulties that heretics raised against the motherhood of Mary, and all the reasons why many took offense at the expression "Mother of God" and wished to take this merely as a figurative way of speaking rather than as a true 
 essentially arose from the fact that the spe-cific character of all maternal production was left out of consideration. Unlike the paternal production, the maternal 

according to its essence is only a cooperation with another principle, a principle which in reality determines the existence of the fruit and on which, therefore, the ex-istence of the person principally depends. The mother's relation to the principle acting upon her and to the person whose mother she becomes, is merely that of one serving. Through her productive activity, she prepares or forms a body for him and thus contributes not directly to his ex-istence as a person, but only to the material side of his being or substance, according to which she brings him into the world. 
For these reasons, in reference to God Himself we speak 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
not of a maternal but of a paternal production; and for the same reasons the maternal production can without any difficulty be referred to a person who already exists by himself before this process and who through it receive merely a second, a bodily existence. 
The Fathers usually consider the purport and form of the productive activity of Mary according to its primary element in this way: Mary supplied the for the flesh of Christ through the preparation of her blood, or through secretion of a part of her blood. Many, however, definitely deny that with regard to her we can say: "seed of the woman." But this term is used in the protevangelium. Without the underlying idea of a ma-ternal seed, which by nature is directed to the fruit to be formed therefrom, 
concept of production, as with 
natural mothers, can but 
 be maintained in 
regard to Mary. Many theologians have realized the and in agreement with the observations of modern physi-ology we must strictly adhere to 

Since the Fathers as a rule speak of the forming of the body of Christ from the blood of Mary, there can be no objections to this theory. For, in accordance with the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers understand by ''blood in general, as also in the case of the male production, the 
thus likewise the "male seed." It should noted that many of the more ancient theolo-gians express the opinion 
the body of Christ should at least be considered as formed "out of the flesh of the Virgin," 
 the Fathers often do. 
See Raynaud, 
Scheeben refers to a concise Latin explanation of this 

See Appendix Cf. De disp. 3, art. 3, 
3. 

MARIOLOGY 
Theologically the "forming from the blood appears most questionable if we accept with 
 that blood does not receive its form through the soul, and if this theory is carried 
the extent that in our case it is said: the matter of the body of Christ was never  "informed through the soul of 
and thus was never constituent 
of her nature. Thus the real production of Christ from Mary is completely excluded. 
can escape from this conclusion only by his theory about the active coopera-tion of the mother in production at the moment of con-ception. 
What the theologians, together with the more ancient physiologists, formerly called seminutio 
is not admissible in the case of Mary, for it corresponds to the seminutio 
with which only it can concur. On the other hand it is a beautiful thought that in the immediate and complete forming of the body of Christ by the Holy 
Ghost the lifeblood of the mother was also used, was later used for the feeding and 

conceived fruit. 
The appropriateness of Christ's humanity according to the ordinary way of human production lies, for the greater part, in the close relationship of Christ's material sub-stance with the human race, upon which His substance is based in His visible and most complete union with man-kind, and in His position as "Head"and "Mediator."' 
this reasoning does not require a pater-nal propagation; for the latter is contrary to Christ's dig-
In 3 s., d. 3, q. 
ed. 
XIV, 177. 
The temporal and corporal origin of Christ also had to be a special re- flection and glorification of His eternal origin, which had been effected through a real production. 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
and His pre-eminence over man, which is necessary for the redemption. From the viewpoint of the active re-lationship to the existence of the fruit, the paternal propa-gation is much more a figure of the eternal production; but for that very reason its cooperation with the eternal creation in reference to the same product would tend to obscure rather than to glorify the same. God the Father would, in that way, no longer be the only Father of the Son, but His Son would seem dependent on yet another father. More easily and naturally can a human maternal production accord with the divine paternal production, since the former is naturally subservient to the latter. Moreover, from a double standpoint, the human maternal 
production is a more 
 figure of the eternal crea-
tion than is the human paternal production because of the communication of the personal substance of the producer to the fruit and of the consummation of the production in the 
of the productive principle. And precisely in these two factors consists the significance of the production of Christ in relation to His visible and com-plete union with the rest of mankind, and further 
rela-tion His position as Redeemer of man. 
Lastly, the production of Christ offers this fur-ther advantage. As in the fall of man, so likewise in the redemption, the woman appears coactive with the man; furthermore, the female sex receives its own share in the elevation and glorification of human nature effected through the Incarnation, in which the male sex is repre-sented by the fruit of the production. The last point is of still greater significance; for through this distinction of the woman the highest conceivable elevation of a created 
MARIOLOGY 
person (Mary) was achieved, surpassed only by the h gh-est conceivable elevation of a created nature in the man (Christ). 
It is not accidental that for the highest elevation of nature the male sex was chosen, and for the elevation of the person the female. This nature, 
 united
i 
to God, must represent God Himself in His position of royalty and as bridegroom of the creature; the male sex alone could do this. On the other hand the highest eleva-tion of a created person to the union with God finds its expression in the relationship of the bride to the bride-groom, and for that reason it is naturally represented in the female sex." 
THE OF THE MATERNAL PRINCIPLE IN THE INCARNATION 
Although in producing Christ's flesh Mary accom-plished all that natural mothers accomplish, there is still an essential difference in the principle through which and in the manner in which the required determination of the female principle took place from without. 
When the doctrine of faith asserts that Christ is "con-
ceived by Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," the 

natural 
through a material male principle and a material male seed is excluded. On the other hand, a supernatural determination is established through a 

spiritual principle and a 
spiritual 

In this way this production receives, besides the nat-ural human privileges, those also which are attached to the production of 
 children of God, as is written in 

Cf. Thomassinus, op. 
chaps. 1 f.; St. Thomas, 
q.31, a.4; 
St. Donaventure, In 3 S., d.12, a.2. 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
prologue of the Gospel of St. 
It is: (1)not of the 
will of man, but directly of the will of God; (2) neither of the will of the flesh on the part of the mother, since the de-sire of the flesh, being only in the production, is directed to the union with the man; finally, (3) neither "of blood," or more correctly, of the mixing 
blood,-the latter here taken in a general sense-but of a seed formed and vivi-fied, or brought to bud, by a spiritual influence of God. 
Moreover, by this production 
origin of Christ re-ceives, without detriment to the reality of the female pro-duction, a special likeness to the directly divine origin of the natural ancestor of mankind. This likeness holds also an essential difference; for, befitting Christ's position as the second and spiritual ancestor, sprung from the same race, this origin makes Him appear at the same time as Son of man by true production. 
Since, 
the origin by direct creation and that by natural production, there is still a third manner of coming into existence, namely, the origin of Eve from Adam, the Fathers refer to the Christ's origin as the fourth mode. It completes the series of all conceivable modes, and, as the most perfect, bears in itself what is most perfect in each.'' 
The supernatural and purely spiritual manner of de-termination which really took place in the origin of Christ was indeed so fitting that the natural way would have been inappropriate. The reasons adduced for this are usu-ally in reference to the honor of the mother. It would have conflicted with the sublimity of her divine hood had she lost her virginal honor and purity through the act which exalted her to that highest dignity. And, 
John 
f. 
Cf. St. 
Cur 
homo, Bk. 
chap. 8; PL, CLVIII, 406. 
MARIOLOGY 
like ordinary mothers in the fallen through that act to sensual lust, 

would altogether conflict with her sublime dignity. Nor is any form of humiliation compatible with it, such as would have pertained to sexual production even in the original state. The Mother of God may never be tainted with sens-ual lust; she must not be subject to the will of man. Lastly, 
precisely where she becomes the temple of God, she may not in any manner lose her bodily integrity. 
More profound reasons for the 

Christ's supernatural determination are found in the ex-alted dignity of the product and in its position and signifi-cance. 
1)First of all, 
 divinity of the Person for whom the flesh was formed and the dignity of His eternal production demand that no paternal principle, apart from God, should cooperate in the forming. For, in human produc-tion, 
paternal principle determines through its will the actual existence of 

 in general and the existence of the soul in particular, and through it also, in a natural manner, the existence of the person himself. The temporal existence of a divine Person must not, however, be de-termined through the will of a creature; especially as re-gards I-Iis soul, 
must not stand in a relation of essential dependence on a creature.'' 
Christ's temporal production by the mother must not be in contradiction to His eternal production, but must be a perfect reflection of it. This temporal production can be such a reflection only if it is 
by a holy and purely spiritual power from a single principle. In other words, as 
Furthermore, He must not enter into a relation with a created principle that would make Him dependent on that principle, if not actually, at least in appearance. 

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
the Son of God by Himself is brought forth as "light of light,"here His bodily production must also be actualized, not through the mixing of material elements, but through a heavenly influence on the earthly element. 
3) Moreover, the production of the humanity and of the human flesh itself-or the determination of the mater-nal principle-must occur in such a way that it is directed externally and internally to the union with the product of the eternal production. This can be effected only when 
also takes place in a supernatural man-ner by a supernatural principle, just as the union itself. 
4) On the other hand, the bodily origin of Christ must be so arranged that through it Christ actually comes in touch with the race, but at the same time does not become dependent on its first head and come under the influence of the sin connected with that race. As the new and higher Head of the race, He must, in virtue of the very manner of His origin, rather excel the first. Also, as the principle of the restoration and re-creation of the race, He must be ushered into that race from above by an act of God, analo-gous to the creation of the first parents. 
5) Consequently, the bodily production of Christ must be the prototype and assurance of the spiritual and holy regeneration of men as children of God and also the pledge of the glorious regeneration of the entire man in his resurrection. As the prototype of man's resurrection, 
bodily production must be directly carried out by God 
through divine power. In particular, it must also be the prototype of the virginal motherhood of Church, whereby, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, she cooperates in the regeneration of men as children of God. 

MARIOLOGY 
6) Lastly, with this is connected the fact that the flesh of Christ must, above all other flesh, be distinguished as vivifying, that is, as the seat and instrument of the power of God's vivifying Spirit; and for that purpose it must be specially formed. It must, therefore, be formed only by Him who alone has the power to make it a vivifying flesh and for whom it should serve as seat and instrument. The Fathers like to express this as follows: the bread of life, 

which bears in itself the power of the 

In contrast with the natural influence which the semen exerts on the 
and by which the father thus bestows the very substance of the flesh, the super-natural influence of God on the maternal principle ap-pears before and in 
 production of Christ's flesh as influence of a purely spiritual principle and of a purely spiritual power on the forming and vivifying of the sub-stance of the flesh, which alone is taken of the mother. In this sense 
 supernatural influence is clearly character-ized in the angel's annunciation of Christ's conception, as a coming of 
 Holy Ghost upon the virgin and an over-

shadowing of the virgin by the power of the Most 
At the same time there is herein contained an allusion to the most beautiful symbols of a higher influence that leaves its substratum intact, namely, the light, the breath, and the dew. 
Significantly the Holy Ghost appears here not simply 
Cf. Thomassinus, op. 
Bk. 
chaps. 3 f.; St. Thomas, 
q.28, a.1. 
Luke 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
as exercising an influence upon the virgin. He Himself is infused into her as the substantial bearer or vehicle of the forming power radiating from the heavenly Father; and to that extent He takes the place of the semen which in natural propagation issues from the human fa-ther and carries in itself his power. For that reason the 

Fathers sometimes call Him semen 
 the divine 
seed. In this manner 
 the heavenly and the earthly pro-duction so concur, even in their differences, that the former leads back to a heavenly Father just as the latter leads back to an earthly father, 
the production proc-ess with the heavenly Father is completely represented according to the analogy of the earthly father. However, as contrasted with the material seed, the infusion of the Holy Ghost concerns merely the forming of the body of Christ, not the constitution of Christ through the sub-stance of the Holy Ghost; and for that very reason it does not make the Holy Ghost an element of the production. In this instance the Holy Ghost acts only upon another production principle without Himself becoming the prin-ciple of the production or the paternal principle of the humanity of Christ. 
For three reasons the Holy Ghost cannot be considered under these aspects. (1)He does not constitute the flesh of Christ through His own substance. (2) The 

of Christ is not brought forth by Him as a nature consub-stantial with His nature or specifically similar to it. (3)The Holy Ghost in His own person does not occupy a position which belongs to Him alone; He must be understood as working in union with the other Persons and in particular in the power of the Father. Still less in regard to His 

fluence may He be called Father of the man Christ. This is evident from the fact that otherwise Christ too, as God, 
could be father of Himself as 
In the coming of the Holy Ghost upon the Virgin the upon the production of the flesh of Christ is attributed to the third divine Person as the author, per 
This attribution is quite proper and signi-ficant for the following reasons. (1)First of all, the forming and vivifying of matter, particularly the creating and producing of the first man, is generally ascribed to the Holy Ghost as the finger and breath of God. (2) Next, 
of God, particularly with the forming of the flesh of Christ, has the closest relation with the actw unitiva; for it 
this flesh precisely to make it the flesh of the Logos. Also for that reason the divine action like-wise occupies the position of the human paternal ence, because it alone can form the flesh in a manner appropriate to that end. Hence the production of the flesh 
must be appropriated to the Holy Ghost for all those reasons for which the actio unitiva is attributed to 
(3) The very name of the Holy Ghost clearly in -dicates how He in 
eminent and 

unique truly takes the place of the natural vehicle of production. 
(4)To these reasons must be added those advanced for the 
appropriateness of the divine influence upon the virginal and set forth 

The words of the angel, "The power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," are understood by some as in-dicating a terminus generativus, which can be applied in 
See also p. 99. 
See Appendix 3. 
See Appendix 3. 

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 

natural 
 to the relation of man with woman, 
and from this latter relation was applied to the production of Christ's flesh by the Holy Ghost. 
this supposition is hard to prove. Apart from it, the very connection of "the overshadowing" with "the power of the Most High for-bids this explanation. The analogy of this overshadowing must lie in the cloud which elsewhere in the Sacred Scrip-tures serves as a symbol of God's power which descends from above, impregnates, vivifies, and invigorates, and which is also applied to the origin of Christ in the sign of the prophet: "and let the clouds rain the just." 

Understood thus, the "overshadowing" means the di-vine influence in its analogy to the natural action of the man, and at the same time, and still more, in its ness above this; that is, as an influence of a heavenly, 
spiritual 
 upon an earthly and material one. It 
also maintains the closest relation to the "coming of the Holy Ghost," which must be understood as analogous to the moving of the Holy Spirit over the waters of the pri-meval world. In this manner we derive the following beautiful meaning: the Spirit of God which originally de-scended over the chaos as principle of light and life and which formed the first creation, now forms the second and higher creation out of the virgin. 
Moreover, this idea paves the way for a yet deeper ex-planation of the words we have been considering. This explanation is taken from the cloud which overshadowed the ark of the covenant and symbolized the habitation of God. Further, this idea has a natural relation to the deeper meaning of the "overshadowing"or of the words "let the 

MARIOLOGY 
clouds rain the just," which include the uniting action as 

In the production of Christ, instead of a natural princi-ple of determination, "the Holy Spirit"and "the power of the Most High,"that is, of the Almighty Creator of nature, determine the origin of the bodily fruit. From this it nat-urally follows that this determination not only gave the first stimulus to the gradual forming of the bodily organ-ism of the fruit which had to be completed under the co-operating influence of the mother, but also could immedi-ately and of itself achieve the entire organism, at least in its essential parts. 
That this happened can readily be presumed from the character of the principle. The same, however, may also 
be concluded from the fact that otherwise the 
could 
not be the worthy seat of the divine Person and of the soul which was spiritually active from the first moment. The first forming of Christ's body 
thus carried out, both on the part of the principle and on that of the object, creatiuo, in the same manner, if not in the same measure, as the forming of the body of the first 

 In this respect Mary's cooperation could not be entirely the same as that of a mother in natural production. 
Hence the first stimulus in producing the organism for the body of Christ lies entirely in the divine principle, so that by it "Wisdom hath built herself a house;" 
 and to 
See 
pp. 80 ff. and 92 ff. 
Cf. St. John Damascene, no. 24. 
Prov. 

that extent Mary is much more passive and receptive to the influence of the Holy Ghost than a natural mother is to the influence of a man. But for that reason she was no less a party to the production of her fruit than is a natural mother. In another respect she is even more active than an ordinary mother. For, though she acts less upon the form-ing of her fruit, on the other hand she receives no material influence whatever from an external source; she is by her-self the sole and complete material principle of hdr off-spring. 
The lack of an active material influence upon the Virgin does not prevent her product from being a fruit brought forth by her in the same way as that in which the produc-ing of the fruit is attributed to other mothers. In natural production the seed becomes a fruit at the very first mo-ment that the determination is received from an outer source, and the maternal process in the very origin of the fruit is essentially only to receive the principle that will complete what the mother by her activity has prepared for this purpose. 
To secure the doctrine of Mary's motherhood some theologians 
 hold the view that at the moment of con-ception there is still another generative activity which only then comes into operation and is subject to a super-natural influence. This influence, as a final preparation of the matter, effects God's immediate cooperation in the production of the fruit. Because of the perfection of Mary's motherhood, most theologians, including St. Thomas, do not find this supposition necessary. On the 
Foremost among these are St. Bonaventure, In 3 S., d.4, 2. 3, 
and, work by 
(PL, 
LVIII, In 3 S., d.4, q.2. 
MARIOLOGY 
contrary, because of the divine action they regard this view as unacceptable and therefore place the generative activity of the mother before the moment of conception. 
On the other hand, by the cooperation of the mother, which takes place immediately at the moment of concep-tion, we can also understand the vital and voluntary ab-sorption and accommodating spirit which must mark that conception as an active one and not merely a passive one. Such a cooperation should be accepted with regard to Mary as well as with regard to a natural mother, but in a higher manner, as a spiritual and supernatural absorption and accommodating spirit. 
In natural conception the sensual passion-carnal ap-petite--cooperates with it and makes it a vital deed. With regard to Mary, however, there is instead of this carnal appetite an activity of the mother answering the divine action: the supernatural subjection of her spirit to the will of God and the surrender, borne by a heavenly love, of her flesh to the 
of the Holy Ghost for the purpose for which He desires to use it. Thus we can say of her that she has conceived both in spirit and in body. 
This vital and voluntary offering of the matter previ-ously prepared for the formation of a human body is nec-essary and also sufficient to place the foregoing prepara-tion of the matter in organic connection with the 
of the matter, which is derived from an external 
source and to give to the latter its relation to the prepara-tion. 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE Actio Unitiva AND THE Generatio 
As the body of Christ is directly formed by tion, His entire humanity comes forward as an immediate work of God, or particularly of the Holy Ghost; for His soul also is created and infused into the body by God 

self. Hence the bringing forth of the 
 humanity 
is traced to the 
influencing cause by which the 
static union of the humanity with the Son is effected; the 
together with the actio unitiva thus forms 

one undivided and all-embracing action of God: the pro-ducing of the entire Christ. In passive form the Nicene Creed declares: est de Spiritu Sancto, and the Apostles' Creed: conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto. 
FULL MEANING OF 
de Spiritu Sancto 
With regard to this complete action, the phrase in the Creed, de Spiritu Sancto, has a double meaning according to St. Thomas, who follows the example of many Fa-ther~.~~
The preposition de indicates the Holy Ghost not only as the principle of an effect created and produced by 
Him, but also as the 
 of the introduction of His 
own divine substance into the fruit, and thus into the womb of the Virgin, where this fruit comes into being. The personal action of the Holy Ghost in the actw unitiva con-sists precisely in this, that He Himself through the Son ushers the divine substance into the humanity which He 
St. Thomas, 
q.32, a.2; for the Fathers, see Bk VI, chaps. 1 ff. 

MARIOLOGY 
formed. This 
alone could do, because He is consub-stantial with the Son, and the substance of the latter is thus His also. 
The descent of the Holy Ghost announced by the angel should for that reason be understood in this fuller sense. The reference to it had to overcome Mary's fear of losing her virginity, and at the same time it was mentioned as the reason (propterea) why the fruit in her womb would be something most holy, the Son of God Himself. Yet by this operation the Holy Ghost does not stand in the relation-ship of father to Christ: (a) He appropriates the humanity to the person of the Son of God as a second nature, for this human nature is not taken from the substance of the Holy Ghost and hence is not similar to His nature; (b) He uses the divine substance in the person of the Logos for the composition of Christ, for He communicates it, not as something which arises from Himself, but as something which is the principle of its own being. 

OF "THE POWER OF THE 

There lies a further, deeper significance in the shadowing" of "the power of the Most High." Together with the descent of the Holy Ghost, "the power of the Most High overshadowed the Virgin, not only as the divine power communicated to the Holy Ghost by which 
He could and must form 
flesh of Christ and unite it with the Son, but also as the personal ''power of the Most High," from which the Holy Ghost Himself arises-the Son of the Most High Himself. As Son "the power of the Most High descended into Mary as into the true ark of the covenant, in order to dwell in her in a more perfect 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
way than this power had once dwelt in the cloud above the old ark of the covenant. For from Mary and in Mary, it formed its own body for itself. 
This thought was also present in the mind of 
Fathers when generally they indicated, not the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Godhead, but 
 second Person or the 

Son, represented according to His spiritual and 
na-
ture, Himself 
 "offspring"and "fruit"of the divine pro-duction, as the divine seed which is in Mary and from which Christ is born. Accordingly the "overshadowing" of "the power of the Most High means not only that in the production of Christ the influence of God on the forming of the body takes the place of the influence which belongs to the seed in natural propagation, but also that in the person of the Son the substance of God unites itself with the product of this action and forms the original nucleus of the being which proceeds from this production. 
From this point of view the Fathers distinguish with regard to Mary a double receiving in the conception of Christ, in view of the formal contents of the passive con-ception or assuming: on the one hand the receiving of the substance of the Logos, in which the humanity must be 
on the other hand the receiving of the divine in-fluence by which this humanity must be formed. They consider the first element as prior natura; for the sub-stance of the Logos not only exists before the humanity, but also forms the seed to which this humanity to be pro-duced should be joined, as well as the foundation on which it is to be placed. 
From this distinction there immediately follows a sig-nificant contradistinction between the substantial con-tents of the natural and of the supernatural conception. 
MARIOLOGY 
In the former the mother receives from the father merely a material and seedlike nucleus of the fruit. This nucleus contains that principle which makes the fruit a person, namely, the spiritual soul only intentionaliter, or also in a 
certain sense 
 so far as the soul must be infused 
by God in a natural way into the body to be formed through the natural power of the nucleus. On the other hand, in the supernatural conception of Christ, the mother receives the spiritual nucleus of the fruit which already exists as a person, indeed as a divine Person, and as such through His own spiritual power He forms and His own body in the mother. 
The object and end of the natural conception is thus only the person, while its immediate and substantial con-tents are simply a material seed. In the supernatural con-ception the reverse is the case, the divine Person being the substantial and indeed the entire contents, for to this Per-son nothing material belongs. The body formed is the only object of that conception as fruit and end. 
In connection with this the assuming and giving ac-tivity of the virginal mother in conceiving is immediately directed to the influence of the Holy Ghost or to her prod-uct, and also to the person of the Logos. She embraces the latter, as it were, with arms of heavenly love in order to lay Him in her womb, gives Him her flesh in order to clothe Him with it, and thus again receives her Son first in spirit and then in the flesh. 
This entire doctrine is precisely expressed by St. John Damascene: "After the Blessed Virgin had given her as-sent the Holy Ghost came upon her, cleansing her and giving her abundant strength to conceive and bring forth the godhead of the Word. Then, the truly abiding wisdom 

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
and power of the Most High, the Son of God who is substantial with the Father, overshadowed her in the form of divine seed, and formed for Himself from her spotless and most pure blood a body adorned with a rational and intellectual soul, the first fruit of our besprinkling-this, however, not by a procreation of seed, but, in accordance with the will of the Creator, by the Holy Ghost, so that the figure of the body was not achieved gradually by acces-sions, but was completed in one and the same the same Word of God being made the hypostasis and person of the flesh; whereas the Word is not united with flesh in a person who already exists. . . . Wherefore it is flesh at the same time as it is the flesh of the Word of God, as it is the flesh adorned with a rational and intellectual soul." 

The application of "the power of the Most High to the Son of God is common to many other Fathers of the  Church, from whom 
borrowed 
 Several Fathers even went so far as to understand by Sanctus in St. Luke not the third Person in the Divinity, but the 
 Although this is not theoreticallv false, the exegesis does not allow it. On the other hand, the ap-plication of "the power of the Most High to the Son is also exegetically permissible and most probable. It an-swers more perfectly to the depth and harmony of the text. The Holy Ghost in His descent thus appears as mediator of the action and the descent of that Person from whom He Himself proceeds; and the Person represented as "the 
St. John Damascene, De 
Bk. 
chap. 2; PG, XCIV, 
985 ff. 
Cf. Lequien, publisher of the works of St. John Damascene, in the afore-mentioned quotation, PG, XCIV, 985 ff. 
Cf. Coustant, ad opera S. 
1; PL, 
35-40. 
MARIOLOGY 
power of the Most 
prepares for Himself a body in 
and by the Holy Ghost. 
For good reasons the Fathers generally lay particular stress on the fact that the divine Person who assumed the flesh has, in this assumption, at the same time effected the formation of 
humanity, or the building of His 
tem-ple." They do this in order that 
Person may not pear as passive and dependent on the relation brought about by 
passive conception, but would in this very relation step forward in His divine majesty and power. For 
the purely voluntary 

or as the Fathers express themselves, but only the powerful 

sibi 

the carnal 
of the Logos from every shadow of humiliation to His being, or from an imperfection might be supposed in it. 
With these arguments the Fathers met the objections of the pagans and Nestorians against the possibility or pro-priety of the birth of the eternal Word from a woman. The 
concept of the Logos as semen in the forth of 

Christ most emphatically secures against that of Nestorius. For the Logos was hereby repre-sented, not merely as though He belonged to the composi-tion of Christ in an unimportant way, but simply as its nucleus and foundation. 
MUTUAL RELATION OF THE Actio 

THE Actio unitiva 
Not only do these two actions by which Christ comes into being proceed from one principle and lead to one end, but their union is also much closer in Christ's conception 
Cf. Coustant, op. 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
than in natural propagation and occurs in a manner slightly different from the natural forming of the body and the infusion of the soul into it. The relation of the produc-tive action to the uniting action is, in regard to their end and completion, common to both kinds of conception, as is also the dependence of 
 latter on the former in their realization. The differences are the following: 
In natural propagation the two actions, of prepara-tion and completion, can indeed be separated in time, and it probably was the opinion of the theologians of olden times that they really are. According to the common teaching of 
Fathers and theologians it is definitely es-tablished that in the case of Christ the production of the entire humanity and its union with the Logos both took place at the same moment. As to the time, 
 forming of the body does not precede the union with the soul, nor the union of both with the Logos. Hence the production of the entire humanity of Christ with all its elements, and the union of  same with the Logos, exactly coincide in time, just as in propagation of the first man or, as in natural propagation, the creative production of the soul and its infusion into the body. 

With regard to the completed humanity, the proof lies in this, that Christ would otherwise have been a human person before 
union. As to the body, the proof lies particularly in the fact that the conception was the con-ceiving of God from the very first moment. The striking equality and similarity are further found in the fact that the separation and forming of the substance of the body, carried out by 
Logos Himself, must, in view of His divine power and dignity, at the same time be attended by His most perfect possession of it. 
MARIOLOGY 
Compare with this the many texts from the Fathers in Petavius and Thomassinus; 
 in particular Sophronius in his "epistola synodica," approved by the Sixth The old translation of this classical text is very defective. For that reason we venture a new one: "The Word of God becomes man by accommodating Himself to a body not previously formed or to a soul not previously subsisting; but the moment they are brought into existence, the same Word of God and they unite. Hence simultaneously with their existence this body and soul unite physically with 

the Word. 
did not exist before their real union with 
the Word. Their existence runs concurrently with their physical union with the Word, so that the one does not precede the other, not even by a wink of the eye. It be-comes flesh at the same time that it becomes the flesh of the Word; it becomes flesh which is animated with a ra-tional soul at the same time that it becomes the Word's animated body, because it finds its existence in the Word and not in itself. Together with the conception of the Word, this body and this rational soul, whereby it be-
comes flesh animated with a rational soul, are 
 to 
consistency, 
 is, in one nature of animated flesh, and (together with this adduction to consistency) they are united with Him in a most real and indivisible hypostasis. They are produced by, constituted in, and form part of the 
same conceived Word."See also 

2) The temporal coincidence of the productive and uniting actions with regard to Christ's humanity bears an 
Petavius, op. 
Bk. IV, chap. 11; op. 
Bk. 
chap. 

11. 

Hardouin, 
1267; 
LXXXVII, 3161. 
De et 
chap. 3, no. 7; PL, LXV, 455. 

