MARIOLOGY 

BY REV. M. J. SCHEEBEN 

TRANSLATED BY REV. T. 
M. J. GEUKERS 
VOLUME TWO 

B. HERDER BOOK CO. 
17 SOUTH BROADWAY. ST. LOUIS 
MO. 
AND QUEEN SQUARE, LONDON. W. C. 
ALL RESERVED Printed in U.S.A. 
OBSTAT Innocentius O.F.M. Censor 

E. Ritter, S.T.D. 
die la 
1947 
1947 
B. HERDER BOOK CO. 
Second Impression 
New Pork 

Contents 
PART 
MARY, FULL OF GRACE 
PAGE 

I. MARY'S OF GRACE POSITIVELY . 3 MARY'S FULLNESS OF GRACE . 25 MARY'S FREEDOM FROM ORIGINAL SIN . . . . . 32 

IV. PROOF OF THE DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CON-CEPTION FROM SACRED . . . . 
V. ORIGIN AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ABOUT MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION . . . . . 83 
MARY'S PERMANENT FROM ALL SIN . . 
VII. EXEMPTION FROM THE BONDS OF DEATH . . 140 
VIII. 	MARY'S EXEMPTION FROM THE BONDS OF DEATH; 
THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 150 
PART v 
MARY THE MEDIATRIX IX MARY'S SUPERNATURAL . . . . . . 185 
X. MARY'S COOPERATION IN GENERAL IN THE WORK OF 
REDEMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . 193 
XI. MARY'S IN ITS CONCRETE FORM . . . 209 
XII. MARY'S PERMANENT OFFICE AS . . . 239 

PART MARY, FULL OF GRACE 

CHAPTER I 
Mary's Fullness of Grace Considered Positively 

HE unique state of grace which caused the angel to salute the Mother of God as "full of grace"is often explained by the Fathers as owing to the divine mother-hood itself. For through this motherhood Mary was united to the very principle of grace, was so filled and clothed with it that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt "bodily" in her. On the strength of this grace, analogous to the "grace of the union"in Christ, they explain the wealth of created, or qualitative, graces brought in its train. They interpret the Greek expression for "full of grace" in regard to Mary, analogically as in Christ, in a threefold manner: first, in accordance with the figure of the ark of the covenant, as 
 to gild with the gold of the Godhead; secondly, in accordance with the figure of the "cloud of light"and with that of the "woman clothed with the sun" as 
 to glow through and through with the fire of the Godhead; and thirdly, in accordance with Ps. 
as an anointing and perfuming of Christ's whole attire with the ointment of the Godhead. Under these last 
For literature, see St. Albert the Great, 
q.33 3.;St Thomas, 
q.27, a. 3 f.; also Gregory of Valencia, Medina. 
St 
4, tit. 15; 
3, 
De imm. 
and 
5, cap. 4. For the historical development of the doctrine, see 

in 3 

MARIOLOGY 
two viewpoints in particular, the connection of created with 
grace is evident, and their import and extent are also made clear. 
MARY'S FULLNESS 
GRACE IN GENERAL From the words of the angel who saluted her as one to whom God had granted grace, or one "full of grace," it follows that, in general and in a most exceptional man-
ner, Mary was endowed with all grace, pre-eminently with sanctifying grace. In accordance with the 
purpose governing the measure of her grace, evidently Mary surpassed in sanctifying grace not only all human beings to whom grace has been granted in superlative degree, but even angels the most exalted. The Church in all ages, especially since the Council of Ephesus, has maintained that Mary enjoyed this particular state of grace at least from the moment of Christ's conception; and we may say with sufficient certainty, also from her initial sanctification. 
This state was but fitting in view of the exalted dignity and position to which she was destined. God's honor re-quired that He bestow upon His mother such holiness as would enable her worthily to fulfill the service she was to render Him and that through this most intimate associa-tion she might be brought to a holiness like to His own. Moreover, the love of God, whereby Mary in an un-paralleled way becomes daughter, bride, and sanctuary of the divinity, requires that she be perfectly prepared for this association with God and, to that end, be raised to a participation in His perfection. It would indeed be inconsistent that she in whom the Source of grace was infused and appropriated in a unique manner and through whose mediation this Source of grace must be given to the world, should not herself be the first to experience the effects of this benign influence. Neither would it be fitting that she from whom Christ willed to receive bodily 
should have no greater share than others in His divine life. To understand fully the force of this reasoning, it suffices to recall the intimate unity and the close, mutual association between Christ and His mother from the moment of His conception till His birth. 
Theologians most judicially apply here the words which are indeed typical: "The Lord loveth the gates of Sion 
above all the tabernacles of 
and also the verse of 
Isaias: "In the last days the mountain of the house of the  Lord shall be 
 on the top of mountains." 
Among the Fathers we should note, for instance, Basil of cia: 
 "Who does not marvel over the measure in which Mary surpasses all those whom we venerate as saints? If God bestowed so much grace on His servants, what kind of virtue do we think His mother has? Must it not be a much greater virtue than the virtue of those who are subject to her? Be it known to anyone that, if Peter was called blessed and had the keys of the kingdom consigned to him, she before all others should be proclaimed blessed to whom it was given to bring forth Him whom Peter orally avowed; if Paul was called vessel of election 
he carried forth and divulged the august name of Christ everywhere in the world, what kind of vessel will the mother of God be?" Also Gregory the Great: 
 "The blessed Mary Mother of God, ever a virgin, can be de-scribed by the name of this mountain. For she was the 
Ps. 
Isa. 
Basil of Seleucia, Or. 39 in 
St Gregory the Great, 

I Reg., c. 1, n.5; PL, 
25. 
mountain that surpassed in height every elected crea-ture by the dignity of her election. Is the sublime moun-tain not Mary, who, to reach the conception of the eternal Word, raised the summit of merits above all choirs of angels to the throne of God? Prophesying the excel-lent dignity of this mountain, Isaias says: 'In the last days . . . 

We should note the commentaries of the Fathers on the 
salutation of the angel, as found in 
 Their mean-
ing is summed up in the bull 
 as follows: "This 
and unparalleled salutation, heard at no other time, shows the Mother of God as the seat of all divine graces, and as adorned with all the gifts of the divine Spirit. It also shows her as the almost infinite repository and inexhaustible abyss of these gifts to such a degree that, being at no time guilty of sin and together with her Son partaking of a perpetual blessing, she deserved to hear Elizabeth, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, say: 'Blessed art thou. . . . 

As evidenced by the translation of the angel Gabriel's salutation, 
plena ("full of grace7'), from 
 earliest ages 
 Latin Church has characterized the inexhaust-ible wealth of grace summed up in the dignity of Mary as fullness of grace, to be understood in a sense analogous to that in which fullness of grace is attributed to Christ Him-self. A certain fullness of grace is ascribed to all the saints since they possess in its fullness that grace essential to their particular perfection, or since in them grace 

Op. 
1093 ff. 
ates in a degree relatively higher than in others: pleni- tude of sufficiency and excellence. In Mary this fullness was taken in the natural sense of a wealth that does not follow the ordinary measure. Compared with the wealth of others, it is beyond measure or degree; it surpasses the latter as the whole does the part, as the force of water of a river or, rather, of the sea, surpasses that of a brook: plenitude of greatest abundance and singularity. Such wealth is embodied in Mary's relatively unlimited dig- nity and in her direct relationship to the divine princi-ple of grace dwelling bodily in her, belonging to her, and communicating itself to others only through her. Hence her place as Queen and Mother of all saints, or as chan-nel of grace and mystical heart of the Church. 
In this respect Mary's plenitude of grace is noteworthy as an overflowing fullness: plenitude of redundance. It could and must enable Mary to cooperate effectively and by virtue of her own activity in the distribution of grace to others. Thus Mary must exercise her 
in par- ticular cases, for individual subjects or individual graces, and also for all men in general, and for each grace to be communicated to them. Consequently Mary's fullness of grace is a universal, unlimited, overflowing fullness: pleni- tude of universal and indefinite redundance. 
Despite this specific resemblance to the fullness of grace in Christ, there exists at all times a real and very marked 
between Christ's fullness of grace and that of Mary in regard to the reason, the content, and the overflowing of grace. The one is to the other as the light of dawn to the light of day, as the water of a stream to that of the sea. Hence theologians make a distinction in the plenitude of redundance on both sides: in Christ 
MARIOLOGY 
they 
it "plenitude of effluence or efficiency"; in Mary, merely "plenitude of affluence." 
The harmonious unity of this double, eminent, and cen-
tral fullness of grace is demonstrated from the fact that 
in the organism of the physical body the fullness of life 
of the whole, as distinguished from the life of each in-
dividual member, has not one bearer but two bearers: 
the head and, depending on the head, the heart. 
Understood thus, Mary's fullness of grace finds expres-sion in the Sacred Scriptures, especially in the descrip-tion of the beautiful raiment of the queen in psalm 44, and more particularly in the description of the beauty and fertility of the bride in the Canticle of Canticles; again, in the application of Ecclesiasticus, chap. 24, which chapter accords perfectly with psalm 44. 
The reason and manner of this fullness of grace is clear from 
'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." St. Bernard says: "Without doubt by that fire (of divine wisdom) the lips of the prophet are purified, by that fire seraphim are set on fire. In another way Mary merited by far not only to be summarily touched, but to be covered on all sides, to be enveloped and enclosed, by that fire. This woman's outer garment is indeed most bright as well as very hot; with her all things are known to be irradiated to such an excellent degree that man is not allowed to suspect any-thing in her, that is, anything dark, or even somewhat ob-scure or less bright, not even moderately warm or not fully hot." 

St. Thomas also attaches the reason and effect of Mary's 
St. Bernard, 
Dom. 
Oct. Ass., n.3; PL, CLXXXIII, 431. 
FULLNESS OF GRACE CONSIDERED 
fullness of grace to both functions of her mother-
hood: "Whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary received such a fullness of grace that she was nearest of all to the Author of grace; so 
she received within her Him who is full of all grace; and, by bringing Him forth, she in a manner dispensed grace to all." 

The idea of the cause of grace and the resultant in-fusion of the fullness of the Godhead is advanced by the Fathers for Mary's absolute fullness of grace in a way analogous to the hypostatic union in Christ's humanity. Peter Chrysologus says: "Hail, full of grace. For grace is bestowed on the individual by portions, but the full-ness of grace was given in fullness to Mary." s This text 
is usually quoted according to the letter 
me of 
Pseudo-Jerome; just as the entire context, so the latter de-rived this text from Chrysologus; Pseudo-Jerome con-tributing only the subordinate clause :"Because, although we believe that the holy Fathers and prophets were in the state of grace, it was not to the extent of a fullness of grace. But in Mary the fullness of grace is found, as in Christ, although 
another way." 
 St. Bernard says: "In the Acts of the Apostles we read that Stephen was full of grace and that the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, but in a far different way from that of Mary. In another way, neither in him did the fullness of the God-head dwell bodily, in the way it did in Mary, nor did they conceive of the Holy Ghost, in the way that Mary did." 

The Fathers, therefore, often liken Mary to an abyss, a sea, a 
 of grace. They speak of the 
St Thomas, 
q.27, a5ad 1. 
St. Peter Chrysologus, 
143; PL, LII, 583. 
PL, 

St. Bernard, 
super 
2; PL, CLXXXIII, 72. 
MARIOLOGY 
and inconceivable greatness of her beauty, purity, and holiness which renders her a living mirror of the 
Godhead. 
extol the sublime height of her dignity 
and the incomprehensible wonder of her motherhood." This fullness to overflowing is mentioned by Chrysologus also: "Thou 
found grace. How much? As much as he had said previously: to fullness. Indeed, a fullness of grace which emptied itself in a heavy shower and flooded the whole creature." 
And more profoundly it is men-tioned by St. Bernard: "Thou 
found grace. How much? A fullness of grace, singular grace. Singular or ordinary? Undoubtedly both, because full, and singular to the same extent as ordinary; for thou 
received even ordinary grace in a singular manner. As singular, in extent, I say, as ordinary; because, above all others, thou alone 

found grace. Singular, that thou alone mightest find this fullness; ordinary, that all others might receive of that very fullness. . . . Undoubtedly so, for in this way the dew was once entirely upon the fleece, entirely upon a space of ground; but not entirely upon a part of that space of ground, as upon the fleece." 
Following up such declarations of the Fathers, the idea 
of Mary's fullness of grace is explained 
the Scholastics 
of later date, especially by They assert that at least after the conception of Christ, or rather, at the end of her life, Mary's wealth of grace surpassed the grace of each individual angel and saint, and also that of all taken 
See De 
and 
5, c.4; and Theoph. 
Dipt. 
p. 2, 7. 
St. Peter Chrysologus, 
142; PL, LII, 579. 
St. Bernard, Serm. 3 de annunt., n.8; PL, CLXXXIII, 396. 
Suarez, De 
4. 
collectively. In this respect, likewise, it corresponds to the fullness of grace in Christ. However, this viewpoint can at best be regarded as only probable. The main argu-ment for this, the general communication of grace through Mary, is not conclusive. Certainly this communication is not to be understood simply in this way, namely, that the gift of the cause of grace came to Mary first and in a unique manner and only through her to others, and there-fore depended on her consent and physical cooperation. It means, rather, that, with due allowance, the communi-cation of grace through Mary was partly the result of her spiritual beauty in the sight of God, conditioned by her created grace, her works, and her prayers. But apart from the uncertainty whether the grace granted to the angels was given to them also because of Mary, from this viewpoint we consider that Mary acts, 
ex condignitate but only ex congruitate; not inde-pendently, but only in formal union with Christ's merits, or purely by ministerial cooperation. Such activity does not assume that the grace gained thereby is virtually con-tained in the grace of him who gains it. When it is pre-sumed, as indeed it must be, that, from the beginning of her life, Mary's grace surpassed in degree that of the highest angel, the continual increase of this grace assumes such proportions that comparison with individual angels and saints seems inadequate, and a comparison with the grace of all taken collectively suggests itself in supple-ment. 
Theologians and ascetics have analyzed and explained Mary's fullness of grace in many ways. Such were espe-cially St. Albert the Great, Richard of St. Lawrence, St. 
Bonaventure, 
St. Thomas 
 defines Mary's full -ness of grace according to these three degrees: 1. 
fill-ing of Mary's soul to the utmost with 
graces necessary for the practice of good and the avoidance of evil. 2. The overflowing of grace from Mary's soul to her body to sanctify it for the conception and birth of Christ. And through this conception and birth: 3. 
overflowing of grace on all men. The most important characteristics of Mary's growth to fullness of grace will be discussed later on. 

so Mary's fullness of grace differs from that of Christ in so far as it was not complete from the beginning but was subject to an interior progress. In Mary grace was not, as in Christ, simply a grace complete in itself from the be-ginning, that is to say, complete in the light of glory; but, as in other creatures in the way of probation, was capable of increase in its measure and activity. This is especially true of the period before Christ's conception; so much so that only with this latter as its essential reason does the specific fullness of Mary's grace begin. Hence theologians distinguish in Mary not only the state of sanctification and that of glorification, as in Christ, but also a twofold sanctification and, answering to it, a double phase of her holy life on earth. In its first phase Mary's grace was more 
St. Albert the Great, 
q.79 ff.; Richard of St. Lawrence, De 
B.M.V., I, 4; Pseudo-Bonaventure, Speculum B.M.V., in Luc., 1, 67. 

St. Thomas, 
Maria, 
XVI, 133: 
quantum ad 
quantum ad . . . ; quantum ad 
ad 
corpus . .. 
quantum 

in 
Consequently, unlike that of 

Christ, which from the beginning was based on complete union with the principle of grace, it had the character of the grace granted also to other chosen creatures. In the second phase Mary's grace was simply an 

praesentis. Hence it bore the specific character of grace in Christ as opposed to that of mere creatures, and rightly so, since to some extent it shares in the proper character of perfect grace. Some theologians carried the distinction between both phases so far as to accept for the first, though not for the second phase, a progress in grace or an increase of it through her own merits. This view undoubtedly goes too far and consequently has found few supporters. For, just as the grace of the motherhood, unlike the grace of the hypostatic union, does not immediately produce the light of glory, so neither need it at once communicate the entire fullness of created grace which flows from it. 
the eccentric Christopher Vega 
 tried to estab-
lish as probable that Mary had the beatific vision during her whole life on earth. This opinion is altogether too daring and not in accordance with Mary's faith. That she had at times the beatific vision, for instance, at the mo-ment of Christ's conception, is accepted by many, among others by It is, however, a mere conjecture, against which serious objections can be raised.'' 
The Fathers frequently make a distinction between Mary's two sanctifications, before and in the conception of Christ, although between them there is such a mutual 
Vega, 
Mar., without mention of exact place. 
Suarez, De disp. 19, 
4, 
objections disappear when the vision of the divine essence 

as normally forming the highest and ultimate point of mystical life. See Rev. 

249-71; IV ( 1924 ), 

relation that the first is often presented under the view-point of the second. Since the time of Pseudo-Jerome, a favorite figure for illustrating the distinction 
 between the first and the second sanctification has been that of wool which, because of its purity, is suited to purple, but which, by this absorption, takes on the nature of the purple. It played a special part in the epistolary dispute between Peter de La Celle and Nicholas of St. Alban. To the detriment of the first stage Peter 
the distinction too positively when he said: "Halt here, brother, and give battle, that you may become acquainted with the Virgin before she was mother and the Virgin after she had become mother; that you may observe the abode of Wisdom in its beginning as well as already completed; that you may distinguish the wool pure white by the first grace, from that purple-dyed by the second grace in blood of the shell-fish; that you may separate the wool which has not yet been moistened by impregnation that which has been saturated by the incarnation." answer Nicholas remarked: "Make the distinction in such wise between the Virgin before she was mother and the Virgin after she had become mother that, far beyond any other virgin, a singular privilege chose her who, before she was mother, was singularly full of grace according to the testimony of 
 angel, and who, after she had be-come mother, was singularly distinguished as the de-pository of the Holy Ghost; who before she was mother was, like 
whitest of wool, not stained by any inclina-

tion to evil, and who, after she had become 
was, 
like the purple dyed by the 
shell-fish, singularly 
Pseudo-Jerome, 
me, PL, 
129. 
Peter de La Epist. 171; PL, CCII, 618. 
and saturated by the Holy Ghost, so that she 

be surrendered to no other but divine use." 
In Mary this progress in grace is a progress of the in-flation and penetration by divine light. Peter de La Celle 
this indicated in the figure, carried through 
de-
grees, of the light encircling the bride in the Canticle of Canticles: "For what reason could we sing with the Church: Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, certainly in her birth, fair as the moon in her holy association, bright as the sun in the divine conception, terrible as an army set in array by her heavenly exaltation and assumption, if no increase of virtues had taken place in her?" 

The three degrees of supernatural perfection effected by grace, united in Christ though separate in Mary, are 
distinguished 
St. Thomas as follows: "In the things of 
nature first there is perfection of disposition, for instance, when is perfectly disposed for the form. Secondly, there is the perfection of the form; and this is the more excellent, for the heat that proceeds from the form of fire is more perfect than that which disposed to the form of fire. Thirdly, there is the perfection of the end; for in-stance, when fire has its qualities in the most perfect de-gree, having mounted to its own place. In like manner, there was a threefold perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin. The first was a kind of disposition, by which she was made worthy to be the mother of Christ: and this was the perfection of her sanctification. The second perfec-tion of grace in the Blessed Virgin was through the pres-ence of the Son of God incarnate in her womb. The third 
Nicholas of St. Alban, 172; PL,CCII, 626-27. 
Peter de La Celle, op. 

was the perfection of the end which she has in glory. That this second perfection excels the first, and the third the second appears in the first place from the fact of her de-liverance from evil. For in her sanctification she was first delivered from original sin; afterwards, in the conception of the Son of God, she was entirely cleansed from passion; lastly, in her glorification, she was delivered from all 
whatever. It appears in the second place in her disposition to good. For at first in her sanctification she received grace inclining her to good; in the conception of the Son of God she received consummate grace con-firming her in good; and in her glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in the enjoy-ment of all good."'' 
John Damascene taught that, in certain respects, Mary's second sanctification bore the character of ultimate per-
fection. He writes: "Death 
 the saints and shows 
them to be blessed by rendering them such that their vir-tue is no longer subject to any change. But with thee we shall by no means assume this, since neither did death 
thee thy 
 nor did a change of abode pro-
cure thee thy perfection. For with thee the beginning, the mean, and the end of all good, even thy security and true confirmation, was placed m that conception of the seed." 
 Yet this text too shows that her perfection, which began in her second sanctification, refers mainly to her confirmation in grace, but does not at all exclude the in-crease of her grace and merit. Accordingly the Scholastics held as a sort of axiom that the status viae in Mary 

the mean between Christ and ourselves to the same 
St. Thomas, 
q.27,a.5 ad 2. 
St. John Damascene, Or. 1 in 
717. 

tent as did the impossibility of her losing grace by sin go hand in hand with the possibility of increasing this grace through 
As to the causes of the actual increase of grace in Mary, this increase was effected ex 
 as well as ex It came about ex 
 apart from the conception of the Word, particularly by Mary's participation in the reception of the Holy Ghost on Pente-cost, also by the sacraments which she received, more especially the Holy Eucharist. In Mary the effect of the sacraments would be the more potent because, on the one hand, they were only a renewal of the closest union with Christ, solemnized in His conception, and, on the other, they were received with the most perfect disposi-tions. That Mary received the sacraments is indubitable as regards the Holy Eucharist; as to baptism, it is at least very probable although Mary was in no need of this sacra-ment to be freed from original sin. she re-ceived, like the apostles, by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost. She could not receive the remaining sacra-ments ex defectu and finis, although, unmindful of her sinlessness, some, even great, theologians have a solution even regarding the sacrament of penance, whereby they aver that Mary could nevertheless receive it, and for that reason they were at some pains to ascer-tain who her father confessor was. 

As regards the increase of grace ex 
operantis, that is, through the merit of her acts of virtue, this was so great as to surpass understanding, owing to the excep-tionally high degree of her initial sanctifying grace, the 
Cf. St 
the Great, 
q.134; and 
De 
8, 
1. 

abundance of her actual grace, and her 
zealous cooperation during her long life. To clear, many theologians, as also preachers who adopted their views, attempted formal calculations-only to be lost in the infinite-as to the geometric progression which 
have attended Mary's increase of grace. They base their calculations on the axiom, according to which the present degree of grace is doubled by each act in propor-tion to its intensity, and they then presume that, in the case of Mary, each of her acts possessed that quality. strict application of mathematical formulas to grace has, in general, something forced about it and easily leads to absurdities. This law in particular concerning the in-crease of grace is far from certain. Suarez," 
 his tology, took it for granted, but later rejected it. Therefore, in the case of Mary, we must restrict ourselves simply to advocating a continuous increase of grace. 

The supreme fullness of grace which the Church 
ascribes to the Mother of God implies, in 

sanctifying grace and those graces essentially connected therewith and appertaining to her perfection, such as the supernatural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Many expressions of the Fathers, and particularly the axiom adopted by the 
 are in general to be understood in the sense that any privilege ever granted to a saint is due to Mary also. This explanation does not at all mean all privileges without distinction, but 
Suarez, Comm. 111, De 
disp. 18, 

See the 
in which this axiom appears in former times in Hurter, 

thesis 156. Cf. La 
S. 
pp. 197-205. 
doubtedly and unconditionally those only which concern the possession, practice, and all-embracing activity of sanctifying grace and the perfect purity and holiness of Mary's life and being. It is altogether inadmissible to ex-plain and use this rule in such wise that, without more 
ado, any given supernatural 
 is ascribed to Mary 
regardless of whether the possession of this privilege is fitting from every 
of view, particularly in regard to her state of life and her special position and mission. Without doubt, Mary did not possess all graces gratis which are ascribed to the ordinary and extraor-dinary instruments of the Church, such as the 

et 
 On the other hand, through the 
descent of the Holy Ghost she acquired the gift of proph-ecy distributed in such abundant measure on that occa-sion, that is, the gift of prophetic knowledge, of miracles, and also of languages in a degree befitting her special office. Neither may the privileges of the original state be ascribed to her. Like Christ, not only was she subject to suffering and death, but neither had she to possess the knowledge of natural things infused into the first human couple, particularly Adam. There is less reason to accept the opinion that, in regard to the purport and the purely spiritual nature of knowledge, Mary should from the be-ginning be considered on a level with the angels by super-natural grace. 
On the other hand, especially in respect to the perfec-tion of her knowledge, too low a standard must not be applied. Indeed, as to the fullness of truth, Mary's re-semblance to Christ during her life be applied in the same way as to her fullness of sanctity. But, under this aspect also, no purely human standard may be applied 
in her case as the "Seat of Wisdom," the "new and better Eve," and the "Queen of Angels," 
in so far 
there is a correlation between the perfection of knowledge and the possession and practice of sanctity. What can be more definitely established concerning this matter is given below. 
St. Bernard says only this :-and that in proof of Mary's advanced holiness-"There is certainly no real reason to  suspect that what, for instance, was 
on a few mortals was denied to a Virgin of such excellence, through whom all mortality came to life." 
 In more general terms, but on the same occasion and in the same sense as St. Bernard, we find St. Thomas' explanation: 
It is reason-

able to believe that she 
brought forth the 
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, received, in comparison with all others, greater privileges of grace." 
 the other hand, Raynaud defines the axiom 
explicitly as follows: "We must not 
the Mother of 
God the privilege or 
pertaining to sanctifying grace 
and conducing to a greater sanctity of soul and a more perfect union with God, which we know was bestowed upon some servant of God." 
Gerson 
dealt firmly with a too inconsiderate application of the axiom, or with the imaginary rule, that God granted to His Mother 

priv-ileges which, in one way or another, could be ornamental to her. See also Raynaud. If even in regard to her sanctify-ing grace, not the absolutely highest, but only that degree fixed by God's wisdom must be ascribed to Mary, then 
St. Bernard, Epist. 174, PL, CLXXXII, 334. 
St. Thomas, 
q.27, a. 1 corpus. Raynaud, 
cant. 3. Gerson, 

15 

Paris, 1606, 
I, p.454). 
certainly, with such an imaginary rule, nothing certain, 
can be established concern-

ing all other privileges, unless other reasons are adduced. 
Closely bound up with her sanctifying grace as such is Mary's supernatural knowledge which is, at the same time, the fruit of the enlightening force of grace and the principle of the life of holiness in the will. So far, there-fore, as the fullness of 
is conditioned by the full-ness of truth, this latter must be accepted absolutely in case-at least as probable--in that degree in 
 a perfection of the faculty ofcognition seems to fit in with the perfection of her own holy life or with the charge of her special calling as Mother of God. as well as after Christ's conception, Mary undoubtedly had the most sublime enlightenment relative to God and divine things, more definitely, the Fathers suppose, in regard to her vow of virginity. After 
ascension she certainly attained lights concerning her Son, such as no other saint on earth has ever had. From the remark of St. Luke: "And they understood not the word 
He spoke to them," 
 it is evident that even in this respect a relatively imperfect knowledge could exist prior to this 
All the more is it purely arbitrary to ascribe to her from the beginning, the possession of all natural sciences, or a knowledge of all things similar to that of the angels. These gifts were required neither by her dignity nor by her call-ing, nor was her holiness dependent upon them. However, after Christ's conception especially, a loftiness of contem-plation must be accorded her such as fell to the lot of no other saint on earth. This much, at least, must be con-
= 

ceded, that the highest sort of contemplation, granted to 
other saints 
in passing and in ecstasies, is in Mary's 
case conceived to be her habitual state; and that with reason, since, like the beatific vision in the case of Christ, it neither took away nor did it presume the use of the exterior senses and, therefore, it continued in waking hours as well as during sleep. Such contemplation is very closely bound up with her perfect cultivation of holiness. Without it, the spiritual resemblance to Christ and the angels, which must be accepted for her earthly life, would 

be too Hence even St. Ambrose in his time 
clearly. For similar reasons the opin-ion is not too improbable, nor is it so dangerous as some would have it considered that, from the womb of her mother, or even, as in the case of our first parents and the angels, from the first moment of her creation, Mary was endowed supernaturally with the use of her intellect, so that, as His bride, she might from the beginning of her life enter into living communion with God. 
Though 
 opinion has been explicitly defended only since the fourteenth century, its first firm defender being 
Francis 
 while St. Thomas still preferred the 
opposite view; nevertheless it had already found some supporters among the Fathers as well as in Sacred Scrip-ture. For many of the Fathers ascribe the joyful "leap-ing" of St. John the Baptist in his mother's womb to a supernatural enlightenment whereby he recognized the 
St. Ambrose, De 
PL, XVI, 209: "Cum quiesceret 
animus, qui frequenter in somnis aut 
aut 
continuat." Francis 
On the attitude of St. Thomas toward this question, see 
Etudes 
mystiques, 
(Brussels, 

presence of the Savior; and on that supposition, the grant-ing of the favor in question to Mary is to be presumed a fortiori. In like manner, St. Bernard 
 in his day con-cluded from the sanctification of the Baptist in his mother's womb, that the same privilege had been conferred on Mary 
 also. 
It is much more certain, rather it is not to be doubted that, as regards her spiritual perfection, Mary possessed all the privileges which would have fallen to the lot of children 
in the original state of grace. With regard to the spiritual development of her knowledge, she from the beginning enjoyed freedom from all disturbing influ-ences of sensuality and passion, immunity from which was a privilege of the state of original justice, whereby she remained secure against all error. For the perfection of her knowledge, see especially the conclusive and, on the whole, very moderate exposition of St. Albert the Great has a very profound and substantial treatise on the characteristic form and development of the life of grace in 

From Mary's sympathetic 
 in the work of the redemption-since hers was a moral cooperation in the redeeming sacrifice-and, in general, from the fact that she pursued on earth, as she now does in heaven, an activity directed to the salvation of all men, modem the-ologians would conclude that, like Christ, Mary had on earth, as she now has in heaven, an intimate knowledge of 
St. Bernard, 174; PL, CLXXXII, 
Also Tract. de concept. S. n. 9; Edition of Thurston, p. 9. 
On this question see 
in 3. p. Sum, disp. 120; and Suarez, De disp. 4, 
7. 
19, per 

St. Albert the Great, 
solution in questions 44-61, after q.61. 
MARIOLOGY 
all those to whom that activity is extended."This is a profound and beautiful thought, which in this form may perhaps appear equally as daring as it is novel. However, it is not only probable but certain, if the idea to be con-veyed is that beneath Calvary's cross Mary had not an indefinite and vague idea but, by supernatural enlighten-ment, a profound and vivid conception of every human soul involved in the great mystery of the redemption. Something similar to this is also found in the life of many of the saints who, in a special manner, were called to 
cooperate by their 
in the salvation 

of their fellow men. 

CHAPTER 
Mary's Fullness of Grace Considered Negatively 

LONG as Mary's fullness of grace is considered 
simply from its positive purport and effects it is in-ferior to that of Christ, because Mary does not exhaust the entire fullness of grace, nor does she from the begin-ning possess that plenitude which was later to be attained. On the other hand, Mary's fullness of grace is quite similar to that of Christ's humanity in this, that the substance of grace is appropriated entirely and forever, that is, in its entire being, existence, and essence by the principle of grace with which it is 
 which principle is united to the subject by a "bodily indwelling,"thereby penetrat-
ing and 
 it from all sides. In this respect the 
perfection of Mary's state of grace is better expressed by the emphatic Greek expression 
 than by the Latin 
plena. The Greek version expresses more clearly how Mary was surrounded and penetrated by the light of grace because of her being "clothed with 
Sun of grace" itself,' 
effects of which are as certain as they are obvious. 

MARIOLOGY 

grace all evil, fault, stain, deformity, and corruption con-trary to its mission, through the anointing with grace, or through its bodily union with the principle of grace. As regards the extent, if not the form of these effects, the same rule holds good in the case of Mary as in that of the humanity of Christ. Whatever, by the power of 
 Logos, had to be unconditionally excluded from Christ's human nature as incompatible with the consecra-tion and dignity of "the flesh of the Word," is also incom-patible with the being of Mary in her position as motherly bride of the Logos and of the human nature of Christ. Hence, she also must be effectually safeguarded from all this by the power of the Logos. Thus, from the negative 
side the old axiom is 
realized: "As the Lamb, so is 
His mother." 
 This, in its turn, gives only another version of the community of blessedness between Mary and Christ which was proclaimed by Elizabeth in the words "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." 
 In this connection the Fathers and theologians rightfully and to the same extent apply both to Christ's 
humanity and to Mary the 
 types, "ark of the 
covenant," the "imperishable setim wood," the "tower of ivory of Solomon,"the"cloud of light,"and also the spirit-ual prototype, "Wisdom proceeding from the mouth of God." 
The negative side of the "fullness of grace" in Mary comprises in particular the complete preservation or free-dom from sin or from whatever is so connected therewith 
This axiom appears in the apologetic writing against St. Bernard ascribed to Peter quoted by let, in 

de 
VII, 1017, 1020. 4 Luke 
as in one way or another to mar or deface in man the image of God. Because this "fullness of grace" excludes, in con-sequence, every sort of violating or desecrating corrup-tion, and at the same time is a grace of perfect integrity and incorruption and especially of perfect purity and in-nocence, it affects most profoundly the concept of virgin-ity due to the motherly bride of God. Secondly, the negative side of Mary's "fullness of grace" comprises also a preservation from those evils to which mankind became subject through original sin and from which it was freed by the merits of Christ's redemption, with, of course, the obvious exception of such as were not necessarily excluded from Christ's humanity, but were rather accepted by Him as means of redemption, such as physical suffering and death. But without the merits of Christ's redemption, Mary would have been subject to these penalties. Hence her preservation from them rests also upon a deliverance or safeguarding through the grace of the Redeemer. In her case, however, this preservation 
not take the form of a later removal, but rather of an anterior exemption and preservation by the complete restoration and the unchangeable confirmation of the integrity of the original state. According to the words of St. Peter Chrysologus: 
 "All is preserved in the Virgin who brought forth the Redeemer of all mankind; Mary's fullness of grace is, therefore, a perfect grace of salvation and redemption. In her, as the first fruits of the redemp-
tion and the 
 of the Redeemer in His work of 
salvation, and as the spiritual mother of all redeemed souls, or the new Eve, this grace must reveal itself in a 
St. Peter 
144, 
LII, 586, reads: Virgini 

omnium 
MARIOLOGY 
unique, or rather, in an ideal manner in order to repre-sent, guarantee, and communicate the effects of the re-demption to all others. 
According to the conception of Sacred Scripture and of the Church, the deliverance of mankind from the woe-ful effects of the first sin is also a victory over the power of sin and the devil who, by sin, rules mankind. In like manner, Mary's preservation through the power of Christ from all these evil effects must be regarded as a com-plete and all-embracing victory over sin and the devil; and this victory, by her fullness of grace, Mary gains through Christ, and Christ in Mary, and by it Mary be-comes Christ's most beautiful and splendid trophy of victory. From this point of view, the privileges referred to are contained in the promise of the protevangelium, according to which woman should share with her seed the indomitable and victorious enmity against the devil. 
all these considerations indicate and, in turn, 

gather force from the fact that Mary's 
of grace," considered negatively, is the model and pledge of the fitting supernatural equipment and dowry of the Church, especially of her infallibility and imperishableness. Like-wise, these privileges are considered and characterized as a virginal purity and a victorious invincibility opposed to the powers of hell. In the sense of the principles and considerations as here formulated, the Church ascribes to the Mother of God, in contrast to the rest of mankind, three definite privileges: 
Complete and perpetual freedom fiom original sin, because of the sanctifying grace granted to Mary in her very conception; 
2. Freedom from all the effects of original sin which, in one way or another, belong to the moral domain, from all inclination to sin, and in general, from all ir-regularity 
 in the soul with the positive safe-guarding against each, even the smallest, personal sin; 
3. Freedom from the reign of death, in so far as the latter is a consequence of original sin and the cause of 
decomposition of the body; this freedom ensures the anticipated resurrection and glorification of the body. 

define the extent of Mary's 
in her spirit, her soul, and her body ("the blessing from head to foot,"as the Fathers 
express it), 
also in her entire existence, in the 
ning, the course and the end of her life on earth. 
Secondly, 
reflect in a special manner the three 
privileges of Mary's motherhood: the conception, the indwelling, and birth of "the cause of grace,"and also 
the 	forms of Mary's relationship to God: as daugh-	
ter, 	and temple. 	they answer to the three parts 	
in the 	of the angel: "full of grace," the Lord 	
is 	thee," 	are thou among women." 	

Finally, they contain the total exclusion of the deface-ment of divine image, effected in human nature by the first sin, of the "seed of the serpent" as Gregory of Nyssa calls it. As "seed of the serpent," this defacement may be represented under the figure of the serpent in-
sinuating itself into human nature. 
 to Gregory 
of Nyssa the disfigurement of spirit is 
 by 

benedicta tu in The words, 
benedicta tu, 
are not found in the best and most ancient Greek manu-scripts in the greeting of the angel, but in the salutation of (verse 42). 
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. 
PG, XLV, 33, 
of the 
the head, that of the soul by the body, that of the body by the tail of the serpent, and in this way the privileges in question represent the complete and original inac-cessibility of the new Eve to the serpent of sin. 
In the following chapters these three privileges will be separately proved, defended, and explained, and at the same time, the necessary principles and observations will be elucidated more completely. 
On account of Mary's freedom from actual sin, St. Thomas 
 reduces to three points of view the reasons for the privileges referred to in the divine motherhood, which he arranges in an ascending order, or rather in an order leading from the outside inward: 
The relation of the mother to the child, or to the Son as her bodily fruit, in so far as the mother must be honored by the Son and the honor of the latter was con-ditioned by that of the mother; 
Mary's affinity to Christ, whereby she was united with Him as with her spiritual head; 
Mary's relation to the Godhead, dwelling bodily within her, whereby she is united with the Godhead in a manner analogous to that of the body with the spirit. 

In the sense here given, these points of view concur with those which have been elucidated previously. There is a deficiency in St. Thomas' definition and use of Mary's freedom from actual sin. He does not trace the last point of view to Mary's spiritual marriage and union with the Logos which, antedating the conception of Christ, came about in and with Mary's own conception. In this lies the reason why the application of this aspect to Mary's entire past, especially to her conception, is deficient. In 
St. Thomas, 
q.27, a.4 corpus. 
this connection the first two points of view are not main-tained by St. Thomas with the keenness inferring Mary's Immaculate Conception. Considering Christ as her bod-ily fruit and spiritual head, he yet does not represent Mary according to her entire existence and essence as 
inchoatw Christi and 
Christi. 
Touching the question of Mary's Immaculate Con-ception especially, as well as her bodily assumption into heaven, reasons innumerable have been advanced in support of these privileges. However, they are but varia-tions of the three reasons of St. Thomas; 
when, in her relationship as Mother of God, Mary is considered now as daughter, now as bride, now as temple; in rela-tion to Christ, now as root, now as member, now as bridal chamber; and again, when now God's honor, now Mary's own honor is involved. 
These reasons derive their real breadth of meaning only from the position of the mother of God towards creatures as mistress and as mother of grace, and by her vocation of closest cooperation in the redemption of man-kind and in the victory over the devil. In the meantime, this double group of reasons is elucidated more effectively by the inner analogy of the aforesaid privileges to the miraculous preservation of Mary's bodily virginity which these same reasons demand. And, vice versa, this analogy in connection with these reasons attains the character of a weighty argument. 
CHAPTER 
Mary's Freedom from Original Sin 

T HAS never been questioned that in Mary, as 
 human beings, an sanctification in one form or another took place. Gospel narrative of the sanctification of John 

 Baptist 
For see Alexander Summa, Part 

 Commen-
taries or: 3 Sept., dist. 3 of St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Carthusian; St.  2; also Gregory of and 

concaptionis 
Moriae, 
C.V. 

Rome, 1854; Malon, Many texts 
 Fathers are found in 

theses 
f. See also X. Le art. in 845-1218 (with the cooperation of 

 Eastern Churches). 
Some and many 

the Fathers add 
 following to the of Jcrcmins 

1 
"Before thou forth out 
the 

I a 
 for the prophet. Rut the 
these words is less since it is hard to see 
special for a he present in Jeremias' case.  nature of rnthcr to that this  exists only 

 as, and the 
 for St. Joseph--stood in 
with 

When theologians, St. 
the to 
 a relationship also for Jeremias, of the 
 hc so  to Christ in his "a 
a man" to he wrong for this if for no 
of 
is still 
and impressive. 
 point out with St. Thomas,  in his person 
he an of Christ. 
reason is no:  of a nature no 
 he for also fut-il so in is 

the of is 
 his election to the 
of 
Jcon 

Paris, 
accepts this explanation for  (p. not for John the Baptist (pp. 
32 

in his mother's womb is forced to ascribe a fortiori to the 
of Christ a sanctification which at least pre- ceded her birth or her egress 
the 
of mother. It is 

known that after the twelfth century it was a constant point of controversy 
Mary's sanctifica- 
tion was merely an 
 one, analogous to that of 
John the Baptist, or whether this privilege must be to the first moment of her existence, that is, to her the existing order of things, apart of holiness, we find only the state of sin. As in 

the 
human race a11 natural descendants of Adam. 
because of their 
 are subject to original sin, 
question as to Mary's first sanctification is identical with 
this 
 like other humans, 

from 
stain already contracted, or was she 
against this stain from her very conception? rcspcct the question concerning Mary's original sanc-

tification a very 
significance. 
 at 
the same time there resulted a special difficulty, so that the controversy was not merely about the "holy," but about the "immaculate" conception. 
After the decisive point of the controversy had for a long time been prepared by many ecclesiastical memo-
randa, 
IX solemnly defined in the bull 

providentia that, as concerned Mary's conception, this freedom from the stain of original sin is a revealed 
Catholic 
The formula of the definition reads: "We 
define that God 
revealed the doctrine holding that, from the first instant of her conception, the most blessed Virgin Mary 
preserved from all stain of' 

original sin by a singular grace and privilege of 

MARIOLOGY 
God, by an intuitive cognition of the merits of Jesus 
the Saviour of the human race." 

As early as 14-39 the Council of 
had ventured a definition in the same sense. This definition, however, was invalid, for the council was schismatic and no sanction of the definition followed on the part of the pope. In view of the contemporary state of the question, that decision was rather premature and was entirely discredited by other audacious steps of the council. The popes and the Council of Trent proceeded much more prudently. Sixtus 
went no farther than to forbid all censure of the belief in the Immaculate Conception, while at the same time he forbade making the denial of it a heresy. He condemned also the assertion that, on the feast of the Conception, the Roman Church celebrated only in general the "spiritual conception and sanctification of the same Virgin." 
 The Council of Trent, at which the question came up for seri-ous discussion, limited itself to declaring, in its decree regarding original sin: "It is not the intention of the Coun-cil to include in this decree concerning original sin the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God, for the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV of blessed memory are to be observed." 

V condemned a thesis of Baius in which the Im-maculate Conception was denied apodictically and, on the strength of which denial, all Mary's sufferings were declared to be "punishments of original sin." 
 By a de-cree of the Inquisition, 1617, Paul V forbade any public 
Denzinger, 
no. 1641. 
Sixtus IV, 
1483; 
no. 735. See Roskovany, op. 
I, 122-26; Le Bachelet, up. 
Denz., no. 792. See Le Bachelet, 
Denz.,no. 1073. See Le Bachelet, 1169 
defense of the thesis, "that Mary was conceived in orig-inal 
Likewise by decree of the Inquisition, 1622, 
Gregory 
extended this 
 to writings and 
lectures of a private nature, "with the exception of those persons to whom this shall have been especially granted by the Holy and Apostolic See." 
 The Dominicans were here referred to; they were permitted to discuss the thesis among themselves, but not in the presence of others. Finally, Alexander 
declared in his famous bull omnium 
(1661): "the devotion to the B. V. Mary is indeed of long standing among the fol-lowers of Christ who feel that her soul, from the first in-stant of its creation and infusion into her body, was 

preserved immune from the stain of original sin 
a spe-
cial grace and privilege of God, by an intuitive cognition of the merits of her Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, and who, in this sense, esteem and sol-emnly celebrate the festivity of her conception."' Ac-cording to this declaration Mary's sanctification from the first moment of her existence was authoritatively deter-mined as the object of the feast, the observance of which 
had now become 
in the Church and was even 

generally prescribed. By the same decree the liturgical testimony of the universal Church was ensured; in fact, this testimony had already been clearly given by the office of the feast and, for the Roman Church in particular, it had already been fixed by Sixtus 
Besides, since the conviction of the truth of this article had taken ever 
Roskovany, op. 
5-7; Le Bachelet, 
Roskovany, 

pp. 348 f.; Le Bachelet, 1173. no. 1100; Roskovany, 
pp. 

Bachelet, IV, 
Cum April 29, 1476, approved of the drawn up by the friar, of Nogarole, in which the present 

deeper root and 
requisite elements were and emphatically present, the doctrine in those years appeared so completely supported by testimonies of the living tradition that, on the strength of 

alone, the definition could follow. 
It cannot be positively asserted, as is sometimes done, that "the feast of Mary's conception,"originally so called, had for its specific object the Immaculate Conception. For in the ancient Church, prior to the celebration of 
and, in certain localities 

celebrated Christ's Precursor," in whose case also there neither was nor could there be a question of a sanctification of his conception. From homilies of St. Peter Chrysologus 
 it appears that on this day they commemorated the miracles preceding, accompanying, and following the conception of St. 

to which miracles his sanctification in his mother's womb 

Middle Ages a much broader purport was given the feast of Mary's conception which was extended in an analogous manner. Mary's origin in her bodily conception, occurring on that special day of the calendar, was as the object of the feast in the following way: this first 

of 
existence of the mother of 

 Savior 

was a happy event for which God must be 
 to-
gether with 
sanctification, which took place in 
her mother's womb and the moment of which was known, it 

 the birth of the Mother of God and 
St. Peter Chrysologus, 
86-92 
et Jo. 
chap. 6. 

thereby also the preparation for Christ's conception and birth. 
This was the view not only of many opponents of the doctrine of Mary's 
 in the first moment of her existence, who sought thereby to justify or 
 fact of the 
 it was held also by some of the advocates of the feast and of the doctrine, who, at least in the beginning, were of the same opinion. For, 
as object of the feast 
indicate: Mary's 

and creation, or also her bodily or human conception, and her spiritual conception. It is found thus in the docu-
ment relative to the feast ascribed to St. 
But 
very soon these latter abandoned their theory. Even 
abdve-mentioned 
 comes round in the end. 
From that 
they limited the object of the feast to the sanctified conception which took place in the creation of the soul itself and which, in virtue of the sanctification of the soul, was coupled with its creation. However, the opponents of the doctrine maintained their point of view. According to them the 
 only, apart from conception of the Virgin conceived on that day-which 
sanctification 
 "spiritual 
 also 
the conception of the Virgin subsequently sanctified, formed the object of the feast. The reason why the Church celebrates only feasts of things actually holy, is in this case merely conclusive, 
Thus St. in 3 Sent., dist. 3 q.27 a. 2 ad 3. Pseudo-Anselm, de src. 322: Si celebrare 	a. PL, CL	St. Thomas, IX (inter 	S. 	
325: 	utramque 	conceptionem 		videlicet 	et 	

since it has been ascertained that the feast was directed, in a very special way, either to the honoring of Mary's person in the first moment of her conception, or to this conception as a holy work of God in itself. Moreover, to this very day the remark of St. Thomas has remained in force, according to which the feast of Mary's sanctifica-tion is celebrated on the day of her bodily conception, be-cause the moment of her sanctification is not defined. Concerning this, the Church has so far made no pro-nouncement, and for that matter it is not theologically 

The meaning of the privilege of the Immaculate Con-ception is defined according to 
 definition in regard to its subject, purport, ground, and modality as follows: 
1.The words, "from the first instant of her conception the blessed Virgin Mary," indicate as subject the person of Mary alone in itself and immediately; therefore not at the same time another person, 
her parents, or part of Mary before her completion, and thus the privilege 
communicated to the person of Mary. Indeed in the first moment of her conception, that is to say, from the origin of that person in the 

 of the mother or, ac-cording to the declaration of Alexander VII, "from the creation and infusion of Mary's soul in her body." 
When, therefore, in the bull itself and in church his-tory Mary's Immaculate Conception is indicated as the 
Concerning this question see AL God 
(3rd 
1937). Brussels. p. 269. 
object of the dogma and subject of the feast, then the conception itself is meant only as subject of the privilege in so far as this privilege is coupled with it, or also in so far as the person endowed with the privilege is as such the object and purport of the action of God which brings it into being, and of Mary's conception in her mother's womb which answers to the divine action. 
Conception, therefore, in the sense of the bull, has nothing to do with conception in so far as it means Mary's origin in regard to the activity of the human principle of production directed to this origin. Before all else, the productive activity of the parents at the moment of the conjugal relationship (called active or, better still, gen-erative conception) is in this case entirely beside the ques-tion. Beside the question also is the conception of the child, which is at once the object 
effect of this action (the passive conception of the seed or the flesh, or also the incomplete conception of the person). The point at issue is that conception 
as distinct from both these fons, is called by the more modem Fathers, "adequate passive conception"; by the earlier defenders of the doc-trine in the Middle Ages, "conception of the bud (as contrasted with conception of the seed) or "spiritual con-ception,"or again "personal conception," sometimes also conception of life," in contrast with conception of the flesh. This conception concurs with the birth in the womb. But neither is this passive conception of the person here under consideration, in so far as it is the formal end and result of the generative conception, or of the con-ception of the seed, as if the privilege were connected with or transferred by that conception, or merely included 
it as well. Rather, a 
 abstraction is made of the 
connection between the origin of the person conceived the productive principles, or in general, of the rela-

origin to its causes. The person who 
Mary's person as such, since it comes into existence by the creation 
infusion of the soul on the part of God, has its origin in the same principle from which the priv-ilege sprung. Both these divine actions are mutually con-nected so as to form one divine action. In this way, therefore, it may be said that the privilege is also formally 
connected 
origin from God, and hence it 
into existence because of her origin, 
because of the decree which effects her origin. From the viewpoint of the origin of the soul from God, 
 can also speak of a conception of Mary by God ceptio divina, 
a Deo) as contrasted with human (conceptio 
 ab homine). In this way the 

 of the conception 
be brought into connection with the divine conception as such. it may be said that in Mary the divine conception is divine 
and immaculate not only because it 
 from God, 
but also because it makes the person conceived holy and immaculate in her origin. Consequently it secures her against that unworthiness and stigma which the human conception, taking place in 
nature, transfers to the person conceived. 
If, therefore, one wishes to consider Mary's conception specifically in one of these three senses as a human con-ception, as was often done in the Middle Ages, one would speak, without actual contradiction of the dogma, not of an immaculate, but of a tainted, conception of Mary. Without the express addition of this modification, this manner of 
 would nowadays be ambiguous and 
confusing. Likewise the direct purport of the definition could be the formula, conception of the immaculate 

Virgin. With this formula the theological opponents of our doctrine formerly indicated the object of the feast, in so far as the immaculateness of the Virgin is taken as absolute, dating from the moment of her conception. But in that case, if this formula is correctly understood, the formula, immaculate conception, 
 by the liturgy of 
Church must prevail. 
2. The words, "was preserved immune from all stain of the original sin," indicate the purport of the privilege to be this, that from the first of her existence 

it is stated that the sanctifying grace, granted the Virgin in the first instant of her existence, excluded completely the formal essence of original sin; moreover, what is ec-clesiasticallyestablished concerning Mary's specific grace of sanctification, 
in the first moment of her existence the state of original sanctity and justice, and not that of original sin, was granted the Virgin in so far as that state is in this concept. In consequence, all dcfccts 

materially to the essence of 

sin 
excluded. On the other 
 the 
 in no way requires that Mary did not sin in Adam ideally, that is to say, that Adam's personal sin, which as sin of the 
affects also 
 members, could as such in no 
implicate 
hence that Mary did not fall, 

under the shadow of 
 sin. The im-
mediate issue is rather this, that Adam's state of sin, 
petuated in his descendants as an innate stain, is not transferred to Mary effectively. The definition does not exclude this extension of the privilege; in a way, it can even be understood under the "preservation from stain. 

The "preservation from the stain of sin" takes place formally by santification, 
the granting of sanctity, but for that reason also by purification, 
the granting of purity. For sanctity is in reality a supernatural purity 

and, conversely, the purity 
which the stain of original 
sin was excluded is not the mere denial of a taint, but is indeed something very positive, such as purity, that is, the radiance of the light and of the objects illuminated by it. 
On the other hand the concept of preservation becomes obscure, if the granting of freedom from the stain of sin is explained simply as a purification from the stain of sin. It is self-evident that this would mean a liberation from the stain already contracted. In the present case, because the preservation as such is also a redeeming liberation and a liberating redemption, there certainly is a liberating purification from sin. To express oneself correctly, this liberating purification must, therefore, be presented as a 
preceding purification" ( 
). 

expression, perhaps not specifically in the present meaning, was already used by Gregory of and 
Sophronius of 
 From what follows it is evi-
dent that, in this case, a liberation from sin really takes place, including the manner in which it is accomplished. 
3. The words, "by an intuitive cognition of the merits 
St. Gregory of 
38 in Theophania, n.13; 
XXXVI, 326; St. of Jerusalem,Or. 2 in s. 25; PG, 

of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race," indicate the ground on which the granting of this privilege is based. In Mary's case, no less than in that of others to whom it was later granted, this liberation from the stain of original sin must be referred to the merits of salvation through the Redeemer. This, of course, presupposes that Mary too stood in need of this merit of redemption in order to ob-tain freedom from stain, and that, in her case, therefore, the necessity of being subject to this stigma would have existed, had not Christ gained her freedom from it. 
the liberation from the stain ever bears the essential mark of a liberating, saving or redeeming action. Through it Mary was saved from an evil not already present, but imminent; she was liberated and redeemed from the ne-cessity of incurring that evil. In colloquial language, not only the removal of a present evil, but also the prevention from an imminent evil is considered a salvation and re-demption. Hence Mary's liberation from the stain of original sin can also be called a salvation and redemption. In this case, salvation and redemption may in no way be conceived in the vague and indefinite sense in which one speaks of salvation from a danger or an evil which men-aces only in one way or another, 
from outside, and which results only from some future act. Here the point at issue is the salvation from a necessity of contracting a certain evil, which necessity is inherent in the subject; more fully, from such a "necessity"whereby, owing to his origin and connection with a tainted parent root, and with a guilty ancestor, the subject is bound 

et obligatum) by the actually existing laws of solidarity and oneness. In this way the necessity of contracting a certain evil is reduced to a subjection which exists by 
right (obnoxium esse). Hence theologians of later date 
do not 
speak in this case abstractly of a "neces-
sity," but of a "debt of incurring the stain" (debitum in-
curred 
 or rather of "contracting 
stain 
together with one's nature" (contrahendi, 

natum 
 or also of "being born with the stain" 
( 
cum 
). 
Since Cajetan's 
the opponents of the now doctrine, the more moderate at any rate, admit that in the supposition of a "debt of incurring the stain," preservation from original sin in Mary's case could really bear the "character of a salvation and liberation" and, therefore, of an effect of the grace of redemption. On the other hand, prior to the definition, all theologians were agreed, that such a debt (debitum) must be accepted in one form or another in order to understand Mary's libera-

from original sin as a grace of redemption. Concern-ing the form in which this debt should be accepted, they were divided. Some held an immediate, others a remote debt. By an immediate debt of incurring the stain, most of them understand the necessity which, by reason of the imaginary complicity of the whole race in Adam's actual sin, brings the result, in and by its origin, that every member of the race is deprived of the sanctity and justice forfeited and lost through that debt. Consequently it is an unworthiness or moral unfitness of possessing 
 grace. In Mary this necessity is offset by the grace of redemption precisely in the fact that through this grace the forfeited sanctity and justice are nevertheless granted to her person in the first moment of her existence. In this case Christ's grace of redemption naturally acts in Mary, as in others, not as meriting only, but also as formally atoning and conciliating. Accordingly the only difference between Mary and the other children of Adam is that this justifying grace was granted her before the 
which the grace was to wipe out, could be incurred, and the preservation from the stain of sin was, therefore, 
effected 
by an anterior justification. 
Since such a debt would always cast, as it were, a shadow of the sin of the whole 
race on the holiest among all creatures, and would place the new Eve in a 
state of 
 upon the old Adam, who is unworthy 
of her, hence this debt seemed to other theologians in-tolerable in connection with Mary. Therefore, in order to do justice to the concept of the grace of redemption, these latter tried so to construe 
 debt that Mary's implica-tion in the sin of the race would be obviated as much as possible.'' The first group of theologians reduced this implication in the sin of Adam to a 
participation only and to a condition, in consequence of which the taint would necessarily have been transmitted immediately, had not this been prevented by an anterior infusion of grace. The second group of theologians also part the nominal participation in Adam's sin and accepted only such a debt, by reason of which the immediate debt, advocated by the first group, would have operated, had 
not God prevented it by a privilege. 

This was effected in a twofold form. Some ac-
cepted a divine influence on the elements or principles of 
Mary's being, which influence preceded the 

of her person as member of the race. The outcome of this divine influence 
 her 
in itself, as it 
About the different concerning the in Mary, see Le Bachelet, op. 

exists in reality, would not be immediately subject to the debt of incurring the stain. For by it she was so separated and freed from the tainted root, that its influence could not extend to her person. Hence the debt was here a remote debt, in so far as it was turned away from Mary's person, and limited to its principles, without at the same time limiting in itself the tendency of the original sin to include Mary also. Others went back to the tainted root itself. In the pact, or rather in the law whereby God appointed 
the normal head and representative of 
whole race originating with him, they argued that, because of Christ's merits, God excluded Christ's mother from this law given for all, and, therefore, under this aspect made her entirely independent of Adam. These theologians ac-cepted in consequence only a debt of incurring the stain in this sense, that, according to her being and origin, Mary was a child of Adam, and because of her natural connection with him she herself was, like all other human beings, subject to all laws governing the race and, there-fore, to that law also involving a participation in Adam's sin, in so far, at least, as God did not 
her before-hand from such participation. 
This theory also is presented under a twofold form, according to the manner in which Mary's predestination is conceived in relation to that of Christ. In the one case they start from the premise that only in is Mary predestined as Mother of the Redeemer of sinful man-kind. In that case Christ's redeeming death operated for her, not indeed as in satisfaction, but only as meriting; while Christ's death still remained the foundation of Mary's privilege. In the other case, they say that Mary, as mother of Christ, is absolutely predestined with Him, 
of the decree of redemption, and thus before 

of Christ's redeeming death. 
The opinion for the immediate debt was prevalent up to the sixteenth 
and the outset of the seventeenth; but it is by no means sanctioned by the definition, as some, 
Malou, thought. Any leaning in that direction was 
in the pope's views, as he expressly declared 
questioned. Such an opinion could 
be ex-
pectcd, since by its general expression the Council of 
had sanctioned the exclusion of Mary from every formal participation in the sin of Adam. In the last few centuries, together with the maintaining of the immacu-late conception, the denial of the immediate debt had also become more universal. Hence, dogmatically this debt may be regarded as limited, the more so since, on 
" 
the other hand, the bull speaks of a preservation from all stain." This does not necessarily imply that the denial of an immediate debt under every form is dogmatically and theologically permissible. What is more important 
the establishing of the remote debt makes a real liberation possible. The view favoring the remote debt, under the first was advocated in the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies. It associated itself with the prevailing conception 
of the 
 organic propagation of original sin, on 
the analogy of the heredity of natural qualities. It was combatted by all the great theologians of the thirteenth 
and later was almost entirely dropped. It is in-deed scarcely tenable. Instead of conceding that Mary's nature, that is, her being, in so far as it is the fruit of 
propagation, was sanctified by her person, that is, her spiritual soul, it based the sanctification of the 
son on an antecedent purification of her nature in its ma-
terial and effective 

As early as the Middle Ages the second form likewise was implicitly advanced, though not by 
 as we may gather from his theory concerning the absolute pre-destination of Christ. Instead, it was the work of the un-known author of a defense written against the letter of St. Bernard. It was not till the middle of the sixteenth century that it was brought into prominence by the Dominican, Ambrogio Catarino, and again in the be-ginning of the seventeenth century by the school of To-ledo, from which it spread rapidly. It can at best be de-fended only in the first presentation. For that 
it 

be observed 
 the oration of the feast describes 
the expression, "by an intuitive cognition of the merits of Jesus Christ," in the words, "by foreseeing the death of the Son." On the other hand, the very text of the bull  itself speaks of the merits of the 
and explains the preservation as follows: "Mary was redeemed in a more excellent manner." Indeed, 
most decided ad-vocates of the second view explicitly declare that "Mary's grace is not a proper grace of redemption or a grace the Redeemer, but a grace of the Creator. " Therefore, irrespective of sin and its redemption, whereby grace is granted to spiritual creatures for the sake of Christ, Mary 

have been accorded this grace because of the de-cree contained in 
 Creator's plan of the world. 
See 
"La de la T. S. Vierge dans la doctrine de Jean Duns Smt," in La Frunce 3rd series, XIX (Rech. 

himself has not a single 
concerning matter 114, 154). A first indication in that 
appears in Jean de (pp. 115 
a disciple of 
idea is again taken up in the sixteenth century, at the suggestion of ( p. 115). 

But again, the first presentation, as expounded by some theologians, or rather, as it was generally understood at that 
was that, through the grace of the Creator, Mary remained untainted by original sin, in so far as grace, granted the human race as a common possession in Adam, had not been forfeited and lost for her. If at the same time it is admitted, as it was by most of these the-ologians, that the first grace was not granted for the sake of Christ, here also, the concept of the redeeming grace 
is with 
 maintained. 
For a serious discussion two only of the opinions ad-
vanced are considered. The one 
debt; the other excludes the immediate that, in Mary's case, it implies an exemption from the law 

of solidarity with Adam, this exemption 
effected 
Christ's redeeming death. The 
 attending 
both these views can be avoided by establishing with more precision 
relation of Mary's preservation from sin to the grace of her motherhood, and the relation of this grace to 
person. This would result in another and easier formulation of the debt. 
the words, 'By a singular grace and privilege 
of Almighty God," determine the character of the priv-ilege indicated. This privilege was granted, not accord-ing to a general law, but by way of a gracious exception to the law, indeed, by an entirely unique exception. This 

sality of original sin, or conversely, of establishing a preju-dice against this privilege because of the universality of original sin. 

According to the aforesaid statements, Mary's concep-tion or origin stands between that of ordinary mortals and that of Christ's humanity, just as Mary was to be the con-necting link joining the old with the new creation in 
Mary has this in common with the conception of ordinary mortals, that her body was formed by natural propagation, and her person was constituted by the in-fusion of her human soul into her body. With the con-ception of Christ it has this in common, that her soul and 
her body through her soul, were sanctified in a supernatural manner at the moment of their union with each other, their sanctification taking place because of the union with a divine person, and 
thus they came into existence without sin. 
In Christ's conception the contracting of sin was radi-cally and essentially excluded, on the one hand by the supernatural origin of His flesh and, on the other, by the supernatural essence of His person. In that of Mary the contracting of sin was excluded only by a special grace precluding in her case the consequences of her natural origin, and in view of her election and consecration as Mother of God. This grace was granted her in the crea-tion and infusion of her soul in order to prepare and worthily initiate the conception of Christ, which was to be accomplished in her. 
 Mary's holiness rests on the intimate relation of her conception to that of Christ, the closest mutual 
From this point of view even Luther developed our doctrine very beau-tifully, and that in the year 1527 in his See edition of Luther's works by J. G. Walch, XI 
2614 ff. 
relations exist between the holiness of both conceptions. It may be said that in the conception of Mary the divine creation of her soul corresponds to the sacred forming of the flesh in the conception of Christ. For, as the bodily virginity of the mother is preserved immune in Christ's 
conception by the action of the 
Ghost, so also is her 
spiritual virginity effected by the same Holy Spirit. Fur-thermore, by reason of the original holiness of Mary's soul, which sanctified her body, the human flesh assumed by Christ, although derived from a sin-stained race, was nevertheless untainted in the person of her from whom it was immediately derived. Finally, through the action of the Holy Ghost, Mary, through the original holiness of her soul, was disposed to act, in conjunction with this Spirit, as His instrument in the formation of the 
TKE APPROPRIATENESS OF TKE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 
Hence it follows, how highly befitting to Mary is the privilege of the immaculate conception because of her original and hallowed destiny as Mother of God. appropriateness is so striking, that the more the attention of the faithful was directed to this privilege, the more the lack of it appeared to them as unthinkable, altogether in-compatible with the honor of God and of Christ, with Mary's own dignity and her destiny as queen of angels and spiritual mother of men. 

So long as Mary's original destiny as Mother of God is conceived only in a general way, it cannot be said that, essentially and unconditionally, it demanded a perma-nent freedom from all inherited or personal sin previous 
to the beginning of her motherhood, and that, therefore, it contained a metaphysically cogent proof of this priv-ilege. On the other hand, the fitness of this privilege is at once seen to be an absolute necessity if, as has been al-ready explained, Mary's original destiny as Mother of God is conceived positively under the concrete form, the distinguishing mark of her person being the grace of motherhood, viz., a bridal, or spiritual and matrimonial association and union of Mary with God and Christ, ac-complished in and with the creation of Mary's person. For, in virtue of this concept, at the moment of her own conception when God took possession of her soul, Mary appears as holy and inviolate a virgin as at and after the conception of Christ. For that reason she possesses a consecration as is altogether incompatible with defile-ment by sin. 

Consequently all other expressions 
contain or 
suppose the distinguishing mark of 
person in 
sense indicated, such as "child of God," "daughter of 
God," and "true Eve," not 
point to 
 supreme fit-
ness of Mary's Immaculate Conception, but also demand it as an essential quality of the person specified. If the ex-pressions, "holy virgin," "daughter of God," and "true Eve," are understood in the full meaning which can and must be given them, they embrace the Immaculate Con-ception even analytically; for they essentially include the original purity, the holiness, and the supernatural life of their subject. 
Accordingly, from this point of view the grace of Mary's 
Immaculate 
in relation to the merit of Christ's 
redemption can be determined more correctly. Although this grace necessarily results from that of 
the divine motherhood, which was granted Mary by vir-tue of the decree of creation determining the existence of her person, nevertheless the one grace, as and in the other, is a fruit of the merits of 
 Redeemer; because Mary is predestined, not abstractly as Mother of Christ, but as Mother of the Redeemer. Therefore she could and should obtain these graces only by reason of the merits of the Redeemer, which merits contain all graces granted man-kind after 
 Fall. If, therefore, at first sight, the grace in question could and should be called a 
of the Crea-
more so since it the establishment of a 
and higher creation-it is so only in so far as it can really be called, at the same time, a grace of the Re-deemer. 
Whereas in the Virgin the merits of the Redeemer effect the freedom from the stain of sin in and with the grace of motherhcod, they achieve this result not only because this freedom is realized by sanctifying grace, granted at the first moment together 
the grace of conception, but also 
it is effected by the grace of the motherhood, granted in and with the creation of Mary's person. By this last grace the freedom from sin is so effected 
 it rests on the original and most intimate union of Mary's person with God and with Christ. Owing to her origin through the decree of the Creator, this union embraces Mary's entire being in such a way that neither in the chronological order nor simply in the natural order was she more closely allied to the race of Adam by the union of the soul with the body, than she was with God and Christ by her divine state as bride. Rather was she created as daughter of Adam for the sole reason that she was destined to be the Mother of the Redeemer, and 

her bodily relation to Adam from the beginning 
is entirely subservient to her bodily relation to Christ. 
Such being the case, her bodily relation to Adam, as opposed to her bodily relation to Christ, can in no wise assert itself. The latter completely paralyses it in ad-vance. Hence it follows that in Mary Christ's grace of redemption not only precluded the actual incurring of the universal stain of sin, but it also canceled in her regard all share in humanity's common debt through Adam's transgression, and with it the necessity also, as well as the possibility, of incurring the 
of sin. 
Consequently, owing to the merit of Christ's 

it cannot be said that Mary sinned in Adam. To sin in Adam" means in its natural and complete sense that, as Adam is head of the human race, each member of that race, being dependent on him, is for that very reason liable to a share in the common heritage of sin. It cannot be said that Mary is so represented in the person of Adam as having the latter as her head, and that, as to the charge of sin, she is so dependent on him that for that reason she became liable to a share in his guilt and hence incurred a reproach and a disqualification. Now, on the strength of the proper character of her origin, Mary is not de-pendent on Adam in the same way as are other human beings. If, as daughter of Adam, she had apparently to fall under the shadow of his guilt and had to become for grace because of his sin, nevertheless, as member of Christ, there could be no question in the sight of God of her perfect worthiness of all grace. Briefly, therefore, and without restriction, it may be said that Adam sinned for Mary also, in other words that, by his sin he forfeited and lost for her also the original justice, which through him 
she would have inherited; that, in so far as the original justice is concerned, Mary in common with the whole human race was, through the sin of Adam, rendered un-worthy of grace because of the loss of this original justice. 
Mary's relation to the debt of having to incur the stain, which is to be supposed for her redemption, may perhaps be most fitly expressed as follows: If we consider Mary's person in itself, materially, abstractly and secundum quid, that is, according to her 
origin and being as product of natural propagation, or according to the na-ture which is hers in common with the rest of mankind, and by which she stands in relation to Adam, it is subject to the law of the community of sin and exposed to its toils. But considered formally and concretely, that is, accord- ing to 

 supernatural distinguishing mark of her per-son, or as this particular consecrated person, being product of a special decree of God's creation, she is empted from this law, and the bonds of sin have no hold upon her. 