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
analogy to the temporal coincidence of both actions in the origin of the human soul; however, the organic relation-ship of both actions is reversed. For the creation of the soul ratione et natura precedes the infusion of it into the body in the same way as the first forming of the body precedes the assuming of the soul. With the infusion of the Logos into the humanity of Christ the uniting action ratione et precedes in a certain sense the produc-tive one; the uniting action is to the productive action as the infusion of the seed is to the forming and vivifying of the fruit, which through it has come into being or has been prepared. 
The infusion of the Logos clearly precedes the produc-tion of the entire humanity, so far as the latter comes into being through the union of body and soul or through the vivifying of the body by the soul. Both imperfect sub-stances are not united with the Logos for the first time through this union with one another. But in and with their origin-the body in its formation and the soul at its crea-tion-they are already united with the Logos; as they are united with the Word, SO are they united with one an-other. 
This alone is sufficient reason why it can and must be said with the Fathers that the conception of the 

the receiving of the Logos, who forms for Himself His own flesh and, to vivify it, creates for Himself His soul-ratione et natura precedes and forms the basis for the origin of Christ as man in the womb of the Virgin, and consequently also the conception of Christ as man. On the part of the mother the first and proximate element in the conception of the Logos is again 
receiving of the 

MARIOLOGY 
Logos, so far as He forms a 
for Himself in her womb 
and from it. To make the body live, the soul is thus infused into a 
which already belongs to the Logos. Perhaps we may go a step further 
 say: In relation to the productive action, so far as it is brought into con-nection, not with the vivifying of the flesh, but with the organic forming of it, the uniting action is in a sense ratione et natura first. These words should be under-stood as meaning that the influence which formed the flesh, not in and for any other person, but for and in the forming principle itself, also formed it as a flesh already taken hold of by this principle and appropriated to Him. 
 the forming of Christ's flesh, not less than the vivify-ing of it, appears as a result and effect of the Logos, who was already united with it; as in natural propagation the forming and vivifying of the flesh is the effect and result of the male seed which has been taken up in the womb of the mother or has already communicated with the flesh of the mother. At least in one sense the actio unitiva Verbi with regard to the virginal mother, and thus the conceptio Verbi, can be considered as preceding the formtio carnis true so far as it is considered the presentation and surrender of the Logos to foundation or bearer of the flesh which must be formed by Him, for Him, and in Him; and acceptance by the Logos of the flesh of the virgin to form it to His flesh. Here the conceptio Verbi in 

adformata appears as conditioned and effected through the conceptio Verbi 
carnem de and the first as a conceptio Verbi de Verbo. Most theologians teach the priority of the actio unitiva in the 
 sense, 
with regard to the producing of the 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
entire humanity. It is particularly used by Suarez to ex-plain the divine motherhood. It should also be under-stood as the prior inference, when Leo as 

says: 
Our nature is not so assumed that 
it was first created and then assumed, but that it was actio unitiva is clearly expressed by 

However, the second sense is also elucidated by both 
 Latin and 
 Greek Fathers. See especially Dama-scene and Fulgentius, and also Genaddius of Marseilles: "Hold most firmly that Christ's body, before being taken by the Word, was not conceived in the Virgin's womb without the godhead, but that the Word itself was con-ceived by the acceptance of His body and 
the body itself was conceived bv the Incarnation of the Word." 

J 
says: "God did not assume a human being already formed or conceived, or one that was at a certain age in life or that had already begun life in his mother's womb. But, before Mary conceived anything, and quite apart 
 the ordinary means or manner of forming any human being, God, willing to become man, entered the temple of the virginal womb, and, bestowing the gift of fecundity by virtue of His godhead, He assumed from her whom He willed as His mother a real body of our spe-cies.'' 

St. Leo I, 
35 ad 
Coens., chap. 3; PL, LIV, 807. 
St. Contra serm. 
chap. 8; PL, XLII, 688. 
Cf. supra, note 29. 
St. 
Damascene, op. 
and Fulgentius, 

Gennadius of Marseilles, Lib. 
This sentence is not found verbatim, but as far as the meaning is concerned, it is seen in the various editions of this work by Migne (PL, XLII, 1211 ff.; LVIII, 979 
LXXXIII, 1227 ff.), neither in the text of C. H. Turner, in Journal of Theological Studies, VII, 89-99. 
5 ad 
no. 3; PL, LXVII, 912. 
MARIOLOGY 
the Confessor and John Damascene express it still more clearly when they of the 
divini, or the conceptio Verbi, as prior not only with re-gard to the divine subsistency or deification, but also with regard to the physical reality of the flesh of Christ, and from 
priority precisely deduce the necessary simul-taneousness of both the physical reality and the divine subsistency of the flesh of Christ. says: "The Savior's humanity was made in and for Him according to one and the same hypostasis, and not produced, as we are, separately in and for itself. Hence, the Word had His own seed, while the divine subsistency and the physical existence began in Him at the same time." 
 John Dama-scene is more explicit: "The Word is made flesh, truly conceived of the Virgin by the assumption of her flesh. He appears, indeed, as God in His own flesh which He deified the moment He brought it into existence; so that the following three happened simultaneously: the as-sumption, existence, and deification of the flesh by the Word. Hence the Blessed Virgin is perceived as, and is, , the Mother of God, not only because of the conceived Word's own and originally divine nature but also because of the deification of the produced human nature, the conception and existence of which were wonderfully effected at the same time: that is, the conception of the Word and the existence of the flesh in the same con-ceived Word (in which case the deification of the flesh is ipso facto included) 

This profound idea of the conceptio 
as the foundation for the existence of the assumed flesh has 
St Ad PG, XCI, 61. StJohnDamascene, 
chap. 12; PG, 
1032. 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
mained rather unfamiliar to the Scholastics. At first sight it seems, indeed, to lead to the Thomistic doctrine, also applied to the explanation of Mary's motherhood. Ac-cording to that doctrine the humanity in the divine per-son received both its subsistence and its full existence in and through this one action, in so far as this means that the production of the humanity, or of its elements, re-ceives its completion only through the act~unitiua. Thereby is indicated essentially only a relation analogous to the one existing between the human body and the hu-man soul; the realization of the body by itself is not con-ditioned through its union with the soul and precedes nutura et ratione the full human subsistence and existence of the body. 
In fact, most theologians teach with St. Thomas that the actio productiva humanitatis, so far as it is brought in connection with the component parts of the humanity and effects their esse essentiale, logically precedes the 
 Thus this theory is significant to Mary's di-vine motherhood only when it is already applied to truly human motherhood in the natural sphere, 
the ma-ternal relation to the person of the child. On the other hand, the Fathers mentioned above speak of a conceptio Verbi or of an "assumption of the flesh," which underlies not only the divine subsistence and the divine existence of the flesh of Christ but also the realization of the flesh 
their theory simply on the idea of the substantial union of a formal with a material principle. They base it on the fact that the formal principle here is at the same time the one which forms 

 or prepares its substratum for itself. Thus the forming or preparation of the sub-stratum then presents itself as a formation within the principle which already dwells within it. 
Accordingly this process, as shown by the analogy with the material seed, to which the Fathers appeal, is similar to the natural organic forming of matter through an or-ganic principle of this matter; before it can be formed it must have been taken up in this principle, and the form-ing of it by itself is not only directed to the forming within the principle, but must be regarded beforehand as a forming which takes place in it. 

 uniting action combines with the eternal produc-tion of Christ and achieves with it an external birth of the Son of God and a production of Christ from God the Fa-ther. So also the productive action, in virtue of its close relationship to the uniting action, is linked with the eter-nal production, so that it can be taken together with the 
latter to form one total action directed to 
birth of the 
Son of God ad extra and the production of Christ from God; and as such it can and must particularly and ex-clusively be ascribed to God the Father. 
From this point of view one can understand by the "'power of the Most High," which descends in and with the Holy Ghost as through its vehicle, not only the very personal power of God or of the Son of God, but also the productive power of the eternal Father, who reveals Him-self in this Person and makes Him the personal power of 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
God. This productive power of the Father then over-shadows the bosom of the Virgin in order to combine His spiritual product with the flesh taken from her, and to form and vivify this very flesh. For the productive power of the Father is not only really identical with the power by 
God works ad extra, it is also 
 very power in which all other productive and communicative powers are pre-eminently included, as in the principle of the first, highest, and richest production and communication 
of God. Hence to the fruit 
 forth by it, it com-
municates all other powers of God, of whatever kind, in such a way that this latter itself becomes the personal power of God. 
Consequently this particular concept of the over-shadowing of the "power of the Most High underlies the view of the Fathers, that in the origin of Christ the Logos is the divine seed of which Christ was formed. For the idea of this divine seed comprises in itself the fact that it is the fruit of a divine production and precisely as such is deposited in the mother by the principle of this production in order to appropriate her flesh and, as ap-propriated to Him, to form and vivify it. 
Thus perceived, the conception in the Virgin is a con-ceiving or receiving of the Son of God through the re-ception of the power of His eternal Father, who produces Him. Accordingly the entire Christ does not appear simply as a common fruit of two productions which flow into His one person. These productions themseves also come to the foreground as organically united with each other in a manner analogous to the process of father and mother in the producing of natural offspring: the process 
MARIOLOGY 
of the mother presupposes that of the father and is so de-termined by it and so depends on it that it is completely at its service. 
Consequently this explains in the most simple and per-fect way why, in virtue of its origin, the fruit of the Virgin is truly the Son of the Most High. Therefore the arch-angel rightly announced, "the power of 
Most High shall overshadow thee." This also explains how the eter-nal Father gives His Son to the Virgin as her Son, by mak-
ing her His mother; and 
 how the Virgin gives 
her Son to the eternal Father as His Son, by giving birth to the latter by the Father and for Him. 
There certainly is an essential difference between the cooperation of the two principles of human production and the collaboration of the human with the divine. In the first case a perfect son is brought forth only through the cooperation of both principles. In Christ's production, however, the Son comes forth from the paternal principle alone as a perfect son and as such exists and lives in the Father Himself, while the human principle is likewise the sole productive one in its domain. 
Nevertheless, in complete accordance with the spirit of revelation and the language of the Church, the second production in its organic relation to the eternal one lends itself to consideration as a supplement, so far as the Son, produced from the Father and in Him, comes forth from the Father ad extra by being born of a mother in such a way that He has His own being and life apart from the Father. For, although the eternal production includes also a birth of the Son, so far as in its own manner it is perfect by itself, the production in time is still a birth in a narrower sense. Consequently the word nasci in the 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 

Apostles' Creed is used simply in connection with the temporal birth of the Son of God. 
Inasmuch as the temporal birth from the mother is un-der the influence of the eternal production and, therefore, the birth of the Son ad extra is also a work of the eternal Father, the temporal birth of the Son 
 God from the mother appears as an extension and completion ad extra of the eternal production of the Son, wrought and in-tended by the Father Himself. Through the mother He brings forth ad extra 
Son, whom He Himself has begotten; or, as 
 Apostle says, "God sent His Son, made of a woman." 

Conversely, however, the eternal origin and birth ap-pear even more 
as a supplement of the temporal production and birth from the mother. Precisely through the union of the personal product with 
 human nature this union makes the human being whom the temporal production has as end not merely a human being but Christ, the perfect image of the principle of the eternal production. 
Still another 
 exists between these two forms 
of collaboration of the two principles of production. In natural propagation the paternal principle is substantially connected with the fruit only through a material seed which proceeds from it. Hence it has lesser relations with the fruit and is merely a preparatory cause of its life, not the real effecting cause. In the supernatural production of Christ the paternal principle is connected with the  product of the maternal 
through a spiritual seed 
which remains in Himself. Thus it maintains closer rela-tions with the product but, in virtue of the divine vital 
Gal. 
MARIOLOGY 
and vivifying power communicated by Him to the spirit-ual seed, it is at the same time in the most proper and strict sense the principle of the divine life of fruit, and also of its human life. 
According to 	common definition, production is 	
regarded as 		a vivente 	namely, 	
	ab 	in illud. In other words, it 	

is a communication of life effected through the com-munication of the substance of him who produces. To that extent, therefore, the production of Christ as man may as truly be called a production from His divine Fa-ther as can the production of the natural man from a hu-man father. This fact is true not only with regard to the communication of the life to this certain per-son, but also in view of the communication of the created life to His human nature or to His flesh. This is the more evident since the natural spiritual life communicated to the humanity of Christ is a figure of the divine life, as also is the supernatural spiritual life communicated to His humanity immediately at its origin and in virtue of its substantial union with God and proportioned to the same. 
Although this does not constitute a and real re-semblance in nature with the producing person, it is an outcome and reflection of this resemblance bestowed by God on the person who subsists in this humanity. 

For a better understanding of the organic side of the production of Christ and the views expressed in the Sa-cred Scriptures and in the Fathers, special consideration should be given to the position in this production occu-
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
pied by the 
 of the organically formed flesh through the infusion of the spiritual soul. The key to this consideration is given by the Apostle, who connects the words of the psalm, "This day have I begotten thee," with the Resurrection of Christ from the dead and always ascribes the latter to the Father, acting through the Holy Ghost. 

By the production of Christ is hete understood the communication of life through the influence of the soul; more correctly, the communication of the glorious, di-vine life through infusion of the divine, glorified soul, which in the case of all other human beings also bears the name of rebirth. In view of the fact that He is Son of God in an entirely unique manner, this communication of life is, with Christ, called production in a very special sense, since it occurs in virtue of the substantial relation of the eternal Father to 
 flesh of Christ through the divine seed, which placed in His flesh the person of the Logos, or inasmuch as 
 production is communicated and borne through this relation with the eternal Father. It thus appears as a development and extension of the eter-nal inner communication of life, or as its external expres-sion and revelation. The Father communicates His life to His Son, who rests in His bosom, in order to make the Son, who exists in the assumed flesh, participate while in this flesh in the divine fullness of life of the Logos, or make this flesh itself participate in this life. 

In the very resuscitation of Christ, the complete super-natural fullness of life, which in virtue of the hypostatic union is due to His flesh and reveals power of this union, 
an extension of the eternal 

MARIOLOGY 
communication. Hence we understand why the Apostle could find it expressed in the production of Christ by God, or, again, could particularly consider it an outcome and termination of the eternal production. 
In a manner analogous to the reunion of Christ's soul with His body at the Resurrection, so at His conception was effected the creation of His soul and its union with the flesh formed by the Holy Ghost and assumed by the Logos. Through this union the flesh was originally vivi-
fied and formed to a living 
 act of vivifying 
is directly of itself a creating act of God, as was the natural origin and creation of the first man. It must also be con-sidered a communication of life through production, so far as it is essentially directed to the production of the living flesh of the Son of God and is brought about 

the substantial connection of the Son with the Father. In other words, it is an extension of the eternal communica-tion of life originally given to the Son in the bosom of the Father and now given to the same Son as He is formed according to the flesh in the bosom of the 
When the very act of vivifying Christ's flesh is con-nected with the "overshadowing" of "the power of the Most High as the productive power of the Father, we have the most beautiful and complete organism in the producing of Christ by the Blessed Trinity. On the other hand we obtain the richest representation of the relation-ship of Christ's eternal Father to His human mother. For, as the producing of the Logos Himself, so the completion of His humanity is ascribed likewise to the Father, par-ticularly the producing of His soul in union with the Logos, to vivify the body prepared by the Holy Ghost. Here God the Father, on the grounds of His power of 

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
production, appears as the principle of the personality and the spiritual life of the fruit produced in the mother in a much more sublime sense than the human father. 
Lastly, in the case of Christ the production and infusion of the human soul is considered from the viewpoint of an extension and revelation of the internal communication of life in God. Hence the soul of Christ, which is con-nected in its origin with the Logos and through Him with the Father as the source of divine life, participates also by origin and nature in this life. It thus enters into the body as both naturally and supernaturally living, 
as the natural and supernatural image of the eternal Father. 
From 
has been said it follows that in the words 
of the angel both expressions by which he indicates the divine influence upon the producing of Christ comprise the productive action as well as the uniting action, al-though the words differ according to their formal con-tents and complete each other, forming a marvelous, complete representation. However, the productive action has a direct and special reference to the origin of Christ from the mother, the uniting action to His origin from the Father. This distinction and mutual completion also appear from the expressions which correspond to that double in-dication of divine influence and which indicate the 
character of the fruit of Mary. That the fruit of Mary 
will be essentially a 
one corresponds to the descent 
of the Holy Ghost. For in this fruit the earthly matter taken from Mary must be united with the holy substance of the Logos through the influence of the Holy Ghost, and be-cause of this union must also be 
in itself. That this fruit "will be called the Son of God or "of the Most 
MARIOLOGY 
High"corresponds to the "overshadowing"of "the power of the Most High," inasmuch as this fruit is produced by the power of the Most High by which the Son of the Most High is brought forth from eternity. 
Thus these words significantly indicate that Christ, although as man and as Christ brought forth through the influence of the Holy Ghost, is for that reason not yet His Son. The action of God ad extra, which reveals itself as producing and sanctifying in the origin of Christ, does not bring about independently a divine 
of Christ. Rather this action can and must communicate merely an 
extension of the existing, eternal 
to the fruit of 
Mary. Her holy fruit becomes Son of the Most High as a result of the sanctification of this fruit and its personal completion by the personal product of the eternal pro-duction, which originally and in itself is the Son of God. 
From the whole doctrine about the supernatural origin of Christ it follows that 
 unique holiness of His being expressed in His very name may not be considered merely as a sanctification of 
 humanity already completed in nature through its union with the divine person, much less through the accidental sanctity given to it. It is found in the very composition and origin of the humanity. The constituent parts are already sanctified at their very production through the hypostatic union and, being sanc-tified precisely in this way, they are united to form the holy humanity. 

Moreover, even the material element from which the flesh of Christ was formed possesses, even before it re-ceives its form, a holiness such as is found nowhere else except in some degree in the forming of Eve from the 
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION 
bone of Adam; for that element belonged to the holiest being after Christ. 
A fortiori the supernatural production of Christ's flesh excludes its pollution by original sin. On the other hand, most superficial is the opinion advanced by 
who seeks to exclude all holiness as well as all unholiness from the corporis 
as from the earth 
which Adam was formed, because this matter for the bodv of Christ consisted only of the blood of the mother and according to his physiological theory, was never informed 
by the soul of 

In 3 S., d.3, q.2 
CHAPTER VI 
The Virginal Motherhood 

IN the eternal origin of the Father coincides with His production, and hence there is only one in 
Patris. On the other hand, in the 
production of Christ from the mother there is also a natioitas in utero, but in a natural way it forms only the foundation of the nativitm ex utero, which 
in short is 
birth. The supernatural influence on the birth of Christ, which the older form of the Creed expresses by the formula est ex Spiritu Sancto et 
Virgine, certainly has reference, in the first place, to the basis of the birth of Christ in His conception or 

 nativitas in utero. Accord-ing to the traditional explanation of the Church, this ac-tion must be connected with the birth ex uter~. The latter took place through the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost in such a manner that the bodily integrity of the mother was in no wise violated, and Mary retained her 
virginity in 
 forth as she did when she conceived. 
Usually this distinguishing feature of the birth of Christ is determined with reference merely to the privilege of the virginity 
had to be guaranteed for the mother 
Literature: St. Thomas, 
q.28, a.2; with it a Valentia and Petavius, theol., Bk. XIV, chaps. 
De Verbo 
15. 
102 
THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD 
and which consequently had to be kept as the natural supplement of her virginal conception. According to the Creed it must be considered a privilege which character-ized the very origin of Christ, and natural supplement 

of the supernatural action of the 
Ghost and of the 
'power of the Most High," which determined this origin, and of the eternal Father, who worked through both and in both. The eternal Father Himself formed and vivified Christ in the bosom of the Virgin and from Himself brought forth Christ. Thus He was directly instrumental in having Christ come forth from the bosom of the Vir-gin in a manner harmonizing 
 dignity and first origin. 
Hence it follows that the supernatural form of the ex-ternal origin of Christ consists in His appearance from the bosom of the mother. It corresponds with His eternal production as lumen de 
as a light poured forth into the world from the bosom of the Virgin; and his qual-ity of 
in the way God by His own power penetrates the limits of nature 
violating and also the forming of His body by the Holy Ghost, who made it corpus Verbi, in the way spirits penetrate bodies without resistance. In this sense the Fathers therefore call the birth of Christ, and likewise His conception, a miracu-lous and supernatural birth, a heavenly, divine, and spirit-ual birth. 
The first and most essential element in the supernatural birth of Christ lies in the fact that He appeared from bosom of His mother utero 

et obsignato, as He 
later appeared at His Resurrection ex 

which formed as it were 
second bodily 
birth. As a second element, naturally consequent upon 
MARIOLOGY 
the first, the birth of Christ was also effected without pain to the mother, just as it took place without the violation 
of the bodily integrity of the mother through 
 or 
virginalis. The third element lies in the fact that the birth involved for neither the mother nor the 
child the so-called 
nativitatis The last 
two points are a consequence of the first, but still find their special reasons in the dignity of the mother and in that of the child. 
On the other hand the supernatural character of the birth does not exclude the fact that it took place in a natu-ral way, inasmuch as the mother cooperated in this rali 
edendi prolem; or rather, that she herself carried out the editio prolis with supernatural assistance, just as 
the 
ex 
also took place in the natural 
way. 
That Mary kept her virginity even at Christ's birth is 

recent theologians do not 
It was formerly expressed in the Apostles' Creed and also in the prophecy of Isaias: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son"; it is prefigured by the "closed gate" of This is evident from the fact that Jovinianus' 

denial of this thesis was opposed by the Church with great firmness. The real reason for this denial was not in the vagueness of the Church's doctrine but, in spite of the great clearness of this doctrine, merely in the rationalist opposition to the miracle of the dogma. 
Thus Ambrose writes to Pope Siricius in the name of the Council of Milan: "In a false sense it is related that she conceived as a virgin but did not bring forth as a virgin. 
7:14; Ezech. 44: 
ff. 

THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD 
Could she, then, conceive as a virgin but not bring forth as a virgin, when conception always precedes birth? But if the doctrines of the priests are not believed, let us be-lieve the admonitions of the angels who say: 'because no 
word shall be impossible with God' (Luke 
let the Creed of the Apostles be believed, which the Church has always kept and guarded inviolately. . . . Isaias (7: 14) says that it is not only a virgin who will con-ceive, but also a virgin who will bring forth. Who is that gate of the sanctuary, that outward gate which looks to the east, which remains shut, and through which no man shall pass, except the God of Israel alone (Ezech. Is Mary not that gate through which the Redeemer en-tered into this world?" 
 And Augustine says: ". . . that we should believe in the only begotten Son of God the Father Almighty born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary . . . and so, if her integrity was violated by His birth, then surely He was not born of the Virgin, and it would be wrong for the 
Church to profess, as it now does, that He is born of the Virgin Mary, whereas the Church itself in imitating its mother, daily begets its mem-

of the Apostles' Creed as 
well as the Virgo pariet of the prophet can be understand only in 
as is customarily said. Otherwise the connection of the virginity 
the bringing forth has no longer any meaning. On this point Isaias is even more conclusive. For the prophet announces the conceiv-ing and bringing forth by the virgin as a great sign or miracle. In the original text he also uses the participial 
St. Ambrose, 42, nos. 
PL, XVI, 1125 ff. 
St. Augustine, chap. 34; PL, XL, 249. 
MARIOLOGY 
construction: Behold a virgin pregnant and giving birth. The first observation makes it superfluous to express our-self regarding the philological question whether the He-brew expression Haalma can mean only 
Hence we say with Oswald that the Sacred Scriptures leave 
 question "unsolved." Oswald ignored this scriptural text no less than he did the patristic explanation of the Apostles' Creed and the vigorous opposition of the early Church against Jovinianus. 
On the contrary, when St. Luke represents the offering of Jesus in the Temple as the fulfillment of the precept of regarding 
male opening the 
we must not take these words too strictly or argue that this law was strictly applicable to Jesus. Otherwise we would have to conclude from the preceding text, in which St. Luke states that "the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished," 

 that Mary did not virginally conceive. 
Besides the words of this text auoted bv St. Luke 
J 

the law, many of the Fathers also speak of the 
apertio 
at the birth of Christ. They thus wish to stress the reality of the birth and in particular the fact that Christ was the first-born. In this sense aperire vulvam stands in opposition to the 
 of the Sacred 
Scriptures, but never in order to indicate the 

 The Fathers who use this expression declare em-phatically, sometimes by the use of the word, sometimes in other places of their works, that in the ordinary sense the apertio 
cannot be said of Mary. Moreover, there are more witnesses for this last point 
cf. Exod. 

Luke 
cf. Lev. 
ff. is an exception; see De came 
chap. 23; PL, 

THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD 
than for many 
Note in particular in St. Leo I: "He is conceived of the Holy Ghost within the womb of the virgin mother who brought Him forth without viola-tion of her virginity, just as she conceived Him without violation of her virginity." The Council of Chalcedon, which accepted the letter of St. Leo, explained this in the 

as follows: How is she the Mother 
of God? Because of Him who bestowed virginity upon conception and who sealed her womb as is fitting 
In the third canon of the Council of the under Martin I, it was defined: If anyone does not profess that Mary is truly and appropriately the holy Mother of God, immaculate and ever a virgin, since the Word of God is conceived of the Holy Ghost without seed and is brought forth incorruptibly, while her virginity remained intact also after the birth, let him be 

Ratramnus later held as guaranty for the reality of the birth, a literal apertw vulvae; at least he seems to hold this view and was at that time thus understood by Paschasius 
Unlike others who, probably through misunderstanding, as he thought, accepted an 
ex 
per 
he wished merely to demonstrate that Christ's birth into the world, 
See a Valentia, op. 
and op. 
Leo I, Epist., 28 PL, 759. 

Scheeben does not art. ''Marie*' in 
de 
says that the Council of Chalcedon repeats merely for the virginity of Mary the general confirmation of the Creed: 
ex 
But the in partu is explicitly mentioned in the of St. Leo (PL, 
to which the Council assented unconditionally. 

Denzinger, Ench. 
no. 256. Cf. Paul 
"Cum quorum-
dam," Aug. 7, 1555; 
no. 993. 

De 
PL, 

De partu Virginis, PL, CXX, 
MARIOLOGY 
since it had happened with the natural cooperation of the mother, had also taken place in the natural way. This is obvious from the following. His opponents who accepted another form of the bringing into the world for the sole purpose of avoiding any violation of the womb of the mother were shown by him to be absurd by the remark that in every other way a violation of the bodily integrity must take place, if one wished to regard as a violation the 
giving birth in the natural 
Our doctrine encoun-
tered serious opponents only later in the case of heretics, namely, the Calvinists, against whom it was defended by Catholic theologians as a characteristic dogma. 
The way Christ was born is by its very nature a true and sublime miracle, and has always been considered so. To facilitate belief in it, it is compared to the natural pene-tration of light through bodies, and to analogous super-natural effects explicitly mentioned in Sacred Scriptures, such as the coming forth of the glorified Christ from the tomb or His passage through closed doors. Both compari-sons are united in the prefiguration of the burning bush which was not consumed by the fire. 
To explain the miracle in greater detail it was sometimes considered to have been effected through a momentary anticipation of the gift of subtlety proper to glorified bodies. But, according to St. 
 this gift does not 
of itself for the co-penetration with other bodies, and neither is it necessary. Such an anticipation should be accepted in Christ's condition of humility merely for urgent reasons. With St. Thomas we must here confine ourselves to ascribing the miracle directly to a special 
See 
Alexander, O.P., 
in Saec. IX, 
13, 
3. 
St Thomas, 
q.28, a.2, ad. 3. 
THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD 

effect of the power of God, which substantially dwelt in the body of Christ. 
Since the foundation and completion of the birth of Christ was effected under the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost, so also we must take for granted that the virginal mother came under the special influence of the 
Holy Ghost during the time of gestatio 
in utero. For 
she was active as His special instrument in the very care and development of the fruit formed by her. In the whole period of her maternal activity, which was originally started by the Holy Ghost, Mary was also continually guided and supported by Him. It is true that a special, definitely determined miraculous working of the Holy Ghost during this period is nowhere mentioned. In any case, all that belongs in the least to the dolores or sordes of natural motherhood was kept away through the influ-ence of the Holy Ghost, during the virginal as well as before it. 

CHAPTER VII 
Mary's Perpetual Virginity1 
NLIKE all other mothers, with whom motherhood is incompatible with virginity, the mother of the Redeemer remains a virgin consecrated to God in her very motherhood as well as in her whole life. Indeed, on account of the unique perfection of her virginity and of the unique sacredness of her person and whole being, which lays the foundation of her virginity and makes it 
"virgin"

"the Virgin." 
She had been so called already in the prophecy of Isaias regarding the mother of the 
 and again in the Apostles' Creed, where the virgin is placed with the Holy Ghost as one principle of the human birth of Christ. Both texts likewise define the objective and highest form of the sacredness of Mary's person and entire being, which is the basis of her virginity. As bearer of God and instrument of the Holy Ghost she is taken possession of by God in the most sublime sense of the word and, as a chosen "spirit-ual vessel" and spiritual bride of God united to Him by marriage, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve. 
The highest 
 of the quality of virginity, as 
it is contained in the Christian idea of "the Virgin," 
Literature: St. Thomas, 
q.28-29, and 
op. 

5-8; St. Peter Canisius, op. 
Petavius, op. 
De 1, 14; Trombelli, ac 
Part I, diss. 9 and 10. Especially for Mary's marriage: 

4 S., dist. 30; and St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure. 110 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
prises permanence. Otherwise Mary cannot be called 
virgin," much less "the Virgin." She is This perfection of virginity comprises three essential parts: (1) bodily integrity and purity (virginitas or carnis); (2) the virtue of virginity or the permanent virginal inclination ( 

 ) (3) the virginity of heart, 
freedom from all carnal motions and sensa-tions (virginitas seu animae). 
Mary's perpetual virginity was denied only by those heretics who denied also the divinity of Christ, such as the Ebionites, 
and rationalist Protestants, or by those who display a great wantonness in the domain of morals, such as Helvidius and Jovinianus. The Reformers opposed the perpetual virginity of spirit, at least so far as the vow is concerned, and partly also the 
in 
without denying the divinity of Christ. But they minimized the living efficacy of the divinity of Christ, even for His own humanity, and they wished to avoid in the vow of Mary the ideal of consecrated virginity. 

The absolute perfection of the bodily virginity of the mother of Jesus, with regard to that act through which she outwardly appeared as the mother of Christ, is usually thus defined: Mary was a virgin in the birth, before the birth, and after the birth. This order shows that, whereas with other mothers the violation of the bodily integrity is strikingly obvious in the birth, Mary's integrity was miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son and sup-poses and reflects the virginal conception of her Son. Fur-thermore it guarantees the perpetual continuation of her integrity to the exclusion of any other human conception. 
The absolute bodily virginity can also be determined with reference to the conception which made her the mother of Christ, namely, that her virginity was not vio-lated in, before, or after the conception of Christ. Thus it 
is shown that 
 basis of her motherhood is also the basis of her perpetual virginity, just as in the first case the external revelation of her motherhood comes to the fore as a sign and guaranty of her perpetual virginity. 
This 
 and perfect virginity of the body of Mary is de 
especially since the definition by the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council (can. 
and by the Coun-
cil under Martin I (can. 3 Mary's virginity as an attribute of the divine mother-hood, 

in the conception and at the birth of Christ, has been treated before. Thus we will consider here only her virginity after the birth of Christ, since in view of the clear indication of Sacred Scriptures, her virginity before the birth of Christ was never contested. 
In Holy Writ the constant and perpetual virginity is indicated merely by several details: 
by the mention of the vow of virginity; 
 again, by the fact that Mary is 
called the mother of Jesus, and that, for want of 
other sons, the dying Christ gave St. John to her as her adopted son and from among all His disciples chose this one who was a virgin. 
More definite is tradition, in which Mary is always called simply "virgin" or rather "the Virgin." Long ago Epiphanius 
 brought this point to bear against the dicomarianites. With due allowance for this fact and for 
nos. 214, 256. 
See pp. 115 
Epiphanius, 

the essential connection of Mary's perpetual 

with her dignity and position, the Fathers ever treat the denial of this truth with the greatest indignation. They call this denial 
 "God's robbery"; 
 et 
phemia, 

The intrinsic reason for the necessity of the perpetual virginity was of old based on the interpretation of the "closed gate" which Ezechiel saw and concerning which God said to the prophet: "This gate shall be shut. It not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." 

St. Thomas 
 sets forth the absurdity of the contrary supposition under a fourfold view, each view in connec-tion with one of the persons concerned. (1)Christ, the Son of Mary, who must be the only-begotten as well as the first-born; (2) the Holy Ghost, Mary's divine bride-groom, who must keep her as His exclusive temple; (3) Mary herself, who would have been guilty of the greatest ingratitude by forsaking her virginity; (4) Joseph, Mary's human bridegroom, who would have been guilty of the greatest temerity by violating the temple of the Holy Ghost. 
The exegetical difficulties brought forward by heretics are hardly worth discussing and have been sufficiently solved by St. Jerome.'' The heretics chiefly quote from Sacred Scripture three expressions which, according to them, indicate that Mary, after the birth of Christ, had 
Origen, in Luc. hom. 7; PG, XIII, 1818. 
St. Ambrose, De 
chap. 5; PL, XVI, 313. 7 St. Jerome, PL, XXIII, 195. 200. 
Ezech. 
St. Thomas, q.28, 
op. 
MARIOLOGY 
conjugal relations with Joseph and had sons by him. 1) The expression, "And he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born 
 The merely negative implication of "not till" obviously follows from the previ-ous statement, "and took unto him his wife."This implica-tion even more clearly appears from the preceding text, which is likewise quoted: "before they came together she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost," 
although coming together does not even necessarily answer to 

but rather to "taking unto him," 
keeping 
or taking home in the other text. 
The expression first-born son," 
which St. Luke uses in reference to 

This by itself excludes only former sons and does not at all indicate later ones, par-ticularly in biblical parlance, according to which the first-born (bekhor), precisely in that negative sense, was bearer of special rights and duties, and had to be con-secrated to God. 
3) The mention of several persons as Christ." According to the Hebrew language, this expres-sion does not require that these "brothers"should be con-sidered children of the same parents. It is also used in a wider sense for relatives in general; 
Gen. 
where Abraham calls Lot his brother. In fact, several of these 
brothers, such as James and 
 are indicated as 
sons of another Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus 
who particularly is men-

is regularly named in the 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
enumeration of the apostles as the son of another father, 

in St. John's Gospel 
(by mistake 
the Vulgate has Cleophas) and Alphaeus in the Synoptic. are one and the same person. Both names rest only on a pronunciation of the Hebrew word "Halphai." 
If, according to 
 was a brother of 
St. Joseph, there existed a double cousinship between Jesus and James. For the solution of this difficulty we are not at all obliged to accept, with some of the Fathers to-gether with the Apocrypha, that the "brothers" of Jesus were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This was 

The perpetual virginity of Mary not only consisted in bodily integrity, but was always understood as embracing also virginity of spirit, 
a steadfast will to keep her bodily integrity for the honor of God. The virginal dis-position after the conception of Christ is a necessary re-sult of this conception. The absence of it would have been a lack of spiritual perfection and a grievous sin. But 
this 
 did not oblige Mary before 

ception of Christ. Mary did not know her sublime calling, at least not explicitly and distinctly. 
On the other hand it must be supposed a priori that God prepared her for her vocation by the infusion of the 
Matt. 
Luke 
John 
St. Hegesippus, Euseb., 
XX, 248. 
St. 
in chap. 12; PL, 
84 
no. 19; PL, XXIII, 
Origen, who definitely champions the perpetual virginity of Mary (Hom.7 In Luc.; 
XIII, 1818; In Jo., Bk. I, no. 6, 
XIV, 
is rather inclined to accept children from a first marriage of Joseph (in Matt., Bk. X, no. 17; 
XIII, 8760). 
MARIOLOGY 
virginal inclination. But the Sacred Scriptures offer us also a positive standpoint for the fact that Mary really had this disposition in the most perfect manner. The an-swer to the angel: "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" 
 does not permit any other comprehen-sible meaning than this, that Mary had already bound herself by vow to keep her virginity. 
Here we may ask whether this vow had been condi-tional or unconditional, whether taken before or after her marriage; and, in the event that Mary took it before her marriage, how long it antedated that event. 
According to the idea of the Church, which presents Mary as the model of all virgins, the ideal perfection of the love for virginity must be presumed in her, namely, on the pound of her vocation as Mother of God, or rather, of 
consecration as bride of God solemnized by God Himself from the beginning. Having observed this fact, we must accept: (1) that this vow was simply perfect and therefore also unconditional, since there was no condi-tion attached to it which was derogatory to the moral decision of the will; (2) that, in any case, it had been taken as soon as the question arose in Mary's soul concern-ing her future state of life. 
The fact of the vow of chastity follows from Luke so clearly that the Protestant 
 of it have to 

take refuge in the most insipid and contradictory subter-fuge~.~~
Referring to this text, the early Fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine, have upheld the 
Luke 1 
St. Peter 	op. 	Bk. 	chap. 14. 	
Gregory of Nyssa, 	nativ. 	XLVI, 	St. 	
Augustine, De 	chap. 4; PL, XL, 338. 			

MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
The intrinsic possibility of the vow can be disputed only by those who either do not wish to accept virginity as a possible object of a vow, or who from a rationalist point of view completely overlook the fact that Mary has to be prepared for her sublime vocation under the guid-ance and enlightenment of the Holy Ghost. We know that even before the time of Christ the thought of freely chosen perpetual virginity was not strange to the Israelites, as the example of the Essenes shows; but we cannot prove or suppose that others before Mary had both made the reso-lution and taken the formal vow of virginity. 
For this reason some of the Fathers thought that in the Old Testament the entering into marriage and its con-summation were generally even commanded. This opin-ion, however, is based on a misunderstanding of texts whose true implication is a promise of 

the marriages of the Israelites, and also on the generaliz-ing of a text which is not found in the Vulgate: muledictus qui non fecerit semen in 
The latter does not mean an obligation to marriage in contrast with virginity, but to a certain marriage, namely, the It need only be conceded that in the morals of Israel-ites the higher appreciation of virginity does not generally find expression. In consideration of the divine decree that 
propagation of the people of God had a ence over the observance of virginity. 

2) The 
 of the vow. Partly because of this 
notion of the people of Israel, partly because of Mary's 
text, for which Scheeben refers to Deut. 25, is not found in the Hebrew or in the LXX. It must be a gloss which crept into some manuscripts. St. Thomas, 
4 Sent., d.30, q.2, art. 1, refers to Deut. 
subsequent marriage, some theologians 
 have taught that her vow was at first conditional, since she was not certain that the keeping of her virginity under all cir-cumstances would be most pleasing to God. For that reason she should have added to it the condition: so far 
as God's 
 is not otherwise. 
But even if such an uncertainty is accepted, the vow loses nothing of its moral perfection. The willingness to keep her virginity is not impaired by this condition. In fact, by the conditional vow the unconditional and com-plete surrender to God, which forms the soul of the vow, shines still more 

Moreover, we are not compelled to accept this uncer-tainty. A priori the contrary must rather be presumed. This uncertainty, therefore, need not be accepted be-cause only after entering into the engagement with Jo-seph could Mary be entirely certain that the steadfast observance of the vow was pleasing to God. Even before the betrothal she could have known this through divine revelation, just as she could have been certain; through such an inspiration, or even through a previous agree-ment with her bridegroom, that she did not expose her virginity to danger in this marriage, but rather would find a protection. Nothing refutes this presumption. On 
Cf. St. Thomas, In 4 S., d.30, q.2, a. 
qla. 1, and 
q.28, a.4, re-ferring to a remark of St. Augustine, which is quoted by Gratian (PL, CLXXXVII, 154) and Lombardus (Sent., lib. 4, dist. 
but which cannot be found in the writings of St. Augustine. 
 Scheeben here makes the following note: It is common knowledge that it is a favorite theme of Marian preachers to find expression in the question to the angel, "How shall this be done, etc.", that 
 would have pre-ferred her virginity even to the divine motherhood. St. Bernard 
4, 
super 
no. 3; PL, CLXXXIII, 80) understood the meaning of the 
quite differently; he emphasizes the complete surrendering to God which forms the soul of the vow of virginity. See Appendix 4. 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
the contrary it may well be presumed that Mary took the vow not only out of love for virginity in general, but also because of a clear knowledge that God had called her to take it. For otherwise this vow is usually taken with  the knowledge 
God will not merely it with 
complacency, but will also expect it of the person who takes it. This view must be accepted still more with re-
gard to Mary, who was predestined God from the be-

ginning to be His bride and 
Taking these into consideration, we may say that Mary's vow eminently bears the character and force of a "solemn vow." 
 It included both a subjective engagement, simply accepted by God, and an objective consecration, being taken possession of by God. It is a consecration which is not consequent upon the acceptance of the vow, but which rather precedes the vow as a dedi-cation that Mary, on her side, must accept through her vow. In other words, Mary was already a virgin conse-crated to God, one whom God united to Himself in mar-riage. But through her vow and her own will she also entered subjectively into the relationship of the bride of God, as Eve through her consent contracted her marriage with Adam which had been decreed by God. 
We may dispute the term "solemn vow." However, the matter speaks for itself. As the conception of Christ, which followed after Mary's vow, is rightly regarded as the 
For Mary's bridal relation to God, see also chap. 
Scheeben follows here the idea of solemn vows which St. Thomas gives in his Summa; they 

from the simple vows by a sort of or being taken possession of by God Himself 
 q.88, 
who makes them indissoluble 
a. 

For this doctrine and its relation to the present ecclesiastical judicial idea, see I. O.P., in the French translation of the Summa, La 
(Paris, 
 O.P., Bull. 
thorn., 
no. 296; Em. Bergh, S.J., et nature de la profession in Eph. th. Lou., XIV 

MARIOLOGY 
consecration of herself and her virginity, this consecra-tion may very well be taken as a 
3) For the time of the vow, we must assign it to the earliest possible period of her life. Other saints have taken it in their earliest days, 
St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi. Sexual, bodily, or spiritual maturity is not required. The feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple likewise points to this conclusion. The chief thought and meaning of the feast is Mary's complete consecration to God. 
4) As a special quality of Mary's vow, it is usually thought to have been the first ever taken. This opinion cannot positively and satisfactorily be proved. Yet it is very probable. For not only can no former vow be pointed out, but according to the concept and morals of the Israel-ites, who alone are here taken into consideration, such a vow is not to be presumed without reason." 

Finally, in accordance with the mind of the Church regarding the absolutely perfect virginity of Mary, we must accept that virginity of heart, 
freedom from all motions and sensations contrary to purity, is an essen-tial part of that perfect virginity. This virginity is in-cluded in the moral perfection and holiness of Mary's will. Hence this point comes under the general notion of free-dom from material sins or motions of sensual concupis-cence in general. 
Because of the union in her of these three elements of perfect virginity, Mary is called not merely "virgin," but even "Virgin of virgins," 
the ideal of virginity. For a double reason she deserves this name. First of all, with 
For further details on this point, see Suara and 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
her the love for virginity stood in direct relation to the excellent fullness of grace and love of God, through which she excels all saints. For this reason her virginity not only consists of actual integrity and immaculateness protected merely by human will, but at the same time must also be 

God bound Himself to prevent every violation and defile-ment of her purity and, 
particular, to make the interior 
violation of the virginity of Mary impossible. Mary's virginity had this characteristic, at least after 

ning, or at least was chosen and called as His bride. 

as a woman consecrated to God, the fact that, according to the Gospels, she was the wife of Joseph. On account of this fact her virginity 
 disputed. But, on the contrary, her virginity and particularly her quality of virgin consecrated to God could with equal reason make it appear that her marriage to Joseph was not a true marriage. 
 carefully, the marital character of this relationship is not only not in 
 to her 
quality of "the Virgin," but in miraculous 
 with 
it; and rightly so, since here a form of marriage is present which indeed is very peculiar, but 
far from being considered imperfect, must rather be regarded as most ideal. 
MARIOLOGY 
First of all, the expressions of Holy Writ in which Joseph is presented as the 
of Mary," and Mary as "the wife of Joseph," absolutely demand that the rela-tion of Mary to Joseph be in reality a true marriage, not merely a bond of friendship or protection or a simple betrothal. According to the literal sense of their words, some of the Fathers seem to deny this fact, and instead of a marriage appear to accept a mere engagement. It 
can easily be proved that 

clusion of an actual and sexually marriage, or of a marriage in the ordinary form, which in every re-spect is incompatible with the vow and sacred state of virginity. In fact, Holy Writ itself here avoids the term "'marriage" (nuptiae) to which the Fathers take excep-tion, and always uses the expression desponderi. How-ever, 
 word is not used in the wider sense of being engaged, but in the narrower sense of being married, for otherwise it could not answer to the idea of "wife of Joseph." 
The possibility of a real marriage is not excluded through Mary's virginity. For the virginity of the body merely removes the actual, bodily consummation of the marriage, which supposes the latter as already existing 
by 
The vow and virginity of mind annul, indeed, the 
intention to consummate or use marriage in a sexual way, but not, for that reason, the intention to give or obtain the 
in 
proprium. The latter intention can also exist in a lawful manner, when the will of the bridal couple is exclusively directed to the other blessings of marriage which are connected with their belonging to each other. 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
We can rather say that the state of virginity, like the vow, excludes also the possibility of the right of a legal pledging of the 
in corpus proprium and thus abolishes the nature of the tie proper to marriage. By state of virgin-ity in that case is meant the characteristic of Mary as a vir-gin, consecrated to God. In her this characteristic is not less perfect, but rather, particularly after the conception of Christ, is undoubtedly more perfect than that which is brought about through a solemn vow. From the point of view indicated, it is beyond dispute that the mutual right to the body of the other, understood as with ordinary marriages, that is, as 
utendi corpore alterius, is here no more conceivable as a radical right than as an actual and formal one. Thus in the relation of Mary to Joseph the marriage tie is not entirely of the same nature as in ordinary 

Even if we grant all this, a real marriage in contradis-tinction to every other union of two persons, still remains conceivable with Mary. This is so not only only in regard to the more general idea of the oneness of man and woman, brought about through the will and power of the Creator, with the mutual rights and duties of undivided and indis-soluble connection of life, but also with the more special idea of 
in corpus alterius. For this right is not simply excluded under every form. Not only may it be imagined as a right of disposal to beget the fruit, but also as a right of pleasure with regard to the copossession of the fruit, to be won by God. For a natural marriage the last men-tioned right is dependent on the first. Nothing, however, 
seems to be indicated by the Fathers, when they refuse to acknowledge any 
in the case of Mary. 
MARIOLOGY 
prevents God from granting the last right independent of the first in a marriage, contracted only for an entirely unique end and with His special authorization. 
A real marriage was necessary, under the form in which it was possible with Mary without damage to her vir-ginity. Indeed so necessary was it that the same end for which virginity was required in Mary, namely, the worthy realization, exercise, and revelation of her divine mother-hood, demanded at the same 
 the 
 state with the virginal mother. 
Hence the contracting of her marriage must be ascribed not less to a special command and inspiration of God than was her vow of virginity. Thus it is evident that God also ensured the virginity in that marriage in a more or less miraculous manner. 
Likewise it follows that Mary's authorization to con-tract such a marriage does not at all bear the same char-acter as in other cases, where a virgin, dedicated to God, receives permission for this end. This means that it does not bring to the virgin in any way a release from obliga-tions, nor a ceasing of rights on the side of God. It rather has the express end in view, to support the virgin in the fulfilling of her vocation and to protect the rights of God. For it grants to the human bridegroom only those rights which enable him to render the necessary services to the bride of God and to her divine fruit. 
Lastly, it is also clear that the close relationship be-tween Mary's marriage with her human bridegroom and her virginal motherhood must not be regarded merely as outward and accidental, but as an inner and organic one. Thus this marriage has a consecration and dignity higher than 
others, and also an exceptional perfection of 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
marriage, that is, in relation to the two most important 
bona mntrimonii; the bonum 
and the bonum 
As for the bonum prolis, this marriage was, not less than any other, intended by God who made it, and there-fore fundamentally and essentially to make possible a re-ceiving of the fruit. Over every other virginal marriage it possesses this privilege, that it shares with a consummated marriage without damage to its virginity the blessing of fruitfulness. For in this marriage a fruit had really to be given to the married couple and put under their charge. Although the fruit was not produced through the carnal use of the marriage by husband and wife, it still had to belong to both according to the decree of the divine Fa-ther, by virtue of the spiritual unity of husband and wife, just as the natural fruit of a marriage usually belongs to them. 
This marriage possesses still another privilege above every non-virginal marriage: the fruit of it is entirely and essentially holy; and at the same time husband and wife have cooperated in a higher manner by their common and virginal surrender to God to win the fruit than is the case through carnal relations with regard to a natural fruit. 
The bonum sacramenti directly defines in marriage the bond which, according to its nature, is elevated above all other unions among men. This consists in the fact that a person is so connected with or so bound to another by the will of God that they form one indissoluble whole, and in and through it, as an instrument belonging to God, are taken possession of by God Himself for the joint achieve-ment of a service. 
MARIOLOGY 
The perfection of this bond is thus the higher according as the service of God, to which the one person is united with the other, is holier; and the belonging to God, in vir-tue of which the one person elevates the other, is more sublime. Thus the relationship of Joseph to Mary incom-parably excels in both respects not only the natural mar-riage before and apart from Christianity, but also the other Christian marriages. It exceeds them in the same measure as the production and care of Christ is a higher design than that of mere human beings who must become members of Christ, and as Mary is an instrument belong-ing to God and a member of Christ in a manner more sublime than any other 
being who is ordained by baptism to be an instrument of God and member of Christ. 
It be said here, as with a marriage of two Chris-tians, that each party is 
by the other. The higher sanctity, previously mentioned, of the marriage tie of Joseph and Mary does not 
under it, for it is thus solely because Mary cannot receive her ordination as Mother of God through marriage with a human bride-groom: here the marriage had rather to derive its higher ordination from the highest ordination of the woman, in-dependent of the bridegroom. 
The often repeated expressions, decisive for the reality of the marriage of Mary and Jo-seph. The Vulgate translates 
sometimes by 

sometimes by 
 The expressions are clear and do 
not allow 
meaning. 
According to this, we must explain the other 

Matt. 
19 
Luke 
Matt. 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 

with which Mary is indicated 

after, as well as before, the "acceptation"by Joseph. This verb can, indeed, mean a mere engagement, but does not possess that meaning exclusively. It is used rather in the sense of being married. Hence the exact translation is not ''betrothed," but "married," 
bound by marriage. 
The given expression has, according to its nature, the tendency to show 'formally the marriage relationship ac-cording to its spiritual and ethical side, as ratum. It is also used in Scripture with regard to Mary in three texts in a restrictive sense for pure ratum, to indicate the exclusion of carnal relations, more correctly, to throw the right light upon Mary's conception and pregnancy as supernatural in contrast to her rela-tionship to Joseph. 
We cannot discover any reason why the marriage of Mary and Joseph had not already taken place before the conception of Christ, since, before as well as after, Mary is usually called 
 even on the occasion of the journey to Bethlehem. In that passage the Vulgate trans-lates it uxor. All who accept a real marriage with Mary regard it as lawfully solemnized by that time. 
Moreover, in  deliberation with the angel about the "taking him his wife," it is not excluded, but supposes that Mary was already "the wife of Joseph," thus united to him through marriage. Yet the "taking unto him,"which followed later, is the only positive indication from which it could be concluded that the marriage was solemnized after the conception of Christ. To explain the scriptural text, we need not even have recourse to the 

Matt. 

Luke 

fact that with the Jews there was not such a sharp line drawn between engagement and marriage as in Chris-tianity. 
As to the possibility of a real marriage, those theo-logians who stress the fact that the preceding vow of Mary was made conditionally, also hold that, with the con-tracting of her marriage, she had the conditional will to make the use of marriage possible if God so wished it. But this conditional will is not necessary for the validity of the marriage. 
The reasons why marriage was fitting for Mary are listed by St. 
 He mentions twelve reasons, ac-cording to these three categories: in relation to Christ, to Mary, and to us. As to the text of the Gospel, these reasons seem partly to require that the real marriage, and not the simple engagement, already existed at the time of the conception of Christ. They seem further to require, par-ticularly for the complete safeguarding of Mary's honor, that the external cohabitation of husband and wife should have also already begun before the conception. In any case no definite and intrinsic reason can be advanced for the opposite. 
We may regard as conclusive the reason by which this meaning is confirmed: the angel's admonition to Joseph "to take unto him Mary his wife"and the following men-tion that the command was obeyed. For this "taking unto him" stands in contrast to the previously mentioned "to put away." As this latter expression indicates a living to-gether as already in existence, the former can also be understood as the abandoning of the idea of sending 
St. Thomas, 
q.29,a. 
away, or the firm resolution to live together 

As for the perfection of this marriage, read the text of St. Thomas, where he explains how the proles is truly a bonum matrimonii 

Generally, even with ordinary marriages their relation-ship to the "fruit" is better and more ideally expressed through susceptw prolis per Deum (on 
of God) than through the joint procreation. Thus the child is marked as the fruit of the divine blessing, from which its soul originates, and the productive function of the par-ents is considered in its relation of service to the divine cooperation. From this point of view and for this reason the child in ordinary marriage is first given and appro-priated by God to the mother, and by the mother to the father, and this not only for the sake of the physical in-fluence of the father upon the production of the child, but at the same time by virtue of the father's corporeal proprietorship of the mother, or also in virtue of the unity of both. 

As from this point of view the perfection of the mar-riage between Mary and Joseph remained more easily safeguarded, the real form also of this marriage is an instructive example for the ideal view of marriage in general. 
From it, finally, there follows a deeper understanding of the paternity of St. Joseph. It is certainly more than a merely apparent paternity in the form of guardianship or 
For the opposite opinion, see Caietanus M.Perrella, "B.V.M.cum excepit nuntium, S. Joseph sponsalibus 
non vero erat" in 

(Piacenza), St. Thomas, In 4 Sent., 
30, q.2, a.2 ad 4. Cf. 

MARIOLOGY 
adoption. For it rests upon the perfection of the marriage of Joseph with the bodily mother of the 
It is not dogmatically established and can therefore not be so defined that Joseph, as well as Mary, had always been a virgin before and after the solemnizing of their marriage. It certainly may be presumed, partly from the sublime vocation of Joseph and the analogy with the vir-ginal disciple who was assigned a similar and close rela-tionship to Christ and Mary, partly from the fact that the virginal marriage of Joseph with Mary required from him also a vow of virginity. The latter then indicates a virginal inclination which ruled his whole life. 
many of the Fathers, the larger number Greek, but some also Latin, have not acknowledged the perpetual virginity of Joseph, since they ascribed to him sons of a former marriage, they did this chiefly because they thought this supposition could explain more easily "the brothers of Jesus." This opinion finds an actual mo-tive in the Apocrypha only. These, however, partly denied the marriage of Joseph with Mary, for which pre-cisely his virginity was required. According to them, he was merely appointed as protector of Mary. For the rest, Jerome already strongly defended the perpetual virginity of St. 

The best that can be theologically defined with more or less trustworthiness regarding the dignity, position, and qualities of St. Joseph, is found in 
 with whom the better ascetical writers of modern times agree. 
See Suarez, 
disp. 8, 
1. 
See references quoted under note 20. 
Op. 
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 
The blind zeal of some modem pious writers is deserving of serious disapproval, for they exaggerate both the like-ness of St. Joseph to Mary and the authority of his pa-ternity toward Jesus. In regard to the first, one writer has even envisioned an immaculate conception for St. Joseph, and this is at least implicitly supposed in certain pictures and representations, which unite the heart of St. Joseph with that of Jesus and Mary. Such pictures and images were therefore rightly condemned by the Holy Concerning the second point, the authority of Joseph toward Christ, an analogous explanation is fitting. 

Ind., February 19, 1879. 

CHAPTER VIII 
The Divine Motherhood 

AITH teaches that Christ, in particular the human Christ, truly and really brought forth from a human mother, is as much the son of a human mother as is every 
other human son. Notwithstanding the igin of His person, a true and realhuman 

to Christ. Because of the maternal principle which actually par-
ticipates in the production, this human 
 of Christ 
and also the motherhood corresponding to it must even be called natural, for, so far as the producing of the hu-man nature and its communication to the person of Christ through conception and birth are concerned, everything is positively accomplished from the mother's side, which she does in a natural way in the production of her child. 
With regard to the virginity of the maternal produc-tion and the pre-existence of the personal principle of 
Christ, His human 
from the natural ship of other human  essentially in this, that no fatherhood 
to it. 
forms exclu-
sively a relationship with a maternal principle. 
Literature: Peter Sent., 1.3, dist. 4, 5, 8; with it St. and St. Thomas; St. Thomas, 
q.35; with it a Valentia and Suarez; Petavius, 
1.5, c.14 ff.; Thomassinus, op. 
1.3, c.15; Ludov. Le Grand, De 
(reprinted in Migne, Curs. 