The first part takes into account the truth contained in the statement of the proximate debt. The second so limits this proximate debt that not only does it remain ineffec-tive, but is aiso of itself rendered powerless. This obviates the necessity of introducing a special reservation in the divine enactment of the law of solidarity between Adam and his posterity exonerating Mary from all obligation to this law. The law can and must hold even for Mary, in 
so far as she comes under the conditions of the 
that 
is, in so far as she is a product and member of the race which sprang from Adam. The applicability of the law to Mary is annulled for the one reason that, owing to origin through the ordinance of God, she comes into istence not merely as a 

 and member of the first 
Adam, but as root and member of the heavenly Adam. The debt to be excluded should rather be called the formal debt than the proximate debt; and the debt to be ac-cepted, should rather be called the material debt (instead of the remote debt). 
Whatever the scientific formulation may be, the liturgy of the Church requires in any case that the immaculate 
origin of like the origin of the Church, should be 

of the Canticle of Canticles, as "a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices7' ascending from the of Christ and, like the coming forth of the eternal according to Ecclesiasticus, as "the cloud of 

light from the mouth of the most 
 This double 
figure 
the double parallel give, in general, the most 
suggestive and excellent presentation of 
immacu-
late origin. They present the latter as the origin of the mother of grace, of life, and of light from the side of Christ and the spiritual womb of God. Thus does Mary in her origin appear as the dove of Christ and of God, and as the daughter of grace, of life, and of light. 

Cant. 

CHAPTER IV 
Proof of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception from Sacred Scripture 
ACRED Scripture makes no formal pronouncement concerning this dogma. Mary's privileges and posi-tion, as pictured in the protevangelium and in the saluta-tion of the angel together with that of Elizabeth,' of necessity point to Mary's Immaculate Conception, not only as a theological conclusion, but as pertaining to the completeness of the immediate purpose. For had Mary for even an instant been subject to original sin, then her presupposed cooperation with Christ in His victorious enmity against the devil and in the unique blessing of salvation He brought to all men, would be untenable. By way of supplement, the doctrine can be proved clearly enough from the Canticle of Canticles, from the texts of the psalms relating to the holy city and the tabernacle of God, and also from the figure of Esther. 
In connection with the protevangelium 
 it should be especially 
that, even before the announcement of the punishment of our first parents and their descendants, 
Mary was promised 
 with her Son and was at the 
same time placed in such a position as to seem unallied to the sinful race. As to the text itself, it is quite unnecessary 
Gen. 3:15; Luke 
For the application of Gen. 3:15 to Mary,see 
I, appendix L 
for our purpose to hold the feminine form in the Vulgate, 
ipsa conteret" ("she shall crush), as in the original wording of the text. It is sufficient that the purport of this ecclesiastically authentic extract is contained in the sense of the original, which demands a victorious enmity against the devil, and points out the woman and her seed. 
It is difficult to accept the opinion that the head of the serpent formally means the sin, brought into the world by the serpent. It points rather to the dominion of the devil established by sin, and only indirectly to that sin itself as title and means for this dominion. On the other hand, the meaning of the text becomes more natural and significant if by the seed of the serpent is understood, not sinners, but the sin itself, in particular the sin of this (terrestrial) world which, through the medium of the first woman, is born from it in Adam; in other words, the sin of mankind in the sense of Rom. 5:12 and John 
by which and in which all mankind falls under the dominion of the devil. However, for our purpose even this explanation is un-necessary. 
Under this supposition, Mary in union with Christ is placed in opposition to the devil, and they are a human couple whom he would assail indeed, but whom, unlike that first couple, he would fail to conquer; on the con-trary, he would himself suffer defeat at their hands. Ac-cording to the original text the victory over the devil is ascribed in the first place to Christ, as a work of His own power. Still, in that enmity the woman generally comes first, because the victory of the devil had first to be frus-trated in the woman and through her turned into shame, since the victory was first gained over the woman, and at-
tained its extension 
 her. So unconquerable and 
victorious an enmity in union with Christ, by which the devil had to be punished for the seduction of man and had especially to be put to shame for the deception of the woman, evidently precludes on Mary's part any connec-tion whatsoever with the devil or any subjection to his power. It rather demands that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary 
Christ was exempt from all domination of the Evil One. 
This promise of a complete and permanent union be-tween Mary and Christ finds confirmation in the saluta-tion of Elizabeth, in which, as "blessed among women," Mary is united with the "blessed fruit of her womb." 
 In connection with the protevangelium especially, must this community of blessings be conceived as a community of permanent blessing, inasmuch as it forms a community for the imparting of grace. Had Mary, like other women, been subject to the curse for even an instant, this claim to an emphatic union of her blessing with 
of Christ would have been illogical. 
Hence, in connection with both texts, the express meaning of the "Hail, full of grace" in the salutation of the angel is so clearly defined that the permanence of the state of grace must necessarily be included. For only through that state of grace can Mary appear with and next to Christ, as the triumphant vanquisher of the devil and the source of blessing to men. And, as has been observed above, the Greek expression for "full of grace"is still clearer and more significant. It characterizes Mary briefly as the person to whom grace has been granted, 
one of whom grace has taken possession in a unique and perfect manner. 
Luke 1 
The expression, "the Lord is with thee," has a meaning equally comprehensive. Under the circumstances it must necessarily signify both a permanent union with God and a permanent and most perfect protection of God. All these texts taken together ascribe to the Mother of Christ at least such an exceptional position that perma-nent freedom from sin must be presumed, so long as it is not proved by manifest and special reasons that this privilege is non-existent. Such reasons do not exist. The only temporary and partly interrupted ecclesiastical con-ception of these texts speaks rather against the limiting of their natural import. 
Here belong those two texts from the Canticle of Can-ticles, which, 
figure, directly and definitely describe Mary's origin. In the first, the "blessed among women," in contradistinction to other women, is presented as a "lily among thorns," like Christ as 
 apple-tree among the fruitless trees of the forest. In the second, Mary, as distinguished from the rest of mankind to whom grace is granted, is described under the figure of the "morning rising,"as an altogether heavenly being of 

To these texts belong also those which were always applied to Mary, viz., those referring to the origin and beauty of the 
 On account of the organic and mutual relation between Mary and the Church, they can rightly and with perfect truth be applied to the Mother of God as well. Understood in this way, they strikingly express Mary's utter and original stainlessness. As the Church, in 
 connection, is represented as a bride who is sanctified because of her origin from Christ's sacrifice, or by "her coming 
Libanon," and 
in 
4 Cant. 2:2 f.; 
Cant. 
4:1 ff. 

quence is all beautiful and immaculate; so Mary, the personal prototype of the Church, must likewise 
con-
sidered as sanctified in and by her 
 origin from 
God, and this not as being purified later, but as spotless from the beginning, hence a perfectly immaculate bride. Here also the figures of the "garden enclosed and "the fountain sealed up" signify the permanent, complete, the 
spiritually pure and inviolate state of 
soul, rather 
than the virginity of her 
 At the time they 
show clearly how Mary's ever inviolate purity is closely bound up with her position as 
of the life of grace. From 
 beginning of the controversy the advocates of the Immaculate Conception, with special predilection, used the texts from the psalms referring to the establish-ment, sanctification, and protection of the holy city and the temple of God. In this way the inherent necessity and 
fitness of 
permanent holiness was brought out 
more clearly. Among others, the charming figure of Esther might also be used as an exegetical demonstration. saglia used it learnedly.' The evidently typical psalm 117 most probably has as its subject the liberation of the Jews by Mardochai and Esther. The Apostle seems also to have borrowed from the frustration of 
evil plot the colors with which he paints the victory of Christ over the devil. If the whole history is taken as typical, Esther 
must be a figure of 
As such she appears especially 
in the words of the king: "Thou shalt not die: for this law is not made for thee, but for all others." 

See the beautiful application of this text in Pseudo-Jerome, 
me ( 
lesson of the office on December 
PL, 
131. 
see. 5, c.3, who champions (art. 1 and 2) the explana-tion of Ps. 117 and 
as given in the text. 
Esther 25: 13. 

The testimony of tradition for the doctrine must not be limited to those texts which more or less emphatically elucidate the pure origin of Mary. In the first place the universal presentation of Mary's holiness and of her posi-tion in the order of grace, which dominates the entire tradition, must be pointed out. It contains two thoughts in particular, which always and everywhere were at least fundamentally acknowledged, and which evidently in-clude the initial freedom from original sin: 1. the thought of the complete and perfect purity and the virginal Mother of God; 2. the thought of the new and better Eve, that is, the bride of the divine Adam and the heavenly mother of mankind. 

It can also be shown that as 
as the fourth century the belief in Mary's original freedom from the sin Adam was deep-rooted in the consciousness of the Church and even of the people in most widely separated sections of the Church. In all the Eastern Churches this belief con-tinued without contradiction. It is evidenced in the feast of the Conception of St. Ann, accepted at a very early date, and in numerous dogmatic documents. Later, in the West, though fewer traces are found of this belief, there is no emphatic denial of it till the twelfth century when, with the attempts to introduce the feast of the Conception of Mary, the famous controversy on this subject was evoked by the seeming contradiction between the purport of this feast and the dogma of the universality of original sin. 
1. The first idea which is here considered, regarding 
the complete and perfect purity of the Mother of God, finds expression in this sentence of St. Anselm 
 at the 
beginning of the bull 
 "It was fitting that a 
purity, greater than which cannot be found outside of God, should shine in the Virgin. For, to the Virgin, God 
the Father decreed to give His 
Son whom, begotten 
from 
as His equal, He heartily loved as Him-self; and from the Virgin the Holy Ghost willed and effected, that this only begotten Son of the Father from whom 
Himself proceeded, should be conceived and born." This sentence is only the echo of a host of wit-nesses from former centuries who, insisting on the ap-propriateness, or rather, the ideal necessity of this quality, advocated the reality of this exalted and divine purity and attested their convictions in manifold expressions, color-
ings, figures and 
 And they gave no indica-
tion that this purity would subsequently be raised to such a level as would suppose some previous deficiency, though some such suggestion may possibly be found in the writ-ings of St. Anselm himself.'' 
Of itself it is conceivable, so the opponents of the doc-trine thought, that, with a subsequent sanctification, there could be question of a complete purity which ex-celled even 
 of the angels, viz., in so far as this purity is contained formally and directly in the highest degree of the positive holiness once received. Still, with this sub-lime godlike purity, and especially with absolute stain-lessness, we involuntarily think of enduring purity. With this the opponents themselves connected the idea, when they considered permanent freedom from all personal 
St. Anselm, De 
chap. 18; PL, CLVIII, 451. 
See Passaglia, 
the whole of 
2. 
On St. attitude, see Le 

sins as due to the purity of the Mother of God, or when they conceded 
privilege. Consequently they should have either accepted permanent freedom from original sin, or abandoned the proof which they drew from this principle for the permanent freedom from ac-tual sins. So long as they did not do this, and the idea of doing so occurred to no one, they themselves bore wit-ness to the unconditional and complete validity of the principle. 
It is evident from the following points, that, in the sense of tradition, the permanent freedom from 
sins is con-tained in the title of Mary's immaculateness: 
Iminaculateness is always ascribed to Mary as to the perpetual virgin. It thus forms a whole with bodily integrity and must, therefore, be understood in the same 

namely, as excluding every violation or stain. St. Ambrose writes: "Seek thy sheep, not through thy servants nor through thy hirelings, but by thyself. Re-ceive me in that flesh which fell in Adam (by assuming my flesh, but) receive me not from Sara but from Mary, because she is a virgin not only uncorrupted, but a virgin untouched by all stain of sin." 
The meaning of this turn of phrase can be rendered in 
ways. 

is this: because she from whom thou 
me 
is obviously or to such a degree an uncorrupted virgin, only because of her corporeal incorruption, but also 
St. Ambrose, ovem 
jam non per 
per 
per temetipsum. 
me in (ipsa) quae in Adam 
est 		sed) 		me 	ex Sara sed ex Maria, 	
ut 	sit 	virgo 	omni 			peccati. The meaning 	
of this 	can be given as: ut 	or adeo 	ex qua me 	
	sit virgo, 	incorruptione 		sed 	omni 	

incorruptione et but also as: eo fine, ut perdita fat 
St. Ambrose, 
in Ps. 118, 22, no. 30 (text of 
is verse 176); PL, XV, 1521. Cf. Le Bachelet, 
882. 
because of her total incorruption of mind and heart. In this case Mary is the direct subject. If it is explained thus: to the end, that the lost sheep may become an uncor-rupted virgin, it presents Mary as the simply inviolate standard of inviolability. 
b. This immaculateness is ascribed to Mary as an at-tribute which she alone, of the human race, possesses in common with Christ. St. Ephraem says: "Thou, Lord, and thy mother, you alone are perfectly holy; for in thee, Lord, there is no stain, nor is there any blemish in thy mother." In a singular manner her imrnaculateness is represented as similar to that of Christ. St. Bernard writes: "In order to become man, the Creator of the human race had to be born of a human being, and He had to select for Him-self such a human being, indeed had to form such a mother, as I-Ie knew to be fitting and pleasing to Whence He willed her to be a virgin, in order that He who is immaculate Himself, could proceed from such an im-maculate woman." 

In that way He willed that the 

of the Lamb of God should be extended to 
Mary as the immaculate agna or innocent 
c. Mary's stainlessness is compared to the ibility of the Godhead, also to that of the Holy Ghost, with whom Mary cooperated in the production of the im-

maculate Christ. St. 
 writes: "Furthermore, 
the chest made of unperishable wood was the very Savior. For, this chest is indicated the tabernacle, free from decay and corruption, which did not bring forth any cor-ruption of sin. . . . According to His human nature, that is, from the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, the Lord, free from sin, was made of wood 
St. Ephraem 		edited by 	(Leipzig, 	
p. 122. 				
St 	2 super 	PL, 	61. 	
See 	nos. 384 ff. 			

from putrefaction, and lined inside and out, so to speak, with the purest gold of the Word of God." 
From time immemorial, Mary's spotlessness has had as its figure and symbol the immaculate earth from which Adam was formed. In the first place, this was ap-plied to her corporeal virginity, but the freedom from God's curse of the newly created earth is of course also considered. So at least, far back in the ancient account of the martyrdom of St. Andrew, in the discourse of 

of Ancyra at the Council of 
 and in the 
Synodica of the Council of Frankfurt, we read: "Christ is born of the Virgin, indeed of a better earth which is animated as well as immaculate." 
In so far as Mary's stainlessness is at the same time the immaculateness of the holy dwelling of Christ and God, it is presented by the immaculateness of paradise 
 and of heaven, and it finds its analogy in the immaculateness of the living heavens, the holy 

lateness is on a level with the virginal immaculateness of the Church. By this is understood not the ness of the members of the Church, which is sought through purification ( Ephes. 

but the original and unimpeachable purity of the Church herself as principle 
St. 
Or. in 
Ps. 22, 
me, PG, X, 609 (ed-
ited by Bonwetsch, I, 146 f.), kept by Theodoret, Dial. 1; PG, 
Theodotus of 
I, 1; PG, LVII, 1349; cf. Horn. 6, no. 6; 
PG, LXXVII, 1416 
gives only the Latin text). 
PL. CI. 1340. 

op. 
nos. 553 ff. 
nos. 1317 
and instrument of sanctification. St. Augustine says: 
" 
Among the sons of men, the son of Mary, the bridegroom of the Church, which He made similar to His Mother, is comely in form. For He made her our mother, while keep-ing her as virgin for Himself. . . . Wherefore in the Church as in Mary there is perpetual integrity and un-corrupted fecundity." 

Therefore, it is but a true reflection of ancient tradition, when 
 brief, 
me, explains in this way the words of the Canticle of Canticles, "Come, my dove, my spot-
" 
less one," referring to Mary in this way: Displaying a simplicity in all things, she was made beautiful by her many meritorious virtues 
 made more beautiful than whitened snow by the gifts of the Holy Ghost; be-cause, whatever was wrought in her, was all purity and simplicity, all truth and grace, all mercy and justice, and hence she is immaculate, because she is not corrupted in anything." 
 Consequently, if from the simple title of Mary's immaculateness the immaculateness of her con-ception also cannot be deduced, as is sometimes done, it is equally wrong to maintain with Petavius, that from this title no argument whatever can be drawn. 
Mary's universal and permanent immunity from all sin, especially her exceptional position among sinful hu-manity, is fundamentally formulated in the well-known words of St. Augustine: "Wherefore, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, regarding whom, because of the honor of God, I do not wish to ask a single ques-tion concerning sin,-for whence do we know that more grace to conquer sin from every side was bestowed upon 
St. Augustine, 
195, no. 2; PL, XXXVIII, 1018. 
Pseudo-Jerome, 
me; PL, 
131. 
her who merited to conceive and bear Him of whom it is certain that He was without all sin?-therefore, with the exception of this Virgin, if we could congregate all those holy men and women, at the time they lived here below, and interrogate them whether they were without sin, what do we think would be their answer? . . . Would they not exclaim with one voice: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and truth is not in us." 
 This is an answer to the remark of Pelagius, that, according to the Sacred Scriptures, many of the just of the Old Testament lived without sin, particularly, how-ever, 'the mother of our Lord and Savior, for piety de-mands that she be acknowledged to be without sin." The real point at issue here is, no doubt, the freedom from personal-sins; but the pronouncement of the saint must not necessarily be limited to this. For, on the one hand, in the 

with Pelagius, the question of original 

sin remained always in the background. On the other hand, the reason as well as the manner of Mary's exemp-tion from sin is expressed so emphatically and so gen-erally, that it embraces every kind of sin. Therefore this special 
is solved by a general principle. More-over, St. Augustine shortly after explains that, essentially, it matters little whether others, besides Mary, really kept theinselves free from all sin, so long as in them, as in Mary, the reason for this is ascribed to 
If this remark referred only to personal sins, Mary's unique and 
St. Augustine, De 
et 

c.36, no. 42; PL, XLIV, 267. See 883; B, Capelle, "La Pende de S. conception," in 

de 
et 

IV ( 1931). 361-70. 
Pelagius, 
(fragments have been collected by PL, 
cited by St. 
PL, XLIV. 

St. 
PL, 
271. 
OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 
exceptional position, previously defended by St. 
tine, would obviously be eliminated. 
2. The second traditional thought is the character of Mary as the heavenly Eve. She, the bride of the divine Adam and the heavenly mother of mankind, forms with Christ the beginning, 
and root of a new and higher creation of God, whereby the first was to be re-newed and completed. Hence, in an analogous relation of resemblance and contradistinction, she stands to Eve as Christ to 
Obviously this thought necessarily im-

plies that although daughter of fallen Eve, could 
neither resemble her nor in any way be dependent on her. The divine action which granted her personal exist-ence, placed her in opposition to the fallen Eve, and con-sequently she must be created in that state of holiness and innocence in which the first Eve was created. Otherwise the parallel would be incomplete and unnatural, and the heavenly Eve would seem less richly endowed than the 
Among others St. Ephraem writes: "Each is made equally pure and guileless, but Eve became the cause of death; Mary, the cause of our salvation." 
 He is even more detailed in the somewhat daring figure of the two eyes: "It is clear that Mary was the gate to Christ's heaven, by whose presence our hope revived, when by her the light revisited the world and its inhabitants, which light Eve, as origin of all evil, had banished. And if you wish to be-come acquainted with the mystery of each, consider the two eyes of a body, one of which lost its light by being 
See 

9 

St. Ephraem of Syria, in 
edited by 
(Rome, 

327; cited by Le Bachelet, 

accidentally blinded, making the other shine with a brighter light and causing the eye to take in everything. Now, take a look back at the world. It received two eyes: Eve, the left eye, became plainly blinded; Mary, the right eye, became by that calamity most bright." odotus of Ancyra writes: "In place of the virgin Eve, who became to us an instrument of death, God chose a virgin 

to give life. This virgin was most 
 to Him and full 
of grace. In life this woman was averse to the iniquity of the first woman. She is a virgin, innocent and immaculate, holy in mind and body, produced as a lily 
thorns, who knew not the evil of Eve . . . who was a daughter of Adam, but unlike him." 

3. At a very early date, on the strength of these funda-mental observations, the special, closely associated idea of Mary's purity in her origin, or the immediate union of grace with the creation of her soul revealed itself. Thus in the Latin Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, Peter Chrysologus speaks of Mary in her origin as "wedded to God." 
 St. of Turin calls her a "worthy dwell-ing of God by virtue of original grace." He writes: '' "Mary was indeed a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but by virtue of original grace." St. Ambrose pictures Mary as a "being of heavenly origin." He says: 
 "Whence this work? Certainly not from this world, but from heaven Christ selected this 
p. 329. 
Theodotus of Ancrya, 
6; PG, LXXVII, 1427; Jugie, art. in 
de 
VII, 906 f., gives the Greek text according to codex 1171 of the nationale at Paris. 

St. Peter Chrysologus, 
140; PL, LII, 576. 
St. of Turin, Hom. 6 ante 
PL, LVII, 235; Bachelet, op. 

982. 
St. Ambrose, De 
ad 
PL, XVI, 313. 
sel, by which He was to descend; He set this temple of 

apart as sacred." 
The authors of hymns most strikingly expressed the contrast between Mary's pure origin and the tainted or-igin of the rest of mankind. In this way Sedulius gives us the figure of the rose which blooms amid thorns. God effected: 
"That, whence Guilt brought death, thence piety might bring salvation, And, as the tender rose blooms amid sharp thorns, Having nothing harmful, conceals its mother with its 
honor, So likewise holy Mary, coming from the stem of Eve, As the new virgin, might expiate the misdeed of the 
ancient virgin." 

The figure of the rose blooming among thorns, is a striking transposition of the biblical figure of the lily among thorns. An other and different reading is the figure of the chestnut which grows in thorns, that is, in a thorny shell. It is presented by 
 Akin to this is that biblical figure, used by Paul the Deacon and Peter of the twig which springs up straight out of a 
crooked and gnarled 
 striking is the 
Sedulius,Carmen pasch.; PL, XIX, 295f. God has effected: 

Eadmerus, Tract. de s. PL, CLIX, 305. 
1 de Ass.; PL, XCV, 1567; (St. Peter 11; PL, CXLIV, 
(by of 
explained figure of the cloud, formed from brackish sea-water, but free from all bitterness. There follows an ancient hymn, written in Ambrosian style: 
soon as the first earth-born parent perished from swallowing the poison of the malicious serpent, An infectious poison, flowing therefrom and infiltrating 
the race, inflicted upon the whole of it a deep wound. But the Saviour having 
 on creatures, and 
discerning the untouched womb of the propitiatory Virgin, Committed to her the bringing of the joy of salvation to the world languishing in its deadly crime." 

The doctrine was so popular at the time, that the 
Pelagian 
 thought to deal a decisive blow to the 
dogma of the universality of original sin, by reproaching St. Augustine, that he acted more irreverently towards Mary than Jovinianus had done. For he said: "Jovinianus destroyed the virginity of Mary by the manner of her 
 birth; but you surrender Mary herself to the devil by the manner of her birth."St. Augustine answered "We do not surrender Mary to the devil by the manner of her 
Quoted by Sylloge . . . , I, 34. 
Hymn: 
occidit 

(indecl. for 

er genus 

sed 

viscera 

His 

birth, but because the condition of her birth is explained by 
grace of her rebirth." 
 Which means: although in Mary also this condition of birth is present, so that she would have been subject to the dominion of the devil, yet this condition was lifted, 
made ineffective, by the timely intervention of the grace of the rebirth. If St. Augustine had wished to say simply, that because of her later rebirth, he did not consign Mary to the devil forever, his answer would miss the mark and would have to be understood quite 

Still more light is shed on this text by a sermon of St. Augustine, found by Cardinal Mai, relating to the miracle at the marriage feast of Cana. After saying that, in con-sequence of the devil's seduction of our 
 parents, the human race was, as it were, wedded to Satan, he goes on: "Whilst thus tossed about, lying on the same reclining couch, the devil and the soul shamelessly frolic, when Jesus was invited . . . (there is a 
here in the codex) until they ran out of the wine of luxury. Christ's 
however, abhorring that pact of criminal con-cubinage, and remaining a virgin not only in body but also in spirit, participated as an invited guest in the con-dition of the race, not by sharing in the crime, but as being a part of the whole the race which had to be born, not by association in the sin, but as one who . . . is in harmony with Christ, and not with the unclean world." 

Among the testimonies of later date we find the Brevi-
in Psalmos explaining the words of Ps. 
"And 
St. Augustine, Opus 
contra 
122; PL, 
1418; the text of Julian is quoted by St. Augustine, 
1417. 118, by Angel. Mai, 
(Rome, I, 248. G. Morin, S. 
sermones . . . ,Rome, 1930, p. 283, places it among the 
He conducted them with a cloud by day:" Behold the Lord to Egypt at that time on an airy cloud and conducted them with a cloud by day. It is rightly said, day"; for the cloud was not there in the darkness but 
always in 
 Paul the Deacon writes: "How fit-
ting, dear brethren, to call this blessed Virgin and Mother a sprout, the Virgin who projected the of her 

work into the supernal and who being flexible and 
totally free from the knots of corruption, was remarkable through her humility." These same thoughts are found later in Peter Damian: "Thus the sprout of Jesse buds from the distorted root of the human race, and shooting up from the tree of the patriarchs in height and erect-ness, knows no inclination of becoming knotty nor the darkness of the children of Adam." 

In the Eastern Churches the doctrine finds much richer and more sublime documentary evidence. It is true that most of the more ancient documents are critically open to challenge; nevertheless, they are very ancient and, there-fore, not without value. Such is the account of the martyr-dom of St. Andrew, dating at least from the second tury; here occurs for the first time the immaculate 
earth." 
 of Alexandria writes: "The one and 

only virginal daughter of life brought forth the the virginal paradise-a living dwelling not fabricated or manufactured by men, but made firm by the Holy 
39 Inter opera S. Hieron., PL, Paulns 1 de Ass., PL, XCV, 1567 (the only text taken by 
Schecben from the 	of 	Peter Damian 		PL, 	
558. Peter Damian writes: 	igitur 	de 			
et de 	patriarcharum 	in 	et 		
omnem ignorant nodostitatem, 			
The text does not have 	and the publisher suggests 		in-	

stead of 
then follows: (in) 
1225: 

Spirit and protected by the power of the Most High." Origen writes: "A virgin who is not deceived by the per-suasion of the serpent nor infected by his poisonous breath."And Athanasius says: "A virgin protected by the power of the Most High, not at any one time, but al-ways." 

 writes: "Though she is formed out of the slime of the earth, she is the orb of a new celestial creature upon which the sun of justice uninterruptedly sends its rays, thereby causing all darkness of sin to flee from her whole soul." century come the certainly genuine testimonies of St. 
From the Syrians of the fourth 
Cyrillonas, and Robulas, later James of 

or Of the Greeks in the fifth century we have 

fact that all the Eastern Churches, even those which separated in the earliest times, possess the doctrine itself as well as the 
 It also speaks well for its popularity, that even Mohammed sums it up, not indistinctly, in the 
The feast is found for the first time in the Typikon,the ritual of St. Sabbas. This had originally been drawn up in 
of Alexandria, Adoers. Mansi, I, 1043, 1063, 1087. Scheeben quotes from Perrone, De B.M.V. conceptu, Part I, c. 10 (Rome, 
pp. 53 f. 
Origen is quoted by Perrone, op. 
p. 57, with the following refer-ence: Opera, 
Paris 1572, Hum. 1 inter Hum. in 274-75 (incor-rectly quoted, according to Huet, in edition of Migne, 
XVII, 1277-80); 
Pseudo-Athanasius, Or. in annunt. Deip.; PG, XXVIII, 929. 6; PG, 
733 (in the text: in 

and 757. The text in question from Or. 1 is quoted as proof by Perrone, op. 
pp. 61 f. 
For St. Ephraem, see supra, notes 13 and 27. 
See hfalou, op. cis., 

cf. Jugie, 
cath., VII, 976 f. 47 See note 29. 

See 
op. 
chaps. 4 and 10; cf. Jugie, op. 
pp. 975-79. 
See 
op. 
no. 1817 
Jugie, op. 
pp. 978 f. 
but later underwent many alterations and additions. Hence, it cannot be proved with certainty that the feast appeared in the first The first fixed date is given in the festal hymns of St. Andrew of Crete, about The festal sermons which we possess begin in the eighth century with John of Euboea, about 740, and in the ninth 

the holy Mother of God." Because of the Eastern legends concerning Mary's youth, according to which an angel announced to the parents of Mary, till then childless, the birth of a daughter endowed with grace, the object of the feast was considered analogous to that of the annuncia-tion of Christ's conception and that of John the Baptist, which were celebrated on the authority of the Sacred Scriptures. For, as early as the fifth 
the "Concep-

tion of St. Elizabeth was also celebrated in the East, and also in certain parts of the West, 
in Ravenna, where 
Peter 
 glorified it in several sermons."With-
out doubt, the very existence of this feast emphasized the need of analogous feasts of the Blessed Virgin. 
The miracle, experienced by Mary's childless parents, was also brought into connection with the feast of her conception, whereas in the conception of St. John the 
Cf. 
op. 
p. 957. 
PC, XCVII, 1305-29; see 
pp. 916 f. 
John of S. in S. Deipame, 
XCVI, 1460-1500; Peter of Argos, 
in wnc. s. Annae, 104, 1352-65; George of Nicomed., Or 
in etc., PG, C, 1336-1401. See also Ballerini, 
I, 
Concerning the feast of the Conception in the East, see Jugie, op. 
The title of the feast was Conceptio S. 
or 
conceptionis, S. 
See previous chapter, note 11. 
Baptist there could be no question of original sanctifica-tion, nor was any raised. From this fact some wished to 
infer that the feast did not at all refer to 
original 
sanctification, but should figure only as a commemora-tive feast of the physical wonder in question, seeing that 
God 
 granted existence to a person who, in the 
future, would in a very special way bc sanctified by Him and made the instrument of salvation for mankind. was overlooked, however, was that the 
of the feast was not thought of exclusively in relation to the conception of the Baptist, but also, and more directly, on the analogy of Christ's conception. In Christ, the in-fluence of the Holy Ghost in the forming of 
 body and in the hypostatic union 
one whole, and the virginal 
conception of His 
to His quality of "holy 
fruit" and "Son of God." In Mary, the physical miracle was conceived in the closest connection with the spiritual sanctification and as one single act. The miraculous inter-
vention of God in 
bodily production was held to 
be fitting and significant for the very reason that in it the main point was the production of the "offshoot" and the fruit of grace." 
In the homily of St. John Damascene on Mary's birth, genesion, can as well be used in connection with the "birth in the womb," which indeed forms the real purport of the sermon. 
says: "Why is the virgin mother born of a sterile mother? Plainly because it was necessary that the way to that, which was to be a new thing under the sun and the principal among wonders, should be paved by wonders, and a gradual ascent should be made from the lower to the more sublime. For the rest, I can also advance another higher and 
divine reason. For nature yields 
MARIOLOGY 
to grace and stands irresolute, ceasing to act. Since, there-fore, the mother of God was to be born a virgin of Anna, nature did not dare to impede the bud of grace, but re-mained devoid of its fruit, while grace was bringing forth its fruit."In the following paragraph St. John Damascene compares the miraculous influence on the parents with the sharpening of the axe, which God wished to use for the building of the heavenly ladder. He says: "Today this Son of a carpenter, this Word, the artificer of all things, made 
an animated ladder, sharpening the dull axe of nature through the Holy Ghost as with His finger." Hence the relation of the feast to 

 miracle, which ended the sterility of the parents, can so slightly dim the connection with Mary's original sanctification, that in reality this dogmatic thought formed the real kernel in the idea of the feast, and for that very reason the facts 

from legendary tradition appeared 
justified. 

The dogmatic thought is accordingly presented in various ways in the offices of the feast and in the sermons relating to it, among which should be reckoned many connected with Marv's birth. Besides the ancient sermons already mentioned, the following also may be noted: from the ninth and tenth centuries that of St. Theodore of Studium, 
of the oratio 2 de 
found in Damascene,"those of Photius, Nicetas Paphlago, Joannes Geometres, Leo the Wise, emperor, and others." 
Sf. Damascene, 
1 in B.V.M.,nos. 2 and 3;. PG,. XCVI, 
PC, XCVI, 680-97; cf. Jugie, op. dt., 922. 
Respectively in the following texts of PG and of Jugie, 
dt., 102, 
( 
924-26); 105, 
928 f. ); 106, 
931 107, 1-12 
929 f.). 
St. Andrew of Crete makes mention of the restoration 
of the 
and pure creation within the spoiled crea-
tion, and writes: "Today a temple is constructed, made by the Creator of 
things. Today Adam (in Christ) wishes to offer the first-fruits to the Lord for us and from us, and selects as first-fruits Mary who out of the whole fermenta-tion was never fermented, and by whom 
 bread was made whereby the human race was to be regenerated. Today human nature, which was once formed good and pure, receives the gift of its first divine creation and rc-stores it to its former self." 

St. John Damascene refers to the safeguarding of Mary against the influence of the devil, and says: 
most sacred daughter of Joachim and Anna, who wast hidden from principalities and powers as well as from the fiery 
darts of the devil, who 
in the bridal bed of the Holy 
Ghost and wast kept without stain, in order to become the bride of God and God's mother by nature." And again, elsewhere: "Today Eden received the rational paradise of the new Adam in which the condemnation was lifted, and in which the tree of life was planted. No access to this paradise was open to the serpent. For the only be-gotten Son of God formed Himself into a man from this virgin and this pure earth." The expression of frequent occurrence, that "by nature" Mary is holy and pure, and is more beautiful than the angels, can have several meanings. It includes, however, at all times the idea of 
St. Andrew of Crete, Or. in 
Deip., PG, XCVII, 809, 812; cf. Jugie, op. 
916-19. 59 St. John Damascene, Or. 1 in 
Deip., no. 7; PG, XCVI, 672; Or. 2 no. 2; PG, XCVI, 725; cf. Jugie, o . 
920 f. 