4, c.2, a.2. 
132 
THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
In Scripture, Christ is indeed pictured as son of the 
forefathers of Mary 
David), and these, therefore, 
as His forebears; but, with Christ, this 
es-
sentially from that of other human beings. With them it includes a continuation of the paternal influence, cul-minating in the origin of the son, who depends on it in 
his entire existence. The 
of Christ maintains re-
lations with the forefathers through His virginal mother only, and thus it imprints on the ancestral descent the character of a mere maternal relation. It brings Christ in relation to His forefathers to the extent only that the sub-stance of His body is taken from them. Through His su-pernatural conception in Mary, He is given to them in a higher sense than children brought forth in a natural manner: He is their son, conceived through their longing and their faith in the divine promises. 
The result of this circumstance-which is not the case 
with a natural sonship--is that the human 
Christ can be and is extended to the whole of mankind. For mankind forms, with the first ancestor of Christ (who is also ancestor of all) one whole from which the sub-stance of the body of Christ is taken. In Adam, Christ was also given to the whole of mankind as the longed-for, promised, and expected son, in the sense of the prophecy of Isaias: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us." In this manner Christ, precisely on account of His super-natural origin, is even pre-eminently the son of man, as 

Adam is 
 the father of mankind. 
According to the explicit dogma of the human 
of Christ, it is to be further defined and explained thus: that it simply must be ascribed not only to Christ, or to 

the man Christ, but to the Logos incarnate, 
the divine person of the Logos, as to its subject. Therefore, accord-ing to the dogma it can and must also be said truly and really: the divine Logos incarnate is the maternal prod-
uct of 
 conceived by her and born of her; conse-
quently He is her Son, 
she is His mother, as it is said of other mothers that they are the mothers of human sons. 
This truth lies immediately, through simple analysis and necessary deduction, in the other truth that Christ is 
 son of Mary. For, Christ is no other being than the cornpositurn of the Word incarnate, no other than the in-carnate and divine person of the Logos, or the man per-sonally constituted by the Logos. His production cannot, indeed, be that of the person of Christ, without it being the production of the divine person of the Logos in the flesh, or in 
 personal identity with the man personally constituted by the Logos. 

The production of Christ would not, then, be truly and really the production of the divine person of the Logos, were Christ not truly and substantially the same person as the divine person of the Logos; or again, had He come into being as a mere man to be later united, in whatever way, to the Logos, and had He not, vice versa, come into being through the incarnation of the Logos. 
In reality the Nestorians denied the human birth and 
of the Logos, precisely because they denied the 

identity of the person of Christ with the Logos. On the contrary, on the Catholic side man premised the human 
birth and the 
 of the divine Logos, just as the cor-
responding title in Mary of "Mother of God," as a 
THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 

sary and correct expression for the divinity of the man Christ. To express the sublime and exceptional nature of this motherhood, the term 
( 
) can also be formed. This word was purposely made  the Nestorians 
as a shibboleth of their heresy and is therefore rejected by holy Church as suspicious. The Church uses the term 
Theotokos 
"Mother of God," as a technical expression for  sublime and entirely personal nature of Mary's motherhood. The Latin Fathers and councils usu-ally render as Dei 
while the Greeks seldom use the analogous expression Indeed, the latter term does not give so clearly as Dei genitrix the maternal character of the production, and is therefore not as appropriate as the first one. 
The dogmatic definition of on the ground of the maternal production of the 
 from Mary, is found in the first canon of the Council of 

the sixth canon of the Fifth 
 and the 
third canon of the Council in the last two canons it is also explained that the name should be understood, not (abusive), but 
God, not merely according to the name and figuratively, as the Nestorians said. He did not later become God, but came into existence in His very origin as God. (2)Vice versa, the incarnate God is truly and really brought forth 
Really the first Anathematismus of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Cf. no. 113, with the note at that place. 
Second Council of ( 

), no. 218. 
Denzinger, no. 256. 

MARIOLOGY 
from Mary, not only according to the name and figura-tively, as the Nestorians said, 
through attributing to God the production of a human being normally united with God. 
Facundus Hermianensis says :"If God is truly man, and truly man not otherwise than by being born of the Virgin, why cannot God be said to be truly born of the Virgin? And if, strictly speaking, God became man, and became man not otherwise than by being born of the Virgin, why cannot He be said also strictly to be born of the Virgin?" Many Fathers connect otherwise the ueritas of the eratio and of the maternitas Dei with the maternal co-operation of Mary at the birth of Christ; the on the other hand, with the fact that Christ is really God. This, however, does not coincide with the trend of thought of the Fifth Council. 

In Sacred Scripture we do not find the expression 
Mother of God," not to mention the expression But apart from their entire doctrine concerning the be-ing and origin of Christ, they formally contain also all the elements included therein. (1)In the prophecy of Isaias and the declaration of the angel: that which is con-ceived and born of Mary, will be the "Emmanuel" ("God with us") and "Son of God." 
 (2) In the words of the Apostle: the Son of God was made and brought forth of 
(3) In the salutation of Elizabeth: Mary is 

greeted as "the Mother of the Lord." In tradition,'' long before the Council of Ephesus, 

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
mention was often made of a "second production, in time,"of the God-Logos by Mary. In the Apostles' Creed this is consequently connected with the Son of God as directly as with Christ. Even the expression was already in use long before. Julian the Apostate re-proached 
 Christians with not ceasing to call Mary "Mother of God"; 
 and Gregory had already pronounced anathema against the opponents.'' 

The people of Antioch, who in the beginning were friends of Nestorius, in their letter to Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus testified concerning the numerous examples in which this expression appears in the more ancient tradition: "A word which has often been used, written, and pronounced by many Fathers do not thou find hard to employ nor proceed to reject a word which expresses a pious and correct notion of the mind. For this word theotokos none of the Church doctors ever rejected. But those who have used it are found to be both numerous and truly renowned, and even those who did not use it never insinuated any error in those who did. For, if we do not accept 
is proposed by the meaning of the term, we proceed to fall into the most profound error; nay, we actually deny the inexplicable economy of the only-begotten Son of God. Indeed, if this word is taken away, or rather the notion of this term repudiated, it mediately follows that He is not God. We expose our-selves to no danger when we feel and speak those things which we know for certain that the most celebrated doctors of the Church of God have felt and thought." 
See St. Cyril of Alexandria, Contra PG, 901. 
St. Gregory 
101 ad 
no. 1: PG, 
See the texts referred to in Dogm. theol., c.14 and 15. 
St. John of 
1 ad PG, LXXVII, 1456. 
MARIOLOGY 
It is, therefore, entirely unwarranted that Cyril is intro-duced as the originator of the term It can be at-
tributed 
to absent-mindedness, that the otherwise 
excellent Ephraem of Antioch has even held that Leo claimed this expression as 

Against this doctrine the Nestorians raised the point 
that the 
 of a divine person by Mary neces-
sarily also includes the producing of the divine person by itself, or even of the divine nature out of Mary. As Cyril remarks, this objection is refuted by the fact that even the production of the natural man 
not include on the part of the mother the producing of all that forms the whole man, 
the spiritual soul. It might rather be said that the production of God out of Mary includes at least that the divine received existence first in quence of His production. For in this way man in general and the soul in particular comes into existence in the 
natural and human procreation; not, indeed, 

sole activity of the producing principles, but still only on account of these and in consequence of them. 
So far as here the issue would be a paternal produc-tion, this thought would certainly be more obvious, but the fact that 
human production precisely in its nature is a communication of the human nature, would, even in that case, point to this, that the divine person is the object of the production, not according to His divine being, but only according to the human nature which had to be 

to 
Here, however, the issue at hand is a 
maternal production, which essentially is directed merely to aid a person whose existence was determined from 
St. Ephraem of Antioch, PG, 2103-10 (the text to which Scheeben alludes is not found in it). Cf. art. "Marie" in 
cath., 
THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
elsewhere in the bringing about of his human existence. In our case the generatio Dei especially rests on the ceptio-susceptio Dei, which, according to the Apostle, de-pends upon a 
Filii 
There will be more about this subject in what follows. 
No one need fear that the honor of God and Christ will be infringed by the stressing of Mary's divine mother-hood. But great danger threatens the honor of Christ, where His mother is not gladly and loudly proclaimed Mother of God. As the Nestorians opposed 
 title be-cause they did not acknowledge Christ as true God, so Protestantism has slowly lost the full knowledge of the divinity of Christ because it refused to Mary the honor which is due to the Mother of God, supposedly for the sake of God and Christ. 
The dogmatic meaning of the idea of the divine moth-erhood of Mary is the greater, because, as the Fathers often elucidate, has, for the entire doctrine of the being of Christ, a meaning as well-balanced and conclu-sive as has for doctrine of the divine Logos and of the entire Trinity. presents the Logos as a person, distinct from the Father, yet identical with Him in being, and it thus contradicts Sabellianism and 
characterizes Him, whose mother is Mary, at the same time as true God and as true man, and indeed as a man consubstantial with other people. Hence it is 

directed against Eutychianism and 

well as against 
As the human 
of the Logos or of God is 
Gal. 
See St. John Damascene, De 
Bk. 3, chap. 12; 
XCN, 

32; and Thomassinus, op. 

MARIOLOGY 
mally based upon the supernatural realization of the pro-duction of Christ by Mary, notably on the reception of the Logos or of God in the 
of Mary, it is not al-lowable to extend it without reason to the ancestry of Mary. One cannot, for instance, say that the Logos is the grandson of Anna or of David or, vice versa, that Anna is the grandmother and David the ancestor of God. At the very least one should have to add "according to the flesh," 
 which is not necessary with Mary. But even at that, these expressions are not at all becoming. They seem to lower the divine person to a common link in the chain of posterity to a human ancestor, while the virginal moth-erhood raises Mary herself above the rank of common mothers. The Church has never made use of such expres-sions. It is true that some Greek Fathers call David 

but this should rather be excused than imitated. 

To clear away all difficulties and to exclude at the same time and often noticeable diminishing of the idea of the 
human 
 of God and of the divine motherhood of 
Mary, one must enter further into the being and the con-
dition of the 
 and this motherhood. This can be 
fruitfully done only if first we fully elucidate the idea of the natural and human motherhood. 
Repeating our former remarks,'' we elucidate the fol-lowing for the present purpose. Before everything else, we must remark that the theologians as a rule speak, not 
Rom. 
Cf. 
Thesaurus e quaecumque phrases, 

2 
Amsterdam, 1682; sub 
See supra, pp. 38 ff. 

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
only of the term of the relation of the motherhood, but also of the term of the producing activity which underlies the relation. For they indicate what is produced, not as a or object of the production, but as its terminus. 

This manner of speaking, first of all, offers the advan-tage that it places the activity underlying motherhood in a closer and more formal relation to the latter. At the same time the misunderstanding is avoided from the start, that "'what is brought forth would only be this and only so far as it comes about through the production alone or is its effect. The "term"of production means only that the producing activity maintains relation with what is called 
term": either it produces this 
 term" or merely coop-erates in its production: it either gives it an existence or communicates that "term" to a subject. 
Motherhood, like paternity, refers in the strict sense of the word not to any given being, but to a personal be-ing, who owes his existence to the producing activity of the mother. It 
essentially from paternity inasmuch as the producing activity underlying it bears the char-acter only of a subordinate cooperation, and indeed of a material one. It consists in the offering of the matter which must be formed into a personal being, or in such a being. Connected with it is the fact that motherhood has essential reference to a "compound personal being as the terminus 
It refers to a spiritual being only so far as the latter constitutes the formal principle within a material being, or is possessor of a material nature. 
The conditions of motherhood are realized in the nat-ural order with the maternal production in human nature. But here precisely it offers a double point of view from which motherhood, and the maternal process too, can be 
MARIOLOGY 
considered in contrast with man. It answers to the double 
understanding of the personal 
 or the personal 

as res and as persona. 
With man, motherhood can 
of all be considered from the point of view which man has in common with all other living products of nature, that is, as a relation of the maternal principle to its "fruit," 
to a material and living being which is formed of the mother, since it comes of her and proceeds from her. From this point of view the man produced constitutes the term of the rela-tion of the motherhood so far as he is an animal 

a natural being, completed through a spiritual prin-ciple. Thus he is also the term of the maternal process, so far as the latter materially cooperates in the bringing about of this natural being. 
By this is not meant that anything which can be con-sidered in one way or another as "fruit," and in this sense as "something produced," is also brought forth, so that it should be the "term" of the motherhood. To this it is especially necessary that the fruit produced be an in-dependent and living being. This condition is lacking in the fruits of a plant so long as they remain connected with the mother plant, and also in all parts of an organism pro-duced from that organism. It is also lacking in that fruit which is brought forth only as a part, or as a form of be-ing, of a being which is separated from the maternal prin-ciple, 
in a human body. Theologians call the independent being which pro-ceeds from the production, terminus completus 
the part, or the form of being, of this being which is brought about through the material cooperation of the 
mother, terminus 
 or terminus 

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
erationis. St. 
 on the other hand, called the independent being proceeding from the production, 
generationis, because this is the subject or bearer of the form of being, communicated through the produc-tion. He called the form of being itself simply terminus generationis. 
Consequently that fruit only is "brought forth," in the sense of correlativum of the motherhood, which can be called "child," in Latin approximately but not entirely 
identical with 
genitus. 
Just as for this reason the fruit, not in the merely vege-table kingdom, but first in the anmial kingdom, becomes in one way or another 
 of motherhood, it is this, in this respect, first entirely in the human domain: here alone motherhood constitutes a relation between two personal beings. 
The idea of "fruit" in general and of "child in particu-lar does not require that with a human being the prin-ciple of life and subsistence in the product be brought over by the mother. Nor is it thereby brought to the fore-ground or formally supposed that the principle of life and subsistence in the product has a proper and spiritual subsistence of its own, in virtue of which the terminus 
of the production passes into this principle and 

is appropriated to it in such a way that it comes under the latter's rule. This principle rather appears here as a mere completion or completing form in the compositum of the fruit or of the child. In a word, when that which is produced with human beings is considered from the view-point of "fruit"and "child," which it has in common with other natural beings, the proper relations between form 
St. Thomas, 
q.35, a. 

and matter are, with man, in that case not expressed as such. 
When the proper relation of man toward other natural beings is taken into account, motherhood as well as ma-ternal production may be considered in man under a proper point of view, since, directly and formally, both refer to man as a person, or with regard to his personality. Formally considered as a person and according to his personal function, man is 
habens carnem per 
From this viewpoint he is to the mother not as her fruit, but as something which is given her by God, which she clothes with her flesh, or to which she communicates and appropriates her flesh, and with which she herself is connected through this communication. Hence the producing activity of the mother is to him not simply a cooperation in the bringing about of a being, but a cooperation in the material forming and the bringing into the world of a spiritual being that has proceeded from God. 
Precisely where motherhood is taken as a perfect and proper motherhood, or as a personal relation between persons, the producing activity of the mother, on which it is based, does not appear as the production of the per-son, but, under the form of 

formally supposes, on the part of the mother, the higher origin of the person. Thus 
"producing" is nothing but the "bringing something to the outside,"something which is given to the mother and is received in her. Particularly fitting are the expressions 
 edere, as used by the Fathers in relation to the Logos, while as pro-and our "to produce,"has exclusively the meaning 
of achieving. 
THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
"The son" or "the produced 
differs from "child" in this, that the first indicates "what is produced as alto-gether equal to the father and hence as "personal"in gen-
eral, and also as "entirely" 
 not destined by 
nature to be subordinate to any other person. Thus it is the purely complete or ideal term of the motherhood. Consequently this expression entirely represents the 
of the motherhood or the subjecturn genera-
from the viewpoint here considered. For it repre-sents this subject as one not only that is independent, but that is independent "as person,"and rightly so, in contrast to the producing activity of the mother, formally as a subject which appropriates and takes possession of the formal contents of this activity. Thus the contrast be-
tween the 
 and the terminus 
genera-
is much more sharply accentuated than from the first viewpoint. 
This second consideration, under which the term of motherhood and of maternal production can be consid-ered in human beings, is usually not elucidated expressly by the theologians, neither is it by St. Thomas. By the latter, and also by many other theologians, it is casually expressed in connection with the motherhood of Mary. Indeed, with the natural man the second viewpoint does not find a completely pure and perfect expression. It is thoroughly mingled with the first one and changed by it. For as part of nature, the personal principle in that which is produced is here of itself not a complete person. Further, it simply does not exist before the producing activity of the mother and it is not the 
concepturn which underlies this entire activity, but it first comes into existence as part of the fruit. 
MARIOLOGY 
This indeed is the reason why we can say that with man the mother receives and brings into the world a human person, but not that she conceives and produces a human spirit, although the person as person, or the proper "I," lies in the spirit of man. But in order to main-tain and to explain fully that the human mother is really and truly, formally and directly, the mother of the per-son with whom she is connected through her production, this second viewpoint must be brought forward with the natural man. And the more because otherwise the most important element in the divine motherhood of Mary would be without a natural analogon. 
Indeed, with regard to the supernatural motherhood, the first point of view is not excluded either. For Christ is not the "Son" of Mary in such a way that He is not at the same time her "fruit."He could not even be the former if He were not the latter. Both viewpoints stand here in a reverse relation to that of other people. The relation of the son exists here wholly pure and perfect through the pure union of person, of the "flesh"with the "spirit."The relation of the fruit is so altered by it that the principle which constitutes the person is not included in the living flesh as a direct principle of life, but only completes it through a higher and holy existence. 
The application of this distinction to Christ is antici-pated in Sacred Scripture, where Isaias indicates Christ as fruit of the earth and bud of the Lord, and says of Him: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us." 

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 

Observing these remarks, we may consider the mother-hood of Mary in the relation to Christ or to the incarnate Word in a two-fold manner: according as we regard Him as the fruit of Mary's womb, or as her child, and in a strictly personal 
as her Son. 
Under 
 first aspect, Christ must be regarded as 
 in the sense of the Greek Fathers, and as such He is indeed represented in 
expression of the angel: 
Holy, which shall be born of 
 Under the second aspect, He must be considered as of the Greek Fathers, and as 

 He appears in the expression of the prophecy which characterizes the son of the Virgin as 

A closer inspection of both these viewpoints will not only show in general that the motherhood of Mary, like her maternal activity, has really and truly its term in a man who is truly and really God. Sometimes also it will exclude the more or less clearly expressed thought that, strictly speaking, it should be said: Mary is the mother of a man who is God at the same time; as if her maternal activity, immediately and directly, formally and of it-self, were directed only to the human part in Christ and only mediately and indirectly, materially and per acci-dens, to the divine part. 
However enchanting this thought may appear, it de-tracts too much from the motherhood of Mary. For this latter would 
with regard to its term, not intrin-sically and essentially, but merely externally and acci-
Isa. 

MARIOLOGY 
dentally, from the common, human motherhood. On the contrary, it will become clear that Mary's motherhood has directly and formally as term the God-man as such; precisely with the strictly personal concept of this rela-tion, this term must simply be called "God," as occurs 

in the name 
From the first point of view, where Christ is consid-ered "fruit" and "child of the mother, He is considered first and foremost in the capacity of a human being. But this human being is fully the "fruit"of the production and really "child,"only inasmuch as He is an independent be-ing. Since the principle of His existence is divine, He is only as divinely existing the real "child of His mother. 
is really and truly the mother of a "divine"

child, a child subsisting in a divine person; or as the angel, with regard to the holy character of the divine 
personality, calls it, a 
child,"a "holy fruit," not less 
than a natural mother is mother of a spiritual living child. 
Consequently Mary's maternal activity is directed to the production of a really holy fruit, at least as distinctly and formally as that of ordinary mothers is to the produc-tion of a mere human one. The tendency of this activity is a merely cooperative one and as such it is directed ac-cording to the striving of the principal agent, under whose influence the cooperating agent works. Under the super-natural 
of God, the maternal activity of Mary was as distinctly and formally directed to the union of the flesh given by her with the divine Logos (principle of His hypostatic completion), as the cooperation of another mother is, under the influence of a man, directed to the 
THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
union of the flesh with a spiritual soul. But, unlike the case in a natural production, here the union of the flesh with its subsistence was immediately brought about by the same influence which gives the motherly activity its di-rection. Thus the union of the flesh, taken of Mary, with the Logos 
natume even precedes the union with the spiritual soul which vivifies it. 
It is entirely wrong, therefore, to represent with the Scotists and Vasquez the maternal cooperation of Mary as if by itself it were directed merely to the bringing about of the human nature of Christ, or of a mere human be-ing, to be later the God-man, who came about through the union of this human nature with the divine person. This could be true only had Mary conceived, not from the Holy Ghost, but from a human father; or when "the conception by the Holy Ghost"did not include the divine person of the Logos as first and proper contents of the conception. 
On the other hand, according to the teaching of the 
 the foundation of Mary's maternal activity with the coming into being of Christ, was the conception of the Logos as a semen divinum. It is thus from the be-ginning intrinsically and essentially directed not to the production of a mere human being, that rather for this very reason it is directed to the coming into existence of a man, because it is directed to the God-man. 
As Mary's maternal activity aims directly at produc-ing as fruit a divinely subsisting human being, it is also directed to bring forth such a fruit, which by itself is a divine person through her participation in the subsistence 
See supra, pp. 84 ff. 
of a divine person. The aim, then, is as truly the 
God of the human being as it has his "being man" as re-sults. 
From the second point of view, where Christ is con-sidered as a son, given by God to His mother, this son first and foremost appears as the God-Logos who is the eternal God and the only Son of God; and precisely as such He became directly and formally the term of the Mary's maternal activity, not less, but rather more than a mere human son. 
For the eternal God-Logos appears here precisely as contents and object of the conception from the mother's side inasmuch as He assumes His flesh of her and in her; and indeed so as first and most direct contents of the con-ception. Likewise He comes by Himself to the fore as the direct 
of the mother's activity of producing and bringing forth, so far as this is entirely directed to clothe Him and Him alone with the flesh, or to develop and to form fully the flesh belonging to Him. or still further to form Him in that flesh as in His own flesh. 
Consequently the relation of the divine motherhood refers here directly and formally to the divine person of the Logos, so far as He is the very bearer of the flesh taken of the mother. This is true still more, since in Christ the divine person is the only and adequate principle of His subsistence, and as bearer of the human nature He loses nothing of His complete independence, but rather in it He shows His complete and highest independence. 
Therefore as the person of Christ, formally considered, is purely divine and not human, not even divine and hu-man, neither can the motherhood in His regard be called 
THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 
a divine and human one, which indeed is never heard of. It must be clearly marked as a divine motherhood. Likewise it is 
 a mere rhetorical figure; rather is it a more or less audacious figure of speech, when Mary is called "Mother of the Word." For that very reason rather the real term of the motherhood is elucidated, and this very motherhood is characterized as a spiritual relation to a person, of itself divine. 
In connection with the latter point a modern theologian remarks: "As the mother of Christ has not formally and directly 
 a part in the eternal and spiritual origin of the Logos, and the name 'Mother of the Logos' might seem to insinuate such a thing, we had better refrain from its use, since it is little or seldom used in prayer Church. Yet, in the sense of does not deserve disapproval. That it some cases without too much objection, is shown by the 
of St. Bernard." 
 The objection, raised here, is already solved. It should, moreover, be remembered that the expression 

 repeatedly used for the term of the motherhood of Mary by the Fathers and in the councils. The same objection should be raised as well against the expression 
Dei or 
 Dei. 
The Fathers even note the direct relation of the moth-erhood and maternal activity to the divine person as a divine person to the extent that they sometimes put "the godhead of the Logos" instead of "divine person." They 
Scheeben remarks here: "nor materially and indirectly." 
Verbi, verba mea despicere." The was certainly not composed by St. Bernard. It is nowhere found before the end of the fifteenth century, and then first as part of a longer prayer: "Ad 
pedes, Virgo Maria" (Bricout, 
prat. des 4, 887 ff.). 

do not indeed do so in an abstract and strictly reduplica-tive sense, since they distinguish the divinity as nature 
from the Logos as person, but in a concrete and 

tive sense in which the "divinity of the Word means the 
very Word as divine person." 
The specific, maternal character of the producing ac-tivity of Mary in her relation to the person of the Son need only be borne in mind, in order to find this expres-sion explicable. Nowadays, or in general apart from the particular question as it was put by the Nestorians, it is better avoided, as also is the expression, that there is in Christ 
natura divina Verbi incarnata. 
Against Nestorianism the expression, "the natura 
Verbi itself is born of Mary as incarnuta," must mean: not only the human being who bears the Logos in himself, but the very Logos in His divine being in which He has been truly clothed with the flesh, forms the term of the maternal production. In the famous text of the deacon Ferrandus against the objection that two sub-stances could not have been generated from a single substance, we read: "He speaks truly who understands generated separately. But in that great and wondrous sacrament which was manifested in the flesh, the divine substance united to the human substance was strictly born, because it was not separately born. The pure divin-ity was strictly born of the Father, the same incarnate divinity was strictly born of the mother." 

In the natural motherhood the viewpoint of the "fruit" is of itself predominant. One must, however, not be tempted to place it with Christ also in the foreground, not to considering it as a unique measure. The 
17; PL,LXVII, 906. 

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 

concept of the being of Christ as "incarnate Word for-bids this. He is in the first place a divine person who pos-sesses humanity as united with Himself, and only in the second place a human being who possesses divinity. 
Thus Mary, too, is for this reason alone mother of a fruit which is not merely a human being, but at the same time God and Son of God, because the semen divinum which she has conceived and from which this fruit pro-ceeds, is a divine person who assumes her flesh. 
CHAPTER IX 
The Bridal Motherhood 

HE explanation we have given about the divine term of Mary's motherhood and her maternal activity which conditions and determines it, enables us to under-stand more easily and completely the relation which here exists between the 
and the mother: that is, from the viewpoint of its specific form and meaning to the sub-ject, both on the part of the 
and that of the mother. 

If we consider the relation on the part of the 
its meaning to the subject depends on the way this subject is modified. With regard to this, there are two views among the theologians. 
The first sees in Christ the subject of the human ship inasmuch as He is this particular human being. 
that He forms the subject of the 
 not only through 
His humanity, but also in and with His humanity. In this case the latter is a real relation in Christ as much as His 
divine 
toward God the Father, for it immediately 
and formally rests upon His origin from Mary and in-cludes a certain inner dependence on the subject, or the 

154 

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 

fact that His being is conditioned through the term of the relation. 
This view considers the relation of Christ to His mother under the aspect previously explained, namely, that of "fruit" or "child," or of a "perfect personal fruit," which is also called "son." But it is deficient in this, that it takes merely and simply this relation into consideration as 
and regards it as the real relation of the 

On the other hand, the second view considers the strict 
concept of the 
 According to this concept the son 
has formally as "person,"and indeed as a person equal to the father, relation to the mother so far as he is bearer of a nature communicated to him by her; more especially in our case so far as the Son, the equal of God the Father, is bearer of a nature with which the mother has clothed Him and which He Himself has assumed of her; in other words, so far as the Son of God, by taking possession of a nature which materially comes of the mother, is born in this nature of the mother. 
According to this view the person of the Logos (with due allowance for the humanity appropriated to Him, but not in and with it, that is, as forming a whole with it) is 
by Himself the real subject of the 
 as He is by 
Himself, as existing in the constitution of man, the subject of the assumption and possession of the humanity. 
So can the 
 in its subject be no longer a real rela-
tion: for the subject can no longer stand in any depend-ence on the mother. In the Logos it is rather only a 
which, however, has a foundation in the real pos-session of the humanity on the part of the Logos, and in the real origin of the humanity of Mary. 
Still further: as the other relations of God to the 
MARIOLOGY 
it is so much a 
that a real relation of 
dependence of the creature toward God conforms to it. For Mary comes in relation to the Logos as to her Son through the fact that she was assumed by Him and made His mother, and that for this very reason she as mother is influenced by Him and united with Him, and not He Him-self by and with her as her Son. 
This latter idea of the human 
of Christ is in 
itself not only well founded, but also the only one which 
completely represents the 
as the specific 
of the motherhood of Mary. Further, it alone clearly elucidates the specific char-
acter which distinguishes the human 
 of Christ 
from that of other sons of man. It formally represents it as a 
dignutiva, 
as a benevolent condescension of the Son of God to His human mother and as an eleva-tion, full of grace, of the mother to the connection with the Son of God. 
Lastly, it alone completely elucidates the relation be-
tween the human and the divine 
in Christ Him-
self. Since it shows the same divine person as immediate 
subject, it distinguishes both 
 with equal clarity 
as it harmoniously unites them. It distinguishes both in the clearest manner, because it represents merely one the divine, as fixed and at the same time as a 

real relation, one that is purely innate to the subject and is based on its origin; the other forms only a 
ra-
In virtue of this distinction it unites one 

with the other in such a way that, in regard to the second 

we are unable from the start to think of a second 
person or even of an innate supplement of the first. 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
Hence the princes of real Scholasticism, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, strongly asserted this concept of the human 
 of Christ in the development of the thesis that there are indeed two real nativitates, passive 

or births in Christ, but for 
same reason 
not two real 

Other great theologians of the thirteenth century seem to have shared the same opinion. 
was first 
by and apart from his school by many others who, like Suarez, joined him later. 
tried to reconcile them. 
From what follows it is evident that the opinion of these theologians was inadequate and incorrect. In con-nection with their theory they devised for the man Christ and thus for the Son of Mary as 
apart from the eter-
nal 
of God which materially belongs to Him, still 
a second and divine 
 more or less analogous to 
the supernatural and divine 
 of other men and 
sons of men. The first theory is a necessary supposition to the latter, and is necessarily its cause as well, so that it is to reject the second and keep the first as many do. 
The first theory has a basis of truth inasmuch as the re-lation of "child" (as "fruit") toward the mother formally belongs to Christ as to a human 
 which is hypostatically completed and achieved by the Logos, and not to the Logos as bearer of the humanity. As will be pointed out elsewhere, the basis of truth in the latter theory lies in this, that there is also in Christ a relation of "child" to God the Father, which follows from the aspect 
St. Thomas, 
q.35, a.4 (and Greg. a Valentia and Salmanticenses, 33, dub. 4); St. Bonaventure, In 3 Sent. 
8. 

of'bff spring from God"and 
entirely from the "eter-
nal" 
 which belongs also to the man Christ as a 
person. If in the latter case the being a child of God, which is 
not identical with the eternal 
 should constitute 
a second 
 a double human 
 would also 
have to be accepted in Christ. This has certainly not oc-curred to anybody and is altogether untenable. For, ac-
cording as the 
is considered from the one or other 
point of view, it appears under two concepts which do not overlap though the one essentially includes the other; they are merely two aspects of the position of the Son toward the mother. 
It cannot be denied that in particular the Latin Fa-
thers who sometimes speak of the 
hominis 

in personae Filii Dei, conceive hominis in 
the sense of the first opinion. This way of speaking is am-biguous and not to be 

If we consider the relation of the human 

the part of the mother, it appears in her to be a real rela-tion to her divine Son, as much as the relation of other mothers to their human sons. This is true particularly in the more specific sense, that the divine motherhood must be regarded as a relation of the most real appropriation of the mother to the Son. 
Its real character shows very particularly the relation of the divine motherhood in Mary through the most real and quite unique nobility which it grants to the person of the mother. This raises her to a share in the dignity of 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
her divine Son, which, for a created person, is indeed the highest attainable. 
To understand fully this form and meaning of the rela-tion of the divine motherhood, it must be considered from a double point of view, according as it rests: (1)upon the proper producing and natural bearing activity of the mother; or (2) upon the spiritual and free action of her Son. 
If the relation is considered as based upon the proper and natural activity of the mother, Mary's divine mother-hood appears as a most sublime relation so far as the mother is considered the principle of her Son. 
In the 
 place, her unique loftiness appears in this, that the natural activity, 
the activity of created na-ture which forms the being, reaches in Mary its absolutely highest achievement, under the supernatural of God. For Mary cooperates through her maternal activ-ity in the production of the absolutely highest and most perfect fruit which can be brought 
The latter then comes forth from her as a fruit, completely holy in its be-
ing and really filled with the fullness of the 

the other hand, Mary alone offers something to God which is taken up into Himself and with which He is clothed in His being. In this manner she exercises an activity which quite alone as a natural activity fines deitatis git, as Cajetan 
 says, 
reaches the very godhead. Every other activity of the creature toward God reaches the god-head merely as an intentional activity, that is, through knowledge and love. 
The loftiness of Mary's activity appears in a still clearer 
in q.103, a.4 ad 
(in the Leonine edition of the Summa theol. of St. Thomas, 
p. 382). 