MARIOLOGY 
the closest connection of grace with 
 origin of Mary's 

The close union of grace with nature is so clearly stood by the doctors of that time that they do not con-sider Mary's conception in Anna's 
or the origin of her personal being 
 as a 
of nature accom-panied by the 
of grace. They look upon it simply as a supernatural work of God, in which the influence of 
nature is indeed not excluded, but placed 
 under 
the influence of grace. It is a new and 
 creation 
on the basis of the 
earthly creation. For, the Spirit of God shares in this work, as in the origin of the 
other 
of Adam, not only by creating and 

 soul, but His work is also similar to, but not identical with His action 
Christ's conception. As once in the 

creation of 
 first 
so now as "the 
of God" 
He the formation of 
 body and, as the 

Spirit, breathes into it a holy soul, or takes up 
personal abode in it. John of Euboea says: 
Mary is conceived in the womb by the will of God 
 Father and the coopera-tion of the most holy and vivifying Spirit." 
 clearest and most common expressions for this are 

 following: 1. in her origin Mary is created or formed by God as a "tabernacle not 
 hands," 
is, "not of this creation." (A similar 
 with 
regard to Christ's humanity is found also in Heb. 
2. As a "living heaven,"she is built up by God Himself as 
St. 
of Syria, 
graece-lat. (ed. by Assemani), 
328; 
by Le Bnchelet, op. 
p. 880; George 
2 in 
sent.; 
C, 
cf. 
op. 
Epiphanius, de 
B. 
6; CXX, 197; cf. 

in 
n. 23; 
XCVI, 1500; cf. Jugie, 

921 
DOGMA OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 
a pure and holy temple, 
by I-Iim in a fertile 

field as an unfading and fragrant rose or lily. 3. As a "spiritual paradise"or the "veritable tree of life." 
 These are the same expressions as are used preferably for Christ's own conception. 
Continuing the contemplated from so 

many angles the working of God's supernatural influence on Mary's production with regard to the holiness of the fruit, that they extended it to Mary's parents. In reference to them also, a filling with and a purification by the Holy 
Ghost is spoken of, whereby 
 too were safeguarded 
against 
 in this production, and their flesh too 
was 
 Consequently Mary appeared pure in her origin not only by the influence of the divine principle, but also by that of the 
She appeared pure, there-fore, down to the foundations of her being, and even down to the from which she was formed; in 
words, down to the root, yes to the very seed, from which she sprang. 
This precise designation of Mary's purity is, however, 
of the miracle, in the production of her body, is an addi-tion which at the same time rests on legendary tradition. this corollary should ever remain a moot 

its existence, so far as the principle from is concerned, proves all the more clearly the strength of the conviction. 
This whole 
resting 
 the analogy of 
Cf. Peter of 	Or. in 	s. Annae, no. 1; PG, 	1352 f.; cf. 	
Jugie, op. 	931. 			
See St. John Damascene, Or. in 	Deip., no. 2; PG, 	664. 	

MARIOLOGY 
conception with that of Christ, was attested by the gical name "the child of God." 

 This name combines the names, "daughter and fruit of grace, life, and light," and expresses the very thought which is voiced in Western liturgies by the application of the books of Wisdom to Mary. 
child of God. 
CHAPTER V 
Origin and Significance of the Controversy about Mary's Immaculate Conception 
1. Although the early Western tradition fundamentally contains the principles of this thesis as decisively as does the Eastern, the attention of the West during those many centuries was not especially directed to this doctrine in itself. At the same time, however, the dogma of the uni-versality of original sin was accentuated all the more emphatically, and hence the doctrine of Mary's Immacu-late Conception was relegated entirely to the background. 
Therefore, whereas the East considered Mary's con-ception almost exclusively on the analogy of that of Christ, Western theology was intent upon emphasizing the con-trast between it and the conception of Christ, and its re-semblance to that of the rest of mankind. However, if the West in the twelfth century had been aware of the rich Eastern tradition, the controversy arising out of the intro-duction of the "feast of Mary's conception"would have been almost impossible, or at least it would have taken another course. For from the beginning St. Bernard refers to the fact, that the feast is foreign to the rite of the Church and to the ancient tradition. Because of the teach-ing in reference to the universality of original sin and the need of redemption, an opposition arose against the feast, 
83 

in so far as it concerned the holiness and immaculateness of the conception. Almost all the masters of theology took part in it in the twelfth and especially in the thir-teenth century. 
As a rule the opponents really denied the Immaculate Conception even in 
 sense of the present dogma. Still, the attack of the opposition was not turned directly and fundamentally against this meaning, that is, against purity of the personal conception, nor against the preser-vation of 
soul or of the animated offspring from stain of original sin. It was rather directed against the purity of the carnal conception, or against the sanctifica-tion of the flesh, which preceded its vivifying by the spiritual soul. In general, they opposed such a preventing 

sanctification of Mary, as left in 

person no contraction of sin under whatever 
or aspect. Therefore, they opposed a safeguarding which excluded all necessity of being subject to 

stain, because it took 
in 
 or at least by nature. 
before 
person of Mary was 
 by the union 
of soul and 
and existed in her quality as daughter 
of Adam. The safeguarding of Mary against the inherited stain of sin was 
only because for no sufficiently serious it was deemed impossible to reconcile such safeguarding 
 need of redemption. For the part this came about by the fact that, 

 the dcfcnders of the safeguarding, instead of elucidating the point, clouded the issue by the manner in which it was 
issue and proved that this safe-complete form of redemption. From that time, because of the traditional conception of 

the absolute and perfect purity in the Mother of God, 
a change of 
 soon followed among most the-
ologians. Relatively few clung tenaciously to the shell of the doctrine regarding the universality of sin, and they ascribed to the opinion of the theologians from the thir-teenth century, especially of St. Thomas, a sense and sig-nification which it by no means possessed. The opposition continued for centuries. 
Before the eleventh century the feast of Mary's ccption existed 
in the Latin Church outside of Naples and Sicily, where it had been introduced through 
is attached to the fact that 

the feast existed in 	as early as the eleventh cen-	
tury, and appeal is 	in this connection to the founda-	
tion in 1047 of a 	Hugo de Summo in behalf of the 	
feast. 	apart from 	fact that the learned liturgist 	

Sicardus, who less than years later was bishop of Crernona, traces the origin of the feast to the time of St. the document contained a formula of the dogma, correctly put ("Mary was preserved from the stain of 
by an anticipated redemptionn) as to be equalled by no theologian before What is said about the introduction of the feast into Spain by St. fonse, is based partly on a misunderstanding of the genu-

ine documents, 
 on false 

It is by a marble Kalendarium 
in Naples, which dates from the middle of the 
 century. See a picture of it in Cabrol et 
et de 

1591; cf. Le Bachelet, op. 987,  mention is made of 

origin of the feast in the West 
Text of 

of 
of is found in 
I, 
1-25; 
also Le Bachelet, op. 
987. 
Le Bachelet, 
 Since time the attention has 
focussed on the indicia of 
feast in Ireland in the beginning of the 
tenth century. 
 Thurston, 'The Irish Origins of our Lady's Conception 
On the other hand, the Latins, like the Greeks, so under-stood the holiness of the "birth of the Blessed Virgin," that thereby they included also the "birth in the womb." It appears thus in Paschasius Radbertus in a remarkable but difficult part of the second book de 
Virginis; in Peter Damian, where he describes Mary in her birth as "the aurora which ascends in the night of sin: the aurora from which arises the sun of justice." 

 For the first time we find here the application of the text from Job 
3:9: "Let the night ( in which Job was born ) expect light and not see it, nor the rising of the dawning of the day." 
In the thirteenth century this text was used also 
those 
theologians who limited the holiness of Mary's birth to the birth from the womb, although Peter Damian held that it speaks against rather than for such a 
 In the beginning of the eleventh century, Fulbert of Chartres definitely harks back to the conception and, in with the Latin version of the eastern legend by the Pseudo-Jerome, he treats this in all particulars as do the orientals.' 

Feast," The Month, CIII 
In 
in the 
period, cf. Edm. Rishop, 
the Origins of the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Downside 
reprinted in Bishop, 
(Oxford, 
pp. See Le Bachelet, op. 
Pasch. 
De 

PL, CXX, 1371; see Passaglia, no. 

cf. 
Bachelet, op. 
984 f. 
St. Peter Damian or rather of 40 de PL, 
719 f.; about St. Peter Damian, see Le Bachelet, op. 
995. 
See Passaglia, op. 
1632. 
Fulbert. Sam. 6 in 

PL, CXLI, 326 f.; see Le Bachelet, 
f. 
 Scheeben goes into details 
 the origin of the feast in England. Since recent researches have 
this 

point rather 
we shall leave out this passage of and give in-stead the present status of the question. The conquest of En land by Wil-liam I of Nonnandy ( 1066) resulted in the disappearance of 
traces d the celebration of this feast from the pre-Norman period (Bisho op. 
p. 246; Le Bachelet, op. 
1003). The feast 
re-established young 
CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DOCTRINE 
In the genuine writings of St. 
no trace is found of his leaning in favor of the feast or the doctrine. On the contrary, in his Cur 
homo ( 
he passes over in silence Boso's remark: "The Virgin herself 
conceived in iniquity and born with the original sin." 
 This, how-ever, is not conclusive, for the very reason 

himself declared the book 
 But in the book he 
wrote at Lyons, 
conceptu 
et peccato 

in which the famous passage appears relative to the perfect purity of the Mother of 
 judg-ing by the context and the reference to the earlier passage, he does not seem to consider this purity greater than the purity already attained by Mary through her faith in Christ before His 

In general, the introduction of this feast and the enthu-siasm for its purport seem to have been lacking in the-ological guidance. Childlike piety, incited by accounts 
of miracles and revelations, had the 
 In favor 
of the doctrine and the feast these were ad-vanced together with the appreciation of its eminent ap-propriateness, but positive theological reasons were not stressed." Further, a clear exposition of the idea of the 
(cousin of the saint, who died in 1109) who returned as papal legate from Rome, where he was abbot of the Greek monastery of St. Sabbas, and who in 
became abbot of St. Edmund's 
1006). Under his influence the feast began soon to spread in England and Normandy. But opposition also followed quickly. It resulted in the written defense (the first which was preserved), de conceptwne s. The 

opposition was probably 
a council of London in 1129 (Bishop. 
op. 

pp. 246 and 247 note 5). In 1136 the feast was introduced in Lyons (Le Bachelet, op. 
against which two years later 
St. Ber-nard protested. 
 St. Anselrn, 
homo, Vol. 
chap. 16; PL, 
416. 
Anselrn, De mnceptu 
chap. 18; PL, 451. 
 Cf. Le Bachelet, op. 
995-1001. 
Scheeben dudes mainly to a revelation which also Abbot of 

about 1070, is said to have had on the 

feast was also lacking. For that reason it was quite proper for St. Bernard, in his famous letter about 1140, to urge the prebendaries of Lyons to a careful He pointed out the danger of error and confusion which could 

 must from a demand, none too clearly 
defined, for the celebration of 
conception as well 
as her birth, since the latter supposes the former. This demand meant either that the conception was sanc-tified in the same way as the birth from the womb, so that Mary was conceived already sanctified; or that the holiness of her birth was so conditioned by the sancti-fication of her conception, 
the conception was the means by which Mary was sanctified and, therefore, also was born sanctified. But 
 were impossible: the former, because before her conception Mary had no ex-istence whatever; the latter, because, in 

 case, the producing factors operating in the conception had to be the vehicle and instrument of the Holy Ghost, and the carnal appeal in the act of production did not allow this. Consequently, there was the danger either of introducing occasion of a miraculous rescue from imminent shipwreck. This revelation 
said, that the day of Mary's conception must be celebrated 
the 
(provided that is replaced with conccptionis). This narrative appears in many mostly ascribed to St. Anselm de C. 
PL, CLIX, 319 ff.; de s. 

323 ff. ) and was enriched in the of 
with 
(see 
Bachelet, op. 
ff). 
first dcfcnders of the see note 7, and Osbertus of Clara, in a letter to Anselm Junior, which Thurston has published together 
the tract of 1904) seem unaware of this narrative. But St. (Epist. 174, no. 6; PI,, CLXXXII, 
335: ut uiunt, appears to allude to it, and shortly after 
it in many and other liturgical books. It has no doubt had a 
 on the propaga-tion of the feast. But Scheeben's 
feast was lacking in theological guidance, seems too strict. It may be to point to the writings of Osbertus and particularly to those of Cf. Le Bachelet, 
1004. 
St. Bernard, 
174; PL, CLXXXII, 
CONTROVERSY ABOUT 
DOCTRINE 
a false holiness, 
the holiness of a non-existent being, or, of paying honor to sin, 
to sexual appetite. 

The of Bernard's seems to indicate the in question is not the conception of the per-
son and of 		spirit by the 	of the soul, but 	
	of 	which, at 	time, was simply 	
called conccption by all. The 	this and with-	

out exception all 
 of the 
century 
understood 
in that way. Moreover, in St. Bernard had at his disposal, this conception with the creation of the soul was emphatically indicated as object of the feast.'" Hence, the syllogism also refers to this conception: 

therefore, she could by no means be sanctified 
her conception, because she was non-existent, but 
in the conception itself (in 
 act 
of 
 because of sin (that is, sensuality) which 
took part in it, there that she is believed to have been sanctified when she already existed in the womb after conccption, which sanctification, with the exclu-sion of sin, sanctified birth, but not her conception." Accordingly, Bernard's opposition was in no way directly concerned object of the feast according to the dogma. Even the sanctification after the conception, which he advances, can be as a sanctification 
Scheeben knew only a recent wording of Pseudo-Anselm's 
found also in PL, CLIX, 319-24. In the revelation of sinus he read that the conccptionis et creationis (PL, CLIX, 320) had to cclchratcd. In the ancient text, published by 
Thurston in 	etlition of 	( 	it reads only: 	Dies 	
conceptionis 		( op. 	p. 90). The words quoted by Sclieeben 	
in the 		14) from 	sermo 	the conceptio 	
or 		can be found in a volume which later added to 	

the more ancient wording. St. 
knew only the more ancient 
form of that 	in his 	174 no mention is 	of creatio 	
or conceptio 			
op. 	PL, CLXXXII, 335. 		

by the infusion of the soul, although, in comparing it with the holiness of John the Baptist, he certainly did not elucidate this point and seems hardly to have thought of it. Otherwise, he appears desirous only of counselling prudence, not of pronouncing a decisive judgment in the matter, rather in fact of leaving the decision to the Holy 
The appeal of St. Bernard did not directly result in checking the propagation of the feast.'' Only later, at least in some dioceses, did the University of Paris cause the suppression of the feast, because and in so far as it referred to the holiness of the conception of the seed or of the flesh as an act, or at least to a sanctification of the flesh conceived in the conception of the seed, or also to a sanctification after the conception and before the anima-tion." In fact, this formulation indicated clearly what, in the opinion of the opponents was to be rejdcted as objectionable or at least as questionable, in the idea of the feast as then understood. They had in mind not only a sanctification of the soul, and of the body by the soul in and by the creation of the latter, but primarily a 
Cf. Le Bachelet, up. 
1010-15. 
Scheeben 

"for fourteen years later it is found in the whole of France." Since he gives the date of St. Bernard's letter as 1140, it must allude to a statute of 
prior of a Benedictine monastery in the Dom. 1154 . . . 
B. 
Gen. M. 
fere per 
ab omni et a . . . (Martene, De antiquis lib. IV, c. 2, n. 16; Lugduni, 1680, p. 573). For the propaga-tion of 
feast, see Le Bachelet, up. 
1033 f., 1064 f. 
Scheeben refers only to St. Albert the Great, in 3 Sent., 

3, a. 4. 
There we read: quod B.V. non fuit ante oppositum 
a Beato in 

et a omnibus It in-
deed that under the pressure of the Maurice de Sully, Bishop of Paris, (1160-1196) forbade the feast. See 
Bachelet, 1036. 

fication also of the first formation of Mary's flesh pre-ceding its vivifying by God, or the sanctification of this very flesh because of its destiny as matter for Christ's body and the abode of the Logos. 
This is referred to in the old oration of the feast from the Missal of Lyons: "God who 
pre-ordained the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be holy and 
pre-served it from the stain of all sin," 
In this sentence 
all emphasis was laid on 
sanctification in the ori-
gin of her conception, when the foundation was laid for the temple. Hence, with St. Bernard they spoke espe-cially of a "conception of the seed." In contrast to him, however, they took cover under the explanation that, what was meant by this, was only such a sanctification of the thing conceived as took 
 not because of the sanc-tity of the active conception, but in spite of its unholiness, and neither before nor after this conception, but simul-taneously. This viewpoint was taken especially in the 
de conceptione S. 
Another apologetic writing,"unbecomingly vehement, but otherwise very clever, and 
directly at the let-ter of St. Bernard, went even further. To elucidate the position then taken on the question, theologians of later 
date paid little or no attention to this writing. When 
This oration appears in the 
Athanatensis in 
printed there (Ainay) in 1531. The text is of much earlier date, but it cannot be settled whether it dates back to the time of St. Bernard. See Le Bachelet, op. 
1011. 
PL, CXCV, 301-18 (from de conceptione 
under the name of Peter Comestor, according to an 

edition of 1536, edited by 
de Alva Y Astorga, 
Virg. ex 
turn 

. . . , Louvain, 
It is ascribed also to Richard of St. Victor and others. See a detailed 
in 
op. 
cf. Le 1015 ff. 

did refer to it, it was only in testimony of the purport of 
the 
without regard to the fact that this doctrine 
still contained something questionable. The real writer can hardly be other than the English monk Nicholas of 
St. 
 who in his 
 Peter 

declaimed vehemently against St. Bernard. He 
even held that the soul of 
was twice pierced by a 
sword, once under the cross, and again by the attack of 

St. Bernard should have appeared after his death to a friar of his order, with a stain on his breast. This apologetic writing, referred to above, denies that the flesh of Mary had any more need of purification than that of Christ, since as a channel of salvation it could in itself be in no need of purifying. Further, it was blessed 
 only in the conception but before 
conception, or rather, it was preserved 
 from Adam through all succeeding centuries. The writer hints here at a fan-tastic opinion, which appears also in some reports of pri-vate revelations, to the effect that, before 
 Fall, God separated a portion of the flesh in Adam and kept it for the production of Christ and Mary. The existence of this fantastic opinion very clearly indicates that the more seri-ous theologians of that time 
every reason for the sober investigation of a doctrine, in favor of which this opinion was invented. In spite of its evident and intrinsic 
The genuine written defense of Nicholas of St. 

was described by Edm. Bishop, Psalter, London, 1908, p. 45 (note) in a of the Bodleiana. The 
author of the work to by and 
to 
Peter Comestor, is as yet unknown. Cf. Le Bachelet, op. 
1015, 1024. 
in Peter de La Celle, 
171; PL, 
617; and 
in 
answer to that 
About 
see 
notes 20, 21, and 22. The vision with the black 

is 
by Nicholas 
of St. 
172; PL, 

sibility and the decisive refutation it met with, this opin-ion is later rather frequently repeated. St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure combatted it 

But even if the author's words are not understood in this coarse sense, they must nevertheless sound all the more strange, since, according to 
 example of the Fathers, it was customary to speak of a purification even in Christ's flesh which took place on His assumption of it. Christ's flesh was 
 pure, not in the principles of its production, but simply in so far as it was in the per-son of 
In contrast to this 
it was asserted by others, that this flesh, which was to be used by God as a 

means of salvation, had to be taken from the 
flesh in 

need of purifying."The promoters of the opinion, that 
of the body precedes that of the soul, adduced the analogy of the ark of the covenant, which was considered as a specific figure of Mary's body; and they pointed out, that the ark was made of imperishable wood and inlaid with gold, even before the golden vessel with the manna was placed in 

Hence, when the great scholastics of the thirteenth century took up 
question, it was not asked whether Mary was conceived immaculate, inasmuch as her 
Bonaventure, in 3 Sent., dist. 3, q.2, art. 2; St. Thomas, in 3 Sent., dist. 3, q.4, a. 
et ad 2 et 3. See also the related problem: 
caro 
in 
peccato 
q.31, a.7) and also Suarez. 
Sicut non 
decens 
pro Adam 

ex 
esset 
Dei 
nisi 
quod 

Et ideo est quod 
quod 
in 
in 
peccato 
fuit 
sed in 
ab 
infectwne peccati 

ut quod 
in ea (St. 
Thomas, in 3 Sent., dist. 3, q.4, a. 
in corp.; see also St. Bonaventure, op. 

See, 
St. Albert the Great, in 3 Sent., d.3. a.4. 
tification took place simultaneously with the infusion of the soul itself. Instead, the question always was, whether Mary's sanctification took place before the infusion of the soul into 
flesh, therefore, first in the form of a sancti-fication of the flesh (before, in, or after its conception or 

After that the freedom of the soul from 
original sin was a natural result of the sanctification of the flesh, or it had already been bestowed in the sancti-fication of the flesh. Consequently in itself the soul in no way contracted original sin, not even in so far as the 
debt" was concerned. Or another question was, whether the sanctification took place only 
the infusion of the soul, in the form of a redemption of the soul from the slavery of sin, to which this very union with the 
flesh would subject it. 
Unconditionally and most emphatically all repudiated the first view, protesting thereby against every tification of the flesh before the infusion of the soul and, based upon this, against a radical preservation of the soul from contracting sin apart from the flesh. They pro-tested against the former, because inanimate flesh is not susceptible of real sanctification; against the latter, be-cause such a preservation exempted Mary entirely from 
interesting is the series of questions relating to this matter as found in of 
Summa theologica, 
q. 
memhr. 2: An b. 
Virgo ante sanctificata 
(a. ); an in ipsa 
( n.2 
an post conceptionem ante animae infusionem 
(a.3); an post infuswnem in Great, in 3 Sent., dist. 3: An b. 	(a.4); also in St. sanctificata sit in utero 	ante 	
	(a.3); 		h. 	fuit 	ante animotionem 		
(a.4); 		post 		ante 	ex utero 	in St. 	
in 3 Sent., dist. 3, p. 1, a. 1: 	sanctificata 		

( q. 
) 
ante peccati 
q.2) 
in St. in 3 Sent., dist. 3 
a. 1 : 
b. 

); 
( 
ante ex utero ( 
3 . 
the universality of sin and from the need of redemption. Accordingly they taught not only that the conception of the flesh took place in sin, but also that the soul, in its infusion into 
unsanctified body, was contaminated by sin, that is, tainted and affected by sin or ensnared in it. It was not realized that, between the "before" and the 
after," there was an "at the same time" 
and that 
 difficulties advanced would be avoided by accepting the "at the same time" together with a post natura. Such an "at the same time" had never been advanced by the advocates of the immaculate conception. 
For the sake of the argument, according to which a body, not animated by a spiritual soul, is not susceptible of 
 in its proper sense, some had finally fallen back on the stand, that the safeguarding of the soul against contracting sin had at least to be effected by a special grace granted at the moment of the infusion of the soul. But even this preservation by a 
 infusion was not understood in the sense that the entry of the sanctification, as posterior in nature, presupposed the union of the soul with 
 body and, as a result, the "debt of sin" and the need of redemption. They represented the entry of sanctification rather as in nature prior to the infusion of the soul into the body and, therefore, as pre-
venting not 
the effective inception of the stain, but 
also the immediate necessity of incurring 
 stain. At the same time, such a 
 was attached to the simul-taneous sanctification of the soul as to place it on the same level as the preservation of the flesh before its anima-tion. 
This formulation is found in the later addition to the decree, which is ascribed to St. 
"the day, on which the worthy soul of our reparatrix is created, sanc-tified, and infused into her most sacred body." 
 Accord-ing to St. 
 the matter was explained by an illustration as follows: Mary's body represented the ark of 
covenant. Her soul was the golden vessel the manna as a symbol of grace. As the 

vessel was first filled with manna and 
then placed in 
the ark, so also Mary's soul was first equipped with grace and then infused into the body. In St. this 
s 
form of the question appears the clearest. Among the 
more ancient scholastics, he is also the 
one 
after the question concerning the sanctification of flesh before its animation, puts the special question, ''whether 
 soul of the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before contracting original sin?" 
Here he has in mind those opponents who, while denying a purification of 
 flesh before the animation, conceded preservation of the soul by a grace, immediately granted to it, so that the taint of the flesh was without effect and could not com-municate itself to the soul. It is evident here that the 

preservation from sin, 
 in the sanctification be-
fore the contraction of sin, was at the time understood 
sides exclusively on the analogy of a safeguarding against actual sins, as a support of 
soul in danger, lest it should fall. In that way they could 
of a liberation from 
danger of an imminent 
evil, but not of a redemption 
 involved in an 
evil already incurred. 
The whole body of theologians of the thirteenth century felt 
to accept the 
that in Mary the grace of 
PL, CLIX, 
St. in 3 Sent., 
3, p. 

a. 1, q.2 cond. 

See note 26. 
redemption presupposed her inclusion in original sin, which was not only imminent in the future, but was an actual reality. At the same time they made no distinction 
between a virtual and an actual 
 That was 
the basis of their opposition to the sanctification before the animation and contraction of sin, practically implied in a sanctification after the animation and contraction of sin, this latter following the animation not only in the order of nature but also of time, and including both a virtual and an actual contraction of sin. Consequently, St. 
utterance about Mary's perfect purity so explained that, taken in a strict sense, it could hold only for the time of Christ's conception, or also for the period of Mary's independent existence outside her mother's womb after her birth; but that it certainly had to include the earliest possible sanctification of Mary. 

This last point was then already emphasized by St. Albert the Great, and still more so by Henry of Ghent 
and Egidius of 
 by these latter so emphatically 
that it taught a sanctification of Mary "immediately after the first instant." These theologians only so far directly opposed the sanctification "in the first instant" as it be-longed to the theory of the sanctification before the ani-mation and before the contraction of any sin whatever. They made no serious investigation into the opposite question, whether the sanctification after the animation should, because of its principles, really be subsequent also in time and not only in nature. For that reason it can 
See chap. 4, note 9. 
Concerning the doctrine of St. Albert the Great relating to this matter, see Le Bachelet, op. 
1049 f.; cf. Henry of Ganda, 

1054; cf. of ibid.,1055. An original summary of XV, q.13 by one of 

anonymous disciples was edited by 
P. in 
Thomas (Piacenza), 
361-77. 
always be said, that they were not fundamentally opposed to the doctrine as 
 defined. 
the contrary, had the 
been put with adequate clearness and distinct-ness, they would have favored it, on the principle for-mulated by St. 
Below, when the views of are discussed, 
is a presentation of the preservation from original sin which is combatted by the theologians of the thirteenth century; it is perhaps clearer, but in the 
amounts to 
 same thing. Against it even 
protested. 

What holds good of the 
 of the thirteenth 
century in 
 holds in particular of St. Thomas. 

the complicated controversies about his view of this ques-tion 
its meaning, it was a great mistake to regard so little the fact that St. 
could not possibly have 
been alone in his stand, and 
 here, not 
his author-
ity, but also that 
 whole theology of 
 thirteenth century is in question. The passages in which he deals 
the question concerning the conception 

of the Blessed Virgin and her first sanctilication, are the following: in 3. S., dist. 3; in Quodl. 6, q. 5, a. 7 and in Comp. theol. C. 224 
last passage by op-ponents of the 
 Conception is unthinkable 

to the whole context. For the original manu-
script of the saint on the third book of the Sentences is still is true that someone, impelled by mis-directed zeal, cut out &part; but re-to show that what is cut out could have contained 
nothing but 	printed text, especially the formal 	
	F. 	in 		the lost 	
text 	to 		Conception, see ibid., 	with abundant 	

positive denial of Mary's sanctification at 
instant of the infusion into the soul, which in St. Thomas appears only here. The passage in question contains these words: "Neither at the very instant of  the infusion, so that, namely, she was 

 by grace infused into her at 

that moment, lest she incur the original guilt." The attempts, which according to 

Porrecta were made to define the meaning of this sentence so as to indicate that, by the "preservation from incurring orig-inal sin" as here disputed by him, St. Thomas meant, at 
the same time, a 
 from incurring the debt," 

would have had a better result and 
a more 
ural explanation, if the passage in question had been compared with the afore-mentioned utterance of St. 
Again, if for the falsification of the article in the Summa," one appeals to the testimony of John yard as a contemporary of St. Thomas, it should be noted that Bromyard lived a hundred years after St. Thomas, 
the immediate disciples of the saint, such as 

knew only the text as we have it to-
day. If we keep in mind the various passages of St. mentioned above, which of course must be taken as stand-ard, it cannot be doubted that St. Thomas positively did Thomas, in 3 Sent., dist., 3. q.1, a. 

See Capponi a Porrecta, 
in Summam 
Thomas de 	Venice, 1588 ( in 	q. 27, a. 2); cf. Le Bachelet, 	
1131. 			
St. Thomas, 	q.27, a.2; in the edition by 	Turin, 1927, in a 	
most uncritical 	on 	this article, an appeal is 	also to 	
Summa 	s. v. 	art 2, n. 10 (he wrote about 1380); cf. 	
Bachelet, op. 	1079. 		

Egidius of Cologne, who passes as a disciple of St. Thomas, the question in almost the same words as St. Thomas did and says that Mary contracted original sin, in 3 Sent., dist. 3, art. 1. Cf. Le Bachclet, op. 1055. 
not teach Mary's 
 "at the first instant," but always disavowed it. For him, as for his contemporaries, it can and must be said that he always denied this sancti-fication only in the form advanced at the time, and from principles which excluded it only in that form. Even himself an opponent of the thesis, admits this, 

and the defenders of the doctrine might have left it at that. 
To elucidate the fundamental attitude of St. Thomas, it is needless, with John of St. Thomas, whom many fol-lowed in this point, to appeal to the fact that in another 
 which in general deals with the propriety and pos-sibility of the conception of a human being without orig-inal sin, the saint himself makes a distinction between the "debt" and the "malice of sin"; that, since a person needs redemption in himself, and not only in his parents or in the flesh, he demands only, that the person incur either the "debt" or the "malice of sin." For, the "debt" of which St. Thomas here speaks is not at all the debt of sin in contrast to the sin itself. He considers rather the sin itself from the double aspect of a debt and an evil. From both aspects he as much as declares, that the libera-tion from original sin supposes the being conceived and born (considered by him as synonymous with the birth in the womb) in original sin; since the remission of a debt or 
 liberation therefrom supposes that the debt has been incurred and the evil committed. 
The importance of the text lies only in this, that it shows how St. Thomas understands the original freedom from original sin to be in nothing different 
the form of 
Cajetan,Comm. in S. 
ad 
q.27, a.2; taken up in the Editio 
of St. Thomas' works, XI, 291 f. 
St. Thomas, in 4 Sent., dist. 43, q. 
a.4, 
1 ( 
theol. Suppl. q.78, a. 

CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DOCTRINE 101 
grace granted to the parents or to the flesh, whereby in the person conceived the stain is lifted together with the necessity of incurring it. But 
 in itself is but an added proof that he did not consider the debt and the stain in the person conceived apart as two separate elements, that is to say, he did not refer to their separability, because there was no occasion to do so. If he had considered this separability, he would have been, as Cajetan a bad logician to ignore it and nevertheless to argue as he did. 

Certainly, St. Thomas cannot be held up as an oppo-nent of the immaculate in the sense of the dogma, merely because he so often says: 
Mary was con-ceived in original sin." Nor can his opposing sentence, "'but she is not born in sin," be so explained in his view, as it refers to the "birth in the womb," with which the 
conception"in the sense of the 
coincides. For it 
is all too clear that, in this question, by "birth" and also by "origin of the Virgin" the saint understands the "birth in the womb." 

The passages, in which the saint should have positively pronounced in favor of the dogma, all have this objection against them, namely: if they were genuine or intended in favor of the dogma, then the saint's manner of expres-sion when dealing with the matter ex professo would be incomprehensible. In particular, the apparently favorable opinion occurring occasionally in the Commentary on the Sentences," wherein the perfect purity of the Virgin, corresponding to the principle of St. 
is defined 
n. 6. 
See., 
q.27, a.2 ad 2. 
St. Thomas, in 1 Sent., dist. 44, q. 
a.3 ad 3; cf. dist. 17, q.2, a.4 ad 3. 
as "immunity from all original and actual sin," must be explained according to the classical texts already men-tioned. There the saint pronounces upon the sense of 
 principle in its application to Mary in such a way with it only an immunity from original sin in the birth from 
 is compatible. Against three other passages, occurring in the explana-tion of texts of the Sacred Scriptures, in which the saint 
is supposed 
 to have 
the contraction or 
incurring of original sin, most 
 and critical 
objections, intrinsic 
 extrinsic, may be 

Therefore, we must be content with fact, that in 
those very passages in which St. Thomas actually denies or ignores thesis, he still clings firmly enough to the principle on which thesis rests and in it is im-plicitly contained, and thus may be said virtually to to it. When he the "greatest purity under God tc the "greatest purity Christ," for this re-quirement of the greatest possible purity under Christ, only the proof is needed that Mary's immaculate 
Scheeben quotes here the erpositio angelicae Comm. in 
S. Pauli, Rom. cap. 5, 3, and Gal., cap. 3, Icct. 6. The expositio 
was critically edited by 	F. Rossi, in 	XXXIV, 	by in-	
sertion of the words 		originale, 		incurrit 	
472, b. 	against which P. 	protested in Bulletin 	

IX, See also J. de 
"S. Thomas et 
 in Reu. apol., 

The text in Gal. is certainly an 
(see the note in 
cditio Veneta and in these same editions the text in 
as 
rather gives the opposite version: 
est 
Christus 
catum 
non 
 er 
sine 

semine 
It alludes to in 3Sent., dist. 3, q. 
art 1, 

2 ad 3; see also in 1 Sent.. 

dist. 44, art. 3 	et sic 	in 	. . . 	
post 	Virgo. But 	else, where St. Thomas 	
to St. 	text 	de 	(PL, CLVIII, 	he retains 	
the words sub 	see in 1Sent., d.44, a. 3 	and also in, dist. 17, q.2, a. 4 	
ad 3. 			

CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DOCTRINE 103 
is possible without damage to Christ's prerogative, 
in order also to conclude the 

 He proved that the reasons advanced for a animation could be both possible and fitting, and re-quired a in nature, not in time. Accordingly a true redemption was conceivable in the form of a 
2. 
gave the controversy a decisive 

against 
 stain. And since this was 

perfect redemption, the honor of the Redeemer as such demanded that He redeem His mother in this way. For if did not show Himself to her as the perfect Redeemer, 

would do so to no one else. In this concrete 
the 
conclusion, "It could be, it was fitting, hence so it was done," advanced earlier by Pseudo-Anselrn 

special 
 through It was not, as is often thought, that 
saw in it simply a decisive and posi-tive proof; for he was very 
 compared with the defenders before and after him, in advancing this thesis. But the theological 
 raised against the thesis 
St. Thomas' attitude toward the Immaculate Conception in the sense of Scheeben, see Le Bachelet, 
P. 
(in the French translation of the Summa), Vie de Jesus, I, In the opposite sense, see particularly N. dcl Prado, 
et 
1919 (cf. Le Bachelet, in Science relig., I, 592--613, about articles of Del Prado which preccdcd work); Mandonnet, in 

 in Diet. VI, 899 f. and in 

Further bibliography is given in pp. 317 f. in 3 Sent., dist. 3, in Opus (edited by Vivcs, XIV) 

well as the 
See also C. Bulic, Scoti Theologioe Sibenik in Cf. Le Bachelet, op. 
1073-78 and for further literature, 
p. 317. 
Tract. 
s. 
gives the formula: Potuit, decuit, 
fecit, not literally, but has (PL, CLIX, 305; edition of Thurston, p. 11 ): plane. 
fecit (whereby the 
 advances all of the 
of conccnicntiae 
motivate an effective 

has, thcreforc, 
 summarized correctly in the 
pronouncement: 
decuit, fecit; cf. 
Bachelet, op. 
1008. 
were in principle solved by it, and out of the main dif-ficulty itself an argument arose in favor of the thesis. After 
the thesis was carried through more pro-foundly and emphatically by his confreres, Peter olus, Francis Mayron, and by the English Carmelite John 
 by the last named in connection with the 
of 
 Although their earlier the-ologians had held the same views as St. Thomas, the Franciscans in general soon declared themselves 
favor of the thesis. The Dominicans predominantly opposed it, some even vehemently. Appealing to St. Thomas, they declared the doctrine to be heresy or at least an error in faith. The theses of John of 
 referring to the immaculate conception, were censured severely by the University of Paris. This same university, which at one time had brought about the suppression of the feast of the conception, was later, at the Council of 
to be-come the most zealous champion of the dogmatic defini-tion of the object of the feast; and it was the first university that obliged all its members to defend 
 Although a great many of the Dominicans continued the opposition for centuries, nevertheless it cannot be said that the order as such represented the opposition. 
It is often accepted, that as early as the year 1263 the 
Peter Aureolus, in 3 Sent., dist. 3, q. 

See 

a Tractatus and the 
published in 
Fr. Joannis Duns Scoti, 
Fr. Petri 
de conceptione, 
racchi, 1904, pp. 
95-153. Cf. Le Bachelet, op. 
1081. Francis of 
Mayron, in 3 Sent., dist. 3 and 
conceptwne beatae 
see Le Bachelet, op. 
1081. John of Baconthorp (or Bacon), in 4 
Sent., dist. 3, q.3, a.3; in his 
Quodl. 13 and 14, and also in 3 
Sent. he combatted the opinion of 
see Le Bachelet, op. 
1082. 
Concerning the fourteen theses defended by John of Monzon  (four of 
attacked the Immaculate Conception), see Le 1084-86. 

 Decree of March 3, 1495, quoted by Le Bachelet. 
 1126. 
CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DOCTRINE 105 
Franciscans declared in favor of the Immaculate Concep-
tion by the introduction of the feast of Mary's 

which took 
 during the time that St. Bonaventure 
was general of the order. Because of the manner in which St. Bonaventure explained the object of the feast, at least in later years, this conclusion is not necessarily authentic. Neither has it been proved that the saint changed his views on the question; because the genuineness of the sermons appealed to has not definitely been 
argumentation was the more cogent and pointed for the reason that, in this question, he put aside his theory concerning Christ's predestination, "foreseen before the sin." For that reason he did not attack the "immediate debt," but rather maintained it in the forceful man-ner. In general, he supported, as as possible, the view of the other theologians of the thirteenth century. For 
not only taught that, like all other children of Adam, Mary had received and lost the original justice in Adam, but he also claimed that she had not, by a special grace of God in her conception, obtained the original justice, lost in principle. He taught that she, therefore, any more 
 any other child of Adam, was in no way conceived or born in the maternal womb "with or "in orig-inal justice." The latter is understood in the sense of an in-tegrity of nature, in contrast with the "justice gratuitously given to the person." Consequently he denies a preserva-tion from original sin effected by an original granting of the original justice and, therefore, by the preservation from the "lack of the original justice." 
the attitude of St. Bonaventure toward the Immaculate Con-ception, see Le op. 
1047 f. and Bittremieur, "Le sentiment e 
S. Bonaventure 
in Etudes 

367-94. 
This phrase expresses the whole fundamental opposi-tion of the other theologians of the thirteenth century to Mary's freedom from original sin; and on the 
of 
admits thereby even the actual incurrence of orig-inal sin. In reality, this "lack of original justice" itself only as a "proximate necessity of contracting sin," 
the effect of which can be removed. 
reduced to this the actually present preservation from the contract-ing of original sin, that by a simultaneous grant of sanc-tifying grace compensation was made for the lack of the original justice by the possession of the gratuitious justice; hence, for Mary, this lack was no longer a want of a re-quired justice, and hence was neither an injustice nor a sin. 
 "To all opposing authorities it should 
be 
that all children of Adam are by nature 
debtors to original justice and are 
 lacking it, 
because they all contract original sin 
 him who com-mitted it. But if, at the first instance of the creation of the 
soul, a grace 

faciens, 
one deserv-
ing) is bestowed on a person, that person, although he original justice, nevertheless is never its debtor (and does not lack required justice to the extent 
forms 
a 
because, by the merit of another person who pre-vents the sin, a grace is bestowed upon 
which, as far 
as divine 
 is concerned, equals that justice and 
even 
it. Therefore, all would have original sin, un-less another person should 
it by his merits (in be-stowing grace at the first instant). The authors must be explained in this way, that all natural children of Adam are 
in 3 Sent. (Opus Oxoniense), 
3, q. 1, n.14; edited by 
171; see critical text of Balic, 
pp. 34 f. 
sinners, that is, that because they have their nature from Adam, they lack appropriate justice because of him, un-less it is bestowed upon them by someone else; but just as another person could bestow grace upon 
after the first instant, he could likewise bestow it upon them at the first instant." Even after 
a great many de-fenders of the Immaculate Conception maintained for a long time, that Mary's preservation from original sin was a granting of original justice. Later on 

spoke more freely in this respect, as the Greeks had 
done; in so far as the point is 
material purport 
of original justice, it must even be said that in Mary it is 
restored in itself and not in 

Naturally, and only in the sense of the theologians of the thirteenth century, it must be maintained uncondi-tionally, that in Mary original justice, as the justice of 
natural integrity, was not 
 original. Mary's orig-
inal justice was not original, in the same 
as it was in the first human being 
 in Christ, and as it would have been, barring the Fall, in Adam's descendants. Hers was not a justice communicated by the origin of nature as such, hence by the act forming the flesh which has to be animated. Her justice was not original, in so far as this 
act is of itself immediately directed to the 

nature as integral nature, and, therefore, in so far as the supernatural and divine influence, required for it, accom-panies this act, in 
same way as God 
 in the vivifying of the flesh. On this point the early scholastic view relating to 
conception is, at least in its phrasing, 
op-
posed to 
of the 

Greeks always allows for an explanation by 
it 
be reconciled not 
with the dogma of the universality 
of sin, but also with that early scholastic view, still the thesis is presented more clearly and harmoniously in the form arising out of the early scholastic controversies. In early Scholasticism, Mary's privilege is formally and im-mediately reduced to a personal justification and good-ness, or was original in the person. And just as this rests on Mary's personal worthiness, so also it is to her person as such, as it comes forth from the mouth of the Creator as the "spirit animating her flesh." At the same time it is only the perfect form of that goodness and justification, whereby the other children of Adam are freed from original sin by a personal communion with Christ. Even the opinion of 

had to be elucidated and elaborated still further. However, if the earlier and later champions of the thesis had continued to display calmness and solicitude similar to that of 
the good cause would have been more easily won. At the Council of 
John of Segovia and John of Torquemada,"' both Spaniards and the main speakers for the opposing sides, brought out by their voluminous works, and each in his own way, some very important points. Owing, perhaps, to the influence of the work of John of Torquemada, St. Antoninus of Florence, only saint to do so after Scotus-still opposed the 
In the second half of the fifteenth and the first half of 
John of Segovia, Septem 
auisamenta pro 
formatione . . . 
u. 
. . . (edited by Peter of 
Brussels, 1664). See Le 
let, op. 
1110 f. John of Tractatus de conceptionis 

pro 
relotione coram concilii . . . 
(edited by 
Rome, 1547 by E. B. Pusey, Oxford, 
1869). See Le Bachelet, 
1111-13. 
53 St. 
I, 
CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DOCTRINE 109 
the sixteenth century, the doctrine encountered offensive and violent opposition from the Dominicans, Bandelli and Spina, who converted Torquemada's serious work 
into incendiary 
 Much more moderate was 
Cajetan before the Council of Trent, and still more so Bartholomew of Medina after the same council."On the other 
and in opposition to Cajetan, the most enthu-and clever champion of the 
was another Dominican, Ambrogio 

3. At first the objections against the thesis consisted only in 
 dogmatic principle of the universality of and the need of redemption. Incidentally reference was 
made also to 
participation in the punishments 
of sin, or rather, in some penalties, bodily suffering and death. In the opposition of later date these were multi-plied and strengthened by 
to a 
of texts in the 
 Most of the quotations, however, are mere variations of the dogma of the universality of sin 
Vincentius Bandelli, 
oeritate conceptionis 
oirg. 
(appeared without the author's name), 
1475, and 
de 
puritate et 
J.C., 
1481. See Le 	1120-24. 	Spina, 	
	humani 	propagati, Venice, 15-26. 	
Cajetan, Tract. de 	in 	(Lyons, 	

opusc. 1, 
Bartholomew of Medina, in Sum. 
q.27. 
Six 

 of Ambrogio Catarino about this question were by Peter of 
pro 
Louvain, 1666. 
Le 

 1130 f. attitude of 

Dominican Order, see de Card, Conception, Louvain, 1864 (in an to 
). 

were particularly from and and Spina. Concerning these texts see 

in-XIV, chap. 2, and Perrone, & imm. B.M.V. 
pars 1, cup. 6. 

and of the need of redemption. They only repeat what 

taught in this respect. In them Augustine re-
futed, for himself and for his successors, what appeared as the conclusive force of these texts, by the exception which he makes for the Mother of the Lord, since these texts establish only a general rule, without expressly including Mary. 
A real difficulty is contained only in those texts which so formulate the general rule as to make the definite ex-ception of Christ alone, or which contain expressions in reference to Mary which seem to include her under the general rule. But in their true sense they, too, say no more than that in herself, according to her human origin and human nature, Mary was liable to original sin. 
All or almost all the texts, which positively and directly reckon Mary under the general rule, do this in so far as they designate Mary's flesh as "flesh of sin," and speak of 
an earlier or later 
 of this flesh. But 
flesh also is sometimes called "flesh of sin," not indeed as it is in Him, but as it was essentially and virtually in Mary and in His forefathers. In its assumption by Christ, this flesh was then purified. Apart from this, the expressions in question as referring to Mary mean only, that she her-self was subject to sin according to her flesh, that is, ac-cording to her carnal nature, and this flesh according to its immediate origin. In order to be free from sin, this flesh was, therefore, in need of a purifying 
 whereby the actual incurring of i purity, virtually contained in its origin, was prevented. 
The very fact that these texts neither call Mary herself a sinner, nor speak of a purification of her person, but, on the contrary, refer specifically to her flesh, gives us to 
CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DOCTRINE 111 
understand that, as to the community of sin, Mary cannot be placed on a level with the rest of mankind. Like the theologians of the thirteenth century, some ecclesiastical writers may emphasize the "flesh of sin" in Mary in such a manner as to imply in her a taint already incurred per-sonally. 
the other hand, some 
also of a later purification from sin through Christ's conception; but by that, apparently, is not meant a purification from original sin as a debt, but only the purification from cer-tain consequences or material elements of original sin. For the 
even the Greek Fathers mention another and 
later purification of 
in the 
sense as one speaks 
of a purification of the angels by a higher and greater glorification. By this is meant a purification of the soul, whereby it was made susceptible of a closer union with God and a nearer resemblance to the purity and plicity of the Godhead. 
CHAPTER VI 
Mary's Permanent Immunity 
All 
Sin 

should date from her very origin, thus preserving her at the outset from original sin, require also such a per-fection of holiness as would enable her to triumph com-pletely, omni ex 
over sin. Hence they require the same immunity from all that in one way or another is called sin, a privilege such as distinguished the first hu-
couple before the Fall; secondly, in contrast to the first human couple, they require a security or strengthen-ing against sin similar to that of the "new man," Christ. 
 perfection of Mary's holiness, the effect of which, in the sense of St. Augustine, can be called, as in Adam and Christ, the "perfection of justice," was indeed granted in the very first 
 which took place in her own conception. It was perfected in one way or another in Christ's conception. For, like Mary's relation to Christ, 
communion with and likeness to Him in general was made perfect in that conception. 
See literature: 
de La 
and Nicholas of St. 
171-73; Alexander of Hales, Sumina pars 3, q.9, 3; in connection with Peter Sentent., 1.3, 
St. Thomas, St. Eonaventure, Egidius St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas, 
C.22.4 and 
q.27, a.3; also Medina, Suarez, St. Peter 
De 
lib. 
De imm. 
sect. 6, cap. 2 
and cap. 6,art. 3. 
The complete immunity from all that is called sin em-braces, first, the involuntary and natural movements of 
appetite, the incentives to sin, such as ma-

terial sins or inclinations to sin, or also sins of nature. Secondly, it embraces the fully voluntary or semi-voluntary acts of the will, which constitute formal, actual, and personal sins. In regard to the first, this immunity was 
directly and 
in the complete preserva-

tion from original sin effected by the first sanctification of Mary, in so far as the 
of sanctification in her case 

the power as the grace of the original 
state, lost by Adam's sin. Far from being excluded, it is rather very probable that in Mary, at least after her second sanctification, 
freedom was more complete than in the original state, because it thereby attained a more special likeness to the analogous privilege of Christ. In respect to the second, her immunity from sin was already effected in part by Mary's first sanctification, in so far as this sanctification was equivalent to 
grace of the original state. Hence it excluded every inclination to sin, and included the proximate and perfect ability to avoid all and every sin, even the least. 

In the principal point, namely, the assurance of a per-manent use of this power, whereby the effective avoiding of all sin is infallibly guaranteed, this privilege is a specific quality of the grace in the new and heavenly Eve as bride of the divine Adam. For, with Him, she was to be 

of the constant restoration and firm founda-
tion of holiness, lost by our first parents. Accordingly, this is considered also as a specific effect of Mary's second sanctification. It is connected with her first sanctification only so far as it was allied to the second and was attended 
by the protection which is due to Christ's bride because of her Bridegroom. 
In both respects Mary's immunity from sin is repre-sented by illustrations of the biblical figures which mutu-ally complete each other: the ark of the covenant, made 
imperishable wood, lined inside and out with the purest gold and overshadowed by the glory of God; and the celestial woman clothed with the sun. In these, the first figure preferably represents the first aspect, the second figure, the second aspect of Mary's purity. 
With regard to both privileges the real and absolutely certain element will first be established, in order to link with it a more precise designation of its nature and prin-ciple. 

On the basis of the almost complete unanimity of the Fathers and theologians, at least since the fifth century, and of the close connection of this doctrine with tradition and the definition of the Immaculate Conception, it is, if not de 
at least 
proximum, that Mary never 
experienced any actual movement of concupiscence. This immunity from concupiscence really belongs to Mary's revealed communion with Christ in the unconquerable and victorious enmity against the devil and his works, or to the grace to conquer sin from every aspect. The result of this immunity must inevitably be, that sin not only had no dominion over her, but also that it could neither exist nor operate in her. Moreover, it belongs to that ab-solute and exalted virginal purity which tradition ascribes to Mary; to that fullness of grace and justice whereby, according to the traditional idea, Mary excels not only 
all fallen humanity but also Eve before her fall, and whereby, as bride 
the heavenly Adam, she resembles Christ. Finally it belongs also to that heavenly and spir-itual characteristic of Mary's entire being and life, be-cause of which the Fathers put her on a level with the angels and even set her above them. 
On the one hand, this immunity from concupiscence is a special result of Mary's freedom from all, even the least, personal 
without which privilege this immunity can-not exist in a natural way; on the other, it is a result of  the freedom from 
sin and indeed in a twofold 
manner. First, the presence of the movements of concu-piscence is always a sign of contracted original sin or, in the justified person, it is a remnant of 
 Secondly, be-cause of intrinsic and extrinsic reasons calling for the preservation from every taint of original sin, and espe-cially by reason of the supernatural characteristic of Mary's person, the safeguarding against every stain of original sin includes the preservation from all that be-longs, even remotely, to the and essence of original sin. 
Since the advent of Scholasticism, agreement on this point is unanimous among the theologians, even among those who do not teach the Immaculate Conception. 
It is true that shortly 
(about 
Peter de La 
maintained, in his interesting correspondence with Nicholas of St. Alban, that the "inclination to sin"was not excluded in Mary before Christ's conception, but be-longed to the merit of her struggle against 
 But after 
point was established at the of Trent, Sess. 
can. 23 
(Denz., no. 833). 

the thorough and emphatic criticism of this assertion by his friend he declared, that he understood the "sense of sin" in Mary to be similar to that of Christ. He writes: "Mary indeed felt the inclination to sin not to be injured, but to be tested by it; not to fall, but to conquer; she felt it outwardly, not inwardly; at the suggestion of the enemy, she felt it not by delighting in the flesh or con-senting in 
she felt it by repelling him, not by re-
ceiving or admitting him." 
 In fact, in his very first letter 
 had said: "I concede and believe indeed that by a precedent operation of God, she never felt the fiery 
of sinful inclination, not even moderately"; he added, of course: "The other impediments of human frailty, however, she could feel before the divine con-

but 
 in no way consented to them.' And inas-
much as grace came first and prepared the Virgin, the excitation of sin expired and there remained in her only a sepulchre, until the Holy Spirit came and consigned the 
deceased to a perpetual 
 and slew the old ser-
pent with his sword." Hence Jerome 
 said: "Although other virgins imitate 
 even as far as the conception of offspring, all that is effected in her is divine. Before this, indeed, the womb of 

Virgin, 
 pure, untainted, and foreign to the 
5 Nicholas of St. Alban, inter 
Petri 
172; PL, CCII, 
Peter de La 
Epist. 173, PL, CCII, 
Here Peter appears to indicate the opinion, which was criticized later 
by the theologians of the century, that 
had the not to the extent that it incited her to evil, but so far as it 

 an obstacle to good. Later on he that he understood this in 
 sense 
the 
Apostle understood in Christ the tentatio per 
peccato (Epist. 
173; PL, CCII, 630). opinion, in main correct, is supported also by 
what follows immediately. 	
Here is meant 		Epist. 	me, 	
no. 7; PL, XXX, 128 f. 	(where, instead of 	ad conceptum 	it 	
reads contemptum). 				

contagion of sin, although holy, was still clothed in hu-man lowness, that is, it was as wool made 
by 

when the Holy Ghost 
 this same 
wool turned to purple, as it were, dyed with the blood of 

of purple shell-fish; and she herself be-
came a mother without sexual union, so that she became, what she had not fully been, the purest purple, for the clothing and the glory most suitable for the highest King, so that from then 
no one was allowed to use her but God alone. Consequently after the conception, she merited a crystal solidity, since, before this fullness of 
grace, she had not divested herself of her 
 This 
solidity was pure, holy, and immaculate, and could in no way be overcome in consent and if, some way or other, temptation beat upon it, that was not to injure, but to test it, not for the mortification of conscience, but for a confirmation in grace and a demonstration of persever-ance.'' 

The vague explanation of Peter 
 that "in Christ's conception Mary was purified from all sins by the Holy Ghost,"was one of the 
points attacked by the sharp criticism of Walter of St. Victor."In the words 
of the letter 
me just quoted, the more ancient 
Latin tradition is summarized; also, in Peter Damian by 
. . uterus a peccati, ut ita dicam. ac 

like wool blanched by blenching). Instead of 
Scheeben makes it 
and 
as explanation: "like wool blanched 
bleaching." The meaning seems to be rather "white by its own color." Further on instead of 
he reads 
Peter de La 

PL, CCII, 619. 
Peter Lombard, 1.3, dist. 3; PL, CXLII, 760 f. 
Walter of St. Victor, Contra Francine, lib. 
PL, CXCIX, of Du 
the words: "The Virgin's flesh, although assumed from Adam, did not incur the taint of Adam's sin, but her singular purity of continence was changed into the splen-dor of eternal light." 
St. John Damascene gives the Greek tradition when he writes: "The immaculate Vir-gin, who did not incur any earthly affections, but was nourished by heavenly thoughts, did not return to the earth, but, being a living heaven, was received into the heavenly tabernacles." 
Against the theological basis of this privilege the ob-jection was raised, that immunity from concupiscence does not essentially belong to sanctity. For, as in St. Paul, the highest degree of holiness can exist in the soul side by side with the "law of the members." But in any case this immunity belongs to the ideal perfection of justice, or the sanctification of one's whole life. Mary's unique dignity and her very position as an ideal example of the effects of redemptive grace required perfect purity, not only of her disposition, but also of her whole life. 
Against the doctrine itself the objection was raised, that this immunity, by removing the opportunity for spiritual effort in the struggle against concupiscence, would de-prive Mary of the merit she would otherwise gain thereby. As St. Thomas 
 remarks, in Mary it is not necessary to assume every opportunity of meriting; the more so, since she had very special occasions 
opportunities of exer-cising the highest degree of self-renunciation and self-denial by the fact that she had to sacrifice her divine 
and to be co-bearer of all His sufferings. As for the 

St. Peter (or rather Nicholas of 

40 in ass. PL, 
St. 
Damascene, Or. 2 in 
no. 2; PG, 
725. 
St Thomas, 
q.27, a.3 ad 2. 
fight against sin, this she could and had to carry on, under the special circumstances which witnessed the sin of the angels and of our first parents; and 
 especially in 
 combatting of the objective temptation to pride by the profoundest humility. Though exalted to the sublime grace of the divine motherhood, this virtue reached in her the greatest depths of humility in her own nothingness, just as in of His person, it reached the highest degree of self-abasement. In general: from the point of view of her personal, moral, and meritorious works, the humility obedience 

 Mary must be emphasized even 
than her controlling of earthly and sensual passions, and must especially be recognized in the keeping of her virginity. 

Among 
 views differ in 
to the man-
ner in which this permanent immunity 
the move-ments of concupiscence was accomplished in Mary, and in which their cause, the incitation, was rendered in-effectual, or suppressed. They all agree, that the checking and suppression of that cause 
after the concep-tion of Christ, through a divine influence which can and must be designated as an extinction of the excitation of sin. 
As to the period before the conception of Christ, what 
was taught by some theologians, 
 those who did 
not hold to the Immaculate Conception ( therefore, almost all the theologians of the thirteenth century, particularly 
Thomas and 
 was a binding or quieting of concupiscence. On the other hand, others advocate an extinction of the excitation from the beginning, which was perfected, more or less, after the conception of Christ. However, the latter mostly under the name of original extinction essentially claim no more than do the former under the name of binding. However, the former, by the extinction effected later, may have understood more than did the latter by the completion of the extinction already accomplished. 
According to all the principles pertaining to this mat-ter, it must be definitely admitted that, from the moment of Mary's conception, immunity from concupiscence was established and confirmed in her, in that form at least in which it existed in the original state as an element of the incorruption, integrity, justice, and original inno-cence. If and in so far as it can and 
be designated as an extinction, or rather, as the complete absence of the fomes, in the original state, 
 must also be 
case in Mary. 
Consequently, in Mary this freedom should be traced not only to a divine protection, but also to a permanent and interior gift of grace. In fact, in the sense given the 
explanation of 
absence of the fomes in the 

state by St. Thomas and the entire contemporary teach-ing of 
 it may be traced to such a gift of grace as inwardly glorified and purified her entire na-ture. 
the flesh was subject to and entirely ruled by the spirit in such a way that not only was it unable to act in an irregular manner contrary to the intellect, but it was powerless to act at 
without a previous assent of the rational will. 
St. Thomas contradicts this doctrine by emphatically placing the suppression of the fomes, as it took place in 
Mary's first and 
 in opposition to 
that which existed in the original justice, and by main-taining that, in Mary, the fomes was merely tied down, not 
extinct. However, he explains the shackling of the fomes in Mary in substantially the same way as many theologians of later date explain 
absence of the fomes in the orig-inal state. He explains it as being effected by a grace which prevents the irregular of concupiscence by means of an interior and supernatural armor to-gether with an external protection from God. In any case, by his term, binding, he implies as much as do the other theologians, notably Suarez, by the 
extinc-tion, which must equal the original absence of the fomes. Here, the terms, extinction and binding, have in general an indefinite meaning. Even the expression, absence of 
fomes, in the original state, as understood in the sense of St. Thomas, can be reduced to a mere binding or quiet-ing of concupiscence, in so far as the interior possibility 
for 
revival of 
 is not here excluded as in 
the state of glory, because the grace which suppresses it can be lost. Consequently, if one wishes also to call the absence of the fomes in the original state a binding, in contrast to the state of glory, then in view of Mary's first 

it may be 
of also only as a binding of 
the 
However, under all circumstances it is better to say that, in Mary, concupiscence is extinguished or destroyed, because 
 grace by which the suppression of concupiscence is conditioned cannot be lost. 
Under this supposition, we may, with all the theolo-gians, accept a completion of the original 
 from concupiscence for the period after the conception of Christ. This completion, it would appear, occurred not by only, but essentially, so that the second immunity 
is to the first as the extinction to the binding, the destroy-ing to the quieting, or more correctly, as the eradicating 
122 
to the binding and the complete annihilation to the simple 
the union of 
with that of 

Christ, 
by Christ's conception, naturally requires in her a purity which is 
according to that of Christ. But 
purity of Christ's flesh shares, in a special manner, in that of 
 glorified body in which the move-ments of 
flesh precedent to the intellect are forever 

In indeed, Mary's likeness to Christ is not adequate, nor, even in her second sanctification, is 
contrast to 	of the original state as pronounced 	
as in Christ in 	first sanctification. Nevertheless, it 	
a 	must 	accepted according to 	

of the matter, as well as according to the expres-sions used by the Fathers, that, in the con-ception of Christ, a second, more complete and definite purification of Mary's flesh took place. For, in the supposi-tion that the first purification restored the purity of the original state, the second can be considered only as a sort of anticipation the purity of the glorified state. 
MATERIAL FOR 
QUESTION FOUND 

What he calls binding of the fomes, St. 
explains 
especially in the Compendium 
and in the 
 the Compendium he says: 
Irregular move-ments come from this, that the sensitive appetite, being the subject of 
passions, is not so subject to reason, as not somctiines to be moved to something apart from the order of reason, and at times, even against reason, wherein consists the movement of sin. Now, the sensitive appetite of the Blessed Virgin was so subject to her reason through the power of her sanctifying grace, that it never went against her reason, but always remained within the order of reason; yet it could have had some unexpected move-ments not regulated by reason. The sensitive appetite in our Lord Jesus Christ was something more. For in Him, the inferior appetite was so subject to reason as to be 

moved to 
 except what was 
the order of 
reason. It was reason 
ordered and 
 the 
inferior 
to be moved by its own motion. It seems that what belonged to the integrity of the 
state was, that the inferior powers were totally subject to reason. This subjection, however, was lost by the sin of the first man . . . :hence there remains rebellion and insubordi-nation of the lower powers against reason, which is the fomes of sin . . . Because the inferior powers in the Blessed Virgin were not totally subject to reason, 
is, 
they had not a movement 
was not 
 by 
reason, and yet were so restrained by the power of that they in no way were moved against reason: we usually say, that after her (first) 
 the Blessed gin had the fomes indeed in substance or essence, but bound." 

the substance or essence of the fomes the 
 that the appetite of the senses can generally anticipate the judgment of the intellect, because it is not completely subject to the intellect, that is, not thoroughly penetrated 
 governed by the spiritual power of soul. He bases 
 contrast 
the binding of the fomes with its extinction and absence on the fact alone that, on this supposition, the complete avoidance of 
St. Thomas, Comp. 
c.244; cf. 
q.27, 
and a. 3 ad 
regular movements is possible only by a strong spiritual 
vigilance of the soul, together with a special 

from God. Consequently, nothing is more foreign to his meaning than to say, the binding of the fomes consists in this, that God prevents its movements from with-
out. In the extinction or absence of the fomes, many the-ologians of later date allow a survival 
in Mary of 
St. Thomas calls 
essence of the fomes. 
teaching, therefore, did not go beyond his; in fact, 
even remain far behind him. For, as in the first couple, so in Mary even after Christ's conception, they explain the absence of the fomes in 
a way that, apart from interior grace, it depended also on a permanent protec-tion from God. To St.  as to his contemporaries, 
the absence of the is identical with the integrity of 
the flesh, which follows from the perfect power of rea-son over the flesh, or which conditions the latter, and in consequence of which the irregular movements simply fail to make themselves felt, because the untarnished 

the flesh thoroughly 
 and governed, 
glorified and purified by the full spiritual power of the soul-acts only under the influence of the rational will. In the first human couple, St. Thomas limits this 
by the expression, 
it seems," as not quite certain, 
but only probable. In 
however, he applies it un-
conditionally to the period after Christ's conception. As to the time preceding this, he suggests only a probability, that the complete integrity of the flesh was not yet present. 
On 
 fact alone that St. Thomas, like St. Bonaventure, 
the absence of the fomes in the above-mentionerl 
sense as the integrity of the flesh, docs 
argument rest 
which they both adduce for the idea of a later extinction of the fomes. They argue that it was no more consistent, before Christ's conception, for anyone to be free, ac-
cording to the flesh, from the 
 of original 
than for anyone to rise to immortal life before resurrection. Carefully considered, their reason amounts only to this, that, before 
conception, Mary could not, according to the flesh, obtain that perfect purity which answers to the resurrection unto the immortal life of glory. In any case, because of Mary's quite exceptional position, this general reason can be no more conclusive here, than can the general law of original sin be applicable to Mary. 
The text from the Sacred Scriptures, which is here applied by St. Thomas to Mary; "And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came by the way of the east: and the earth shone with 
 majesty," 
 indicates perhaps, that by Mary's second state of purity he understands some-thing higher than of the original state. However, if this  not the case, he infers in the concept of the extinction than do most advocates of the original extinction of the fomes, after as well as before Christ's conception. Connected with this question is the following, "whether, 
from the beginning, 
 original justice." 
According to what has been said, St. Thomas denies this, only for the beginning of her existence, but for the whole period preceding the second sanctification. But very many theologians, who taught the immaculate 
conception, held with 	that, because of what has 	
St. Thomas, a.2, q.3. Ezech. 	q.27, a.3 	St. Bonaventure, in 3 Sent., d.3, 	

been said, Mary did not yet possess original justice in the proper and strict sense of the word. First, she received her justice, not by means of her natural origin, but as a privilege for her person. Secondly, neither did she possess all the effects of the original justice, freedom from suffering. Nor finally, according to some, was she given freedom from concupiscence in as perfect a degree as the first human couple. 
The full and plain truth is, that, from the beginning, Mary possessed in its entirety original justice, not indeed originally, but personally, so far as this justice rests on inner perfection and, in its effects, comes under the con-cept of justice, or of "being just," not only under that of being 

Certain as is Mary's freedom from all motions of con-cupiscence, it is formally even more certain, because so 

never really 
neither mortal 
sin, whereby she would have lost sanctifying grace, nor venial sin of whatever kind, whereby she would have stained the robe of grace. The theological proof is found in the traditional idea of the perfect purity of the Mother of God, of Mary's complete likeness to Christ, of the ab-solute contrast of the heavenly with the earthly Eve, as also of Mary's typical relation to the Church, whose ideal 
purity was preferably represented 	her. 		
Concerning this point. see in de 6. This was established by the Council ono. 833). 	vitae f Trent, V	4, I, can. 23 	

The maintaining of this idea in support of Mary's free-
dom from 
 sins is based even more clearly and 
firmly on the teaching of the Sacred Scriptures concern-ing Mary's 
with Christ in the enmity against the devil, than in regard, 
to her freedom from concu-piscence. It rests also on the teaching concerning the most singular protection of God and Christ, which is bound up 
her fullness of grace. For, Christ's love for 
stain or wrinkle," 
 to be shown 
 a most perfect manner in His Mother as the heart of the Church. Again it rests on the absolute spotlessness of Christ's bride, as the latter is presented in the Canticle of Canticles and in the figure of 
 "Woman clothed with the sun." 

 temporary eclipse of this doctrine in some Fathers of more ancient times is amply offset by the unanimous doctrine of the entire tradition since the Council of 
Church, 
 the latter was to be kept without 
esus. Moreover, this eclipse was limited locally, and the ut-terances in question are not at 
positive proofs of an existing ecclesiastical tradition. They show only that the ecclesiastical idea of Mary's purity had not as yet pene-trated everywhere in its full force and meaning. 
The Council of Trent gave the official pronouncement of the Catholic doctrine: "If any one shall say that a per-son once justified . . . can for the rest of his life avoid all sins even the least, unless by a special privilege of God, such as the Church holds concerning the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema." 
 In the Middle Ages, the 
Eph. 

Cant. 

Apoc. 

St.Bernard, 
Dom. 
Ass., no. 3; PL, CLXXXIII, 431. 
Denz., no.833. 
freedom from all actual sins was the more emphatically stressed, according as the initial freedom from original sin was still enveloped in obscurity. Evading the Immacu-
late Conception, 
explained freedom from sin as the 
specific effect of the first sanctification of the Mother of God. St. Bernard writes: "I am of the opinion that a more abundant blessing of sanctification 
on her, which not only sanctified her birth, but also kept her im-mune from sin, a blessing bestowed on no other living woman. It was very becoming that, by a privilege of holiness, the Queen of virgins should have led a 

life without sin, in order that she, whilst she brought forth the destroyer of sin and death, might obtain the gift of 
life and justice." 
 St. 
 especially held this free-
dom from sin in his peremptory exception in favor of 

In the Latin Church, this doctrine never weakened. But in the East, where Mary's exemption from original sin always stood in the foreground, freedom from actual sin, oddly enough, was for some time left to conjecture even by Fathers of note, and this in part for the same theo-logical reasons from which, in the West, doubts arose 
the Immaculate Conception. In contrast to the spir-itual perfection of the celestial Adam, the standard of weakness based on the nature of woman was given too 

much prominence in the new Eve, whose 
surpassed those of the old. 
unfavorable utterances of the Fathers in question, 
on which St. Thomas touches too 
 are treated at 
St. Bernard, 174 ad can. 
PL, CLXXXII. 334. 
St. 
c.36, no. 42. 
St. Thomas, 
q.27, a.4 ad 2 et 3. 
IMMUNITY FROM SIN 	129 	
length by 	of Sienna, St. Peter Canisius, Petavius, 	
and 		

In the West, Tertullian in his book written in his Montanist period, in which he claims that by her faith Mary wiped out Eve's utterly unfounded statement. He says: of Jesus, Mary did not believe in yield to Martha and Mary Magdalen in faith." This is the coarsest utterance of the patristic literature, but it is self-condemnatory. 
Later, the writer of the Quaestiones in Nooo Testa-ment~,~~
whose views in general are incorrect, also dealt 

with 
doubt at Christ's 
From the known 
Catholic Fathers only one text is quoted, that of St. Hilary of Poitiers. In that text Simeon's prophecy is ex-plained by the sword of God's judgment. The text reads: "When that excellent virgin of God shall have come be-fore the severe judgment, who shall dare to wish that she be judged by God?" 
 But the text is too indistinct to be used as proof for anything. 
In the East, unfavorable utterances are found in the writings of the most influential Fathers, even down to the time of Cyril of Alexandria, 
 herald of the Theotocos, and in the contemporaries of St. Augustine; and 
are 
of Siena, Bibliotheca lib. 5 passim; St. Peter Canisius, De lib. 4, especially c.27 and 
Petavius, 
theol., lib. 14, 
c. 1; A letter to pp. 
Tertullian, De came 

c. 17 (PL, 

782). 
c.7; PL, 
767 f. 
et 
(in 
among the works of St. Augustine and quoted by St. Thomas, 
q.27, a.4, 
qd. 2), q.73; 
2267. Souter provided a critical edition in Corpus eccl. 
L, Vienna, 1908. 
St. Hilary, 
super 
in 
118, 
no. 12; PL, 
523. 
of two kinds. Associating themselves with 
 who 
otherwise has some very fine texts relative to Mary's moral perfection, St. Basil and St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 explain the words of Simeon, in reference to the sword which should pierce Mary's soul, as the sword of temptation to doubt Christ's divinity, to which Mary succumbed under the cross; like the disciples, she too was scandal-ized in Christ. Origen and Basil stated clearly that here Mary really failed. They refer to the assertion, that Christ died for Mary's sins also as for those of all man-kind, and that she would not otherwise have belonged to the number of the redeemed. The explanation of St. 
 that the point at issue here is not a doubt of infidelity, but of wonder and of inquiry, is, therefore, not satisfactory. Both utterances are really an altogether fal-lacious exegetical and theological explanation, not a testi-mony of tradition. For the rest, the fact that positive tradition relative to Mary's holiness was not at 
 time more definite, should 
little surprise, since even the most important dogmas concerning the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost were as yet much neglected. 
On the other hand, it is true that Cyril states most emphatically, that Mary was seized 
fear and suf-fered also a certain defeat because of her feminine weak-

ness, and that for that reason Christ gave her  to strengthen and comfort her. But he considers doubt only a weakness, not a fault, still less a grave offense. Even so his declaration is at sharp variance with Mary's heroic perseverance, strong in faith, under the cross, a 
17 
XIII, 1845. 

St. Basil, 
259 ad Optimum; PG, XXXII, of Alex-
andria, in Joan. 12; 
661-65. 
St. Thomas, 
q.27, a.4 ad 2. 
characteristic which was so correctly and forcefully elu-cidated by St. 
 The contrast is all the more marked, since Cyril explains Mary's presence under the cross merely by saying that with the other women she wept as women do. A similar explanation of Mary's doubt at the Annunciation is found in 

Again, St. John Chrysostom ity or motherly pride Mary's appearance at the marriage feast of Cana, as also her wish on a later occasion to 
speak to  Elsewhere he explains the necessity of the 
by the angel before Christ's conception by saying, that Mary had to be safeguarded against great alarm and anxiety, lest, as a sensitive virgin, she should 
do violence to herself that she might escape 

These are mere exegetical and oratorical excesses, as St. Thomas 
 plainly calls them. The explanation of them may be found partly in the free and desultory style of the saint and his love for paradoxes, partly too to the fact that he belonged to the school of Antioch and had 
as his teacher. 
Generally speaking, in spite of the excellence of her state of grace and sanctity, it would appear that Cyril as well as St. John Chrysostom find in Mary, as in a truly feminine being, certain weaknesses, as excusable as they are natural. thinks this is due to the low opin-
ion of womanhood which prevailed at that time, not 
in the East, but also in the It must, however, 
St. Ambrose, In 
no. 132; PL, XV, 1837, and 
ad Vercell. eccl., no. 110; PL, XVI, 1218. 
Proclus 
6; 
LXV, 740-48. 
St. John Chrysostom, 
21 in loan.; 
LIX, 130; 
44 in Mt.; 
LVII, 464. 
4 in Mt.; 
LVII, 45. 
St. Thomas, 
q.27, a.4 ad 3. 
A 
to 
(London. 1866). p. 136. 
be remarked, that at that very time, at least in the Latin Fathers, especially in Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, the ideal character of a virgin (so significantly indicated in the Latin name of Virgo), and raised by moral virginity a manly strength, found expression in the most clear and decisive manner. 
The texts from Sacred Scripture, to which these pas- sages of the Fathers are related, and others even more so which are used by Protestants, especially the 
 to prove Mary's sinfulness, nowadays demand no further explanation. These are 
with quite thor-
oughly by St. Peter Canisius and 
 Only this 
should be noted in Canisius that the Reformers, accord-
ing to their own explanation, emphasized 
sinful-
ness so much, because in her they combatted the type and the guaranty of the sanctity and infallibility of the Church. 
According to the teaching of the Church and the nature of the matter, the fact of Mary's sinlessness is based on a special and supernatural grace, or rather on an excep-tional privilege of grace. For the reason that this grace 
complete sinlessness 
 it was called "the 
gift of impeccancy" as in the first couple, and its main feature is 
from concupiscence. In so far as it ensured effective freedom from sin, it was called, in rela-tion to mortal sins, the "gift of confirmation in grace" or of "perfect perseverance"; in relation to venial sins, 
of Magdeburg are a group of Protestant scholars who, under of Math. 
wrote a Church history, divided into 
(centuries), under the title: 
in 
13 volumes, 

The great Mariological tract of St. Peter Canisius was directed particularly against them. 
St. Peter Canisius, De 
lib. 4 per totum; 
in 
disp. 
cap. 3 and 4. 
the "gift of perfect confirmation in good." In this respect its main characteristic is the fullness of the graces of supernatural sanctification, actual as well as habitual, whereby God, who was with and in Mary in a special manner, so guarded her that she never committed a single sin. 
The precise meaning of this grace and its manner of action are linked with the question, whether the con-firmation in grace abolished not only the reality but also the possibility of sin, or the reality by the very 

ity, in the same way as the inclination to irregular of concupiscence, and thereby to formal sin, was eradi-cated by the extinction of the 
As clear as it is that Mary is distinguished from God 
and Christ 
the fact that, considered in her being, she 
was capable of sin, it is just as clear that, because of the divine protection and assistance which Mary enjoyed, it can and must be said in a certain sense that she could not have sinned, that in her, sin was impossible; hence her sinlessness includes the incapability of sinning. This, a sense at least, is analogous to what, relative to the teaching authority of the Church, is said of the pope, that he cannot fail in certain acts and that his freedom from error includes infallibility. 

In fact, Mary's incapability of sinning, as the pillar and vesture of her sanctity, is the original type and guar-antee of the infallibility of the Church, like a pillar and vesture of truth. Just as the Church's truth rests on the words, "I am with you all days," so Mary's sanctity rests on "The Lord is with thee." Both are prophesied in a typical sense by the words: "The stream of the river maketh the city of God joyful: the most High hath tified His own tabernacle. God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved." 

Most theologians, in fact, all of them in relation to the period before Christ's conception, do not admit the in-capability of sinning in Mary as signifying that, by her confirmation in grace, she was rendered inwardly in-capable of sin in a way analogous to Christ, for by that gift she would have lost the freedom to sin or the natural defectibility of her will. On the contrary, according to 
Alexander of Hales and St. Albert the 
 this latter 
opinion was really maintained in reference to the period after Christ's conception, and that by all the noted the-ologians of the thirteenth century, at least by St. Thomas, 
Commentaries on the 

view of personal sin, they advocated Mary's pu-
rity, after God, all the more forcefully, as they weakened her position in relation to original sin 
Later, probably also by St. Thomas himself in his later writings, this doctrine, insufficiently explained and in part also erroneously presented, was abandoned. In reference to the time after Christ's conception, Mary's incapability of sinning was explained simply by the standard of the gift of perseverance or confirmation in grace in other 
justified souls, as also 
that of the gift of infallibility in 
the apostles and the pope. 
The deep thought of the theologians from the thirteenth century should not, in our estimation, be relinquished so easily. Moreover, as to the time before Christ's 
45 Matt. 
Luke 
Ps. 
f. 
Alexander of Hales, Summa theol., pars 3, q.9, 3, a.2, St. Albert the Great, q.134 and q. 163 2). 
St. Thomas, in 3 Sent., d.3, q. 1 a.2, qla; see also Ia, q.100, and 

q.27, a. 5 ad 2; 
De 
q.24, a. 9 
et ad 2. 
Mary's sinlessness can be formulated more pro-foundly and emphatically, if the grace of the motherhood is used in the meaning explained above, and if Mary's incapability of sinning is rather presented on the analogy of that of Christ's humanity. The sanction for this lies in the reasons advanced 
 especially in this, that the Fathers have no figure more forceful and graphic by which to illustrate the sinlessness of Christ's humanity than that with which the Sacred Scriptures portray the grace of he motherhood, viz., her clothing with the sun. 
Unlike the gift of perseverance or confirmation in grace, which was granted to other saints, the grace of Mary's motherhood lays the foundations of a perfect sinlessness, and does so in an entirely different and more sublime manner. The divine influence, safeguarding her against all sin, rests not merely on an actual decree, nor on a promise of God or an arrangement of plan made because 
of certain outward aims 
in order to equip the 
apostles as worthy foundation stones of the Church), which would require this exclusion of sin. It rested rather on the very singular and personal relation of Mary to God which makes her the bride and the vesture of God. Because of this relation, God owed it to His own dignity and holiness to safeguard Mary against sin, lest her sin should be imputed to Him, or lest it should appear He had a share in it. Because of this relation also, all graces necessary to preclude sin are virtually ensured and 

guaranteed to 
in and through the principle of this 
grace. 
Again because of this relation, Mary is completely taken up in God, enveloped and filled by Him, on the 
See supra, chap. 2. 
analogy of the grace of union and in the sense of the figure of the "Woman clothed with the sun." Therefore, this incapability of sinning should not be conceived, as in other cases, as an incapability coming to the subject from without, but as an inherent incapability, founded on the inward character of the subject. Compared with the confirmation in grace in the apostles, this is befitting also 
to Mary's relation to the Church; 
 appears both as 
the foundation stone and as the root and heart of the Church. 
On the other hand, a real difference in form exists also between Mary's incapability of sinning, based on the grace of her motherhood, and the infallibility of the teach-ing authority of the Church. First, the divine influence in the teaching authority of the Church is not connected with the person and his personal relation to God, but with the authority and its exercise. Secondly, in the teaching authority of the Church this influence in itself appears only as guidance and assistance. To Mary it was granted naturally by pervading and penetrating her whole being with the stream of the grace of sanctification and en-lightment. 
Considered abstractly and in itself, the fullness of created grace can effect in Mary's will only a moral in-capability of sinning, analogous to that which can exist also in other saints with regard to mortal sin. But con-sidered concretely, in its unity with the grace of her motherhood as its root and soul and as its fruit and instru-ment, that fullness of grace forms 
 basis of a perfect incapability of sinning even before the conception of Christ. 
After Christ's conception and as a result of the grace of her motherhood completed by that conception, Mary's incapability of sinning attains an essentially higher char-acter in relation to the interior condition of the powers of her soul. It is at least not exhausted by the ordinary ideas of her moral incapability of sinning, and in a certain sense it effects a physical incapability of sinning. For, since natural motherhood in itself works such a wonderful change in a mother, that all her thoughts and desires are given a new direction and her the life is, so to say, bound up in that of the child, this divine 
 in which nature and grace unite, in which the Son is at the same time Bridegroom, Father, and Creator of His Mother, in which, therefore, all ties of the strongest love, natural and divine, bind Mary to God, this divine motherhood, we repeat, should all the more change Mary's whole interior life, so that she, in a 
higher sense than the Apostle, can say: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me." 
From this point of view 
grace of motherhood acts in a manner similar to the light of glory, so far as the latter allows no other good, apart from God, to appear as desirable except in God. It acts similarly also to the grace of union in Christ, which takes away from His humanity its natural independence and constrains it to love itself in the person of the Logos. Thus Mary's incapa-
bility of sinning, especially from the time of Christ's con-ception, appears as the luster and reflection of Christ's own incapability of sinning. And although in Mary this quality is infinitely below that of Christ, nevertheless it resembles His, in the fact that hers too must be considered as a complete and interior incapability of sinning. 

As a consequent, or also as a supplement, to what has 
been said concerning 
sinlessness, the following 
points should be elucidated. First, in Mary, even during her earthly life, and in Mary alone of all mankind, could there be found that complete 
 from sin and that perfection of justice which is realized in other members of the Church only after death or after the resurrection. On earth it can be pur-sued merely as an ultimate aim to be achieved only later. 
Likewise, from the beginning of her existence here below, Mary possessed in her earthly body the same per-fection of purity and justice, as that of which the angels are capable on account of their purely spiritual nature. 
Further, because the inward grace that shielded her from all sin was higher than that of 
 angels, and also because the grace of her motherhood made sin utterly impossible, Mary possessed a higher degree of purity from sin than did the angels. Together with the possibility of a higher grace, the first reason admits the possibility of a still greater safeguarding against sin. As to the second, 
 of the motherhood, Mary possessed the highest de-grec or rather the highest form of purity from sin, con-ceivable in a mere creature. 
If by purity we understand not formally an exemption from sin, but positively the purity, the divine clarity and simplicity of the spiritual life, 
 the highest conceiv-able purity is not realized in Mary. For in that sense the highest purity coincides with the highest conceivable degree of grace and likeness to God. However, as a 
sult of what has been said, it may be seen that Mary pos-sessed, in this sense also, a higher purity than was ever granted to any creature 

Concerning Mary's high degree of purity, see particularly St. Albert the Great, 
q.137 ff., a series of beautiful and profound thoughts which 
are not 
worked out. 
CHAPTER VII 
Mary's Exemption 
the Bonds of Death 

IN OUR time the question relating to Mary's assumption 
into heaven has gained importance by the fact that, at the Vatican Council, many bishops requested to have Mary's bodily assumption into heaven declared a dogma.' With that the question 
a new stage of theological discussion. Not that it is already as good as defined; but this request of itself demands not only a more careful study of the grounds for the possibility of such a defini-tion, but it also points out, in its motivation, such grounds as up to the present have been given little attention, grounds which run counter to the one-sided and alto-gether erroneous conception often held of the state of the question. 
For literature see De B.M.V.; the festal 
of Andrew of Crete, of Constantinople, St. John Dama-scene, etc.; of St. Peter of Le Mans, Peter de La 
and of Lausanne; of St. of Siena, St. Thomas of Villanova and later Bossuet; St. Albert the Great, 
q.131 
Engelbert of 
B.V.M. (in Pez, Anecdota, I, 
p. 4, cap. 18 ff.; St. Peter De 
Deip., V, 5; in the seventeenth century 
against the 
several 
of Jacques and Billiard 
(Ladvocat), about which in Hurter, 3rd edition, 454 f.; Benedict 
De 
B.V., cap. 8; Trombelli, 
Vita 

diss. 44 et 45; 
De imm. 
6, cap. 6, art. 1; and a very 
important work of Lana (Rome, 1880). 
C. Martin, (Paderbom. 

and Ada 
140 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 141 

It is true, the manner in which this doctrine was usually considered by the learned and the unlearned was any-thing but suited to make it appear as an object of dog-matic definition, or even as an object of dogmatic interest and an organic element in the dogmatic system. The fact of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven was pictured much in the same way as the analogous legend of St. John the Evangelist with 
it was often connected. Hence, it was related as a visible, historical fact, originally per-ceived with the eyes or deduced from observation, and propagated by historical tradition based on the fact that relics of Mary were lacking and her tomb was empty. In contrast to the analogous legend about St. John the Evangelist, here it was added, that the fact was originally recorded and handed down by the apostles themselves. Next, the propagation of this assertion was supported by higher considerations of propriety urging its veracity, and the doctrine, thus originated and maintained, had gained an ever wider 
and liturgical establish-ment in the Church. 
But obviously no theological and dogmatic certainty can be obtained in that way. In the most favorable cir-cumstance an ecclesiastical certainty might be reached; but even so, it would rest on a weak foundation. For, if the reasons of propriety here advanced do not necessarily coordinate the doctrine and the dogma, they of them-selves could give no certainty, nor could they any longer support the tradition of the event. In the present case, the tradition certainly needs that support, for positive witnesses emerge so late and under such circumstances, that they only meagerly, if at all, can guarantee a trust-worthy tradition which must have formerly existed and can be traced to the fact itself. 
The uncertainty of the historical tradition as such is evident from the following. First, before the end of the  sixth or at best of the 
no completely certain 
positive witness for the fact of Mary's bodily assump-tion can be authentically brought forward: Further, in the fourth century Epiphanius, who was close to the of events and had devoted himself seriously to the study of Mary's death, has apparently no knowledge of even-the existence of a tradition concerning the end of Mary's 
Finally, those Fathers who occupied themselves 
in the seventh and eighth centuries can-not bring forward a witness of more ancient times, who is absolutely positive about the fact. St. 
of Jeru-salem (632) whose first sermon, given on the feast of the Dormitio (Mary's departure from this life), still exists, 

expressly 
 of the lack of witnesses for the glori-
ous death of the Mother of The most ancient, so-called historical testimony in the 

 of Eusebius reads: 
Virgin 

Mother of Christ, is assumed into heaven unto her Son, as some wrote to whom the fact was revealed." 
 This testimony, on the main point, is not sufficiently definite, nor is it tenable from a critical point of view. It is nowhere else quoted by the Fathers. Likewise unauthenticated is 
a homily of St. Athanasius, cited for the first time by 
St. Epiphanius, Haer. 78, nos. 11 and 24; Haer. 79, no. 5; PG, XLII, 716, 737, 748. 
4 St. of Jerusalem, Encomium in B.V.; PG, 3280. 
See Baronius, 
48, edited in Cologne, I ( 
403; this apocryphal fragment is quoted by Lana. 
cas 
 (eleventh century). A homily of St. Cyril of Alex-andria, advanced by the moderns, especially Trombelli, belongs to the schismatic patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris (seventeenth century), who was for some time patriarch of 
After St. (seventh century), the Greek Fathers appeal especially to a text from Pseudo-Dionysius. It states casually that besides Hierotheus and Timothy, Dionysius came together with the apostles to view "the body of the one who is the beginning of life and the recipient of God; all those who were gathered together, praised the power of God revealing itself in the humility of the The author, at the earliest, wrote in the fourth century; 
 but apart from that, this text, much as it is quoted to indicate the presence of the apostles at Mary's death, makes no reference to Mary's resurrection and assumption. 
In general the text, when applied to Mary's body, has 
no meaning, and the conscientious commentator, 
merely advances the opinion, that perhaps Mary's body is meant. It is more probable that the Greek word 
 is a corruption of 
which means monument or sepuchral monument, and in that case, the text should necessarily be connected with the tomb of our Lord, not 
Michael Glycas, PG, CLVIII, 184, 240. op. 
in Bourasse, Summa 
289 f. 
De 
cap. 3; PG, 
681; 

or 
of the monument, tomb. 
It is now settled that the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, which appeared only in 533 and in which the works 
the Neoplatonic (d, 485) are used, did not exist before the beginning 
the sixth century. 

St. the Confessor, in 
Areop.; PG, 
236: 

with that of Mary. It is not unlikely that the corruption was purposely made by a Nestorian, in order to smuggle in his heresy, which for Mary used Theodochos (recipient of God) instead of Theotokos (Mother of 
In a St. John Damascene 

and, at a much later periocl (fourteenth century), the historian Nicephorus 
make 
mention of an account taken from a 

which is unknown, and of which neither the date nor the author can be ascertained. This account was in refer-ence to a conversation concerning Mary's tomb, between Empress Pulcheria and the Patriarch Juvenal of Jeru-salem, who was present at the Council of Chalcedon. Briefly Juvenal relates the wonderful events at Mary's death as founded on 'an ancient and trustworthy tradi-tion," and appeals to the previously mentioned text in Pseudo-Areopagite to prove that the apostles were pres-ent. However, it is not even certain, in fact, it seems most 
Cf. 			I ( Paris, 	499. See also 	
mont, 		pour 	a 		six 	premiers 	
	I (Brussels, 	notes 	la S. Vierge, 14, p. 289, and M. Jugie. 	

"La mort et I'assomption de la S. Vierge dans la tradition dcs cinq premiers 
in Echos 
305 f. about the latter work of 
Ferd. Cavallera, "A propos d'une 
in 
XXVII 97-116. 
 St. John Damascene, Or. in B.M., no. 18; PG, XVCI, taken up in the die quarta 
octavam assumptionis, 2nd Noct., leaving out the word in the introductory sentence: ex et accepimus The quotation from 3, cap. 40, in Damascene's is certainly an interpola-tion. The 
Euth. itself, probahly not written before the end of the ninth century, has no historical value. Thus Jugie, "Le rkcit de miaque 
la 
et I'assomption de la Vierge," in Echos 
( 
385-92. 
Nicephorus 
eccles., XV, 14; PG, CXLVII, 44. Without giving his sources, the same author quotes (in XIV, 47; PG, CXLVI, 1221 a passage from the 
Euth., which appears also in 
the Armenian 
(d. 998); see Jugie, 

p. 389. 

unlikely, that this text from the Euthymiuca was inserted in his sermon by St. John 
himself. It is found between two strongly poetic and oratorical texts, the second of which follows the account, when logically and oratorically it should follow immediately upon the first. For that reason the item appears almost evidently to have been inserted later, the more so as it is not quoted by other Fathers and official speakers before Nicephorus. Hence it is very doubtful whether St. John Damascene would have thought just of this testimony when he speaks of the existing tradition about the circumstances sur-rounding Mary's 
The story is further discredited by inherent improbabilities, 
that the clothes of the Blessed Virgin were still in the tomb. As to the removal of these clothes to the basilica built by Pulcheria, other ver-sions of the tale exist. 
As for written sources, those known to be extant before the end of the sixth century comprise: a document ascribed to St. John the Evangelist, and the 

id est 
S. 
which was declared apocryphal by Pope Gelasius 
 as early as 494. The latter was in circulation, now under the name of Melito of Sardis, again under that of a Melitho or Mellitus of Sardis or 
and was spread East and West in various versions as early as that time. Apart from the many peculiarities in some versions, the book is at times openly in contradiction to the Acts of the Apostles, as Bede pointed 
It may 
John Damascene, 
no. 4; 
729. 
PL, LIX, 177. It is certain that the Decretum is not from Pope Gelasius. It was unknown author, probably in the sixth 
However, it war by Pope Leo IX and taken up in Gratian's Corpus 
St. Bede, 
in Act. Ap., cap. 8; PL, XCII, 1014. 
even be suspected that the book had connection with the legend referred to above, relative to the death and resur-rection of St. John the Evangelist, which Epiphanius also 
 and that this legend was adapted to the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
The fact that this rich and fantastically embellished legend found such wide circulation as early as the fifth century, can perhaps be explained in this way. After the Council of Ephesus the attention of the faithful was di-rected especially to the Mother of God, and for that very reason the feast of "the passing away" or of "the assump-tion" was introduced at that time, as the first which re-lated directly to the 
of Our Blessed Lady. Perhaps these two facts, as cause or effect, had a bearing on the fact that at that time, apparently, Mary's tomb was dis-covered in Jerusalem. This tomb was unknown to Sts. Epiphanius, Jerome, and Leo I. 
The existence and 
of this book indicate in 
any case, that the substance of the fact did not appear to the consciousness of the faithful as something strange, but as something miraculous. The suspicion is not excluded that the book was closely allied to one or another of existing and more succinct historical traditions; but this is altogether insufficient to prove the existence of such a tradition. The Greek Fathers who do not explicitly quote the book, notably St. John Damascene,'' accepted indeed the existence of a tradition apart from that and to that extent considered it conclusive, as we see 

the narrative ascribed to Juvenal. However, it remains always a matter of doubt, whether before the sixth and seventh centuries 
St. Epiphanius, 
79; PG, XLII, 748. 
See supra, note 14. 
this tradition in some way developed out of the critically chosen selections from the book de 
or from a still simpler and more ancient form of legendary fabrication. This remark applies also to the first, and long the only, historical testimony in the West, namely, that of St. 

Gregory of Tours which outlines the gist of the legend in a few brief It is said that Gregory in-stead might have had his information through his rela-tions with the East, especially with Jerusalem. But even he speaks of the main circumstances more definitely and decisively than do the later testimonies from Jerusalem. He mentions one circumstance which cannot be found among the testimonies alluded to, 
the visible appear-ance of the Savior leading Mary into heaven. 
As may be concluded from the sermons of Sts. 
and Andrew of Crete 
( the first documents of the seventh 
are derived from these) the historical tradition as such was in general neither definite nor cer-tain in Jerusalem. It strikes one as particularly strange, that both appeal exclusively to St. Paul and to Mary's 
tomb as actual proof of the matter, and that with 
emphasis than the arguments warrant. The tomb itself is of no help, if for no other reason than that it was discovered at a late date. Moreover, a purely local tradi-tion of a historical event in apostolic times, even when the local tradition was guaranteed more firmly than the 
would not 
to prove that this fact as such be-longs to the apostolic deposit. The local character of the tradition would scarcely agree with the fact that all the 
St. Gregory of Tours, lib. 1, 
c.4; PL, 
LXXI, 708. 
of Jerusalem, in B.V., PL, LXXXVI, St Andrew of Crete, Oratwnes 
in 
PG, XCVII, 104~1110. 
apostles were present at Mary's death, as this tradition 

maintains in 
In this state of the building up of a specific his-torical tradition going back to the time of the apostles is a disagreeable task, because impossible of achievement, and it is more detrimental than helpful to the interests of the theological truth of Mary's assumption into heaven. We cannot bridge the gap of the first six centuries, not even if we accept the opinion that this point of doctrine was hidden, as a result of the disciplina arcani, through fear that the glorification of Mary, which accompanied her assumption, might give occasion to the heathens and weak Christians to look upon her as a goddess. For, apart from the fact that the danger on that point was scarcely greater than that which might arise from the name and concept of "Mother of God," still the disciplina arcani could not have gone so far as to keep the point in question out of sermons and writings of all 
And when, as is the case, such silence on this matter was maintained, that even Epiphanius was in ignorance of it, and that, as early as the seventh century, absolutely no positive and more ancient testimonies could be found, then the very disciplina arcani would have completely severed all threads of tradition. For lack of more ancient testimony, the existence of an 
For the reasons given, we do not wish to deny a certain reserve on the part of the Church, far less a divine arrangement, to which also Epiphanius points. Rather we find it fitting when, in private revelations 
 to lib. 6, cap. 61; edited in Rome, 1606, p. 
itis said God allowed the history regarding the end of Mary's life to be propagated only by uncertain legends, so that Christ's true incarnation should not be eclipsed by Mary's heavenly glory, and Mary herself should be considered as a divine being. But in that case God Himself did not allow a historical tradition as foundation for a later acknowledgment of Mary's 

implicit tradition, such as is accepted for articles of faith, is possible only when the disputed fact is based, not only on positive report, but is also considered as being con-tained in other facts or articles of doctrine. 
In any case, only then can theological discussion of the question be of advantage, not only when the pure sub-stance of the fact is separated from the circumstances surrounding it in the legendary tradition, but also when the abstraction is being made to find out whether, apart from the Sacred Scriptures and the traditional idea of the virginal Mother of God, a positive and explicit tolical tradition still exists concerning 
 substance of the fact, and whether consequently this fact is treated in the same manner as similar related facts, viz., the im-maculate conception, and the permanent sinlessness of Mary. Indeed, all doubts about this fact originated through 
that the matter was viewed from a false standpoint, as if, in order to ascertain its certainty, it must be 
 by ecclesiastically guaranteed and historical means, or by a "Catholic history," as Augustine expressed 

Autpertus), 
208 in in 
App. ad 
s. Aug.; PL, 2130. 
CHAPTER VIII 
Mary's Exemption from the Bonds of Death 

ROM a theological point of view, the actual questions concerning the end of Mary's life are summarized under this question: How far was Mary, in her bodily life, subject to the lot of ordinary mortals, or rather, how far, in view of her spiritual life and the life of her soul, 
did she share in the 
 of Christ? This question 
apparently must be solved first at least, if not exclusively, according to the biblical and traditional idea of Mary's worthiness and dignity. The idea contains, not remote and vague indications only, but also proximate, definite, and decisive suggestions concerning the privileges in ques-tion. These privileges, especially in connection with the 
of the Immaculate Conception, have apparently 
grown daily more distinct and forceful to the mind of the Church. 
These privileges can be reduced to this: that, as the "indestructible temple and inextinguishable lamp," as St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 called her at Ephesus, Mary, ac-
cording to the 
 unlike the 
rest of mankind, was not subject to the dominion or the 
This idea is formulated in cha 1 
Cyril 

Alexandria, 
4; PC, 
992. 
bonds of 
 This exemption from the bondage of death is threefold: (1) In regard to the necessity of undergoing death, or even in regard to its cause and form, and also to its meaning; (2) In regard to the natural con-sequences of death, viz., the decomposition of the body which may be considered as the final completion of and to which special significance is attached in its being imposed as a punishment for sin; (3) In regard to the duration of death to the end of time or to the general res-urrection. 
Usually the second and third points were treated as a whole, for they are closely related to each other. But all too often the second point was thus given a position that obscured instead of illuminating the third. The second point was predominantly taken as a historical fact and not as a theological truth. 
MARY'S FROM THE DOMINION OF DEATH According to the constant and general acceptation of the Church, the first point, that Mary really died, is an 
established 
 It cannot be said 
 death is 
J 
as certain as, let alone more certain than, the glorification of her body and soul; nor as a matter of fact is this cer-tainty considered essential or necessary. For, theolog-ically, Mary's glorification follows most definitely from revelation, while her death can be established only by at best an indisputable presumption. At least, it cannot be 
nexus it is called in the prayer Veneranda, which prayer concludes the procession preceding the Mass of the Assumption. Now-adays it appears in the Assumption liturgy of the and of the Dominicans; PL, LXXVIII, 133. 
Concerning Mary's death see especially and op. Dominicus (Super B.M.V. Deiparae, Genoa, 1879) tried in vain to question this fact. 

immediately deduced from the general law of death, since this is not formally and directly applicable to her. 
By reason of her freedom from all sin, especially her complete immunity from original sin, Mary was in fact not subject to death as a penal debt, and consequently she was exempted 
this law binding on the rest of man-kind. Neither can it be said that she was subject to death because of her mortal nature; for nature makes death in-evitable only in so far as the person to whom it belongs has no supernatural claim to the eternal continuation of that nature. Now, such a claim could certainly be based on the grace of the divine motherhood, if Mary had not specifically become thereby the 
of the Redeemer, and if, in the economy of the redemption, the death of the Redeemer did not require her death: not indeed as a second expiatory death, but in order that thus the Mother should not appear greater than the Son, and especially that by her death she might prove the reality of her own human nature and that of her Son. 
If Mary's death must be formally classified under a law which is absolutely universal and knows no excep-tion, that law should be formulated so, that after the the final perfection of mankind must be reached only by the cessation of bodily life. This law, however, has no more to do with 
dominion over Mary, than the economy of the redemption to which the law owes its universality; and hence it does not affect Mary's exemp-tion from the dominion of death. 
In Mary as in Christ, this exemption from death was joined to freedom from bodily sickness and, therefore, from death through sickness. On the other hand, no con-formity with Christ in His violent death was required. 
For, Mary's death was to be neither an expiatory death nor a death of punishment. Moreover, under the cross she had been a sharer in the sufferings of Christ's death. For the same reasons Mary's death was neither painful nor sorrowful. 
However, according to a genuinely theological and universal opinion dating from the Middle Ages, the na-ture of Mary's death resembles that of Christ in this, that Mary voluntarily accepted the unmerited death out of 
and loving obedience, and without doubt ac-tually died of love. That is to say, her death came in the form of a dissolution resulting from the supernatural power of divine love, as a consuming of the natural vital strength by the languishing of her love, or by the violence of an ecstasy of love which separated the soul from the body, or because by her love Mary prevailed upon God not to maintain her bodily life any longer. Hence, Mary's death appears as a holocaust of love. The sacrifice, made under the cross in the greatest spiritual sorrow, was thereby outwardly completed in a sweet and loving man-ner as in a slumber of love, and therein lies the ideal of that holy and blessed death "in the kiss of the Lord," which 
death, the "wages of sin," will in some degree resemble, in the souls justified by Christ's graces of re-demption. 
Epiphanius, the first to speak definitely about the end of Mary's life, declared that it is not known what death Mary died, and whether in truth she really did die. On the occasion of the controversy against the marianites, the opponents of Mary's virginity, he makes a digression on the "introduced women,"which some tried to justify by the example of the Blessed Virgin. He there says: "The Sacred Scriptures do not say that Mary re-mained in the house of St. John, and the probable reason for the silence of Holy Writ concerning Mary's later life may be found in the fact that her life was so completely heavenly and wonderful, that mankind could not possibly have borne the spectacle. Perhaps the Apocalypse 
 would show by the woman who was snatched from the dragon, that Mary escaped death. If she did die, her death was kept hidden, that people might not think too carnally 
Mary." 
Against the Collyridians, who made Mary a goddess, he insisted that her death, in any case honorable, was certainly possible. Even if she did not die, she was not to be honored as a goddess any more than other saints who 
 Then he develops the following thoughts: "Accord-ing to her nature, Mary remains human and feminine. Hence, like other saints, she is unsuited for adoration, although as an elect vessel, according to her soul and 
she is glorified in a higher degree than others. In 
like manner, 
Elias, although taken up into heaven without dying, nor John the Evangelist, who died in a miraculous manner,' nor Thecla, who remained un-touched in the fire, may be adored." 