MARIOLOGY 

light when the following is taken into consideration. With the natural, human motherhood the mother in the pro-duction of her son only cooperates with the creating in-fluence of God. Mary, however, cooperates with the proper spiritual activity of the nature of God the Father, through which He produces His Son in I-Iis bosom in order to produce the same Son in her bosom and to give birth to Him. Mary's maternal activity is therefore the most sublime service which a creature can offer to God, or rather to which God can raise a creature, and as such it includes the loftiest and virtual relations to God. 
Further, the incarnation of the Logos contains the most perfect revelation and communication of God ad extra, as an effusion of the eternal light and of the source of eternal life into the world. Hence Mary's maternal activity appears as the function of a mirror that reflects the invad-ing light and brings it into the world. 
As an activity which conveys the innate substance of the principle into the product, the maternal activity is the basis of a substantial relation of the mother to the Son, which is closest and most real. The latter reveals it-self in the natural motherhood simply as a blood-relation-
ship, and such is also the relationship of 
to Christ 
so far as He is her fruit or so far as He is man. 
Her exceptional dignity is evident from the fact that the man to whom Mary is related by ties of blood is the God-man. Yet it reveals itself still more clearly when the relationship of Mary to the God-man is so understood that it comes to the fore as a relationship to God in Himself or in His purest, spiritual being. Of course, as such it can no longer be regarded as a blood-relationship, but, with 

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
we can say that, according to the analogy of the second form of human relationship it is spiritual affinity to God, something like family relationship. is a relationship which a person has to another 
person through the marriage of a blood relation with the latter. Marriage itself, as the admission of the married subject into the person of him whom that subject marries, takes place in the most perfect manner where there fol-lows from it not only a moral and juridical unity of the per-son, but also a physical one. Hence this relationship to God into which Mary enters through the hypostatic mar-riage of the humanity related to her by blood with the Logos, is not only an equally true affinity but also a much more perfect and closer one than that which can take place among men. 
This idea of the relationship of the Mother of God to her divine 
corresponds to the stricter idea of the sub-
ject of the human 
in Christ, which directly places 
this 
in the divine person of the Logos. For the 
appropriation of the substance of the mother to the includes directly also a substantial relation to 
the Verbum 
the 
as God. 

Through this the relationship between mother and Son 
presents with 
the opposite aspect of the natural re-
lation. For here the mother becomes related to a higher person, who exists independent of her, as to the head of her family and as taken up in His family. Moreover, Mary's relationship to God appears founded through the 
static union of the human nature of Christ with the Logos to the point that this same union also forms the bond 
St. Thomas, 
q.103, a.4, and elsewhere. 
MARIOLOGY 
through which the human person of 
is connected 
with and related to God in 
spiritual and holy being. 
Mary's relation to God essentially differs from every other merely friendly relation of a created person to God. The specific trait of that relation and thus the unique nobility of the 
of God and her participation in the dignity of her Son, is expressed more fully and perfectly through this than when it is formally 
only on the essential relation of the mother or on the blood-relation-ship to the God-man. 
 the thought expressed in the affinity ap-pears still more clearly and strongly from the following point of view, which originally is based completely on 
the stricter idea of the 
 According to this idea the 
hypostatic union in Christ is notable as a bond and also as a figure of the relation of the Mother of God to God. 
The relation of the mother to her divine Son must be traced not alone to the mother's natural activity, but pri-marily to the activity of her divine Son Himself, who makes and accepts her as His mother, and gives Himself to her as her Son. 
From this angle the motherhood of Mary is formally founded on the idea of 
 divine Logos who infuses Him-self in the virginal 
of the mother through His hypostatic infusion into the flesh taken from her. Through this, Mary is as much anointed and made the Mother of God as the flesh, taken from her, is made the flesh of God, for the Logos is so taken up in her that she herself is taken ' up in Him in an analogous way as the flesh taken from her. 
Consequently the relation of the mother to the divine Son appears as a marriage with His divine person. Here 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
now the Bridegroom gives Himself to the bride as her Son and dwells in her in virtue of this gift. Thus the union pos-sesses the full force and closeness of that relation in which the ordinary mother stands to the person of her child 

comes a relation of the mother to a higher governs and influences her; a relation, too, arbitrarily con-tracted by this person and intended to be a lasting asso-ciation of the mother with Him, which is as perfect as possible. 
In reality, therefore, Mary is characterized not only 
as"bride of 
 Word"but 
the other hand as 

temple"or "seat,""ark-sanctuary,"of the 
 All are used interchangeably in such a 
that they mutually define and complete one another. For instance, this may be seen in the description of the womb of the Virgin as the "bridal chamber" or the "bridal bed of the Word. 
In Latin under the term the relation which marriage brings about between the mother and the bridegroom, is also called "motherhood." Hence Mary's relation to her divine Son is characterized in a striking manner as divinum. But for the sake of the purely spiritual character of that relation, under this aspect no other name may be given to the mother than "bride of God," which of itself expresses a 
spiritual relation. 

In the sense of marriage thus viewed, the maternal 
relation of 
to her divine Son includes a union of 
her created person with the 
person of the Logos, effected by Himself. This union is a figure of the 
MARIOLOGY 
hypostatic union of Christ's flesh with God. Such it is even more so than that the natural marriage of a woman with a man, with regard to her body belonging to his person, is a figure of the hypostatic union of the man's flesh with his spiritual soul. 
In natural marriage the bride is taken up by the bride-groom through his will which she accepts and which the Creator sanctifies. This taking up is so intimate that she ideally and really grows together with him to one whole and, as though incorporated and united with him, forms with him one moral body, in which both physical per-sons belong to each other through mutual gift, in the most perfect manner. Thus the virgin mother is united through the will and power of the creating Logos 
His own person. Through 
acceptance of the flesh of the mother in the physical unity of His purely spiritual person, He accepts her in a purely spiritual but most real manner into a moral corporate unity of person and gives Himself to her just as He appropriates her to 
According to the expression of the Oriental languages, marriage is a mutual "clothing" of the married persons through which the bride becomes the body and raiment of the bridegroom, and the bridegroom becomes the head and crown of the bride. Here also, as the Fathers fre-quently indicate, such a mutual clothing takes place in an eminent degree and in a manner analogous to that in Christ Himself 
His humanity and divinity. There as well as here, the marriage occurs between the "flesh" and the "spirit": the flesh clothes the spirit ex-ternally, and the spirit clothes the flesh interiorly. More-over, it is a marriage between created flesh and creating spirit: the flesh, according to its entire being, belongs to 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
the spirit and is subject to it; and on its side the spirit can 
dwell in the closest manner in the flesh and 
it with itself. 
In a certain sense the pure union of grace with God also forms a marriage with Him, and indeed a marriage analogous to the hypostatic union. However, as it is not communicated through the hypostatic union, it has not the full specific strength of marriage. On the contrary, it bears only the character of a simply friendly relation. 
Although the expressions corresponding to this view are used times without number by the Fathers as well as 
this representation is seldom scientifically 

formulated and utilized by them. This representation needs greater emphasis, as it offers many advantages for a complete and clear exposition of the sublime position of the Mother of God. 
In the divine motherhood it first of all safeguards 
the virginity of the mother as clearly as it definitely sup-poses the independence of the Son toward the mother. 
2) It further represents the motherhood as a grace given to the mother by her divine Son, who descends to her and raises her up to Himself, and not as a result of her own activity only, as would be the case with a human son. 
3) Consequently the Mother of God appears from the beginning as united with the divine Son, belonging to Him and dependent on Him, and called to participate in His dignity and in His possessions, while with ordinary mothers the opposite is the case. 
4) From this it is also evident that the relation of the 

For "sponsa Verbi" or 
see numerous places in 
anthea 
MARIOLOGY 
mother to the Son is a most perfect and eternal association with Him, willed by Himself, an association essentially closer and more unbreakable and lasting than the rela-tion of a mother to her human son. 5) Since, in the case of the divine mother, the marriage the divine Logos, dwelling in her, continues after bodily birth and as, according to His divine being, He does not leave His mother, likewise the relation of the to the Son maintains permanently the same reality  closeness as before the birth. 6) On the other hand the idea of marriage allows us to consider the Mother of God before the conception of Son in a relation, not merely potential, to a person 

would be brought forth in the future. It becomes an actual relation to a person who at 
 very moment al-ready exists. It is analogous to the relation in a monium ante consummationem, but such 
it is closer and more real by reason of the closest and most intimate indwelling of the Logos in the mother. 
7) On the strength of the idea of the 
 of the mother with a divine person dwelling in her, the entire relation of the mother to the Son, after as well as before the conception, possesses the typical meaning and force of the relation that exists between both in the time be-tween the 
 and the birth. This relation itself does not come to the fore as with a human son, in a taking up of the child in the 
who feeds it with her blood, but as a taking up of the mother in the holy, divine per-son and as an anointing with the holy being of the latter. Thus 
divine 
 resembles the hypostatic union, since it is a 
with a divine person, which em-braces the mother's entire and most intimate being. It 
TIIE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
ennobles and sanctifies the mother in the most perfect manner and forms the basis of the 
complete partici-pation in the life and possessions of the divine person. 
8) Lastly, from this point of view we may conclude that, from the moment of her creation and in virtue of the intention of her Creator, which underlies her creation, Mary was specially intended for the union as bride with the Logos and, as it were, was created in this union; and also that, by virtue of this intention of God, the entire existence of her person has grown together with her relation to the divine person of her Son, in a manner analo-
gous to 
 existence of the flesh of Christ with His 
static union. The analogy between the relation of Mary and of the humanity of Christ to the Logos, expressed in the 'mar-riage with the Logos," is particularly revealed in this, that Mary is characterized in a signal manner in the lan-guage of the Church as "house and seat of the godhead" or of the eternal Wisdom. She is as a house and seat in which in the real meaning of the word, the fullness of the divinity, is so infused as to dwell bodily therein. The eter-nal Wisdom is so implanted and deeply rooted in her she seems to have grown together with Him. This, too, is the deeper meaning of the representation of Mary in Apocalypse: the woman clothed with the sun. 

By virtue of this relation to the Logos, Mary is in a special manner the 
and "image of 
because she is in the Logos illuminated through the radiation of the light of the godhead and permeated with the essen-tial dew of the strength of God. As she is compared with the sun in the bride of the Canticle of Canticles, she ap-pears also under 
 these names as assimilated to the 
MARIOLOGY 
Logos in the 
proper to Him which is characterized 
by the same names.' She is consequently His "likeness" or His "glory," in the same way as, according to St. the woman is the likeness and glory of the man. 

Finally, from the idea of the affinity and of the mar-riage it follows that Mary's relation to God, contained in the divine motherhood, can also be considered from the viewpoint of an eminent and unique position of child of God. Hence Mary is called 
 as much as by the Greek Fathers of later date and in the 

Unlike other ransomed creatures, who are merely adoptive children, Mary possesses such a relation to God that the participation in His possessions, His life and bliss, is, in her, based on the most perfect and substantial ad-mission into the family of God. In other words, between God and her there exists a necessitudo which brings with it the absolute community of possessions and life. In her case this relationship seems the more complete, as the seed of the Word of truth, from which the children of God are 
 is implanted in her. 
 the assuming 
of her flesh the 
 Word Himself entered into or-
ganic relation to her and, by virtue of this relation, made her in a unique way the mirror and image of God. 
Indeed, Mary's divine relationship of child of God, like her whole relation to God, goes back primarily to the divine Logos. As the Logos Himself comes to the fore 
Wisd. 
enim (Sapientia) 
speculum sine et imago bonitatis 

I Cor. 1 :7. 
For the use of the expression 

see Passaglia, De imm. 6, cap. 3, a.5. The Menaea are about the same as our they are divided according to the twelve months of the year. See Nilles, 

(Innsbruck, 
I, 49. 
Jas. 
I Pet 
cf. John 
ff. 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
both as Son and as bridegroom, He therefore appears also 
both as son and as father of the mother. Her 

hood, however, can also be considered as a participation 
in the divine 
of the Logos, founded on the affinity 
and the marriage, particularly since the 
 of the 
Logos is communicated to Christ as man and here ap-
pears as 
 of the puer Dei and the agnus Dei. 
Therefore the Fathers call Mary the "only beloved" and "only-begotten" child, or daughter, of God. These titles they give her not less often than they speak of her as the "lamb of God." 
 Together with the most perfect union, the most perfect likeness also, and hence the most per-fect community, between Mary and her divine Son is revealed, the name "only-begotten daughter of God can in its full meaning be even considered the most adequate summary of the community between Mary and God con-tained in the divine motherhood. 
The Church applies to Mary many texts from the Sapiential books. This application rests also on the con-cept of "image" and "child." 

In a sense common to other ransomed creatures, Mary can, apart from her divine motherhood, be considered a child of God since she is brought forth by God through creation and adorned with sanctifying grace. From this point of view she can be called a child of God in an eminent and unique manner, because the sanctifying grace bestowed on her surpasses incomparably that of all other creatures. Her grace is particularly distinguished from that of other mortals as a 
perpetuu; perpetuu a parte post, 
never ceasing, as contrasted with the first 
Cf. Marracci, Mar., 

See supra, pp. 22ff. 
MARIOLOGY 
couple; 
 a 
ante, 
beginning with her origin, as contrasted with the descendants of our first parents. 
However, the 
character of Mary's divine rela-
tionship as child of God is inexhaustible; in it sanctifying grace must be pictured as based on, borne, and animated by her special relation to God. 
The contradistinction between the relation of mother and that of daughter with respect to the same person, incompatible in the natural order, is in this case solved very simply by the fact that the mother's son is at the same time her bridegroom. In general the relation of the bride to the bridegroom can be symbolized by the rela-tion of the body to the head. Likewise the relation of Mary as mother-bride of the Logos finds its complete analogy in the organic mutual relation which exists be-tween the central organ of the physical body (the heart) and the head. The head is animated with the blood that flows from the heart, and therefore owes its material existence to the heart. The head, by the nerves radiating from it, communicates to the heart its vital spirit, thus making possible the particular service rendered it through the heart. 
Furthermore, because the members of the body have grown together with the head, a relation differing essen-tially from every other merely virtual or friendly relation, is established with the spirit of the head; and so Mary's privileged position in the mystical body of Christ is shown particularly from the fact that, in contrast to the other members, she occupies the place of the heart to the head. 
To obtain a more thorough understanding of the meaning and import of the proper relation of a creature to God as exemplified in the divine motherhood, and also of the analogous expressions chosen for it, a more de-tailed exposition will follow. 

Expressions descriptive of that union (affinity, being the bride and child) can be applied in a wider sense to all supernatural unions of the creature with God. As was explained, they have here a specific meaning according to which the Mother of God is in a unique manner "sis-ter" and "bride"and "daughter of God," and "temple"or "seat" and "image of God" as well. Among them, these three expressions bear this relation, that the meaning of "affinity"receives its completion in "being the bride,"and that of "daughterhood"its specific form through the ing of the bride." 
Figuratively all these relations find their striking ex-pressions in the title columba Dei from the Canticle of Canticles, applied to Mary. The Fathers frequently used the expression "lamb of 
It expresses particularly the community between Mary and the man Christ. This 
title characterizes more definitely and 

mother of the Lamb of God as formal in her virginal and maternal fertility toward the Lamb of God and also in her likeness to Him, and especially in her participation in His divine 

Relations to the Son. These formulas express the union of the divine mother with God. In the sense previously explained, this union is directed to the divine person of the Son, as He is the eternal Son of the Father, since it is formally brought about through the hypostatic union of 
Cf. Bittremieu, Brussels, 1936, pp. 213-95. 
MARIOLOGY 
the humanity of Christ with the Logos. But these expres-sions do not exclude the relation of the mother contracted by blood, the application to the 
Christ, personally constituted through the hypostatic union and brought forth through the producing cooperation of the mother as her fruit. They rather include these, inasmuch as this man, as God-man, possesses the 
and power of a divine person. For this very the relation of the di-vine mother to the man Christ is of such a nature that she communicates with 
as with a higher being, to whom she belongs in a dependent way, and that He on His side lets her participate in His sublimity and com-municates His spiritual life to her. 
Toward the man Christ these three relations are clearly expressed in their interior unity and at the same time in their concrete certainty in the relation of the mother to her Son as to her Head. The analogous human ties of rela-tionship from which these names have been transferred to these three spiritual relations, all lead to a relation to a family head. This concept of "head," under the form in which it is represented both in these analogies and in its original object-the head in the human organism-like-wise indicates such a higher being, who has the same nature in common with its members, according to its material side. 
Exaggerated or incorrect are the views of those who attach to the Blessed Virgin, because of her motherhood, the same authority by nature over the man Christ as the ordinary mother has over her human son. Accordingly Christ would have been by nature obliged to obey, and only His duty toward the Father would have limited this obligation. The submissiveness of Christ, which St. Luke rests on the free will of Christ Himself. The relation also to His mother which precedes the free will of Christ and is the basis of His submission to His mother, is to be de-fined only as the relation of the 

 which is 
due to the head of the family from each of its members." Relations to the other persons. Under the name of "mother" the union of the Mother of God with God must 
exclusively to the divine person of the Logos, and in general it essentially refers primarily to Him alone and is only indirectly referred to the other persons. Yet, through the other names, it is so characterized that it can be brought under that name in connection not only with the Logos, but simply with God, thus with the whole Trinity, and consequently with each of the three persons. 
According to the latter point of view, some names in the language of the Church are almost as constantly ascribed to one 
person, as the motherhood essen-tially refers to the person of the Logos. According to cir-cumstances these names obtain in this sense 

such a specific meaning that they express a relation, which can only be referred, under this definite form-precisely as the motherhood-to a definite divine person and is specifically proper to Him; 
that with regard to God the Father. In that case the particular, relative character of that person is 
 the intended relation of Mary to Him. Relations to God the Father. The union of the mother of the Logos is confined to God the Father usually under 
Luke 2:51. St. Ambrose, In Luc., Bk. 
no. 65; PL,XV,1575. Cf.G.de q.2, 
3, and 
In 
ad h. 1. 
MARIOLOGY 
the name of "child" or "daughter," also "image of the eternal Father," and in such a manner that these names formally rest on a special union with the Son of this Fa-ther and hence have in this case even a very particular meaning and allude to the Father by means of the rela-tion of the Logos to Him. Mary is there imagined as "daughter of the Father" inasmuch as she is connected with His Son through affinity and marriage, and main-tains by and in Him relations to the Father Himself. Moreover, she carries that name, since, as 
sedes 

a 
genitae, she is the most perfect image 
of the Father ad 
after the incarnate wisdom. Thus she is to be regarded as a daughter whose daughterhood is the most perfect participation in and the most perfect 
image of the 
of the eternal Son. 
Such a special relation to the person of the Father does not occur with the ordinary children of grace. Hence it characterizes the divine daughterhood of Mary as a form that 
essentially from the latter and is superior to it. 
Next to it, the mother of the Son of God can also be called in a special manner "bride of the Father." For, as mother she has received the Son of the Father through donation from His side as her Son; she possesses Him con-jointly with the Father and is therefore connected with the Father by His Son as being hers also. These expres-sions indicative of the union of Mary with God are more unusual, and rightly so. Through the very fact that the mother of the Son of God is characterized as connected through marriage with God as Father, the thought arises that, as with a human marriage, here also not only the dynamic influence of the Father on the mother, but also the substantial relation of the mother to the Father, is the 
BRIDAL MOTI-IERHOOD 
foundation of the substantial relation of Mary to the Son and precedes this one. In reality the former is first accom-plished by the latter. We could even go so far as to that the Soil of the Father is also first produced with the cooperation of the mother, and that the mother is there-fore also associated with the Father in the generatio Some modern writers have expressed theinselves thus. 
Precisely to obviate the forming of such erroneous is one of the reasons why the bridal state of the Mother of God is usually referred to the Holy Ghost in-

stead of to the Father. 
 the fact that the Holy 
Ghost, 
 proceeds from the Logos, appears as bride-groom, the production of the Logos is formally presented as complete in itself. The relation also of the mother to the Father is presented as effected by the Logos Himself. 
This does 
 mean in the least that Mary as mother of the Son of the eternal Father has absolutely no special connection with the Father in His quality as Father, since He is also the principle of His Son. For, with regard to the Son of God, born ad 
in humanity, Mary pos-sesses such a connection; and since she cooperates here 
in the eternal 
 under the influence of the Fa-
ther, she resembles in a special way the Father as the principle of the eternal production in her own activity. 
She resembles Him, first of all as she is the only pro-ductive principle with regard to the human nature of Christ, as much as God the Father is such with regard to the divine nature, and through this she possesses in her virginal motherhood the power of the male fatherhood; 
secondly, as she 
 Christ in the flesh through a 
spiritual power without violation of her virginity, as much as 
 Father produces Him according to the spirit. 
MARIOLOGY 
But this very resemblance of Mary to God the Father is rather obscured than elucidated by the allusion of the name of 'bride of the Father" to the corresponding hu-man relation. On the contrary, it stands out beautifully in the name of "daughter of the Father," as it includes the idea of image of the Father. This idea, applied to Mary, not only states that the divine daughterhood is the most 
perfect figure of the 
of the Son of God, but, ex-
tended without violence, it equally asserts that the motherhood of Mary is the most perfect image of the pa-ternity of God the Father with regard to the Son of God in His humanity. 
In general the expression "image of the Father" sets forth the particular relationship in which the mother of the Son of God stands to God the Father, more clearly, richly, and harmoniously than the expression "bride of the Father." For the relationship with God the Father in the possession of His eternal Son appears in 
image of the Father" in such a way that the mother bears in her bosom, as infused there, this Son, produced by God the Father out of Himself and borne in His bosom. The con-nection, however, in the producing and birth of the Son of God ad extra appears here in this form, that the mother, according to the expression of 
 preface of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pours out into the world the everlasting light, issued from the Father. 

Relations to the Holy Ghost. The union of the Mother of God with God is usually attributed to the Holy Ghost under the name of bride, and the associated names of tem-ple and sanctuary of the Holy Ghost. This is done in view of the fact that Christ is represented in the Creed and in the annunciation by the angel as conceived and born of 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 

the Holy Ghost, or produced by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is indicated in these texts as principle of the actio productiva 
and also of the actio unitiva. So the relationship of bride must be traced back to Him in this double aspect. In the actio uni-tiva the Holy Ghost works only in community with those persons from whom He proceeds; and the union, pro-duced by this actio tends directly to one of these persons. Therefore the name of "bride of the Holy Ghost"must not be understood in the sense of something innate to the Ghost, but only as an attribute, that is, it is adduced 
in connection with the Holy Ghost as the representative of the entire divine Trinity in its marriage with Mary. The indication of the principle and of the terms of the marriage of Mary with God under the name of the 

Ghost distinguishes this divine marriage 
that which takes place among men and raises it above it in dignity. For this name characterizes the term of the marriage as a purely spiritual and completely holy state; the marriage act appears as a purely spiritual act of the amplest and holiest love, and the result of the marriage is seen to be the closest indwelling of the holy bridegroom in the bride as in His temple. 
Further, the bringing into prominence of the person 
of the 
Ghost in the principle and the term of the 
marriage causes the union of Mary with God to appear, not as specifically limited to the person of her Son, and still less to that of the Father, but as extending to the entire Trinity. Moreover, in the marriage of Mary with the Son or with the Father, it precludes the appearance of a created person being forced between the persons 
MARIOLOGY 
of the Trinity and taking precedence of the 

or at least of being placed on the same level with 
These and the other above-mentioned reasons for ascribing to the Holy Ghost the actions of uniting producing, also justify and render significant the ascrib-ing of Mary's marriage to the same divine person. More-over, it has a special value for the honor of Mary and of the Holy Ghost Himself. 