Because, like the 
Scriptures, the most ancient  tradition failed to make a positive pronouncement on Mary's death, the mind of the Church can and must pro-nounce in its favor on account of the economy of-re-
12:13 f. 
St. Epiphanius, Haer. 78, no. 11; PG, XLII, 716. nos. 23 and 
PG, XLII, 736. 
With this Epiphanius means, indeed, that sort of death which St. tine, tract. 124 in Joan. (PL, 
1970) brings forward as reported by certain apocrypha. 
Zbid., Haer. 79, no. 5; PG, XLII, 747. 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 155 
demption. Against this firm,decisive and universal mind and 
 of the Church, Dominicus Arnaldi was wrong in attempting, in a voluminous 
to over-throw the thesis of Mary's death. At most it can be said that this thesis does not follow so evidently and con-clusively from an article of faith, as that it could become or is "of faith." The fact may be cited that, even in re-gard to the rest of mankind, 
general 
of death does not bind so peremptorily that exceptions would have to be called inconsistent with faith, 
and Elias, and also those who will be at the end of the 
In Epiphanius the doubt as to the fact of death arises from the certainty that Mary did not fall under 
com-mon "debt of death." The later Greek Fathers emphasize  this certainty even more emphatically. As in the case of Christ, they represent Mary's death as something as-tonishing. They signify their surprise that she, who was free from all laws of sin and punishment due to sin, who brought forth the life of all and was the indestructible temple of the Godhead, should herself suffer 
in consequence, when they tram Mary's death to the universal and divine law, they expressly point out, that this law applied to Mary in a manner its application to ordinary 

Dominicus 

Super B.M.V. Deiparae, Genoa, 1879. 

Concerning Enoch 
and Elias (IV Kings, 
see 
St. Thomas, Ia, q. 102, a.2 ad 3; 
q.49, a.5 ad 2. Concerning the last human beings, Ia 
q.81, a.3 ad 1. 
See Passaglia, op. 
nos. 1483 Thus, one of the most ancient Fathers, St. Andrew of Crete, Or. 1 
in PG, XCVII, 1052, wrote: Quippe ut 
aere 
ad 
non tamquam 
in 
sibi nisi quantum 
oportuit, ut 
ita 
impetum 
MARIOLOGY 
In the Latin Fathers, Mary's death was certainly con-ceived more as a direct 
of sin. For example, St. Augustine writes: "Mary, daughter of Adam, died be-cause of sin, Adam died because of sin, and the flesh of the Lord, taken from Mary, died in order to destroy sin." In the Middle Ages it was Mary's actual death, as an in-herited effect of 
which 
held up as proof against her original immunity from original sin. The concept fol-lowed this line of reasoning: Mary's death, like that of Christ, would certainly not have 
 place had she not been connected with 
sinful race; 
exemption from the penal debt of death was based on the grace of re-demption and her union with the Redeemer; this very union justified the debt of death in another and an orable sense. 
V dealt with the overemphasis on the punitive character of Mary's death by condemning the 73rd thesis of Baius. This thesis reads: "Apart from Christ, no one is born without original sin; 

the Blessed Virgin died because of the 
which she contracted from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, like those of other saints, are the punishment of original and actual sin." 

The idea Mary, like died a violent death 
a ad in 

homo, 
costa ad reciperet. In et ipsa 

ddenta 
nisi 
ut nature impleret, quam ab initio generi immotum. Quum enim diuinum 
qui 
et quam plane est, et ipsam 

licet non 
nobiscum, sed super nos et super eam cogimur. Cf. St. John Damascene, Or. 2 de 	per 	nos no. 2 	
at the end; PG, XCVI, 725-28. 			
St. Augustine, in Ps. 34 	2, n.3; PL, 	335. 			
no. 1073. 			

EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 157 
was advanced from of old through an explana-tion of the words, "a sword shall pierce thy own soul,"in Simeon's prophecy. 
 Fathers always rejected it. St. Ambrose wrote: "neither does the text of Holy Writ nor does history teach that Mary left this life through the sufferings of physical violence; for not the soul, but the body is pierced by a material sword." 
The painlessness of Mary's death was already taught by St. John Damascene: "neither her birth nor her death suffered pain," 
whereas St. Peter Damian holds that, like the Savior Himself on the Mount of Olives, Mary, too, may have experienced the agony of death.'' St. Al-bert the Great deals with this matter in a profound and beautiful manner. He contends that, since Mary beneath the cross had suffered the piercing of her soul by the sword, that is, tasted the full agony of death, she was not allowed to be exposed a second time to like anguish.'' 
The death of love without physical illness, which St. Albert 
 also decidedly stresses, can be conceived in various ways, as indicated above. This thought is brought out most beautifully by Bossuet 
 in his sermon on Mary's assumption into heaven. 

All circumstances considered, Mary's death in an emi-nent degree bears that character which, in Christian phraseology, marks the death of the just as a "falling asleep." Death, in this sense, is not the mere destruction of life, but a temporary retreat from bodily 
whereby 
St. in 
lib. 
n.61; PL, 
1574. 
St. John Damascene, 
PG, 
728. 
St. Peter Damian, De cap. 1; PL, 
801. 
St. Albert the Great, 

q. 131 (in 

). 
Bossuet, (edited by 
IV, pp. 411427; 

the way to eternal rest is made ready for the spirit and a resurrection to a better life is prepared for the body. in contrast to natural death, the Fathers 
call Mary's death "a life-giving death," whereas they call 

Christ's death 
 These names point to still an-
other element which, in the present case, is expressed by the word "falling asleep." Mary's death was not followed by the natural consequences of death; her body did not fall a prey to decomposition, but 
intact in order to be immediately reunited with her soul. 

Just as Mary's death was not due to the dominion of death but belonged entirely to the order of grace, so also is Mary's freedom from that dominion revealed still more clearly by the fact that, after death, her body did not fall a prey to the natural consequences of death, but escaped the fate of corruption, which had been especially desig-nated by God as the penalty of sin. 
Death is an evil which of itself contains nothing un-dignified, but can, under circumstances, be honorable and victorious. Decomposition, however, is quite another thing. It is a real degradation which under no circum-stance whatever is honorable or triumphant, but is always shameful; even in the case of the just it appears as a remnant of the curse of sin. For that reason this evil be-longs to that class of human defects which, for reasons 
to those in Christ, are absolutely excluded from 

Mary also, as being inconsistent with her dignity and 
St. John Damascene, 
2 de no. 2; PG, XCVI, 725; John of in s. Ddp., no. 22; PG, XCVI, 1497; 
I, 101. 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 159 
and especially with the consecration of her whole being by its intimate union with Christ as spouse and Mother. Hence the words from the psalm: "Nor wilt thou 
give Thy 
one to see 
 must of necessity 

be extended to Mary also. 
In Mary herself, incorruption, which prevents decom-position, corresponds to the threefold incorruption of her perfect virginity. ( 
the exclusion of any contamina-tion whatever with the flesh of another in the conception of her Son; (2)the exclusion of any violation whatever of her womb by the birth; (3) the freedom (perfected by Christ's conception) from 
fomes of sin, because of which the body of any other mortal is called by the Apostle 
 a "body of death" and a "body of sin." Almost all the reasons in favor of this threefold form of her vir-ginal incorruption hold also for her exemption from de-

With 
 latter the third form is connected 
even directly, since it presents Mary's flesh as a flesh divinely and spiritually glorified. In like manner, acknowledged biblical figures of the 

 of the virgin, 
the ark of the covenant 
 from imperish-able wood, Solomon's 
of 
are no less appli-cable to the imperishableness of her body. 
On the contrary, no single reason can be adduced why decomposition should be fitting or admissible. If her rela-tion to the rest of mankind is urged, this is outweighed by her special union with Christ which in this, as in many other points, requires a 
to Himself. But even apart from that, Mary's complete freedom from sin would 

See I, 68 ff., of this work;also I, 102 ff.; and supra, chap. 6. 
dispense her from the universal fate of corruption affect-ing the rest of mankind. Moreover, if this freedom from sin rests on the redemption by Christ, surely, it would be contrary to the dignity of the Redeemer and the entire of redemption, if her body, after being the seat instrument of the principle of liberation from all 

and the means of its union with all other re-deemed souls, itself were to be given over to corruption. 
For these obvious reasons no Catholic 

ever openly and directly doubted this privilege of Mary, not even those who, for lack of positive proof, doubted the certainty of Mary's anticipated resurrection. It is evi-dent that the imperishableness of Mary's body is also contained,a fortiori, in the teaching regarding its immedi-ate resurrection and in the teachings of revelation to be advanced for it. Essentially, however, the imperishable-ness is even more certain than the resurrection; for it is on a level with Mary's perfect virginity, with which, ac-cording to the Fathers, it is related. Hence it forms a prin-ciple which determines the necessity for her immediate resurrection and assumption. 
From the very beginning of the deliberation, the Fathers used the comparison of the state of incorrupt-ibility after death with that of the virginity. Thus St. Andrew of Crete wrote: "As the womb of her who brought forth the Redeemer remained ever uncorrupt, so likewise her dead body never perished. 
admirable thing! Her birth escaped all corruption, and her grave did not admit that final corruption after death." 
 Again in the very 

ancient 
we read: "Who did not con-
tract the 
 of 
 nor endure dissolution 

St. Andrew of Crete, Or 2 
PG, 
1081. 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 161 
(decomposition) in her grave." 
Later on, testimonies 
accumulated indefinitely. This comparison is nota mere analogy. It is a theological 
proof or a development of the 
 idea of Mary's 
virginal incorruption, that is, of the "Virgin consecrated by her divine espousal." This idea is expressed also by 
the writer of the letter 
me in the words, "Hence 
 because incorrupt," 
 an expression which embraces the one element as well as the other. 
In any case, the point at issue in regard to the imperish-ableness of Mary's body is not a mere matter of fit-tingness, which allows the opposite view to be held, but a point of propriety from the opposite of which Christian sentiment recoils. Indeed, practically all theological writers, without exception, subscribe to the views held by the author of the tract de 
Beatae ascribed to St. Augustine, and expressed in the words: "I tremble to say 

 that most sacred body was given as food to worms in the common process of decay, because I am unable to think so." 

Starting from this argument de convenientiu, the Latin Fathers in general, like this author, often speak of only a sort of moral certainty of imperishableness. As in the case of the immaculate conception, this results from the fact that Mary's relation to Christ and God is not under-stood in the 
sense of a divine espousal, such as apper-tains to the dogmatic idea of the Virgin. This is quite 
PL, LXXII, 245. 
Pseudo-Jerome ( 
me; PL, 

132. 
Pseudo-Augustine, 
c.6; PL, 
1146. The text in reads somewhat different: . . . traditum et 

vious in the writer previously mentioned. He deduces the unseemliness of the decomposition from the physical unity between mother and son according to the flesh, without appealing to the 
of the bridal unity ac-cording to the flesh as a spiritually judicial, and organic bond. But he stresses the reciprocal unity by reason of the oneness of the flesh, which he illustrates in the words, "the flesh of Jesus, the flesh of Mary." 
 This sentence, ascribed to St. Augustine has come to us from an anony-mous writer. 
For the rest, although the evil in question is less than original sin, it is evident that in Mary's intimate relation with Christ, the preservation against corruption is in-cluded as certainly as is the Immaculate Conception, per-haps even more so. Mary's espousal with God at the be-ginning of her life was in reality not so certain and, in any case, not so effective as the espousal solemnized and completed by Christ's conception. Hence it is not sur-prising that, in all those writers, whether of ancient or of modern times, who speak doubtfully concerning Mary's resurrection, no word of manifest doubt is ever ex-pressed concerning her preservation from decomposition. And it was sound, theological tact for the Greek Fa-thers and the eminent theological defenders of her resurrection to stress emphatically Mary's incorruptibil-ity. Witness the previously mentioned tract of 

The 
reasons for the imperishableness of Mary's body, as found in 
Fathers, are reduced to four by 
Op. 
c.5; PL, 
1145. 
See previous chapter, note 21. 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 163 
Passaglia. He calls them the legal, theological, econom-ical, and analogical 
The legal reason is Mary's immunity from that sin upon which God laid the curse of decomposition. The the-ological reason is Mary's motherhood as such, since her flesh became thereby the flesh of Christ and of the Logos. These reasons may be called formal; the one removes the debt of corruption, the other lays a formal claim to ruption, which has its root in the dignity of both Christ and His mother. Since the theological reason includes also the sublime ministery connected with the divine motherhood, and a corresponding proportional gratitude, reward, and childlike homage on the part of Christ, it likewise embraces a debt of compensation and justice. The economical reason is the same divine motherhood, since thereby Mary is the mother of grace and of all the fruits of grace, therefore also of immunity from corruption, and her body is the seat and instrument of the principle of imperishableness and the means for its union with all mankind. The analogical reason is Mary's virginity, main-tained and sanctified by the divine motherhood. 
The writer of the tract, De 
summarizes these reasons at the end of his thesis in a somewhat dif-ferent form. He says: "And so it seems right that, with an indescribable joy of soul and body, Mary rejoices worthily in, with, and through her own Son; that no blemish of corruption ought to follow her as no corrup-tion of integrity followed her bringing forth of such a Son: so that she who was imbued with so much grace 
Passaglia, 
nos. Number 1476 speaks of a fifth reason, 
that 
Mary's character as antithesis of Eve. 
might ever be incorrupt; that life might be whole for her who brought forth the whole and perfect life for all; that 

be with Him whom she bore in her womb; that 
whom she brought forth, kept warm, and fed, she might ever be Mary, the Mother, nurse, handmaid and follower of God." 

At the time when belief in the tradition concerning the bodily assumption was most shaken, Hincmar of Reims emphasized the principal reasons in the following verses: 
"Who when He rose from the dead, made the bodies Of many rise, taking them with Him to the stars of heaven. Holier than these together, thou art made worthy to bring 
forth 
By thy virginal 
the Word of life; 
The holy flesh of God remained incorrupt in the grave, Thine also, from whom God Himself assumed a body." 

The doctrine of the incorruptibility of Mary's body being premised, the third element of her immunity from the dominion of death follows of itself. In the language of the Church it is indicated preferably in this manner: The raising up and glorification of the body, in Mary's case, must not await the general resurrection, but, as in the case of Christ, must take place within the shortest 
Pseudo-Augustine, Lib. 	ass., PL, XL, 1148. 	
Hincmar of 	Reims, 	verses 	(Mon. Germ. 	
Traube], p. 			
dum 			

quos 
ad 
poli. 
his 

tuo 

Quue 

ipse 
sible time, just as her death took place for no other reason than that of her conformity with Christ. For, the incor-ruptibility of the body, without the immediate resurrec-tion, is so far from satisfying the reasons on which it is 
based, that the Fathers and 
 deal with in-corruptibility and immediate 
in Mary's case, as in that of Christ, as correlative ideas. That correlation appears evident when we consider that, if a separation of body and soul lasted longer than the purpose of death required in the economy of redemption, that separation would just as well signify a dominion of death, as would the decomposition of the body. 
Consequently, just as in the case of Christ the prophecy concerning His immunity from corruption, in view of His exemption from the bonds of death, is advanced in the Acts of the Apostles 
 as proof of His resurrection, so in Mary's case 
imperishableness of her body includes the immediate resurrection; for with Christ she shares the exemption from the bonds of death. In fact, in this re-spect-also, Mary's complete union with Christ is sup-ported by a prophecy, namely, by the 

The prophetic union between Mary and Christ, in an un-conquerable and victorious enmity waged against hell, comprises the exclusion and complete overcoming of all those evils and 
which, through the agency of the devil, came upon mankind in and through sin, and the continuation of which is a manifestation of the kingdom of the devil at war with God, or the attempted destruc -tion of the kingdom of God among men. 
to 
the Apostle St. 
 to these evils, besides the spirit 
Acts 
3:15. 

Rom., chaps. 5 and 8; I 
f.. 54 ff.; Heb. 
f. 
and concupiscence of the flesh, death is numbered as the last enemy. And, therefore, Christ's resurrection is taken as the completion of the victory over hell, because in that too the victory over death is revealed. As Mary triumphed completely over sin in the spirit by her permanent im-munity from original sin and all personal sin, and over sin in her flesh by her freedom from concupiscence and by her virginal conception of Christ, so she must also with Christ triumph over hell's dominion of death, by an im-mediate resurrection. Apart from this promise, Mary's special participation with Christ in the resurrection and glorification of the body is guaranteed by a series of theological factors, based either directly or indirectly on her divine mother-hood. Their meaning can be strengthened still further by the application of various general principles premised by the Sacred Scriptures: 
In the Mother of God, precisely because she is such only througli and in her body, a 
 separation of body and soul is unthinkable, just as in Christ the separa-tion of His body and soul from His divinity would be in-conceivable on account of the hypostatic union. 
2. Mary's quality as motherly bride of Christ requires a permanent and complete unity of life which could be dissolved only temporarily in view of the ends of that union. To this the teaching of St. Paul 
 must be applied concerning the love of a man for his wife as his flesh, which was ideally realized in Christ's love for 
Church; and this the more so since Mary, in a singular way, is the flesh of Christ and the principal member of His Church. Ac-cordingly, the power of Christ's love for His Church had 
Eph. 

to be revealed in Mary in a specific and complete manner. 
3. To this can be added the principles of the Sacred Scriptures concerning the honor due to father and mother, and also concerning the 
 in Christ's glory, promised to those who share in His sufferings and death. The honor of the mother requires the complete safe-guarding of her entire existence. The material service performed by Mary, whereby she used the substance of 
her 
for the formation and sustenance of Christ, 
demands the glorification of her body in a distinctive manner. Furthermore, Mary's singular, intimate, and ab-solute union with Christ in His sufferings and death re-perfect participation with Him in His life of 

4. As instrument and cooperator in the work of re-
demption, 
must most perfectly experience in her-
self the fruits of that sublime work; and this fruit so the more, since only in a risen and glorified body could she, in union with Christ, effectively continue her as mediatrix, and be the perfect surety of the efficacy of the act of redemption for the rest of mankind. In this respect it may be said that, without Mary's and glorification, there would have been not only a weak-ening of that union with Christ, in virtue of which as new Eve, she belongs at the side of the heavenly Adam for 

complete possession of life, but the guaranty for our redemption would also be lacking precisely apart from Christ, the evidence of the efficacy of redemp-
tion should be most 
and expected. Moreover, in 
the economy of redemption, the peculiar type of the in-defectibility and eternal vitality of the Church would be lacking. 
Since the time of Sts. 
of Jerusalem and An-
drew of Crete, the words of the psalm, "Arise, 
Lord, into Thy resting place: Thou and the ark which Thou sanctified," 
 as 
the triple transfer of the Ark of the Covenant (through the river Jordan into the promised land, up Sion, and into the temple of Solomon) were applied to Mary's assumption into heaven, and in-deed, to her bodily assumption, inasmuch as the Ark of the Covenant in particular was a figure of Mary's body. In the light of all these reasons, this application does not seem to be arbitrary, but a symbolism fully justified. Everything indicates that the Ark of the Covenant, which St. John beheld in heaven in the temple of nothing else but a symbol of Mary, and that thus the ful-fillment of the figure is proved. In connection with counterpart of the Ark of the Covenant, the vision of the 
clothed with the sun" appearing in heaven, which immediately follows 
 and without doubt has reference to the prophecy of the protevangelium, must be understood as follows: The features of this representa-tion of the Church, which are generally taken from the representation of Christ's mother, point especially to the Mother of Christ already glorified in body and soul. For, only in her completed glorification is she the 

figure of the heavenly nature of the Church and of her invincibility in the conflict against the dragon. Only in this way, as the sign in heaven, does she form the coun-terpart of the sign on earth in Isaias and 

it was precisely in St. John, from whom the 

first mention of Mary's death is expected and to whom, therefore, the ancient legends concerning Mary's death were traced, that an indication of that passing away 
actually given. It is true that this indication is to be understood in a mystical manner, but for that very rea-son it indicates the profound and dogmatic meaning of the fact in a most significant way: rather, it presents the fact entirely from its dogmatic point of view. If besides it were definitely established that the saints, who rose on the occasion of Christ's death, rose to immortal life, that 
furnish an analogous argument for Mary's resur-rection, as in the sanctification of St. John the Baptist a warrant is found for her immaculate conception. But that fact is anything but certain. 
In any case, Mary's bodily assumption into heaven is so firmly established in the biblical and ecclesiastical idea of her person, and is so clearly contained therein, that the Church needs no special historical tradition to establish it. Hence, from its very beginning the ecclesi-astical feast of the passing away or the assumption of the Mother of God, in contrast with the death of other saints, quite entirely of itself took the form of a feast of the glorification of her body and soul. Even if in this East took more or less account of the historical tradition, or the empty tomb, still the idea proper lay entirely in the dogmatic field. In the Latin Church, it is the more evident that the Church's concept of the feast was inde-pendent of the legends, since at the very time that Pope Gelasius pronounced apocryphal the book de (or shortly after) the Latin liturgies began to explain the purport of the fact on distinctly theological lines. 

It was, therefore, a complete misjudgment of the state 
of affairs, for the writer of the letter 
me to have 
overlooked this dogmatic and liturgical testimony of the Church and all arguments comprised in the dignity and position of the Mother of God, and to have considered the fact as dubious and unproven, just because it was not related in an authentic and historical writing, but only in the apocrypha, condemned by Pope Gelasius. Since this letter was current under the name of St. Jerome, it caused confusion for a long time in the minds of the West and weakened the firmness of the testimony, just as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, since the twelfth century, met with opposition, because it was ascer-tained that only uncertain revelations of later date argued in its favor, 
the ancient and certain 
could 
with 
 be reconciled therewith. 
The more one reverted to the liturgical testimony and the theological foundation, the stronger the conviction grew; so that for centuries the thesis of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven was no longer presented merely as a pious opinion. Its denial was censured as audacious in the strictest sense of the 
The attempt of many scholarly critics, at the end of the seventeenth century, to weaken the value of the more ancient patristic and litur-gical together with their historical founda-tion, failed all the more to disturb the now assured and universal conviction, since for the most part these scholars themselves declared that this meaning deserved fullest attention and carried considerable weight. 
The first and most important scriptural argument from 

EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 171 
the request for a dogmatic definition of the doctrine pre-sented in 1870, although formerly the theologians paid 
little attention to that 
 The other biblical and the-
ological arguments were found mainly in the festal ser-mons of 
 Greek Fathers, beginning with St. Modestus, as also in the Tractatus de assumptione beatae 
from 
 St. John Damascene for ex-
ample, writes: "It was becoming that this divine dwell-
ing, 
undug well of clensing water, this 

field of celestial bread, this never irrigated vineyard of heavenly grapes, this olive-tree of paternal compassion, laden with ever-new foliage and beautiful fruits, was never confined to the inner parts of the earth; but rather, as He on the third day had raised from the sepulcher that holy and incorrupt body which He had taken from her and had united to His own person, so also this mother was snatched from the grave and conformed to her Son; and as He had descended to her, so she, as being closely united with that greater and more perfect tabernacle 
the flesh of Christ), was taken up into heaven. It was becoming that she, who had received the Word of God in the guest-chamber of her womb, should be placed in the tents of her Son; and as the Lord had said that He must be about His Father's business, so it was also fitting for the mother to dwell in the home of her Son, 
in the house of the Lord and the dwelling of our God. It was becoming that the body of her who had preserved her virginity without stain should also after death be preserved incorrupt. It was fitting that she who had looked up to her Son on the cross, receiving there the sword 
Gen. 
Martin, 

See note 33 supra. 
172 MARIOLOGY 
through her soul which in bearing Him she had escaped, should behold that Son now seated with His Father." Later., Peter de La Celle wrote, in connection with the text from Jeremias, Return, 

virgin of Israel, to 
thy cities"  First, return from the captivity of the world: because she should not be held in captivity, by whom those who are in captivity are to be-freed. Secondly, return from mankind without corruption of the 
because, as thou art immune from the corrup-tion of sin, so must thou go into immortality, mortality being taken away by the grace of God. Thirdly, return to the freedom of the glory of the children of God: because, as sin never reigned in thy mortal body, so art thou worthy, in that same virginal 
fully to enjoy the freedom of the spirit, which the angels enjoyed in their spiritual substance from the moment of their creation, or rather of 
 Fourthly, return, that we may gaze upon thee in the exalted position among the angels and in the glory of those already beatified: be-cause, as we long to be in the presence of thy Son, so we desire to gaze upon the glory and beauty of thy face, and we shall be illuminated on all sides by the light of thy countenance." 

Regarding the text from the Apocalypse, 
the 
of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His 
testament was seen in His temple," 
 it should be re-marked, 
 in this vision the 
of the covenant is ob-viously as symbolic as is the lamb in the other. In the Apocalypse, Christ's humanity is always represented by 

dm., no. 14; PG, XLVI,740.

PL, CCII, 850. 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 173 
the lamb, and indeed by the lamb which stands on the of God, thus above the ark of the covenant. Con-sequently the ark cannot refer to Christ. Accordingly, it can refer only to the mother of the lamb, either exclusively or at least primarily. For, the Church is never referred as the "ark of the covenant," but always as "the City or House of God." 
Here the reference to Mary is seen to be more fitting, then a beautiful connection is made in the text 
what precedes and what follows. For, the pre-ceding figure of the two witnesses 
 who, having been murdered 
 Babylon, ascend into heaven and afterwards descend in order to rise again in their bodies, most nat-urally corresponds to the death of the two princes of the apostles. This figure represents how they themselves, and also the popes and bishops martyred after them, live again in their successors, and thus put to shame the efforts, of hell to destroy the Church. This applies especially to the last period of the persecutions under Diocletian, from which the Church emerged victorious. 
this is 
most 
 linked the reference to the glorification 
of the Mother and Queen of the Apostles and of the Church. During the first phase of the conflict Mary re-mained on earth; but by her assumption into heaven and by her personal return to life, she serves as guaranty and security for the continuation of the Church which, soon after triumphing over the pagan persecutions, must at-tain even on earth to full glorification. 
On the other hand, the figure of the ark of the cove-nant, thus understood, leads to that of 
 "woman clothed with the sun." For, the ark of 
covenant, 

174 MARIOLOGY 
clothed with the glory of the Lord, is as complete and analogous a figure as the 
clothed with the sun." In Mary this latter figure must also especially symbolize the invincibility and immortality of the Church in her struggle against the powers of 
which is effected by her being clothed with divine glory and power. This again points to Mary's bodily assumption into heaven. 

The testimonies of tradition to Mary's 
assump-
tion into heaven, and also the controversies concerning it, center around the feast, as was the case with the maculate Conception. But here there are practically no witnesses for the introduction of the feast, and probably the feast itself is much older than the most ancient and positive testimonies concerning it indicate." Most prob-ably it was introduced very soon after the Council of Ephesus in the East and West, as the first individual feast of the Mother of God, for all earlier ones were at the 
same time feasts of our Lord. By this feast 
was 
honored in her own person, for her individual holiness, as are other saints, on the day of her "passing away," her passing over" or her "birth into heaven." 
Such a reflection of Christ's ascension presents itself naturally in Mary's assumption from a double aspect. First, it was an elevation above all creatures. Secondly, it was an immediate assumption of the entire person, soul and body. This meaning cannot, indeed, be deduced from the name itself, since the latter is used at 
for 

The first 
date is given us by Cnllistos 18; 

who tells us that about the year 
Em-peror Maurice made the of 
to be celebrated on about the Assumption appear actually only in the be 
seventh century. The former feast, which was celebrated in of the month of January, may 
have Ma 
"passing 
away," but certainly not her assumption into heaven. 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 175 
other saints also. But neither can it be 
from the other of the feast ("falling asleep," "resting," "pass-ing over") that in Mary's case nothing more was meant by such expressions than 
 the case of other saints. 

sermons of the Greek Fathers remove all 
doubt as to the purport of the original idea of the feast. The 
prayers of the it is true, contain a indication, but certainly a sig-nificant one. It reads: "Almighty and eternal God who 

willed to connect the ineffable mystery of the Word 
of Thy only-begotten Son, to earthly bodies 
venerable and glorious Mary ever Virgin, we 
of Thy clemency that by Thy favor we may merit to attain what we call to mind in the veneration of this mystery." 
 All the more distinct, in the 

is the collect of the procession before the 
Mass (which is omitted in the Roman Missal, but was up in many "propers"of the Mass itself). It reads: "May we receive eternal help, 
Lord, from the festivity we celebrate 
 day, on which the Holy 
of God underwent temporal death, but could not be held down by the bonds of death, because she brought forth Thy in-
carnate Son, our Lord." 
 That here the bonds of 
the "sorrows of hell" in the Acts of the 

signify the power of 
over the body, is of 
evi-dent, but was superabundantly pointed out by St. Al-bert the 
Still more fully is this dogmatic concept of the festal thought explained and presented in the 
or 
PI,, 1174. 

St. Albert the Great, q. 132; see also 
no. 1468, note 5. 
cient Gallic Missal used in Gaul before the time of Charles the Great, and not only in one place but in three places, in codices which go back to the sixth century. In the be-ginning it reads: "Today's inexplicable mystery of the noble mother of our Lord, the more it is heralded, the more singular it becomes among men because of the as-sumption of the Virgin, whose integrity of life merited her Son, and whose death had no equal." 
 In the Collectio 
post c. 
it reads: "We beseech Him 
who dwells in the virginal guest-chamber, the bridegroom of that blessed nuptial chamber, the master of the house, 

the King of the 
who conferred such innocence 
upon His Mother, as made her worthy to bear the in-carnate Godhead who, untainted by this world, pre-served her purity of morals, who by reason of her assump-tion did not experience any decay because she bore the 
author of life: this Lord we 
 in His mercy to de-
liver the dead from the infernal regions to the place where the body of the Blessed Virgin was borne from the grave." 
 Finally at the end of a detailed preface, rich in thought, it is said: "Rightly art thou happily received in thy assumption by Him whom thou by faith piously receive to be brought forth, so that thou, who wast untainted by this earth, mightest not be held enclosed by the rock." 
From this text also it follows that purely dogmatic rea-
of the feast, like the feasts of our Lord, as a sacrament or 

PL, 244 has "apud 
and not 
"apud quem 
p. 1565; see 
PL, 
476, in which the same text is to be found). 

mystery. It appears that this was the case with the Greeks also. To the word, mystery, they joined the secondary concept, already given it by St. Basil 
 namely, of a truth which is not clearly enunciated in the Sacred Scriptures. The matter is especially clear in St. John Damascene. First he explains the purport of the feast 

and argues in support of it. Only then does he proceed to present the external circumstances of Mary's death, which come to us from the scant data of historical 

John of Euboea also elucidated very beautifully the 
dogmatic 
feast in relation to the ten 

other feasts of our Lord and His Mother. He writes: "Be-sides the full round of ten solemnities, we celebrate also the life-bearing dormition of the Mother of God. We do so after the ascension into heaven of our Lord Christ and the descent of the most holy and vivifying Spirit upon the blessed apostles. This is called both a great and the final feast, because it is the completion of the benign economy of our Lord and God." 
 The Greek text is somewhat corrupt, but the sense, as here given, is evident. 
Because of the lack of explicit and positive testimonies from the Sacred Scriptures and tradition, a doubt as to the soundness of the festal idea seems to have arisen in the East in the seventh century. But it was of a temporary nature, so that since the eighth century the Eastern tradi-tion is unanimous and decisive, and all the Eastern Churches celebrate the feast in the sense of the bodily 

John of Euboca, Or. in concept. s. Deip., no. 22; PG, XCVI, 1497; see also A. 
. . . , I, 101. 

The Armenians even inserted this meaning of the bodily assumption in their profession of unity (1342) in these words : "The Church of the Armenians believes and holds that, by the power of Christ, the Holy Mother of God was bodily assumed into heaven." At the Greek schismatic synod of Jerusalem held against the Protestants, some very decisive and beautiful explana-tions on this subject were quoted from various sermons of Cyril Lucaris whom the Protestants had claimed as their own, as proofs of his orthodox 

In the West, after the time of 

doubt was aroused by the letter of 
ing out the lack of reliable documents and the danger of following the apocrypha. The writer, otherwise a clever 
theologian, 
the defenders of the bodily assump-tion to advance nothing more than the analogies from the legend about the death of John the Evangelist, and from the text of the Sacred Scriptures concerning 
 just 
 rose with Christ. In so far as the resurrection of these latter was permanent, as is probably the case, he admits that from this the conclusion can be drawn for the resur-rection of Mary, and then concludes, "that we do not deny this fact concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, al-though for the sake of prudence (that doubtful matters may not be accepted as certain) it is more fitting to hold the opinion out of a pious desire, rather than to define inconsiderately what cannot be known for certain with-out danger of error." 

Also the writer of the homily, found among St. 

SS. 
1218. 
. . . .XI ( 
198 f. 
Pseudo-Jerome 
me; PL, 

(de parenthesis is taken from 123 ). 
EXEMPTION FROM BONDS OF DEATH 179 
tine's works, In 
beatae 
warns against the apocrypha and states that Catholic historical authority is lacking concerning the fact and "manner in which the Virgin Mary passed from here to the heavenly 

that it 
be foolish, however, to look for 
body on earth, since even the body of Moses is not to be found here; that we need not be concerned about the place where her body rests; it is sufficient to know that Mary, as Queen of Angels, reigns in 

The doubts aroused by that letter obtained large and steady circulation by the insertion of the excerpt in ques-

this letter, was inserted in the Martyrology of St. Ado 

and from there in that of Usuard. In the latter 

it reads as follows: "Where that venerable temple of the Holy Ghost is concealed by divine 
 and decree, the devoutly 
not to know, rather than to 
teach something frivolous or apocryphal which had to be held." 
 It is remarkable that the fear of the apocrypha was aroused here by an apocryphal document! 

these outward objections, the author of the 
Tractatus de 
ventured only with timidity to assert the theological reasons. 
 fact that 
soon he himself was thought to be St. 
 did much 
Pseudo-Augustine ( 
208 
ass., no. 2; PL, 2130. 
XCV. 1490. 
of 

4 

Sept.; PL. CXXIII, 18 Kal. Sept., PL, CXXIV, 365 (the same text as found in Ado). apocryphal document in question is the 

me, 

to St. Jerome. 
(Anonymous), 

ass.; see 
29 supra. 
to weaken the based on the authority of the  Jerome,  to justify the theological 
against the one-sided standpoint of the exegete and It was this theological reasoning, together with the appeal to the oration 
 but by no means any regard for the Marian legend from which, only inci-dentally, the text from Pseudo-Dionysius was taken, confirmed the ever growing conviction among the of the Middle Ages. It is true that the aid of 

the supposedly historical tradition and of many genuine texts from the Fathers 
 was later invoked. But this only resulted in exposing the doctrine to new attacks, did not fail to appear. 
The renewal of the controversy in the seventeenth cen-tury took place as a result of the fact that the cathedral chapter of Paris requested the cancellation of the note in the Usuard Martyrology, there in use. Canon to-
gether with 
 who were later joined by 
mont 
 and to a certain extent by Alexander renewed the critical objections in behalf of the modera-tion of the Church, and included also the ancient patristic and liturgical documents. 