On the one side it reflects honor on the Mother of God, 
when her 
is brought into the closest relations with 
each person of the Blessed Trinity. On the other, it re-dounds to the honor of the Holy Ghost, when He appears as in no way excluded from the glory, power, and benevo-lence which the other divine persons reveal in their rela-tion to Mary and when, on the contrary, a special relation is attributed to 
which answers to His hypostatic character. This all the more so, because the special rela-tion is precisely such that it naturally causes and achieves the relation of Mary as "sister of the Word" and "daugh-ter of the Father." Through this relation too, the Holy Ghost, who in the Blessed Trinity is without fruit, is the more clearly represented as principle of the extension of the fruitfulness of the Trinity ad extra, accomplished in the incarnation of the Logos, or as principle of the birth ad extra of the Son, produced by the Father in His bosom, in and from the bosom of a mother. 
Hence, it is true, the marriage of the 
of God with 
 Holy Ghost is merely an attribution with regard to the third person of the Blessed Trinity, and in that very attribution this person appears less as term of the relation 
 as achiever of the marriage with another person, namely, the Logos, or with the Father. Yet the 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
union with the Logos, intended by the influence of the Holy Ghost, includes implicitly and indirectly a strictly personal relation to the Holy Ghost as the particular Spirit of her Son and bridegroom, as much as to God 
Father as the Father of her Son and bridegroom. For, in virtue of His coming forth from the Logos, the particular Spirit of the Logos is in Him, and with Him given to the bride of the Logos in a special manner as her own spirit. 
This special and personal relation of 
Mother of God to the Holy Ghost is strikingly expressed in saying that she, like the humanity of Christ, is called the 

belonging to the Holy Ghost. Mary is a temple with which the Holy Ghost is related through the grace that pro-ceeds from Him, and through His own principle. In this temple He therefore dwells in a certain sense 

and naturaliter. Hence the expression "temple"or "sanc-tuary of the Holy Ghost"is as much in use for the relation of the Mother of God to the Holy Ghost, as is the name Sattcti. It is also most significant. For, 

in the communication and revelation of the inner divine productions ad extra, as completed by the Incarnation, or in the appearing ad extra of the persons, proceeding in God, it assigns to the person of the Holy Ghost an outer divine term in the woman, in like manner as 
 person of the Son possesses one in the man. In a harmonious union 
and interaction there appears next to the 
one of 
God the "temple of God; next to the incarnate Logos the carnal dwelling of the Holy Ghost, which in unity with 
forms the adequate principle of the birth ad extra of the Logos, produced in the bosom of the Father; next to the "Lamb of God the "dove of God." 
Further, in this connection Mary as "bride of the 
MARIOLOGY 
Logos" is also in a special manner an image of the per-son of the Holy Ghost, that is, in His difference from and His relation to the Logos; and this in a similar but more perfect manner than Mary's prototype, the first Eve, was such an image in her relation to Adam. Therefore the relation of the Holy Ghost to the Logos forms the par-ticular image of that relation by which Mary is connected with the Logos and through the Logos with the Divinity, as much as the relation of the Logos to the Father is the essential form through which is determined the relation of the man Christ to the Father and to God in general. 
The Holy Ghost is connected with the Logos because the latter communicates to Him His entire essence through His love and places Him therefore in a complete unity of being with Himself. In like manner the mother of the Logos is connected with Him through the fact that the Logos through His love gives her His person and assumes her into a union with His person, which is the closest imaginable in the relation between two persons. Just as the Holy Ghost, owing to His origin from the di-vine love is also the specific bearer and representative of 
the sweetness and 
 heart of that divine love, the 
of God likewise bears this characteristic in her 
own degree. Hence she bears the name of vita and dulcedo nostm. 
For all these reasons Mary, as well as the Church, is 
called after the creature which is the 
of the Holy 
Ghost, that is, the dove. Moreover, with her the latter is the symbol of the fecundity which proceeds from the Holy Ghost and which therefore is virginal and maternal toward the man Christ. 
Under this name Mary also appears as resembling the 
THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
Holy Ghost and connected with Him, or rather informed and inspired, as it were, by Him; thus as one moral per-son with Him so that He forms the seal of her personality. Therefore when Mary, like the Church, in the quality of dwelling and instrument of the Logos, is not simply under-stood as one person with Him, but as a person distinct from Him, standing opposite Him and acting in her own way, still with the character of a person worthy of Him and equipped with supernatural privileges, thus really a personal bride. This, then, happens because the Holy Ghost is not taken as representative of the godhead of the Logos, but as a person distinct from the Logos in moral unity of person with Mary. 
This idea appears wherever Mary, like the Church, is represented as the mother of grace and of the ransomed souls in a certain coordination with Christ as father of eternal life and spiritual father of mankind. Hence the Holy Ghost is so much the bridegroom of Mary that He is the achiever, seal, and guaranty of her marriage with the Logos and in this not less the bearer and representa-tive of the relation of the bridegroom to the bride than of the relation of the bride to the bridegroom. 
From the preceding it follows that, with respect to the entire Blessed Trinity and to each divine person, a unique relation and likeness is due in a special way to the Mother of God, in connection with which she is related in a cer-tain manner with the Trinity and its image. If we wish to express harmoniously the relations to the individual di-vine persons, this is best done by the use of the formulas which are already in use with the union of grace, namely, 

Many have wrongly understood the expression of 
Hesychius of Jerusalem 
that, as there were three stories in the ark of-the covenant, the plerom of the Blessed Trinity is in Mary too, that is, that the entire Blessed Trin-ity dwells in her and is united with her. Hence some writ-

attached, analogous to the one by which the Apostle calls the Church the plerom of Christ.'" In this sense it can even be said of Mary, that she is the plerom of Christ, as Eve is of Adam. But as applied to the Blessed Trinity, this expression is too misleading, and its meaning is implied more beautifully and clearly in the title of "image of the Trinity." 
With Cardinal we can certainly speak of a co-operation of Mary to the bringing about of an ad supplement to the relations of the Trinity. For example, in Christ the relations of the Father and the Holy Ghost to the incarnate Logos join, supplementing as it 
the internal relations of the divine persons among themselves, and in particular the relations of the Father and the Holy Ghost to the Logos. The Father obtains here a real author-ity over the Son, who is fully equal to Him in the divinity; the Holy Ghost, however, who has His principle in the godhead of the Son, becomes in a certain way the princi-ple of the Son and shares the authority of the Father over the Son. In reality this supplement of the relations of the 
Hieros., 	5, PG, XCIII, 1461. 	
Vega, Theol. nos. 300 f. 	11, 448. Cf. 	de Salazar, Comm. in 	
Eph. 1 			

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD 
ity also belongs essentially to the highest glorification of the entire Trinity in the Incarnation. But in that case it must be directly ascribed to Christ alone, and we must guard against expressing Mary's cooperation in its plislunent, in such a way as to make Mary herself appear that supplement. 
Lastly, as an entirely proper one, this union of the Mother of God with God differs from the ordinary union of grace as well as from that which, for the whole human race, results or must result from the hypostatic union of one of the members of that race with the Logos. Yet to the union of the human race it is as much the prototype as the means of connection. The Fathers express the thought by saying that in Mary, as in His bridal chamber, the Logos espoused human nature in its entirety. For, as the human race brings forth Christ as its fruit in Mary and by Mary, it shares also in and by Mary this union with God, which is characterized in her through 
 expres-sion of "marriage with God and other expressions con-nected therewith. 
In the first respect Mary's precedence is characterized through the fact that in 
 name of all she cooperated in the production of Christ through the offering of her flesh as well as through her own natural activity. In an analogous way her priority appears partly in the fact that she is directly assumed by the Logos, or received Him; partly also from the fact that the marriage with God was contracted through her personal consent to 
 divine motherhood in the name of the entire human race. St. Thomas particularly notes this 

 when he advances the reasons why the conception of the Son had to be announced to the mother. 
St 

q.30, a. 1. 

PART 
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MARIOLOGY 

CHAPTER X 
The Distinguishing Mark of 
Mary's Person1 

IN THE words of the Gospel 
 the mother of Je-sus" 
even more so in the concept and doctrine of the Church, Mary's maternal relation to the divine Redeemer appears pointedly as the distinguishing mark of her person. To begin with, in a general sense this ex-pression distinguishes Mary from all others as a person-age of quite excellent rank and station and of unique dignity. At the same time, of its very nature and according to the idea of the Church, it is used also in the sense that, compared with all other characteristic qualities of Mary, the distinguishing mark of "mother of Jesus" forms the capital, fundamental, and central quality to which, as subordinate attributes, all others are joined. Thus are the accidentals of a being connected with its essence, by which they are sustained and animated and from which, therefore, they receive their mark. 
As all the privileges belonging to the Mother of God are of a supernatural character and thus find their princi-ple in a supernatural gift of grace, so this applies par-ticularly to the motherhood itself. This motherhood must therefore be defined as a supernatural distinguishing mark 
The literature is the same as for chap. 8. 
John 

3. 
187 

MARIOLOGY 
of Mary's person, to which, in addition to her nature, she is raised through divine grace and which thus has its root in a divine gift of grace through which it is constituted. To understand fully the excellence and meaning of this supernatural distinguishing mark of her person, we must first consider it in its essence, and also in its relation to her person as its subject and to God as its princi-ple. 
Let us consider the form constituting the personal dis-tinguishing mark of the mother of Jesus: the grace of the divine motherhood. 
The quality of "mother of Jesus" includes concretely all relations, based on the fact that the Son of Mary is Jesus, that is, the Redeemer of the world. It is in the first place the distinguishing mark of Mary's person, since it includes a unique relation of her person to the unique and exalted person of her Son, as the mother of Jesus is not the mother of a mere human being, but of a man. 
Indeed, the personal distinguishing mark of Mary is, as a rule, determined by the fact that she is called Mother of God or for our point of view here, she who bears God 
Deipara). For us to understand the divine motherhood according to the full meaning of the dis-tinguishing mark of person therein implied, it is not enough that we represent it on the analogy of the privi-lege which another mother acquires through her maternal relation to an excellent human person; that is, as a physio-logical relation of the root to the fruit, resulting from the 
of the mother upon the coming into being and 
the life of the son. Neither is it 
 that we consider 

her motherhood as an office given by God, the worthy 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
execution of which needed to be made possible and re-warded by special graces. 
The element which in the divine motherhood forms the distinguishing mark of the person and the grace of the divine motherhood is the following: a supernatural, spiritual union of 
 person of Mary with that of her Son. This union, brought about by the will of God, underlies her maternal activity as contrasted with the humanity of her Son and completes and perfects her bodily union with Him. 
This supernatural, spiritual union with the divine per-son cannot be set forth more simply or clearly or with more regard to reality than through the expression 
monium 
or connubium Verbi in the strictest 
sense of the words. It is a relation which, with regard to God, forms the highest and most complete association conceivable between a created person with Himself, as a human marriage is the highest and most perfect union between two human persons. It is thus a relation which is the most perfect image of the union of a created nature with God, as human marriage is an image of the union of the body with the human soul. 
Thus understood, this union includes, in accordance with the nature of marriage, a solidarity of both per-sons in an organic whole, in which they have grown to-gether, and also a mutual belonging to and clothing of both persons. Mary, as united with the Logos, is taken complete possession of by Him; the Logos, as infused and implanted in her, gives Himself to her and takes her to Himself as partner and helper, in the closest, strictest, and most lasting community of life. 
Evidently, in the divine motherhood, such a divine 
MARIOLOGY 
marriage is really understood, in the same way as human motherhood presupposes a human marriage when it comes about in a manner worthy of a human being. No other human relationship achieves a personal distinguish-ing mark in such a thorough way as the relationship of marriage for the woman, through which she is organically united with another person. Neither does there exist in the supernatural order another relationship to God, with an equally formal and perfect supernatural 

ing mark, as is this marriage with God, through which the person in question is organically united with God. Consequently 
supernatural gift of grace, through which God makes Mary His mother and gives Himself to her in complete and tangible possession as her own Son, is manifested most fully and with great strength and beauty in the idea of divinum. For the 
grace of the motherhood appears here as an 

the grace of union in Christ, which forms the supernatural distinguishing mark of the person of Christ Himself. 
In this connection the divine motherhood must be defined as a divine state as bride or a divinely bridal motherhood. Likewise, to distinguish it from every other relation of grace of the same name, the divine state of Mary as bride must also vice versa be called a divinely maternal state as bride, that is, a state as bride, specifically calculated to achieve and complete the divine mother-hood; for as such it first truly and completely bears the character of marriage. 
Certainly the divine state of Mary as bride first re-ceives its completion by the divine Logos infusing Him-self in her and thus making her actually His mother. So, too, does the grace of motherhood here obtain the full 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
character analogous to the grace of the hypostatic union. However, this completion of the bridal union must be regarded as similar to the completion of the conjugal union in the completed marriage. 
Accordingly the bodily union, brought about through the conception of the Logos, presupposes a prior spiritual union in and through which it is perfected. On the other 
hand this spiritual union with God, which in 
pre-
cedes the actual consummation of the motherhood, must be understood not as a simple, friendly union, or as a mere intent to the conjugal union, or even as a simple betrothal. It has to be understood in the full sense of a 
therefore as an objective and real union. It is a union with God, achieved through the will of the Creator; or also an objective ordination and anoint-ing, through which the Logos is appropriated by right to the Virgin and is spiritually united with her. Through this ordination the divine motherhood not only is pre-pared and placed in prospect, but is already adjudged vir-tually and in embryo. 
Under this form the grace of motherhood could have been granted in that case naturally, not only before the maternal conception, but even at the first moment of the mother's existence, and could henceforth form the dis-tinguishing mark of her person, in the nature of the grace 
of the 
 union. There is no reason why the grace 
of this motherhood under this 
should have been given only later, particularly as, since the definition of the Immaculate Conception, the original ordination as 
the "bride of" stands 
all doubt. This is so not as 
if it 
 existed in the granting of the original, ha-
bitual grace; but for the very reason that the ordination 
as bride demanded and brought with it this benefaction. 
The"divinely bridal"element in Mary's divine mother-hood is now so perfected in its completion through the conception of Christ, that to the spiritual relation to the Logos a bodily one is joined. Moreover, this is effected also since the Logos, being now incarnate in the fruit of Mary according to the flesh, is, according to the soul, her spiritual bridegroom and as such assumes her in the closest community of His life and activity. 
From this point of view the idea of mother of the Re-deemer obtains at the same time its modification. This is true in the sense that Mary, as bride of God, conceives and bears the Redeemer. She is also, as bride of the God-man, called upon and enabled to cooperate in a serving manner in His work of redemption. 
As indicated elsewhere, the various elements that come together in the personal distinguishing mark of the di-vine motherhood, appear in a harmonious unity and in their full force when the distinguishing mark of her per-son is placed in the organic unity of Mary with Christ. This is particularly so when this union is considered ac-cording to the standard of the relation of the heart to the head. For here we have the unity of the root with the fruit, of the head member with the Head, and of the body with the spirit of the Head. At the same time Christ is the fruit of Mary according to the body, the Head of Mary according to the soul; but according to the divinity, the Spirit who dwells in her in a unique manner. But Mary is as the root or origin, the head member, the sup-plement to the humanity of Christ, and in and through the latter the seat and instrument of His godhead. 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
Some Protestants still believe in the divinity of Christ. Hence they acknowledge that "the fruit of Mary is the real Son of God." 
 But they wish to consider little, or even nothing, about the exceptional dignity, perfection, and activity of the Mother of God in the order of grace. In this respect they can hardly be distinguished from those who deny the divinity of Christ. This idea can be reduced to this formula; Mary is the Mother of God, but not the bride of God. Expressed thus, such a view is evi-dently unnatural and contradictory. 
Therefore as the expression, the divinely bridal mother-hood, possesses a great polemical dogmatic value, so it has also a great constructive theological value for the scientific explanation of the privileges of Mary. 
The motherhood, regarded as a relation of the mother to her fruit, or as bodily relationship with Christ, is not of itself enough for our considering the divine mother-hood the constituting principle of the only excellence of Mary's person. Theologians express this thought by dis-tinguishing an adequate and an inadequate, or a 
and a purely physical, motherhood, and intend 

only the first to be considered that principle. They usually 
explain the motherhood in an adequate and 

cal sense as follows: It consists in the whole of those 
graces which are necessary for the 
execution of 
the maternal activity, or which were obtained through this activity, or which achieve the worthy extension of the relation of the mother to her fruit. 
Such a widening of the idea of the motherhood will, no doubt, be too vague and indefinite. It will not 
Luke 
MARIOLOGY 
duce a more vivid concept nor is it a fruitful middle term leading to the individual privileges that belong to the divine motherhood. 
On the contrary, the very expression, God's bridal motherhood, gives not merely a more or less adequate, moral-physical concept of the divine motherhood; accord-ing to its formal and intrinsic essence, the motherhood is also thus properly defined through an easily susceptible and clearly indicated element which is not lost in a mul-tiplicity of things necessary or desirable for the worthy extension of the mother's relation to the fruit. It consti-tutes, as it were, the substantial form or the soul of that relation and therefore is the root and focus of all other qualities of the mother. 
Without this middle concept we can only gradually 
and with 
 discover the various privileges per-
taining to the Mother of God, such as 
omnium. Of certain other privileges we can get hardly any idea; for example, of the sanctification of Mary through the grace of the motherhood. Thus this concept is the key of the entire Mariology. In reference to the original marriage, Peter 

gus says: 
 "A speedy interpreter (Gabriel) flies to the bride to prevent and suspend a state of human betrothal in the bride of God, not to take the Virgin away from Joseph, but to give her to Christ to whom she is pledged in her womb, when it should happen." And again: "Al-though Mary His mother had been betrothed, she is His bride by virginity, and His mother by fecundity; His mother not known by a man, and conscious of His birth. And was she not mother before her conceiving, who, after 
4 St Peter 
140; PL, LII, 576. 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
His birth, was both mother and virgin? And how could she not be mother, who brought to birth the Author of all the years, the Giver of being to all things? 

THE GRACE OF THE DMNE IN RELATION TO 
DIGNITY OF ITS SUBJECT It must merely be mentioned that this gift of grace could not be gained through Mary's natural activity. Ac-cording to the unanimous teaching of theologians, neither is it possible that this grace could be gained in the proper 
sense of de 
 through supernatural actions, hav-
ing their root in sanctifying grace; it could be gained in an analogous way as the union with God in glory. The reason is simple, that here it is a matter of a union with God which belongs to the higher order of the hypostatic union. 
The meritum de congruo, to which the creature is en-titled through sanctifying grace, can assert itself with Mary only in the acquiring of that higher degree of in-terior sanctity through which she is disposed in a worthy manner, or by which she obtains the positive suscepti-bility, to the possession of the grace of the motherhood, that is, in a manner in keeping with its dignity. 
As such a disposition or susceptibility to the grace of the motherhood, all meritorious acts relating to this mat-ter can certainly be considered with regard to this grace. However, they are efficacious only in the same way as supernatural actions of others which precede sanctifying grace and are performed in view of the latter. At best, therefore, under the form of a meritum de 

Now, every other supernatural merit, of whatever kind, 
146 (in Matt. 
PL, LII, 592. 
MARIOLOGY 
operates not in the sense that it brings about the right to a definite good at the hands of God, but only in the sense that the creature, for its own sake, is induced by God Himself to strive for the obtaining of the good to which, of His own accord, He has called it. This obtains still more in the present case, where the supernatural actions of life are not in the same inner connection and propor-tion to the grace of the motherhood, as they are to the graces through which the supernatural life is completed. Assuredly, when the grace of the motherhood is taken in its entire extent and to its root, as the marriage of Mary with the Logos, achieved simultaneously with her crea-tion, little room for any acquiring or disposing activity is to be found because of this grace, as little as in the hu-manity of Christ with regard to the hypostatic union. 
There is room for such activity only because of the 
of this marriage and the actual conception of 
Christ. In this respect it can perhaps be said also that, on the ground of the already existing marriage and of the dig-nity of the bride of God which is based on it, the meritori-ous actions of Mary with regard to the conception of Christ work in a manner analogous though not similar to those of other saints with regard to the blessed union with God. 
Regarding the merits of Mary, St. Thomas says: "The Blessed Virgin is said to have merited to bear the Lord of all, not because she merited His becoming man, but because through grace given her she merited such a de-gree of purity and sanctity that she could fittingly be the mother of God." 
 From the liturgical "merited a real 
St. Thomas, 
q.2, a. 
ad 3 (it is an allusion to of the daily prayer of the breviary in the Easter season: 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
merit 
still less be deduced, as it is often used only in the sense of "to allow" or "to be deemed worthy." Com-pare the 
of Holy Saturday: 
happy fault 
merited 
and so great a Redeemer!" 

With the foregoing as a standard, the frequent utter-ances of the Fathers must be understood in the proper sense when it is said, in connection with the text "the king shall greatly desire thy beauty," 
 that Mary through her 
beauty has made the Son of God descend into her 

Let us now consider 
grace of the motherhood in view of its principle, that is, the divine predestination, and the relation to its subject brought about thereby. 
Like all other supernatural graces the divine mother-hood finds its principle in a benevolent, divine election and predestination. The predestination to the grace of the motherhood, in view of which Mary is called in a special manner "vessel of election," is distinguished from every other divine predestination. It is thus distinguished not only with regard to the excellence of the contents and the salutary import of this grace, but also because of the relation of this grace to its subject, as it is meant and brought about through the predestination. 
This predestination is unlike the predestination to grace and glory, included in the general will of salvation. It in no way possesses a hypothetical character whereby 
its realization would be made 
on the actual 

accomplishment of the requisite acts on Mary's part, or 
See also A. Van Hove, "Per quam auctorem vitae suscipere," in 
Thomas XXXVIII 
Ps. 44: 12. 
Cf. 
ad conceptionis 
(2 
Rome, 1854, 
I, 144; 11,153. 
MARIOLOGY 
the omission of the contradictory acts without making sure in advance that these acts were really performed or omitted. Analogous with the predestination of the inanity of Christ to the hypostatic union, it has a much more unconditional and irrevocable character. All the-ologians accept this or are bound to accept it. For they all teach that, even before any personal activity, Mary was enriched with a measure of grace specifically cal-culated for her divine motherhood, and that the so-called 

in 
is included in 
This quality of predestination is easily explained. Be-fore one condition could be fulfilled on Mary's part, thus making it simply an anticipating grace, she was from the outset in a spiritual relation of marriage to God. This must either be contrary to His will, or be so willed as to receive its full realization. The end of this relationship (that is, the bringing about of the Incarnation, the re-demption and completion of the world through a maternal cooperation) is willed absolutely by God. Likewise it must also hold true in the maintaining and consummation of this relation in the particular person whom God asso-ciates with Himself to actualize these ends. This person, therefore, was not simply elected as subject, but as principle of the redemption and of grace. 
Since God willed human marriage to be an indissoluble union, with much more reason should He will the same for this divine marriage. Through the contracting of this marriage He bound Himself, in the same way as does the bridegroom in a human 
 to prevent its dissolu-tion by every means in His power. This being presupposed, we may add, and the Church favors 
view, that in God's notion of creation, through 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
which He called into being the person of Mary, we find inseparably connected the existence of this person and her destiny as Mother of God, or rather 
existence in the quality of motherly bride of God. 
What we have just said holds also in the sense that in this idea, besides the decree to call this person into being, there existed also in the mind of God from all eternity the design of making her immediately and forever the bride of God. It holds also in this sense, that the decree to give existence to this person was organically connected with the decree to call the bride of God into existence. That is, it is intrinsically conditioned and stipulated through 
 therefore it existed only in and through this decree, and without this it would not have come into existence. Thus it was also formally directed to it to give Mary existence as the bride of God. 
It is with this as with the bringing about of a member through the working of nature or of God: the insight to give existence to the member is conditioned and stipu-lated through the insight of its union with the head or with the spirit. The appointment of Mary to the divine brideship also must be imagined from the point of view of an original union with the Creator, to be Himself. 
Hence Mary's existence was actualized only as the existence of the bride of God; and so we must say that Mary is created not only in this state as bride, but also particularly for this state as bride. In virtue of the act of creation she appears as bride: creatione assumpta et 
And she has this distinguishing mark of her person as a distinguishing mark grown together with her personal existence, not indeed by virtue of the 
MARIOLOGY 
composition of her being but in virtue of her origin from God. 
The meaning and soundness of this thought are evi-dent from the idea of the Church relative to Mary as con-trasted with Eve, and also as the reflection of the incarnate Wisdom. This thought is linked up with the association of Marywith Christ in the same divine decree, indicated in the protevangelium, through which was fixed the re-demption of fallen man by a new, perfect human couple and the effusion in time of the eternal Wisdom, arisen from God. 
The divine decree through which Eve was destined to be the bride of the natural ancestor of the whole hu-man race and mother of all mankind, evidently did not simply stand beside the decree to which she owes her existence. It ruled and stipulated this latter so that the latter would not have come about without the former, from which it also received its direction. For the aim of the Creator in the creation of Eve was nothing more than to give Adam a "help like unto himself." 
As Eve was created in bodily dependence on Adam, she was, in virtue of the creation, also placed in com-munity of body with him. However, Adam was not thought of by God simply as a being for himself alone, but as one whole with Eve through which the image of God was fully realized and the complete principle of 
the human race was 
 about. The relationship to 
Adam, which lay in the divine idea of Eve, can therefore be thus expressed since Eve's coming into being was fixed by the same divine decree as the coming into exist-ence of Adam. 
When further the Church in her liturgy draws an analogy between the origin of Mary and that of the in-carnate Wisdom, the likeness is to be found first and foremost in this: as seat or vessel of wisdom, Mary is cre-ated entirely in and for the union as bride with the Logos, analogously as the humanity of Christ is created entirely in and for the hypostatic union. The physical being also of Christ's humanity was here determined and actualized by the same decree as that through which its hypostatic union with the Logos and the external manifestation of the Logos were fixed and realized. 
In the bull 
 the intrinsic 
 of this 
parallel is brought back to this, that the ''origin of the Blessed Virgin was prescribed by one and the same decree as was the incarnation of the divine Wisdom.'' 
These words can mean only that the very existence of Mary was set by God per modum 
and in an analogous man-ner with the existence of the flesh of the incarnate Wis-dom. 
This unity of the divine decree appears evident from the protevangelium. There "the woman and her seed are promised as a new human couple bringing salvation; like the original couple they thus appear as one whole in the mind of God. Yet, in a certain sense the unity of the decree is still more certain in this case than in the other since Mary here receives existence not as an organic sup-plement only, but also as a material preparation for the existence of Christ or as inchoatis 
As for origin and being, she stands in an analogous mutual relation to Christ, as the heart to the head in a bodily organism. 
Between the origin of Mary, on the one side, and that 
December 8, 1854. See 
et 

. . . 
1870, 

VI. 
MARIOLOGY 
of Eve (or of Christ) on the other, there certainly exists this difference, that Mary according to her entire being did not receive her existence through a direct divine act, but through human procreation. Yet the human procrea-tion is not the producing principle of the spiritual soul and does not define which soul shall be infused into the body which it formed. For the spiritual soul does not obtain its individuality from the body, but instead com-municates thereto its own individuality. On the contrary, as through creation God infuses souls and in them the personal principle, He also defines which soul He wishes to infuse, or which soul will come into existence in con-nection with the human procreation. Hence He can also allow Himself to be guided in the creation of a particular soul by the view to create the latter, not simply as all others in the execution and carrying through of the natu-ral order to finish a fruit and member of the human race. He can also grant it existence in virtue of the decree to establish through Christ and in Christ a new and higher order and to join to Christ a person who, in bridal organic unity 
Him, will be the principle and foundation of this order. However, what prevails with the creation of the soul as a personal principle, prevails also with the en-tire person. 
The Fathers often express the thoughts here ex-pounded, when they call Mary a "temple" specially built by God for Himself, or a "tree"specially planted by God to produce a truly holy fruit. These figures are graphic and intelligible. Yet they do not exclude in advance the meaning that medieval opponents of Mary's immaculate conception attached to it, namely, that God combined with the creation of Mary the view to ordain her "later 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
as His temple or to grant her the ennoblement necessary to her supernatural fecundity. For, with a material tem-ple the consecration certainly follows the building of it, and with a plant the cultivation follows the planting. As for the members, their formation and union with the head, or the spirit, coincide with each other or have inward con-nection with each other. 
Furthermore, Mary's origin must be imagined in rela-tion to that of Christ in an analogous manner as the forming of the central member in an organism, that is, the heart, which in virtue of the view and working of the forming principle stands in inner relation to the forming of the head and connection with it. This analogy, previ-ously discussed, gives in general the clearest and most perfect image of the inner connection of Mary's entire being with that of Christ, both in the divine thought and in its realization. It also embraces perfectly the other two since for the head in its corporal aspect the heart is the root as much as, in the other sense, it is the dwelling for the spirit of the head. 
As already remarked, all that is essential in this idea has been laid down by the Church in her liturgical ap-plication of the Sapiential books to Mary. With regard to the origin of Wisdom in the above-quoted words of the 
this application is correctly based on the 

unity of the decree. The three expressions describing the egress of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, 
 possessed me,"or "He made me," "I was set up" or "I was anointed," and "I was brought forth," or "I was born" 
may in particular be applied to the individual elements which come under 

Prov. 
MARIOLOGY 
consideration in Mary's origin. To these expressions an-swer the following in Mary's origin: her creation, mar-riage, or union, and, from the mutual relation of both, the origin of a being which, in an altogether special way, may and must be considered as born of God. 
Not less strikingly are these various elements clearly 
united in the figure of the 
whether imagined 

as "coming out of the mouth of the Most High or as formed from the waters of the earth together with the light of the heavens. 

Let us now consider the formal perfection of the super-natural distinguishing mark of Mary's person, constituted through the grace of the divine motherhood. It may be summarized thus: As the most perfect analogous case of the 
in Christ, the grace of 
 motherhood makes Mary a person of supernatural nature or order, in the same way as Christ is constituted a truly divine per-son through the grace of the union, it therefore forms also in Mary the ground of supernatural privileges, as does the grace of the union in the humanity of Christ. 
It could be said that this distinguishing mark of her person, as contrasted with the other one in creatures, even with that of human marriage, is not purely an acci-
dental relation or a 
rationis. In a measure it is a 
hypostatic, substantial, or essential distinguishing mark, that is, such a distinguishing mark as is due to a subject through his relation with a higher principle which dwells in him, with him is grown to a whole, and through which 
Wisd. 
THE MARK OF MARYS PERSON 
his dignity and perfection are defined, as his substantial individuality is. 
The grace of the divine motherhood is, analogous to the grace of the union, of itself a substantial, or rather the substantial grace. Essentially it is nothing else than the divine being of her Son, granted to the mother and in-fused into her. 
Further, the grace of the motherhood is a substantial grace in a second sense, since the divine person is con-nected also in a substantial or physical manner with Mary, analogously as He is with Christ, that is, grown together with her through taking root, and hence dwelling bodily in her. 
Moreover, this substantial grace is bestowed on Mary at the outset of her origin and also forever. Through it she is, from her creation and in virtue of her origin, also assumed into the person of the Logos as His bride in such a way that she exists only in and through her relation to the divine person of her Son. And this relation conditions and defines her entire existence. 
This idea of the person and being of Mary finds its expression in the figure in the Apocalypse, the woman clothed with the sun, in the typical figure of the 
cloud, and in Mary's honorary title in the Church, 

dwelling, instrument, and image of the 
spiritual substance of the Logos. As such she is sym-bolically represented by the light-cloud itself, and also as 
 with Christ, still more so by the ark of the cove-nant, filled and enshrouded with the magnificence of the Lord. 
In these figures and expressions Mary appears through the grace of her motherhood as a being altogether 
MARIOLOGY 
enly and spiritual. Under the form of an indwelling, en-veloping, and penetrating light or spirit, the grace itself is given prominence as a higher principle which, with its substance, its force, and its influence, interiorly adorns, enriches, magnifies, and spiritualizes the subject con-nected with it and penetrated by it. 
Since this principle is the divine Spirit and therefore the Holy Ghost, the subject also in which He dwells be-comes a completely holy being, an ens sacrum et sanctum, and thereby in the fullest meaning a persona et sacra. 
We say an ens sacrum et sanctum. By virtue of her con-secration through the gratiu 
Mary is sanctified in a manner all her own, analogously as the humanity of Christ is through the hypostatic union. Therefore the 
consecrans is with her also gratiu sanctificans and 

analogous to that through which the man Christ is made the Anointed of the Lord and the holy and well-beloved Child of God. The gratia of it-self virtually and formally, 
as root and soul of habitual grace, makes its subject holy and pleasing to God. This whole concept of the motherhood, which is based 
on the analogy of the 
is reflected by the 

Fathers when they explain the expression with which the angel addressed Mary, "full of grace." This they do by treating it as the distinguishing mark of her person, as the name of Christ is with her Son. 
By the expression "full of grace" as applied to Mary, they mean in the first place the grace of the motherhood, as by the "anointing of Christ"they understand the anoint-ing of the hypostatic union. Therefore they trace the unique loftiness of the person of Mary, not less than that 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
of the man Christ, to a 
indwelling of the entire 

fullness of the Godhead." 
These same names still maintain the essential differ-ence existing between "the one, full of grace" and "the Anointed of God. For, by the name "full of grace" we are to understand that Mary, besides being endowed with the highest fullness of grace, is also all that she is by the grace of God, and not of herself. The name "Christ," however, according to the explanation already given in the beginning of the Canticle of Canticles, finds its full meaning in the fact that Christ is anointed by Himself and is the effused oil 
In other words, Christ, as "Word incarnate," constituted through the mingling of the independent oil of the Logos 
the flesh, is in His own essence "divine"and "God," and therefore also "the holy of God and the "vivifying spirit." On the contrary, "the one full of grace," as 
of the Word incarnate," clothed and filled with the light of the Godhead, is ac-cording to her entire being a creature, and hence only the "dwelling" of God, and as such only the "sanctuary of God and "spiritual vessel." 
As Mary is truly and therefore not 

in the Nestorian sense, we must say that to her is due in full truth 
distinguishing mark of her person, which the Nestorians wrongly applied to Christ, namely, the dis-

See Passaglia, op. 
nos. 1033 f. 
Cant. 
name of Christ 
is equivalent to "the Anointed" by pre-eminence. 

MARIOLOGY 
would be the case in a vir deifer 
the hypostatic union. 
The same analogy and difference are pointed out by the Fathers, in particular by the Greek Fathers, in the name with which they indicate the distinguishing mark of the person of Christ and of Mary, from the viewpoint 
of divine 
 and daughterhood, 
as a relation of 
connection with God, given in and with their origin from God. Christ, by virtue of His constitutive anointing with the Logos, is in a unique manner "offshoot"and member of God's family, and, in this respect, is pre-eminently called Puer Dei and Agnus 
So Mary, by reason of her unique endowment with the fullness of grace, is pre-eminently called the puella and the 
Dei. The Puer 
Dei is no one else but the Son of God, brought forth from all eternity in the bosom of God as fruit of His being, born into the world in time. The puella Dei, however, is brought forth by God only as a child of eternal election, as fruit of His love and as bride of His Son. 
In regard to the figure of the Apocalypse (the woman clothed with the sun), through which these thoughts are graphically represented in connection with the kindred figure of the light-cloud, St. Bernard says: "How intimate thou art with Him, Domina, how close; how greatly thou merited to be the intimate, how much grace thou found with Him! He remains in thee and thou re-

mainest in Him: thou vestest Him and art vested by Him. Thou 
Him with the substance of thy flesh, and He clothes thee with the glory of His majesty. Thou 
the sun with a cloud, and thou art clothed by the same sun."Also: "By right Mary is called the one clothed with the sun, the one who penetrated beyond the deepest 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
abyss of the divine Wisdom, more than can be believed, so that, as much as such a position of a creature is per-mitted without a personal union, she seems immersed in that inaccessible light." 
Hence it is a rather weak, one-sided, and even com-pletely wrong conception, if, as often happens, the grace of the divine motherhood, considered in the abstract and by itself, apart from the gratiu habitualis, is simply placed among the 
gratis 
as if it were a position to be used only for the benefit of others. The least it can be considered is a gratia the nature of the sacramental distinguishing mark-which includes a spe-cial relation of the person endowed with grace, to Christ, and therefore enables such a one to obtain 

grace and communicates the possession of it. 
But even this analogy does not suffice. For the grace of the divine motherhood consists, according to its inner-most essence, in a wholly unique possession of the created grace. 
He who in this sense denies to 
grace of the mother-hood the quality of a grace which, of itself and as such, next to and above habitual grace, sanctifies and makes pleasing to God, must also refuse this claim in regard to the gratia in Christ, not to mention the gratiu habitationis 
Sancti. Otherwise he denies the mat-ter with words only. As maternal bride of God, Mary, to whom He has given His Son as her Son and bride-groom, possesses a special and holy dignity and is dear to God beloved of Him in a unique manner. Moreover, the act and state of sin, even of venial sin, are inconsistent with her motherhood. Anyone who concedes these truths 
St. Bernard, 
Dom. 
Ass., PL, 431. 
MARIOLOGY 
can 
that the grace which makes her the 
mother, bears the character of a 
sanctificans and 

For this very reason most theologians dealt 
with 
this formula. Its meaning was questioned because it was not put in the form here given, and because the repre-sentation brought into vogue by Ripalda and afterward 
defended 
Christophorus 
was indeed unfortu-
nate and placed the matter in a wrong light. What these theologians passed off for 
sanctificans was not what we have called the "grace of the motherhood," to which this quality precisely belongs because it is analogous to the gratia in Christ. It was rather the maternal relation to Christ, regarded physiologically only, as fol-lowing formally from the cooperation of Mary with the producing and birth of Christ, or from the fact that Christ's humanity was bodily grown together with His mother. 

thus construed are ascribed all 
habitualis (which includes the immediate dignity of the beatific vision and its merit) in such a way that these effects also exist even were sanc-tifying grace unavailable. 
The first is a shifting and restriction of the essence of the grace of the motherhood, which certainly does not bear in it any longer the character of a 
sanctificans; neither does it elucidate the deep and real reason of Mary's maternal dignity. The second is an exaggeration of the effects of this grace, which is not admissible even when correctly understood. The grace of the motherhood, as sanctifying grace, motivates the dignity of the beatific 
Ripalda, De ente disp. 79 (ed.Vives, Christ. 

Mar., palaestra 26. 
THE MARK OF PERSON 
vision and the ability to obtain it; but thereby it is not said that it must and could do so adequately, of itself alone, without the intervention and influence of the habitualis which it has as result. Therefore we definitely repudiate a 

sanctificans built up in 
way from the divine motherhood, but we are of the opinion that the arguments against it do not at all concern our concept. 
Furthermore, the truth of the concept which is point at issue appears still more clearly from what fol-lows. Since the distinguishing mark of her person must be ascribed to a particular union of Mary with the Holy Ghost, He must be thought of as the principle of her sanc-tity in an analogous way as 

is the principle of the sanctity of the Church. For the Church, regarded as an organic whole or as a principle of sanctification, has no other formal principle of its sanctity than the Holy Ghost Himself. 
From what follows, the more clearly between the substantial sanctificans in Christ and in Mary. 

The most concrete and accurate definition of the super-natural distinguishing mark of Mary's person is its like-ness to and 
from the distinguishing mark of the person of Christ. This truth follows from the fact that, ac-cording to the general and current conception of the Church, Mary is 
 counterpart of Eve and the proto-type of the Church. 
As counterpart of Eve, Mary is to the heavenly and spiritual Adam what Eve herself was to the earthly Adam 
MARIOLOGY 
endowed merely with a soul, 
help like unto himself." That is, Eve was a personal likeness of himself, placed at his side, just as he himself was a likeness of God. But it 
is a likeness which as 
like unto himself" has an en-
tirely particular form in which it expresses his common nature, formed according to God's image. Eve was such a likeness of Adam only through the fact that she also was constituted through a spiritual soul. In like manner the heavenly and spiritual Eve can there appear as a like-ness of the heavenly and spiritual Adam, only when she is understood as imbued with a divine principle. 
She appears in such a light when considered as taken possession of by the divine Logos in and with His divine nature, and as filled with His divinity. In this respect, however, full justice is not done to the distinguishing mark of the bride as of an independent person who re-sembles the person of the bridegroom and at the same time represents his being under a special form. On the contrary, this likeness comes out clearly and vividly when the distinguishing mark of Mary's person is sought in her quality of a living and personal bearer and representative (dwelling, vessel, instrument, garment, and image); in other words, as temple of the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Logos; or again, were the mark seen in the fact that, in a manner equally special though not nearly as complete, she forms one person with the Holy Ghost who informs and animates her, just as the human nature of Christ forms one person with the Logos. 
In this respect Mary at once appears not only as a person by herself next to Christ, but also, in this state, as a person similarly constituted, yet forming a special 

Gen. 
simile 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
type. Toward the Logos the Holy Ghost represents the divine nature in the same manner as the woman repre-sents the human nature next to the man. In like manner both these types unite in Mary as the woman animated by the Holy Ghost to a supernatural figure of the heavenly and spiritual Eve, in a manner analogous, in Christ, to the "type" of the Logos and that of the man uniting to form the type of the heavenly and spiritual Adam. 
The meaning of this viewpoint becomes still more im-portant as through it the subordination and relation to Christ can also be defined more clearly and significantly. 
The subordination as "bride" appears the more clearly from the fact that Christ is really and immediately anointed in the Logos-the source of the Holy and hence is Himself the principle of the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, like other created persons endowed with grace, Mary possesses in the Holy Ghost only a substan-tial principle of holiness which proceeds from the Logos and dwells in her through grace. Therefore the relation as bride to Christ appears here under this form: Mary is united with Christ through a product which is co-independent with Him in the divinity which proceeds from His godhead and dwells in her as a supernatural principle of her being and life. 
A double advantage lies in this. On the one hand, this relation is of itself conceived under a more sublime point of view than when it is only traced to Mary and Christ as bodily grown together; for it appears conspicuously as caused by a spiritual and divine tie. On the other hand, it is quite naturally brought into closest connection with 
the 
of Mary. For the Holy Ghost, who was infused 
into Mary together with the creation of her soul as costa 
MARIOLOGY 
as Methodius calls Him, places Mary in a relation to Christ similar to that in which Eve stood to Adam by having been formed from his 
Finally, a double likeness with Christ, or with His 
sacred 
 answers to this double quality of the 
relation of Mary to Christ, from the viewpoint of the re-lationship of the distinguishing mark of person to its sub-ject. 
On the one hand, the specific relation to God which forms the distinguishing marl; of Mary's person when it is understood as union with the Holy Ghost, is noted as one in which 
 soul of Mary is connected with God by 
means of her body, and also, and that 
 and 
originally, her body through the soul. Therefore it is 
connected with God 
 the medium of the soul. At 
the same time it is understood that the influence of the 
distinguishing mark of 
person, in view of the 
qualities and activities of its subject, which are based on it, had to assert itself chiefly and first in and through the soul of Mary. 
On the other hand, the distinguishing mark of Mary's person, understood 
may more easily be conceived as a distinguishing mark that was present from the be-ginning of 
 existence before the conception of Christ, and later also, after the birth of Christ, and which actu-ally continued during the entire duration of her exist-ence. 
The soundness and meaning of this idea of the distin-guishing mark of Mary's person appears still more clearly from the fact that 
 supernatural essence of the Church, 
St. decem lib. 3, c.8; PG, 
73. 

THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
whose prototype and root Mary is, is represented in the language and concept of the Church herself precisely ac-cording to this type. 
This is evident in the individual members of the 
Church. As temples, animated by the 
 Ghost, they 
are understood as being in such 
with Him that He 
Himself ''prays in them with unutterable sighs." 
It is 
still much more obvious in the 
so far as the 
Church as bride of Christ and mother of Christians stands between Christ and His spiritual children; and also so far as the Church as a supernatural and heavenly prin-ciple, arisen from the side of similar and equiva-

lent to Him, forms an simile which assists 
Him. In the Catholic concept, the Church is such a principle as bearer and representative, 
dwelling, instrument, and image, or as temple of the Holy Ghost. This must be understood in the sense that the Holy Ghost not only 
her through His working, but forms with her one undivided whole and is embraced in her composition 
as her 
 In other words it is as a kind of incarnation 
of the Holy Ghost with whom therefore she shares His symbolic 
of being: 
Dei. 
This concept is particularly essential to prevent the 
vaporizing to a mere 
 of our imagination 
the sublime and significant idea, according to which the Church is conceived as a supernatural, substantial, and 
Rom. 
cf. 
See the material from tradition collected by Seb. Tromp, S.J., 
nativ. Ecclesiae e Corde Jesu in 
in Gregorianum, 

For patrisitc material see Seb. Tromp, De Spiritu Sancto anima 2 
(Univ. Gregor.), nos. 1 and 7, Rome, 1932, and Corpus 

quod est Rome, 1937. 
MARIOLOGY 
personal being, or, with Methodius, as Indeed the Church has a supernatural essence and ex-istence only so far as the Holy Ghost is her Spirit and completes her in Himself, in a way analogous to the way the human spirit perfects the human body. In many a title ascribed to the Church, particularly when she is rep-resented as an acting subject distinct from all her mem-bers and at the same time something absolute and holy in herself, she steps forward as rising, so to say, in the Holy Ghost and identical with Him. This is analogous to the way, in the natural man, the body as an animated body, 

the spirit as the animating principle of the body, are bound up in each other and are identical with each other. 
When the Church, therefore, as a supernatural prin-ciple, finds the prototype in the supernatural distinguish-ing mark of the essence and existence of Mary, then this distinguishing mark of person must certainly be looked for in an analogous relation to the Holy Ghost and in unity with Him. In the Church, however, only human nature in general or as a unity of race, or the social organism of a visible union, is manifest as the bearer of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the idea of the Church is in no indi-vidual of that nature and in no separate member of that organism so realized that he stands to the Holy Ghost in a way analogous to that of the humanity of Christ to the Logos, and is thus animated by the Holy Ghost in his entire being and is His instrument for this entire, 
This is probably an allusion to the text of St. Methodius, lib. 8, c. 5; PG, XVIII, 145 (application of Apoc. 12: 
to the Church). See also Jac. Farges, Les 

(Paris, 
p. 143. 
THE MARK OF MARY'S PERSON 
natural activity. But Mary is for that very reason the prototype of the Church, as the idea of the Church is originally realized in her person and in the most perfect manner. Since she herself belongs to the Church and at the same time forms the head-member as root and heart, the idea of the Church as a supernatural principle assist-ing Christ also obtains its full, concrete, and living figure. 
Furthermore, when the Church is considered the mystical body of Christ or 
Verbi in 
co-assumpta et conrepleta a Verbo, and in this quality is placed in relation to Christ as her Head and to the Logos as her spirit, she is, as known, quite naturally so con-ceived that she is not, like the Head, immediately ani-mated by the Spirit, 
the essence of being of the Logos, but by the Holy Ghost as the breath of life which proceeds from the spirit and spreads over the body. 
Accordingly Mary also, as a member of the mystical body of Christ and as 
coassumpta et conrepleta a Verbo, must be thought of in a special manner as ani-mated by the Holy Ghost and not by the Logos. As head-member of the body she stands to the Head as well as to the other members in a way like that of the heart. In the human organism the heart is the bearer, organ, and representative of the vivifying functions, as the head is that of the spiritual functions and influences of the spir-itual soul. Hence Mary also must be considered from this point of view as bearer, organ, and representative of the Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Logos. 
Once again it appears here especially, how clearly Mary, through this concept of the distinguishing mark of the person, is distinguished from Christ and from the 
MARIOLOGY 
rest of men. For by it she appears at the side of Christ as a supernatural being above other men, and toward Christ she stands with the rest of mankind as a natural being de-pendent on the influence of His grace. 
CHAPTER XI 
The Source of Mary's Dignity1 
HE assumption into the divine person of the Logos, given to the human nature of Christ through the grace of the union, is the highest distinction that was and could be granted to a created nature. Likewise the dis-tinguishing mark of person contained in the divine moth-erhood is also the highest distinction with which a created person can be endowed. For there is no higher function of a creature than the immediate bodily and spiritual co-operation in the most sublime work of God; neither does there exist a more perfect association with God, and cer-tainly no more perfect appropriation of God to the crea-ture, than through the "divine marriage" which forms the essence of the grace of the divine motherhood. 
Hence the Mother of God is, next to Christ, the most sublime work of God and also the noblest and most worthy person in the created world; to the extent that in nobility and dignity she surpasses, beyond comparison, all other persons, however filled with grace. Rightly named, therefore, is this loftiness of her nobility and dig-nity when it is called infinite, not indeed in an absolute sense, yet in a very real sense. Infinite it is so far as it contains such a participation in the essentially dignity of God, or resembles it so closely that, apart from 
Literature as in the former chapter, and Passaglia, op. 
1, and especially 
6, c.4; Haine, De 1864. 219 
MARIOLOGY 

God Himself, no higher is imaginable, neither can it be equaled or measured through any other dignity possible to a created person. 
The entire unique sublimity and dignity 
 of the Mother of God is often exalted by the Fathers in the most en-thusiastic expressions, particularly through comparison with that of the highest heavenly 
When St. Thomas in a certain passage quite simply says that Mary is the most perfect mother imaginable, as the beatific vision according to its essence is the most perfect knowledge, he does not intend by that to exclude what he explains in another place, that Mary, precisely as the most perfect mother, is also simply the most sublime created 
The of the divine motherhood, in respect 

to the which is based on it, with the sanctifying 
grace and the dignity of the state of the adopted children resting on it, can cause difficulties only when one con-ceives the motherhood inadequately as a physiological relation between mother and child, or as an office, and one makes an entire abstraction of it, that the sanctifying grace is morally of necessity connected with it. 
On the contrary it is not enough to say that Mary's state as adopted child is necessarily connected with her motherhood. For, as bridal unity with the Son of God and as possession of this Son, based on a divine appropria-tion, the motherhood includes the positive contents of the 
dignitas. Cf. the passages quoted in Hurter. Dogm. Comp. 376 ff., thesis 155; Haine, op. 
Part I, chap. 1; Passaglia, 1 and 
6, c. 1 and 4. 
4 St. Thomas, 
q.27, a.5 ad 2; In I Sent., 
44, q. 
a.3 See also Conrad. Saxon., B.M.V., 
10 
by 1904, 
134). 

state of adoption in itself and in an eminent manner, partly 
and partly formal. Moreover, it defines the filial relation of Mary to God so that it is really more than a common state of adoption; for it shares in a particular way the inherent nature of the essentially divine state of Christ as child and son. 
Formally and adequately taken as God's bridal mother-hood, the divine motherhood in its concrete realization also implies the most vivid bridal relation of Mary to God. 
Hence no 
 is presented by these utterances of the 
Fathers in which the physiological side of the mother-hood and Mary's union of love with God are so compared that this latter is prominent as a more sanctifying good than the former. 
 St. Augustine says: "Mary was happier when she conceived with her mind than with her womb . . . she carried it more happily in her heart than in her body," 
 he does not simply contrast the moth-erhood of Mary with her spiritual, moral perfection; he merely places one element in the functions of the mother-hood opposite another which, in reality, is connected with it and which, according to the same Augustine, pre-cedes it as a condition: "she conceived first with her mind and then with her body." 
Venerable Bede says: "And the same Mother of God and thence happy indeed, because she is made the tem-poral mistrss of the incarnate Word, but thence much happier because she remained the eternal keeper of the Word to love Him forever."' He thus simply places a passing, maternal activity in contrast with the 

Cf. St. Augustine, 
215, no. 4; PL, 1078: Maria 

St. Bede, 
Luc., lib. 
11; PL, XCII,480. 
spiritual union of the mother with the Son, which is merely the continuation of the maternal love with which Mary has exercised her temporal 
As to the dignity of the Mother of God being infinite, see St. Thomas In I Sent.,dist. 44,a. 3.St. Albert the Great says: "The Son adorns His mother with an infinite excel-lence; an excellence in the fruit discloses an in-finite excellence in the tree." 
 This latter expression is significant, but can also be easily misunderstood. It would be false if it meant that the godhead, 
the excellence of the fruit, finds its adequate and most intimate principle, from which it is drawn, in Mary's inner constitution or condition. The true meaning is more nearly this: in virtue of the conception of the semen divinum from which this fruit is produced, the 
excellence of the fruit premises such a union of the mother with the godhead dwelling in her, that through it the godhead itself be-comes the principle and the measure of the excellence of the mother. 
Compared with the rest of mankind, the unique excel-lence of Mary, wrought through the grace of her mother-hood, may thus be 
so that one discovers in it a community and likeness with those privileges through which the excellent position of Christ is characterized as contrasted with creatures. This may happen under a threefold aspect, according as one considers Mary next to, with, and immediately after Christ: (1)as standing in an eminent likeness and a community with God simply apart from all other beings and above them: transcen-dental position; (2) as a member of mankind and of the 
St 

the Great, 
q.197. 

THE SOURCE OF DIGNITY 

universe in general: imminent position; (3) as a link be-tween creature and Creator: central position. 

In her transcendental position, by virtue of the grace of the motherhood, Mary appears next to, with, and im-mediately after Christ in such an eminent way as the image and likeness of God, that the Church does not hesi-tate to apply to her the scriptural descriptions relative to the eternal Wisdom as the image and likeness of God, which stands apart from all creatures and above them, 
Accordingly a participation in the 

divine persons, a certain communicatio 
takes place with Mary, analogously as with Christ, in such a unique manner as with no other creature, to whatever extent they are endowed with grace. 
For that reason, however, the title of dea may not be ascribed to the Mother of God. Although she really more closely resembles God and is more connected with Him than they who are called gods in Holy Writ, yet what is exceptional with her in her likeness and community with God would precisely cause the danger in understanding this name in a pagan sense according to which dea and 
are substantially on a par. 
For the same reason Mary may not be called 
7
or "divine being' or ''divine woman" or "divine virgin"; although in the last case this happens in Latin under the form diva. One must rather characterize her "divine" character through other expressions, as: holy, glorious, heavenly Virgin. 
MARIOLOGY 
On the contrary she is, analogously to Christ as man, the "holy child of God." Hence there lies also in the divine 
state as child a particular reflection of the divine 
terhood of the eternal Wisdom toward God the Father. In the person of the Logos, and thus in the man Christ 
also, this really coincides with His divine 
 and is 
absorbed therein. But in the Holy Ghost, and thus in Mary also, it is represented through the relation as Dei,arising from the breath of the divine love, a 
relation which 
 from the 

The name "daughter of God the Father," based on this reflection of the daughterhood of the eternal Wisdom, and understood in the sense defined through it, is the most excellent and powerful, and yet the most conceiv-able and simple of divine titles with which we can sum up the magnificence of Mary above all creatures. It contains all the divine attributes that may be applied to Mary, and gives them their clear and simple meaning and their suitable form. 
The specific meaning of this name is 
of all that Mary in her origin from the breath of the divine love, from the vivifying power of God, appears through His loving decree as a spiritual living being. By virtue of this origin she is herself as it were a divine breath through which the Word, produced in the heart of the Father, must be born and be clothed in the flesh assumed by Him and animated by Him. This name, therefore, contains a likeness of Mary with 
substantial 
 of God," the Holy Ghost; and in-
deed in that 
and function through which His posi-
tion in the Trinity, belonging to Him in virtue of His origin from Gad, is most beautifully characterized and 
THE SOURCE OF MARY'S DIGNITY 
in which He preferably stands forth as the "dove" arising from God. 
With regard to such a divine daughterhood, Mary is consequently, analogous to the eternal Wisdom, rightly called in contrast with all creatures the only and the first-born daughter of God. The only born, for such a daughter does not belong to any other creature; the first-born, for in virtue of the special character of this daughterhood Mary is not only the first in rank among all the children of God, but also the mother of all others. 
Analogous to the eternal Wisdom Himself, Mary, as daughter of God, is also the first-born of the entire crea-tion. In God's decree of creation she is intended, with the incarnate Wisdom, to be the end and completion of the works of God. The decree of creation which had in view her existence, was conditioned and defined through the will, not simply to produce things apart from God, but to send ad extra and to effuse the eternal Wisdom Himself. 
For that very reason Mary, as daughter born of has above the other creatures of God who in time have been called from nothingness into being, a further privi-lege. Her origin supposes the eternal origin of the divine Wisdom and, in virtue of its organic connection with the appearing of this Wisdom ad extra in time, it is in God's thought connected in a particular manner with the eternal and internal origin of Wisdom. 
From the excellent and divine daughterhood of Mary, or from her character contained therein as maternal bride of the Son of God, there easily follows the participation in certain divine attributes. We refer to the attributes in which the divine glory and power which are due to the eternal Wisdom in contrast with the rest of creatures in 
MARIOLOGY 
virtue of His origin from God, are perfectly revealed with this Wisdom, that is, with the Son of God and the Holy Ghost. These titles are: with the Son of God and the Holy 
Viuificator; with the eternal Wisdom, in the sense of the description from the books of Wisdom, Regina, and Mater omnium. 
Accordingly, in the language of the Church, Mary bears a series of names that agree with those already men-tioned. These names are Domina sancta, particularly 

The name Domina ("she who rules"), more correctly Domina sancta, corresponding to the of Christ, implies, in contrast to the state of servant, the right to joint enjoyment of the glory and bliss of God. This right is granted to the Mother of God in and with the person of her divine bridegroom and Son. A further sort of right is that of joint disposal of the goods of God in view of their distribution to others. Furthermore the title nostra or Dominatrix implies the right to submissive ven-eration and obliging obedience on behalf of all creatures who depend on God. And rightly so, since Mary, next to God and Christ, is the end to which the entire rational and irrational creation is directed, as the irrational and earthly creation is to man. 
The idea of Vita, Vivificatrix, or 
implies that Mary, in virtue of the grace of her motherhood, is in a perfect manner the seat, bearer, and instrument of the principle of supernatural life and light of grace. This she is both for herself and for others. This principle rather exercises its influence as particularly dwelling in her, and by her entering into relation with the rest of the world. Hence she is, next to God and Christ, the secondary prin-ciple of grace, and thereby of the supernatural comple-ment of mankind and of the world in general. 
Both ideas do not simply stand beside each other, as having the same basis and as represented together in the figure of the heavenly woman, clothed with the sun. They also define and penetrate each other. Therefore Mary is the more perfectly the domina of rational creatures as she is likewise the secondary principle of their supernatural light and life. Consequently she is the perfect secondary principle of this supernatural light and life, as she com-municates the first principle of this life to the world as appropriated and belonging first and uniquely to her-self; and also as, in this respect, she is not distinguished less from every other instrument of the distribution of grace, than through the physical activity with the produc-ing and birth of Christ. 
The ideas of Domina and Vita or 
 belong so much to the distinguishing mark of Mary's person and express its specific excellence so strikingly, that of old many writers sought to find those ideas expressed in the very name of "Mary": the first according to the Syrian derivation by the Syrian Fathers : the second according to the Hebrew explanation of St. Jerome. Both titles were 
united by some 
Ephraem), with special stress on the 
highest likeness with God, contained therein: "After the Trinity she is the Domina of all; after the Paraclete she is another paraclete." 

The name of Domina with its various nuances is in use 
St. Ephraem of Syria, 
ad Deip., 
by 528, cited by 
Vol. 
no. 1399. 
MARIOLOGY 
in the older liturgies, and also with the 
 and in the sense explained is wholly dogmatic. St. John Dama-scene: "And thus Grace (the name of Anna signifies grace) brings forth the 
for this is expressed by the name Mary, because she is made truly the Domina of all creatures, when she appeared as mother of the Crea-tor. . . . Indeed, she is properly the mother of God and the Domina and, appearing as both the handmaid and the mother of the Creator, she exercises authority over all creatures." 
 Peter Chrysologus adds to the words of the angel: "Fear not, Mary": "Before the occasion the dig-nity of the Virgin is made known by the name; for she is called Mary in Hebrew, Domina in Latin. Thus the angel calls her to remove the trepidation of servitude from the Lord's mother whom her own authority made and caused to be born as and to be called from her birth." 
The title to this right contained in the attribute 
is the personal community of Mary with God, which lies in her divine state as bride and was completed through the infusion of the Logos in His conception. Thereby the infusion of the Logos into the Virgin can also be considered her anointing and appointment as On the ground of this first title there comes only as second into consideration the mutual communica-which agrees with the maternal activity with the 
See Passaglia, 
6, c. 1, art. 1; Haine, 
pp. 125 f. St. John Damascene, De 
Bk IV, chap. 14; PG, XCIV, 1157, 

St. Peter Chrys., 
142; PL, LII, 579. 
Scheeben refers here to the same place in Chrysologus. The latter sees in the announcement of the angel the solemn appointment of Mary as Queen, but gives at the same time to understand that she was this in fact from her birth. 

THE SOURCE OF MARY'S DIGNITY 
loving care for the humanity of Christ, or the honor and love which belongs to the mother on behalf of her child. 
As it would, therefore, be.incorrect to consider the ma-ternal influence on Christ as man as the main title, it would be still more incorrect to deduce from it a 
through which Mary would be Domina 
as it could appear in some zealous exaggerations of the dominium of Mary. Neither can the maternal authority of Mary over the humanity of Christ be called dominium 
for even in contrast with ordinary people it is not really a dominium.Therefore by decree of the Holy Office (February 12,1878) the Holy See forbade the at-tribute Regina 
which in Poland had been so 

translated from the French 
Dame 

and prohibited also those representations where the Child Jesus stands before the knees of the seated mother. With regard to Christ, one can speak only of a belong-ing to Mary, whereby her participation in His goods and 
over His subjects are founded as condomi-nium. This belonging to and this condominium have en-tirely the form of the claim which the bride obtains toward the bridegroom, through her acceptance as bride and her services as bride. This idea extends to the farthest bounds. But it has some necessary restrictions inasmuch as the ideas of domina and handmaid do not exclude each other here, but rather blend together harmoniously in idea of Dei. 

Neither does the idea of dominium 
of the Mother of God mean that she can exercise a jurisdiction over all persons or possess a proprietary right to all things; for this belongs no more to the right of the bride than to that of the mother. Furthermore, Mary's right in this 

MARIOLOGY 

spect must not be measured simply according to the share of an earthly queen in the rule of a king, but rather as the participation of a mother in the family rights of the father. 
The position of Mary next to Christ and under Him over all mere creatures, as she is characterized through the title 
appears strikingly through the union of the scriptural texts according to which Christ "sits" at the right hand of God on the latter's throne, the Queen "stands" at His right hand, the angels and saints or "lie upon their faces" before the 

Under the names of the second category ('life"), "our life" 
is in accord with Scripture, for, as synonymous with "Eve," it is applicable to Mary, the counterpart of Eve, and indeed in the particular meaning of secondary principle of the supernatural, glorious life of grace. 
But Mary is not simply such a principle in the sense that she effects the application of the grace of redemption through her prayer. This title means rather that Mary, by virtue of the divine motherhood through which she brought forth Christ, in Him gives the principle of grace to the world. Hence in the Litany of 

 is strikingly connected with For the same reason no one but she is called mother of grace, although other saints may obtain grace for us through their prayers. 

On the other hand, Mary is distinguished from Christ and God through the fact that she is called the mother 
Ps. 
Dixit Domino Sede a 
(cf. Heb. 
13); Ps. 
regina a 
Phil. ut in 
omne genu 
Apoc. 
Et 
. . . in 
in fades 

Cf. the patristic texts in 
6, 
art. 5, 6. In the Salue Regina the wished to make the title 
disappear by chang-ing the text to vitae 
of grace or the maternal principle of grace. The eternal Wisdom is also represented in the books of Wisdom next 
to God the Father as maternal 
mediating through love, principle of grace), and in His action on earth is de-scribed as the source and channel of living So Mary also remains under this more particular name the image of a divine person. From this point of view she is more definitely the image of the Holy Ghost. With Him she has in common the symbol of the "dove"which, par-ticularly in this sense, is full of meaning, and also the name and the quality of pnracletus. Corresponding to the 

In her imminent position as a member of the universe and in particular of mankind, Mary appears next to Christ, as the noblest and most important member, or rather as a member of mankind raised to a higher order through whom and in whom 
stands in mystical communication with Christ. 
Considered as an offspring of mankind, she is its high-est flower as Christ is its most excellent fruit. For that very reason she is the highest and likewise the heavenly spiritual and mystical flower, the 
mystical rose," the 
the patristic material in Passaglia, 
111, nos. 
1369ff. 
Passaglia, op. cif., no. 1393. 
"spiritual lily"; for Christ is brought forth in her and from her as fruit of the earth and of heaven at the same time. 
Mary, as the flower of mankind turned toward heaven, further receives in the conception of the Logos the dew and light of heaven for all mankind; she forms the throne of Emmanuel, who descends as the principle of grace. Thus she is also for all mankind the head member, the instrument in the contracting of the mystical marriage with the Logos, which was made in her and through her. In this respect she may even be called, in a relative sense, the mystical head of mankind, so far as this latter is thought of, not as one body with Christ, but in contra-distinction with Him, as His bride. 
Still it is not Mary, but Christ Himself who is the real mystical Head of mankind. As mother of this Head she obtains toward the rest of men such a position by virtue of which she is the mother also of the mystical body of Christ; or as mother of Christ, mother of Christians also; and as bodily mother of the Son of God, spiritual mother of men with regard to their state as children of God. 
This universal motherhood of Mary, which is 
called the mystical motherhood, may not at all be con-sidered a purely moral or so-called motherhood. In its nature it is as equally real, organic, living, and substantial a relation as that of the bodily motherhood. It rests on the maternal relation of Mary to Christ and the organic relation in which Christians stand to Christ as their Head. Ultimately this mystical motherhood is derived from the fact that Mary, as real bride of God, is seat and instru-ment of the divine light of grace. 
The cohesion of this secondary with the primary moth-erhood is so close that we may say: Mary receives in the 
conception of Christ the real, divine Word as semen 
in such a way that in Christ and with Christ men also must be born from it as children, and that conse-quently all men are virtually brought forth in her bosom through the conception of Christ. 
In Christ Mary also receives and brings forth her own spiritual Head. As His bodily mother she is subject to Him as to her spiritual Bridegroom and is given to Him as His partner because as man He is in His mother's womb "man," not "child,"according to the spirit."Likewise, in view of spiritual motherhood, she is also with regard to men subordinate and coordinate to her Son as to their spiritual Father. Therefore, as spiritual mother of men, she takes a position between these latter and Christ, in a way analogous to that which other mothers have between the father and the children. 
By her position as mother of Christ and of Christians, Mary shares the quality of spiritual vine of that portion of mankind which is endowed with grace. We may also regard her in Christ and with Christ as the cornerstone on which the latter rests; more closely, as that corner-stone through which the whole structure is connected with the primary cornerstone. 
However, so far as mankind, built up on Christ as an organic body, is connected with Him as with its Head, Mary's position in this body may be considered that of the heart. This is true of the mother in the natural com-munity of the family. In the mystical body of Christ the analogy of the physical organism generally holds true in 

The word 
characterizes the being, enclosed in the 
mother's womb, as a person who, to the spirit, is not subjected to development, but who already possessesthe maturity of a man. 
MARIOLOGY 
a higher manner and in a fuller measure than in any hu-man grouping. Christ is, therefore, in an exceptionally deep and emphatic sense, the "Head" of His mystical body. Mary also, in a sense no less deep and emphatic, is the heart of this body. 
As there exists between Mary and Christ the same or-ganically mutual relation as there is between heart and head, there also takes place in Mary an organic mediation between the Head and the other members, as the heart does in physical bodies. In particular, Mary, as the heart of the mystical body, appears as the privileged seal of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Head to animate the entire body; as the member in whom the entire life of the Head is reflected in the most perfect manner and whose functions condition and support in many ways the influ-ence of the Head on the other members. 
Moreover, in Mary this representation strikingly char-acterizes her personal position, full of life, in the internal organism of the body of Christ, as contrasted with that place which belongs to the official representatives of Christ in the external organism of the Church. 
Under the symbols mentioned, we often find with the Fathers particularly those of "flower" and 
still oftener, that of the "vine." 
That of the heart is some-what rarely used, although it is present if we carry 
through the thought of the mystical 
In any case 
it is richer, deeper, and more characteristic than the name 
sometimes used, 
This title can 

Cf. 
nos. 1365 f. but also moralizing discussion 
found in Ernest of Prague, 
chap. 83. 
The expression is originated by St of Siena, 
5 

B.M.V.,chap. 8 (ed. Venice, 1745, 
92). 
THE SOURCE OF MARY'S DIGNITY 
indeed be 
 and is even obvious to a superficial 
view; but it sounds rather crude, in some languages more so than in others. 
The universal, mystical motherhood of Mary is often explained too flatly and one-sidedly and is connected too loosely with the bodily motherhood toward Christ. We easily picture it to ourselves in such a way that it stands in relation to the bodily motherhood like that of the adoptive motherhood, foster motherhood, in the case of a human mother, which a person could obtain apart from the physical motherhood. The origin of the universal motherhood is traced to the commission of Christ which Mary received at the foot of the Cross. We see its func-tions preferably in the intercession through which Mary distributes the grace of redemption, which Christ gained. Thus the divine motherhood stands forth partly as the reason of her power of intercession and partly as the mo-tive of her loving care for the redeemed. As we shall see later, the moral motherhood is not adequately expressed in this way. Mary's participation in the actual deed of re-demption is not thereby taken into consideration. 
We approach the essence of Mary's universal mother-hood more closely when we take as an analogy the exten-sion of the human motherhood of a human mother to the bride of her son, or to their children. Here the second motherhood is achieved through the first. Hence it shares the nature of the first one so much that it rises above the idea of a merely adoptive motherhood or foster mother-hood. It contains a real relationship ( 
) between mother and child and an organic communication of life. This point of view is present, therefore, to the mind of the Fathers and theologians when they base Mary's uni-
motherhood on the fact that she brought forth in Christ the Head of all mankind. Yet this point of view is not 
With regard to the extension and broadening of the motherhood, there exists with Mary an essential 
 from other mothers. In the case of the latter, the motherhood is ex-tended as a bodily one; in Mary's case her bodily mother-hood establishes, opposite Christ, in relation to men not a bodily, but a spiritual motherhood. St. Augustine says: "'Physically, Mary is of Christ only His mother; spiritually, she is His sister and mother. Spiritually, she is not the mother of our head, the very Savior, but the mother of us, His members. But physically she is indeed the mother of that head." 
 This special relation is conditioned through the higher, supernatural character of the pri-mary and secondary motherhood of Mary. Yet it disturbs their organic and mutual relation so little that it forms rather the basis of a much closer and more vivid connec-tion between both than can be found with ordinary mothers. 
The most graphic picture of this connection is seen in the physical organism: the heart in its double relation to the head and members. 

From the fact that the Mother of God shares Christ's own transcendental and immanent position, she partici-pates also in Christ's own central position between crea-tures and God. She must, therefore, be considered the 
in a sense analogous to that in which Christ is 
St De 
chaps. 5f.; PL, XL, 399. 
THE SOURCE OF MARY'S DIGNITY 
the mediator. Between the other creatures and God, Mary generally stands not merely close to God. As she is connected through her being and origin with nature, she is also, by her divine motherhood, so connected with 
through an organic tie that she is herself a substantial link, which puts creation in relation with God. Her en-tire maternal activity takes root in this quality of her person or is most closely allied to it. 
In contrast to all other merely created mediators, she is further mediatrix in so unique a manner that Christ's being as mediator is simply attached to her motherhood. For Christ was not given to the world without her co-operation. Furthermore, He receives from her the flesh in which and through which He exercises His office of mediator. Lastly, He is, through her mediation alone, con-nected with men as their Head. 
Hence her office of mediatrix has this in common with that of Christ, that it is in its kind both essential and uni-versal; for in one way or another it comprises all per-sons as well as all goods and all association with God to which the mediatorship of Christ is extended. 
In this sense Mary is called, in the language of the Fa-thers, "the ring" 
 "the ladder," 
 the earth with heaven, the world with God; 
 "the ark of the covenant," or "the throne of atonement," on which God meets His 
Evidently through the mediatorship of Mary that of Christ is not lessened, but is supposed and elucidated. For Mary's whole position as mediatrix and all her functions of mediation point to Christ as to the mediator. They are 
For numerous texts from the Fathers about the mediatrix, see nos. 1399 f., and Mar., 

MARIOLOGY 
conditioned through the mediatorship of Christ as the most fundamental and the highest one. 
Mary is particularly distinguished from Christ through the fact that she is directly only mediatrix with Christ, and only by Christ with God. She is in general only mediatrix, or the way, whereas Christ is mediatrix as well as the first principle and last end of men's union with God. This distinction comes out most clearly through what follows. As the incarnate God, Christ in His person brings God closer to men. Therefore He is first the bearer and representative of the influence of God on creatures; only in the second place is He the representative also of creation in the association with God. Mary, on the con-trary, is only the 
among men to whom God ap-proaches and whom He unites with Himself, because she receives the communication of God first and most directly. 
Accordingly the activity of Mary's mediation has this specific meaning, that it represents the cooperation which becomes those who receive the grace to obtain this one. But in this respect it is also so perfect and universal that Mary exercises her influence in the distribution of grace both through her intercession and through preparing the way, namely, with the acceptance of the principle of grace in the Incarnation, and through her part in Christ's sacrifice, which gained the grace. 

We have explained Mary's unique excellence, through which by the grace of her motherhood she rises above all other creatures, however greatly they may be endowed with grace. To this excellence there evidently corresponds a worthiness of veneration all its own, or a right to ven-eration. The latter is incomparably higher than that be-longing to other saints. In comparison with the latter honor, which we call simply 
it is usually called h y 

The hyperdulia differs from the simple 
in degree and in essence, as also the privileges of Mary upon which it rests, are of a different and higher nature than those of the other saints. 
In contrast with the personal holiness of the saints, the dignity of the divine motherhood contains in particular for all creatures a relation of dependence on Mary and sub-ordination to her as to the mistress of creation, the queen and mother of grace: in other words, a relation of sub-jects. On the part of men there exists also a particular duty of gratitude toward her and a need of her mediation. Con-sequently the worship of Mary is a stricter duty and also possesses a special form. 
Evidently Mary's eminent worthiness of veneration does not harm the honor of God and of Christ. Mary is only 
a reflection of the divine 
 of Christ; and her 
recognition is only a result of the honor paid to God and Christ. Moreover, the worship of the Mother of God is exercised in the Church precisely with the purpose of honoring Christ and God more perfectly in her and by her, quite as 
paid to the humanity of Christ, or of Christ as man, serves to a more perfect adoration of His divinity. 
About the idea of 
 see particularly St. Peter 

and 
 who is much more fortunate 
St Peter De Maria 
Bk. 

chap. 
De 
22, 
3. 

MARIOLOGY 
here than where he applies this idea to the humanity of Christ. 
In view of the relation of the veneration of Mary to that of Christ, we note here a fact which at first glance seems strange to Protestants and also to many Catholics. Accord-ing to Catholic custom, the Litany of is said dur-ing the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Considering the strictness with which Rome sees to it that during this exposition the entire attention is centered on the Eu-charist, we not only see in the recitation of the Litany of 
no diminution of the veneration of Christ, but we must rather recognize that the Litany here bears even the character of a 
 devotion, with direct relation to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. 
We see that this litany is well suited to that purpose, if we understand it in the spirit of the Church. We honor God most perfectly if, during Mass, we make Christ in His humanity the immediate object and example, the means and bearer of our adoration. Likewise we honor Christ here in His humanity most perfectly by giving the person who stands closest to His humanity and who is His throne, a place in our veneration to make her the example, means, and bearer of our adoration. On both counts the pious disposition is, therefore, subjectively more strongly stimulated and elevated, and also objec-tively a more worthy homage is thereby paid to God. 
APPENDIX I 
The Protevangelium 
HE first and fundamental promise of the Redeemer, correctly called the 
tion is the deliverance of mankind from the dominion which the devil obtained through his victory over Adam by means of the temptation of the woman. Therefore it is here announced through the promise about "the seed of the woman." This means a future Son of the ancestress, and at the same time and in the first place a mother, who is prefigured by Eve and who produces the Son without the seed of a man. Together with His mother this Son must stand in perpetual and invincible enmity to the devil and crush his head, 
overthrow his rule, while the devil can only lie in wait for His heel, that is, attack Him in the lower part of His being. Face to face with the first couple, in whom mankind has fallen under the dominion of the devil, there is thus placed one of their descendants, or rather, a new couple, proceeding from them, in whom and by whom this dominion will be broken. It is also in-dicated that the head of the serpent will be crushed at the very moment when the heel of the woman is wounded, and precisely on that account. 
The following is the text of the Vulgate: 

inter te et 
 et semen tuum et semen 

conteret 
tuum et 
calcaneo 

241 
MARIOLOGY 
(Gen. 
In the Hebrew text the same verb 
(= 
infestare) is used where the Vulgate uses 
terere and 
in this passage. In the first instance, 
the word must mean, in the context, "a victorious 

just as the "enmity" is an invincible enmity on the part of the woman and the "seed of the woman." Otherwise no effective punishment would be inflicted on the serpent. 
The Latin text uses the feminine form ipsa. The He-brew text, at least the present-day one, gives the mascu-line form for ipse, and the corresponding masculine form for 
Thus it indicates, not the woman, but the seed of the woman as the conqueror of the serpent. Since the invincible enmity against the serpent is represented as common to both, the victory must also be common to both in one way or another; and this is shown by the text which has the obvious purpose of making the punishment of the serpent complete, since a woman is the instrument of his defeat, as the 
woman is the instrument of his victory. Considering the later similar promises about the seed of Abraham and the explanation of the Apostle: Non 
seminibus quasi in 
 posteris) sed 
in semini tuo,"qui 
(Gal. 3:16),we must understand by "the seed of the woman"a single and cer-tain son only. In contrast with other sons, who according to the order of nature proceed from the seed of the man and are called after it, the expression "seed of the woman" indicates him as a son who proceeds exclusively, hence in a supernatural way, from the woman, 

is born of a virgin. Interpreted thus, the expression is the more suit-able because the "seed of the man," that is, the 
off-spring of the ancestors, was already conquered in them by 
APPENDIX I 243 
the devil, and subjected to his dominion. Accordingly we must understand by "the woman," who is referred to here, that woman whom this son proceeds imme-diately. For He proceeds anew from 
remote ances-tresses through the seed of the man. All the more as this woman, with regard to the enmity against the serpent, appears prominently in such close community with her seed. 
Moreover, the expression "the woman" indicates this woman as the ideal of womanliness and as representative of all womankind, which would conquer the devil in a 
later representative, even as it was 
 by him in 
the first woman. Therefore, if the expression indicates Eve also, it must refer to her as the 
of the later woman. Similarly, according to the explanation of the Apostle ( 
1 the words in the prophecy of Nathan 

about the Son of David, "I will be to him a father" 
Kings 
refer beyond Solomon directly to Christ. In any event Eve by herself, in her circumstances, was altogether incapable of being placed opposite the devil as his conqueror. This is also the traditional explanation of the Church, about which 
IX expresses himself in 
the bull 

Pope 
IX, Bull "With the words, 'I shall put enmities be-tween thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed,' God in His very first announcement to the world gave the sovereign remedy His divine mercy had prepared for the renewal of our human race. He thereby repressed the audacity of the deceiver, the devil, and wonderfully lifted up the ho mankind. Interpreting these words, the Fathers teach us that this announcement clearly and distinctly points to the merciful Redeemer of the human race in the person of the only-begotten Son of God, 
Christ, and designates the most blessed Virgin Mary as His mother. It expresses notably the very enmities of both 
the devil. Wherefore Christ, the mediator between God and man, upon assuming our human nature, erases the hand-writing of the decree which was against us, and fastens it as conqueror to the cross. Likewise, bound to Him by the closest and most indissoluble bond, 
MARIOLOGY 
The fact that the crushing of the serpent's head is placed against his bite, expresses in a clear and magnificent way the inequality of power between the woman and the ser-pent, the excellence of the seed of the woman, and the humiliating impotence of the devil. The figure is still more striking if we understand it as meaning that the head of the serpent is crushed at the very moment when he attacks the heel. Therefore it is pointed out that the devil is conquered precisely where he wounded the Savior, according to His earthly side, 
through the bodily death of the Savior, caused by him. 
As with all other prophecies, this prophecy is elucidated fully only by its realization. However, the elements quoted seem to follow from a sharper consideration of the text itself. 
the most holy Virgin carries into effect, together with Him and by Him, the perpetual enmities against the poisonous serpent, is completely victorious over it, and crushes it by her immaculate foot." 
APPENDIX 
The Human Procreation 
ITIS useful to observe 
that modem physiologists 
hold a doctrine, ascertained from experiments, which can be of great theological benefit. Formerly it was held that human generation is thus accomplished: the male sex alone has of itself the germ and germinating power, and the female sex supplies merely the matter and the application of germination, and hence the female sex is like the earth receiving the seed of a plant. Modem physi-ologists hold that human generation takes place as it hap-pens in the plant itself, by the insertion of pollen into the germ-cell, while in the case of human generation atoms 
take the place of 
and are called 

Thus by union with that germ with which it must grow together into one, 
 male seed determines the germ (that is, the egg formed by the female, but not yet plete) to unfold and bring forth the 

the fetus; the 
seed perfects and completes the germ which is not yet complete to form a fruit-bearing germ. Conse-quently we understand more 

the perfect unity of nature between both sexes, so far as for the very first 
of 
 fetus the woman the man not in a mere passive bat in an active 

 by truly 
unity 
 flesh between couple as a substantial unity of the same flesh in the fetus as if 

each side the fruit is produced by both,that 
245 
MARIOLOGY 
is, obtained materially and produced formally by both. And while the flesh of the generating parties grows to-gether into one fetus as into a common fruit, that same flesh must be more regarded as one flesh, so far as they are one by the act of carnal connection, the one using the flesh of the other as his own, or as a mere mingling of flesh; (3)the possibility of a virginal generation main-tained in the virtue and manner of a real generation, so far as by its very nature the maternal germ is prepared either so that it does not need a determination and com-plement from without (as is the case with the queen bee in the generation of milliferous bees, which therefore is always held as the symbol of the virgin mother of God ), or, although it needs a determinating and complementing power from without, this 
from without is em-ployed not in a natural way by means of a material seed, but in a supernatural way by applying the divine power of the Holy 
According to the first opinion, as the Fathers have it in their dissertations, it is not shown, unless with difficulty, how the Blessed Virgin is not some-how a mother, but a real producing mother, and espe-cially, how the protevangelium speaks of Christ as the seed of the woman; for he is called the seed not simply of anyone, as if he is in and from anyone who furnished the matter, but as the seed formed by and from that same person. 
APPENDIX 
The Actio 
Ascribed to the Holy Ghost 
IT IS evident that there are important reasons for 
ascribing the actio unitiva to the Holy Ghost, and that is why this ascribing has a rich and deep meaning. We shall here summarize the most important reasons. 
The fact that the actio unitiva is ascribed to the Holy Ghost as its principle characterizes it as an action differ-ing from that of creatures and from that of God Himself in the natural order as much as from the intrinsic action of God proper to His nature. Thus the actio unitiua ap-pears in the first instance as an action of God, and indeed of a supernatural character, the aim of which rises above the natural order; in the second instance, as an actio which proceeds from God as an influence exerted because of a free and infinite love. 
The accomplishment of the union by the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the very person who assumes hu-manity, shows that this person is absolutely complete in Himself and assumes the flesh, not because anything is lacking to Him, but by virtue of the fullness of life and power, which reveals itself in the Holy Ghost. 
As the Holy Ghost is produced last of the persons in the Blessed Trinity, it is likewise He who appears as the natu-ral author of the relations of God ad 
And as He forms the crowning tie between the Father and the Son, 
247 
MARIOLOGY 
so He 
the tie between the Son and His created 
nature. 
The incarnation of the eternal Word considered as the actual "becoming flesh presents a further analogy with the embodiment of the interior word from the spirit of man into the spoken word of the mouth. As the spoken word becomes related to the interior word through the breath, which brings forth, so the flesh of the eternal Word is formed by this Word and is united with it through the breath of God. 
In its full essence the achieving of the union is an in-fusion and inbreathing of a principle of life by God, analogous to the natural and supernatural completion of of the first man: an infusion and inbreathing into human nature, of the eternal Word according to His own sub-sistence. As such it appears most distinctly when rep-resented as being effected through the effusion of God's eternal breath of life, and this in a much deeper sense than the completion of the first man. 
Lastly, we must understand the Incarnation as the highest form of God's communication of creature, and therefore of the ment with grace, and of the sanctification of the creature. All these effects now are such that they are 

ascribed to the Holy Ghost and through that fact are strik-ingly elucidated in their essence. 
APPENDIX IV 
The Annunciation by the Angel 
EHOLD thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and 
shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High (He shall be acknowledged and hon-ored as the Son of the Most High); and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His father (the kingdom promised to David); and He shall reign in the house of Jacob (to whom He was promised) forever. And of His kingdom there shall be no end (Luke 
ff.). 

At the question of the Blessed Virgin, how this will 

without violation of her virginity, the angel con-
and explains the way the conception would take place and brings out also the 
 of the promised Son: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And there-fore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of Godn (Luke1 
The first message is undoubtedly less definite and ex-cellent in all its parts than the second. In particular it does not yet fully explain the divine nature of the prom-ised child, so that the Virgin might still think of an emi-nent earthly king. Or more correctly: all circumstances taken well into consideration, the words could apply only to the promised Messias, who must be 
 at the 
249 

same time. But still they were not yet so modified that Mary, who in her humility considered it impossible for her to be called to be the mother of the Emmanuel, could not have thought that perhaps the words referred to some-one other than the Emmanuel. From this we may quite simply explain Mary's question about the keeping of her virginity. 
The common view on the contrary, namely, that the Virgin applied the words of the angel to the Emmanuel, but was yet uneasy about her virginity, seems to us quite inadequate. If anyone knew, then certainly Mary knew, that the 
 would be born of a virgin. Therefore the answer of the angel appears to be a complete solution to the question about her virginity. For the fact that the child is a supernatural being is included in the explana-tion of the way the production is to take place. The two parts of the answer can be understood correctly only through their mutual relation to each other. Hence the influence of the Holy Ghost and the "power of the Most High" must be applied, not only to the replacing of the male 
in the production of the human nature of the Child, but also to the higher being of the Child. So the Child will be, by virtue of the influence of the Holy Ghost, "great" and "holy" or "the holy 
and in vir-tue of the influence of the Most High's own power with His production, not simply "Son of the Most High," 
a representative of the power and dominion of the Most High, but truly "Son of God."This last element lies in the expression which is often incorrectly explained, "shall overshadow thee." 
The real meaning of the expression seems to follow from the allusion to Isa. 
"Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just brew sedeg = justice, in the abstract instead of the con-crete); let the earth be opened, and bud forth a Savior" 
(Hebrew 
= bring forth deliverance, help). As the 
words "bud forth a Savior" (Jesus) here hold good, like-wise the production of Jesus as the Holy One holds also in 
dropping down dew," that is, raining from the heavens or the clouds; and by it the effusion of the Son of Gad from the bosom of the Most High, enthroned in heaven, into the earthly bosom of the Virgin, is strikingly ex-pressed. Next to it both "the holy one" and "the over-shadowing" contain an allusion to the descent of the Holy Ghost in the cloud over the tabernacle, to rest in it on the ark of the covenant and to make this one there-fore pre-eminently"the holy one." 
The term "the holy 
in the neuter gender expresses emphatically the essential holiness of the fruit of Mary and defines also the deep and real meaning of the biblical name of Christ (Anointed), which answers to it; more especially, as the descent of the power of the Most High into the bosom of the Virgin represents most significantly likewise the original and essential anointing of her fruit through the blending of a heavenly element, which of itself is holy. Through the hidden allusion to Isa. in the words of the angel, the meaning of "Emmanuel" (God with us) is also incorporated into the words "the Holy One" and "Son of God," as expressively elucidated in Matt. 
However, the attribute of true "Son of God and 
also implies that the royal dignity of the Child, indicated in the angel's first words, is not one that can belong to Him as son and heir of David over the house of 
MARIOLOGY 
Jacob. It is a kingship like that which is due to Him as Son and heir of God, namely, the community of dominion 
over all things. In this sense the 
dignity of the Child 
was accordingly proclaimed, not by Gabriel but by Eliza-beth in her salutation of "Mother of my Lord (Luke by Zachary in his song of praise: "Thou shalt go 

before the face of 
 Lord" (Luke 
 and also 
the multitude of angels at the announcement of the birth to the shepherds: "This day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord 
 probably also by Mary herself with the words: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord" (Luke 
We further remark that this is one of those texts of Sacred Scripture 
because the expression is formed by God Himself, have an exceptionally rich meaning, whose fullness according to the mind of God permits and can form the foundation of a great abundance of explana-tions.