In the-rebuttals, which have since appeared, the au-thors, unfortunately, were often led from the purely the-ological standpoint to the defense of documents which 
of defense or were useless. Even Lana, who  criticised the faults of his predecessors, went 
himself too far. 
 his was the most complete and 
was clearly seen by St. Albert the Great, 
q.131 (edited by 
and 
by St. Thomas, 
q.27, a. 1 St. Peter Canisins, De 
Deip., lib. 5, cap. 4 et 5. See art. "Assomption," in 
cath., 1, 2131. 
I, Notes 
S.V., 16. 
Alexander, 
2, cap. 4, art 3. 

universal refutation 
 of the critical objections, so far as this can be given. 
According to what has been said so far, a dogmatic definition of Mary's bodily assumption would be just as possible as was that of the Immaculate Conception. When we consider the inner relationship between these two doctrines, and especially what has been explained con-cerning the texts 
the Apocalypse, the dogmatic definition would appear most appropriate for our times. In any case, such a definition would not only 
the pious desires for Mary's complete glorification, but would also define a dogma which occupies an important posi-tion in the whole system of doctrines, among others, Mary's assumption as a counterpart of Christ's resurrec-tion. 
It could be said that, as Christ's resurrection, strikingly established by eyewitnesses, forms the material and for-mal foundation of Christian faith and hope, so Mary's resurrection, which is guaranteed together with and by that of Christ and forms only the material contents of faith, is next to Christ the climax of faith in the objectively accomplished work of redemption and forms a secondary guaranty of 
hope. Thus stated, the analogy as well as the essential difference between both facts is emphasized. 
On the other hand, the difference is minimized too much when it is asserted, that all internal reasons for Christ's resurrection hold also proportionally for that of Mary, or when the latter and the former are presented alike as established and handed down on the testimony of the twelve apostles as eyewitnesses. 
Lana, 

PART V MARY THE 

CHAPTER IX 
Mary's Supernatural Activity 
EFORE considering the activity the Mother of the Redeemer displayed in the work of redemption, it will be well for us to define her special vocation and her capability with regard to the supernatural activity which results from the distinguishing mark of her person or from the grace of her motherhood. 
The grace of her motherhood is the principle of a super-natural activity specifically her own, analogous to Christ's grace of union in His humanity. It endows this activity with a power and dignity all its own. 
This power of Mary must not be traced to the fact that her activity simply proceeds from and belongs to a divine person. It remains 
of a created being united with Christ and God as His bride. But from that particular rela-tionship it draws a distinctive power and dignity. To that extent, therefore, her supernatural activity must be constituted like that of other human beings. 
The distinguishing mark of her person as bride of Christ is conceived fully in her capacity of bearer and temple of the Holy Ghost. Likewise, the foundation for this special power and dignity of her activity must be traced to this capacity of her person. Thus it must be found formally in the fact that Mary is the organ of the Holy Ghost, who works in her in the same way that Christ's humanity is the instrument of the Logos. 
185 

this in a more complete and distinctive sense than can be the case in other created beings. 
For 	reason Mary's 	supernatural activity answer-	
ing to 	distinguishing mark is further defined as fol-	
lows. 			

After the conception of the Son of God, Mary appears as a dynamic and authoritative organ of the Holy Ghost in the physical influence she exercises upon the forma-tion and constituting of Christ's body and His corporal life through the natural strengh of her heart and soul; this influence is moved and sustained by the power of the 

He is given to mankind, or helps to realize the effusion of the eternal Light into the world. 
In this respect, to the exclusion of all other Mary alone cooperates in this most sublime and super-natural work of God, and she does this in a manner super-latively more perfect than the cooperation of any other creature in the supernatural works of God, as, 
the 

of the sacraments. For, in union with the Holy 
Ghost, Mary exercises an intrinsic influence upon the sub-
stance of 
supernatural 
 by her own natural 
strength. She communicates the supernatural gift of God 
Scheeben speaks about the activity 
Christ's human nature. The 
Scholastics 
of a physically activity; hut, like the Greek 
Fathers, he prefers "dynamic." Scheeben writes: "This power of Christ ap-pears as a in the supernatural spiritual 
of God in gen-eral, which extends itself to 
actions relating to the salvation of mankind, and consequently not only to the physical actions in the narrower sense of the word." Thus expressed, this power an character as against a purely imperative, meritorious one. 
to the world as a gift 
is given to her first, or co-

by her. Thus in this work 
this gift of God 
she participates not as a mere bearer of the divine strength or as a mere delegate from God. 
This specific activity resulting from the grace of her divine motherhood is the only supernatural activity of a dynamic and authoritative nature proper to Mary, at least in the ordinary manner, and as a quasi-natural wed-ding gift 
to the grace of her 
 In respect to the effects of God's grace in others, Mary does not possess that kind of dynamic activity exercised by the organs of the Church, as for instance the vicars of Christ in the dispensing of the sacraments. Far less does she possess that activity which, as the incarnate Word, Christ exercises by His own eternal Spirit, and in which His flesh participates as flesh of the Word under the form of physical bearer of the power of the eternal Spirit. 
However, Mary's dynamic and supernatural activity in the birth of Christ is the eminent and specific prototype for the intended activity in the organs of the Church. So far 
the activity of the latter depends on the prin-ciple of grace born of Mary, it is included also in Mary's dynamic activity, so that it can be regarded as its reflec-tion and extension. 
On the other hand, by the fact that Mary's dynamic ac-tivity aims at Christ's activity and helps to bring it about, hers is related to His in such a manner that the effects of 
His activity can be ascribed, 
participation, to her also 
as to a dynamic and cooperating factor. 
Mary's flesh and blood in no wise possess a special, in-herent, and vivifying power as is proper to the flesh and blood of the Logos. To the vivifying flesh of Christ hers 
is only as the earth impregnated by the dew of the Holy Ghost. But her womb is and remains the original seat and her heart 
living root of Christ's vivifying flesh, and to that every activity of Christ can be regarded as arising from her 
and especially from her heart, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost. 

Besides this special and supernatural dynamic ac-tivity, the distinguishing mark of Mary's person attaches, in no less degree, a specific and supernatural value to her moral actions and also a moral and judicial power answering thereto. 
The actions of the Mother of God may be regarded ob-jectively as marks of honor and service toward God. As such their inner and specific value is based on that her maternal services to her Son honor God in a special way, and that the value of Christ's religious ac-tions and the offering comprised 
is, in a special manner, included in Mary's maternal offering of these actions. That her actions might possess that specific value answering to their object, they must be performed in God's bridal manner, and thus spring from a proportionately eminent, abundant, and supernatural flow of grace from the Holy Ghost. Hence, the specific value of these actions, 
their specific holiness and agreeableness to God, is based on 
 special dignity which belongs to Mary's person as bride of the Logos and bearer of the Holy Ghost, and by virtue of which she stands in fitting rela-tion to the dignity of the object and purport of her ac-tions. 

The value of Mary's actions, resulting from the dignity of her person, must be defined in a manner analogous to the specific value of Christ's actions, so that this is due to these actions in that they proceed from the instrument of a divine Person, and, being inspired by his Person, they are also sustained by Him. 
When the Apostle says of other living temples of the Holy Ghost,' that the Holy Ghost "prays in them with unutterable sighs," this statement is all the more true of Mary. For, she is the prototype of the Church. In her pub-lic worship and prayers the Church possesses a specific and supernatural power and dignity in so far as she is the instrument of the Holy Ghost who works in and by her. This happens in a analogous to the divine Wis-dom of the Old Testament who, prior to His hypostatic union with a human nature, was represented as function-ing liturgically in the priesthood of 
Thus conceived, Mary's religious activity, like that of Christ and the Church, has naturally a supernatural and morally judicial power, not only for her own person, but for others also, indeed, for mankind as a whole, and that from two aspects, from its object as well as its principle. 
It stands to reason that this obvious power of Mary's actions, like their inner value, differs essentially from that of Christ and bears an entirely different character. The actions performed by Christ to the advantage of others possess in themselves a power which is perfectly meritorious and intrinsically capable of meriting and applying at will. Those of Mary have a power which is 
only imperfectly meritorious and 
 supplicatory. 

Rom. 

In the case of Christ we speak of actions meritorious in themselves, of Mary only of 
obtained 
God through prayer. But, unlike the intercession of the saints, the prayer of the bride of Christ, the instrument of the Holy Ghost, the first-born daughter of the Father, bears the character of prayer eminently holy and pleasing to God, and at the same time authoritative, in the same sense in which 
power of the Church's blessing is For, like the prayer of the Church, that of Mary is pre-eminently a 

columbae (murmur of a dove), in which is heard the murmur of the Holy Ghost Himself. 

It is evident that the entire supernatural activity to which Mary is called by virtue of the grace of her mother-hood can be exercised only in dependence on and in and communication with that of Christ. In this Catholic idea of Mary as the new Eve, the bride of the heavenly Adam, and the instrument of the Holy Ghost, we see her really called and enabled to participate in the activity and influence of Christ in an intimate and far-reaching manner. And indeed it is but fitting that her power and activity should form an integral part, foreseen 
 defined by God Himself, in the work which Christ was sent to 

The community of power and activity between Christ and Mary is so close and all-embracing that earth can a perfect likeness of it be found in tion of any two persons. It can be understood and valued 

in the community of action the Logos, between the humanity and the divinity of Christ, as well as by the wonderful community of life between Christ and Mary before His birth. In the natural order, the cooperation and mutual influence on each other of head and heart provide the only fitting analogue. Or 
 the dynamic and mutual relation of acting suffering existing between the head and the heart, finds 

here its most 
realization in the dynamic 
of both persons. 
be distinctly noted that the relation of the Mother of the Redeemer to the activity of her Son must not be conceived in the same way as that of other 
to the 
 activity of their sons. In 
 case of 
the latter the work of the 
is only a preparation, 
consists in the spiritual and corporal education of her child. It ceases, therefore, with the beginning of his professional activity, without a direct participation in it. In Mary's case, there was no need of exercising any spir-itual influence at all on her Son; rather, from the very moment of 
 conception, she herself was the object of His divine influence. 
 the period of maternal care given to her Son is at the same time the period of her own spiritual education for an immediate participation in the mission of her Son, in which, as His spiritual bride, she had to cooperate with Him in the rebirth of mankind. Or rather, in her womb Christ began His professional ac-
to His Father, and as a child He allowed to be offered in the temple by the hands of His mother. He continued and completed His whole activity as 
 in such a way that I-Ie allowed 

Mother to have a 
in it. He 
 His work, as 
it were, living in her heart and borne in her hands. 
MARIOLOGY 
Hence, whereas the foster father of Christ died before Jesus began His public life, because his mission was ended, His mother had to bear Him company till His sacrificial death. She had in fact to be present at that sacrificial death. And even after His death she had to re-main behind to 
another mission, that of mother, nurse, and comforter of His infant Church on earth. Evidently 
mission did not include a participa-tion in Christ's public activity ad 
either at His side, or as His representative. Therefore, since she had no position in the visible and social organism of the Church, she had no particular right to hold a public teaching office or to exercise His priesthood. Her cooperation with Christ, like that of the heart with the head, remains a silent and hidden cooperation in its interior activity and 

in 
interior communication of life to the members. But 
for that reason she cooperates precisely in that activity by which Christ pre-eminently discharges His mission as Redeemer. 
CHAPTER X 
Mary's Cooperation in General in the Work of Redemption 

IT IS a very ancient in the Church, expressed by numerous witnesses, rather, it is 
definite dogma, proven by the Church's mode of reading the protogospel in the Vulgate, "She shall crush thy head," 
 that the effects of Christ's redeeming death can and must be ascribed, in 
very real sense, to His Mother 
to their 

principle. Indeed, in the writings of the Fathers 
the saints, 
almost all titles 
 Christ in His activity 
Re-
deemer are 
 in 
proportional and fitting sense, 
to the Mother of the Redeemer also. She is thus 

of the world, in fact also redemptrix, 
well as salvation, liberation, reconciliation, propitiation, and redemption. 
To her in 
 the destruction or 
For literature see: 
De 
23; Vega, Theol. 
Mar., pal. 30, 
4; 
(in Aurea, Vol. 
p. 2, q.8, and p. 3, q.2; F. W. 
The Foot of the Cross (London, 
chap. 9; P. Jeanjacquot, Simples 
la la T. S. de la Paris, 1868; Joach. La 
De 
6, c.4. 

lution of 
the damnation, death, and defeat of 
devil. 
It is evident that in comparison with God these expres-sions, in Mary's case more than in the case of Christ, are to be understood in the sense of only a mediation, or intermediate cause, of the redemption. Also the name mediatrix is in her case not used in the same sense as with other saints, but in a sense analogous to that in which it is referred to Christ. In other words, she is indicated as the mediating cause of all the effects of salvation for the world at large, also for pre-Christian mankind, in par-

is not only the mediatrix who applies the fruits of the redemption to individuals, but also the mediatrix who produces and gains these fruits. 
On this point Passaglia 
 gives a great number of wit-nesses from tradition. Many of these titles were gathered together in a sermon preached by Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus. In it he says: "Hail Mary Mother of God, who is to be venerated as the treasure of the whole world, the inextinguishable lamp, the crown of virginity, the scepter of orthodoxy, the indissoluble temple . . . by whom the 
Blessed Trinity is adored and 
 the glorious cross 
is commemorated and venerated in the whole world, by whom the angels and archangels rejoice, the devils take to flight, the diabolical tempter falls from heaven, by whom the fallen are taken into heaven, by whom every creature is brought to the knowledge of the 
by whom holy baptism and the oil of exultation reach the faithful, by whom churches are established the world over, by whom nations are brought to penance; what more shall I say, by whom the only-begotten Son 

God enlightened those who were sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, . . . through the Blessed Trinity." 

The title of redemptrix is in proportion used less fre-quently, though in the sense of 
and even of payer of the ransom it is in itself equally justified with the others. It is of less frequent occurrence because the title of redeemer is reserved as a special term for the in-fluence 
to Christ on the salvation of men, and hence its application to Mary 
give the impression that Mary of herself and directly exercises the same in-fluence as does Christ. 

The influence on the redemption ascribed to the Mother of the Redeemer represents Mary, next to Christ, as an-
other and second 
 redemption. It is obvious, 
as the expression, "influence of the Mother of the Re-deemer," clearly states, that Mary cannot be a principle coordinate to and independent of Christ, called and em-powered to complete His redeeming power and might. On the contrary, she is subordinate to and dependent on Christ as the Redeemer in such a way that she herself is redeemed by 
and can cooperate in the redemption only as one redeemed and with a power which she re-ceives from Him. Hence, her activity can and should so little supplement the inner and redeeming power and might of Christ, that rather it is essentially supported by faith in Christ's power, and has for its purpose only the making this power effective in a fitting manner. 
Thus Mary's influence on the redemption is that of a 
4 St 
of 

4; 
992. 
mere cooperation with the Redeemer, and this coopera-tion is only one of ministering in Christ's act of redemp-tion, which is the real act of redemption and which stands by itself. Mary herself is only a principle of the redemp-tion as a cooperating partner, accepted, called and equipped, by the Redeemer. More definitely, she is a ministering partner in the execution of the work of re-demption, which is carried out entirely by His power and might. In Latin this is expressed more tersely: 
redemptoris in 
redemptionis (minister of the Re-deemer in the work of redemption). 
In modern times, from the sixteenth century on, Mary as cooperatrix in the redemption, is called also demptrix. This expression is capable of a very good mean-ing which can be rendered neither so concisely nor so exactly by any other word. But in itself, instead of empha-sizing Mary's ministerial subordination and dependence, it gives the idea of a coordination next to Christ's or of a completion of Christ's power to such an extent that the expression should be used only with the express 
"in a certain sense. 
The expression, 
 (helpmate) or 

(help) of the Redeemer in the redemption is less objec-tionable and in itself more fitting, even more in accord-ance with Sacred Scripture. It was used for the first time by Albert the 
 and indeed repeatedly. This help must not be understood as a support in the ordinary sense, that is, as the strengthening by another of a power which of itself is insufficient. It is used in a more general sense, as 
5 See S. Albert 
Grand, de la 
Paris 

and Ottawa, 1935, and Brussels. 1936, pp.155-64. 
the only help admissible on the part of the creature in reference to God, namely, as a service conducive to an end, or as a helpful cooperation working in its own way. Thus it is a help in the very sense of a cooperating partner, as "we are God's coadjutors"in the Vulgate.' 
So understood, the expression is all the more justified because, according to the idea of the Church, Eve, as "a help like unto himself' 
 (Adam), is the prototype of Mary in her relation to Christ. Moreover, it is more 

because, in this connection, it better charac-
terizes Mary's cooperation with Christ as a bridal co-operation. It presents this cooperation in a manner which brings out Mary's complete subordination and dependence, as well as her closest union with the Re-deemer. 
The expression coredemptrix is presented by many modem, even learned theologians, as though it were a classical term, sanctioned by the usage of the Fathers and the saints.' Hence, according to some theologians, though 
The Vulgate has Dd The Greek text 

Gen. 2: 18. Scheeben refers to a warning to his clergy by Francis Joseph, bishop of 
In this episcopal action must be found the reason for Scheeben's severe criticism of the title, which is used in the highest ecclesiastical circles. The Sacred Congregation of Rites (May 13, 1908) calls Mary misercordem humani 
 Sanctae Sedis, 
409); 
X (January 22, 1914) grants indulgences to 
an Italian prayer in which Mary is called del Apostolicae Sedis, VI 
 108); Benedict XV in his letter has no hesitation in praising 
 so highly as to write cum humanum 

 (Act. Ap. Sed., 183) and 
writes 
: Virgo opus cum 
(Act. Ap. Sed., XV See also the beautiful prayer sent to by 

XI, April 1935, for the closing ceremony of the Jubilee. 

the expression is somewhat surprising, it is by no means rash. The objection which Protestants make to it is due to their ordinary misconception. With Catholics it is a matter of taking, not giving, scandal. The title should not and will not be dropped, for the good reason that it has cost her 
 bears it so many and such grievous sacrifices. In spite of careful research the term is nowhere to be found before the sixteenth century. Even Maracci does not give it in his Polyanthea. Later it is but seldom used 
theologians, giving the impression that, so 

far as authorities are concerned, it is anything but clas-sical. 
Its intrinsic justification does not follow simply from the fact that in general Mary is a principle of salvation, or more definitely a co-principle with Christ. For, those verbs and verbal nouns which run parallel with the name of Redeemer, and those which indicate in general the effecting of salvation, like reparator, liberator, or con-queror of the devil, can be applied to Mary with or with-out the prefix co. But in the case of those words which indicate, more or Iess, the proper power whereby Christ Himself accomplishes His work, the application to Mary with the prefix co is less justified. The reason is, that this particle would indicate a sharing not only in Christ's work, but also in the manner of working which is to Him, and a coordination in His activity. 
From the fact that Mary is mediatrix, and indeed as Christ is mediator between God and men, it does follow that she can be called also commediutrix 

God and men. 
less does it follow that from the fact of Mary's being, in a broader sense, cause, 
and mediatrix of the redemption and, therefore, is even called redemptrix, we should claim the right to say that she is coredemptrix. For, in the case of Christ, redeeming formally means causing the liberation of men by His divine, royal, and priestly power and by a ransom which He Himself pays. Consequently, the expression, 

quired expression, of the redemption.' 
Nevertheless, it can be understood in a very true sense, and this sense is easy to indicate, if, in the hieratical idea of the sacrifice of redemption, the correct place is given to the maternal bride of the Redeemer." 
Albert the Great uses the term "aid of the redemption" in his 
Theologians of later date, like St. ninus, in part go back to him explicitly. In general, there is little certainty about the terminology on this point, be-
cause the matter has received but a scant 
treat-
ment. For the same reason, however, the recent use of the title, coredemptrix, is in itself no argument against it, for in former times little attention was paid to the true thought which underlies this matter.'' 
Many theological expressions become clarified by controversy and their soundness or unsoundness eventually becomes established and accepted. Development of doctrine did not come to an end with the Church Fathers. The same may be said with regard to the exact meaning of certain titles applied to the Blessed Virgin. 
Scheeben questioned the fitness of the title "Coredemptrix." But since his day the title has been sanctioned by the highest ecclesiastical authorities, and its orthodoxy is therefore beyond doubt. 

 St. Albert the Great, 
q.29 and 150 (edited by 
105). 
 For the present state of the question, see pp. 193f. 

Rom. 

It is a well-established fact that, because of her co-operation in the redemption, Mary became truly the contributory cause of the effects of the redemption. This fact, as to its 
and reason, has been explained by the remark that, according to God's plan, the course of our redemption should answer to that of the Fall. On the part of God, the redemption must be considered a work of emulation in opposition to the causing of the Fall on the part of the devil. 
The fall of the human race was effected by the devil with the help of a man and a woman. The woman as well as the man, although each in a different way, can and must be regarded as the cause of the Fall. I-Ience the redemption had to be effected not by the new Adam alone, but with the cooperation of a new Eve, and thus a woman must become a cause of the redemption, since a woman had been a cause of the Fall. As in the cause of the Fall a woman had the initiative, so in the redemption a woman must prepare the way by her activity. 
The relation between the economy of the redemption and the origin of the Fall holds the secret. Both sexes having had their share in causing the Fall, both must like-wise have their share in bringing about the restoration. Both sexes are united in disgrace and in glory. The devil conquered both in the beginning and, therefore, his de-feat was the more complete in the end. And God was given back that honor which had been withheld from Him in the Fall, when a man and a woman cooperated in the service of the enemy to the disfigurement of the divine likeness. 
The same relation explains how both factors in this economy could and had to cooperate, so that the whole work might be ascribed to each, while a perfect depend-ence and subordination of one to the other was main-tained. According to St. Paul, since Adam was the head of the race, from his sin alone resulted the guilt of the race. His sin alone, without that of Eve, put the bur-den of sin on the race. Apart from its relation to Adam's sin, the sin of Eve in itself had no  on the sinful-ness of the race. It wielded an only in that it was the means by which Adam was led to sin and on which, therefore, the realization of Adam's sin depended. 
Since in this way Eve knowingly and willingly gave occasion to Adam's sin, even though she may not have had all consequent results of her action directly in mind, she was, nevertheless, the true and real cause of these results; as in general a person by advice or command is the cause of the consequences ensuing from the actions of another. Yet Adam's independent responsibility as cause was mitigated so little thereby, that Eve's culpability rather fades before that of Adam. As a matter of fact, the in-dependent and sufficient causality of Adam permits us to regard Eve's sin, not only as a preparation for, but also as a complement to that of Adam in its universal mean-ing and influence. This viewpoint is not usually brought out, though it is of great importance. Indeed, the sin of our ancestress Eve is a complement to that of our ancestor Adam, since it completes his, so as to form a combined sin of our ancestors. It thereby gives to both ancestors, 
MARIOLOGY 
and so to the whole principle of natural propagation, a form which fits in with the propagation of the ancestor's sin. For, while the sin of the ancestor could have been propagated according to its nature, if Eve had not sinned, still such a propagation, through an ancestress who 
remained in the state of the 
 justice, would have 
been incongruous and unnatural. Consequently, apart from its influence on Adam's sin, that of Eve had this significance also, that Eve thereby made herself an in-strument for the propagation of Adam's sin, and made her children subject to the influence of 

It is announced in the 
woman with her seed, consequently with her Son, would participate in the victory over the devil, that is, in the liberation of 
from the dominion of the devil, because the first woman had a share in the victory of 
devil over mankind. Otherwise the indication of 
woman, in the enmity announced to the devil, would be void of meaning. The fulfillment of this divine ordinance is evidenced by the facts. As 
 apostle witnesses the fulfillment of the one part with the words: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death . . . so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justifica-tion of life"; 
SO likewise, from of old, in contrast with the text: 
From the the beginning of sin, 

and by her we all die," 
the 
 was rightly drawn: 
"From the woman came the beginning 
 justice, and by 
her we all live. The parallel between the pair that saved and the pair 

I,appendix 1.

that ruined is developed by the most ancient Fathers, and very frequently since their time. St. Justin says: "the 
Son of God became man that He 
undo the dis-
obedience, coming from the serpent, in the same way as it began. For Eve, still a virgin and undefiled, accepted the word of the devil and brought forth death and dis-obedience; but the Virgin Mary, filled with faith and joy, 
the Archangel Gabriel's glad tidings: Be it done unto me according to thy word." 
 says: "By a rival operation God recovered His image and likeness, seized by the devil. For a word causing death had stolen into Eve, until then a virgin. In like manner, the Word of God, imparting life, was to be introduced into a virgin; so that what by this sex had gone to perdition, He might, 
the same sex, bring back to salvation. Eve had believed the serpent, Mary believed Gabriel. The wrong done by 
the credulity of the former was obliterated 
 faith of 
the latter." Irenaeus says: "That which is bound together is loos-

ened in no other way than 
unwinding 

 same cords 

in reverse, so that the first cords are loosened by the second, the second in turn loosen the first. So it hap-pens 
the first bond is loosened by the second, in fact the second takes the place of the loosing of the first. And, therefore, the Lord said, that the first should indeed be last and the last first. . . . The Lord is the firstborn from the dead, and receiving our first parents in His bosom He regenerated them to 
 life of God. He is 

the be-ginning of the living, as Adam is the beginning of the dead. . . . And so the knot of Eve's disobedience was 
St. Justin, 
cum Typh., chap. 100; PG, VI, 709-12. 
De 
17; PL, 
782. 
204 
MARIOLOGY 
loosened by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound up by her incredulity, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith." And again Irenaeus says: "As Eve is se-duced by the words of a fallen angel to flee from God when she was untrue to His word; so to Mary are brought the glad tidings, so that she might bear God by being obedient to His word. If Eve had disobeyed God, Mary was persuaded to obey Him, so that the Virgin Mary should become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And, therefore, as the human race is made subject to death by a virgin, so is it saved by a virgin. The scale is put at an equal balance, that is, virginal disobedience is offset by virginal obedience." 

St. 
 cites this last 
 He himself 
formulates the parallel as follows: It is a great sacrament that, as death came to us by a woman, life was born to us by a woman; so that in both sexes feminine and 
 the devil, being conquered, might be tor-mented, as he had gloried in the downfall of both. He would not have been adequately punished, had both 
sexes been freed, but we had not been freed 
both." 

On another occasion, he connected the fact, that it was women who announced the redemption as accomplished in Christ's resurrection, with the other facts of the woman's role both in the Fall and in the redemption. He says: 
"Because man fell 	the female sex, he is restored 	
St. Irenaeus, 	22; V, 	PC, VII, 959, 1175. A foot-	
note in PC reads: 	tota haec 	See 	

"La de Marie selon S. 
in 

( 

St. Contr. 
I, chap. 3; PL, XLN, De 
chap. 
PL, 
303. 
THE WORK OF 
by the same sex. Because a virgin brought forth Christ, a announced His resurrection. By a came death, by a woman, life." And again: "A handed the poison to the man who was to be deceived. A woman hands salvation to the man to be restored. A by bringing forth Christ, compensates for the sin of man deceived by a woman. also were the first 
to announce 	to 	apostles that Christ had risen." 	
Usually, the 	of St. Augustine is proved by 	
several quotations 	doubtless indeed, 	liter-	

ally 
meaning, but which, under the form in ques-tion, are not at all, or only questionably, his. To these 

quotations from the sermons, or books 3 and 
4, the 
ad catech., which for weak reasons, as it seems  us, were considered unauthenticz3 
the but which, in any case, are not of a 
later date. Also, the text from book 3, chapter 4: "To the same 

in which 
nature had suffered loss, it is 
restored by 
Lord Jesus Christ," etc.; from book chapter 1, the lesson from the second nocturn on the vigil of Pentecost, when Eve's counterpart is applied to 
Church." 
 text 
the second nocturn 

feast of the Nativity of Mary, "Eve the cause of sin, 
the of merit,"appears in many which have circulated under 
of Augustine; so, 
Sermo 
de 
 and in Sermon 18, resp. 21. De 
232 de 
no. 2; PL, 

51 
concord. 
no. 2; 
XXXVIII, 335. 
G. 

"Les 
apocr. 
(Rev. 
VIII 
273 f.), says that 
is reason not to ascribe Books 2-4 to St. because the African form of is no longer ex-plained 
PL, XL, 655, 
206 
thus, from an early date on this text seems to have 
been held as 

St. Jerome says: "After the Virgin had conceived in her womb and brought forth the child . . . the male-diction was lifted. Death by Eve, life by Mary." 
 We find similar utterances in many other Fathers, especially in St. Ambrose. 

Although the parallel between the process of the Fall and that of the redemption indicates clearly the form and reason of Mary's cooperation in the latter, it does not elucidate both in a sufficient manner. To carry the analogy through one-sidedly would lead not only to a faulty, but to a partially erroneous, idea of the economy in the demp 
Apart from the woman's participation in the sin, all other reasons in general, calling for the realization of the incarnation by a human mother, belong to the design giving Mary's cooperation its proper place in the plan of the redemption. Especially the following reasons: (1) In the redemption, since it is the work of the triune God, both the persons who proceed from the Father, not only the Son but also the Holy Ghost, must be represented 
a special created agent. (2) Not only to a created nature, but also to a created person God wished to give the honor 
The lesson in the breviary on the feast of Mary's Nativity is literally 
194 in App. S. 		nos. 1 and 2; PL, XXXIX, 2104, and ac-	
cording to 		278, the lesson is from Ambrosiu. 	
as 	208 	where in no. 4 (PL, XXXIX, 2130) 	

the same ideas are found. 	App. 120 	appears in 	
1985. 			
22 ad 	PL, MII, 408.		

of cooperating in His sublime work, in order thus to make the abundance and graded regulation of the communica-tion of His grace richer and more harmonious. (3)A hu-man being, one to be redeemed, and hence participating passively in the redemption, was to take an active part in the execution of the redemption, in the name of the rest of mankind. By preparation of and participation in the redeeming sacrifice, 
 person was perfectly to achieve the appropriation of the redeeming act and its effects upon mankind in general. (4) Finally, by the participation of a female specifically destined to be as-sociated with Christ to the ends mentioned, and who, as the maternal bride of Christ, became in her cooperation with Him the spiritual mother of the remaining members of the redeemed, these latter will have greater confidence of receiving the fruits of redemption, and thus will strive for them more courageously. 
All these reasons obviously demand Mary's coopera-tion, not in order to achieve or complete the intrinsic power of the redeeming work, but only to perfect its beauty and loveliness in all respects, especially its or-ganic connection with mankind to be redeemed, whereby the perfect completion of its application and applicability was conditioned. 
St. Bernard explains the latter point thus: One man and one woman harmed us grievously. Thanks to God, all things are restored by one man and one woman, and that with interest. It is true that Christ would have been adequate, since all our sufficiency is from Him, but it was not good for us that it should be a man alone. It was more appropriate that both sexes should take part in our reparation, since both had wrought our ruin. Jesus Christ 
MARIOLOGY 

as man obviously is the trustworthy and able mediator between God and man, but mankind honors in Him His divine majesty. Not only His mercy but also His judg-ment is sung. There is thus need of a mediator with mediator, and none could be more fitting than Mary. Why should human frailty hesitate to approach Mary? There is 
severe, nothing terrible about her; she is all sweet 

and offers to all milk and wool." 

From the positive and supernatural character of the work of redemption in contrast to the work of the Fall, there follow important 
 as to the manner of cooperation on the part of the woman. (1)Eve's coopera-tion was only material and indirect, because the fall of the race was not formally meant thereby, but only fore-seen. In the strictest sense of 
word, Mary's coopera-tion was formal, because it was supported entirely by the loving purpose of achieving the redemption of mankind. 
(2) Eve cooperated in the Fall by her 
 natural 
power. Mary cooperated by virtue of a supernatural eleva-tion and ordination, in so far as she, as chosen instrument of the Holy Ghost, was associated with the incarnate Logos, and by a power which, in turn, came to her from the merits of the Redeemer. (3) Lastly, only the ex-istence of Adam's calamitous deed depended on Eve's cooperation, whereas Mary's cooperation conditioned the existence of the substantial principle, or of the instrument for the redeeming activity. 
St. Bernard, 
12 no. 1; PL, 429. 
CHAPTER XI 
Mary's Cooperation in 
Concrete 
Form 

a rule, only in one or other respect do the Fathers 
and theologians define the manner in which, by her cooperation with the Redeemer, Mary became with Him the cause of salvation. We shall attempt to bring the most important points of view together and explain them briefly. 

When the Fathers introduce Mary as the general cause of salvation and from this point of view compare her with Eve, the cause of perdition, without going into further details they usually explain this attribute simply as fol-lows: Mary, or God through Mary, presented the world with the Redeemer in the birth of Christ, as Eve, or the 
through Eve, brought perdition into the through the seduction of Adam. Consequently in the first place it is the divine mother-hood itself, or the activity of the Mother of God, whereby 
For literature see 
De 
23; Vega, Theol. 
Mar., pal. 30, 
4; 
(in 
Summa 
Vol. VII), p. 2, q.8, and p. 3, q.2; F. W. Faber, The Foot of the Cross (London, 
chap. 9; P. Jeanjacquot, Simples explications 
la de la T. S. 
de 
Paris, 1868; 
De 
6, chap. 4. 
MARIOLOGY 
she cooperated in the redemption of the world. In a natural way Eve, as mediatrix of the seed of the serpent, had brought forth sin in the man and thereby in the whole human race. Likewise in a supernatural way Mary, in her seed, that is, in the fruit of her body, brought into the world the personal bud of justice, that is, the essential principle of justice or justice itself, which she received from God. 
this very maternal activity was espe-cially regarded as a lifting of the sin of Eve, that is, as an abolition or rather an extermination of it, because it actually prepared the redeeming act of Christ as much 
as Eve had 
 the calamitous deed of Adam by her 
seduction. 
To 
out the full import of Mary's cooperation in the 
redemption as it is contained in her maternal activity, especially against Eve's wrong doing, other factors which are clearly found in the Gospels and the Fathers must be explained. (1) Mary's maternal activity is not a mere instrumental working of nature, but a ministerial and personal activity based on her voluntary consent to her motherhood. In this capacity she was enlisted by God for the realization of the redemption, that thereby, on her 
side, mankind 
approach and meet 
namely, 

her voluntary reception of the principle of the 
redemption and her voluntary offering of herself as instrument. (2) Because her Son is announced to her as the Redeemer of the world, this activity on her side is directed formally and directly to making the redemption possible. (3) The Fathers explain very specially, that Mary's consent to her motherhood constitutes on her part an eminently moral deed, whereby she introduced and prepared the definite act of the redemption, as much as Eve introduced and prepared the deed of Adam by her personal sin. As to its form it is thus the exact counter-part of Eve's sin. The latter essentially consisted in be-lieving the devil and in obeying him, or in not believing and not obeying God; and thereby Eve deserted her call-ing as instrument for the communication of justice, and gave herself to the devil as an instrument for the com-

munication of sin. Mary 
 the deliverance from 
sin by giving herself to God in faith and obedience, in order to serve Him as an instrument for the communica-tion of justice. As consent given to God regarding the existence of the Redeemer, this form of Mary's coopera-tion in the redemption is a cooperation with God the Father in the realization of the redemption; just as Eve's sin, as a consent given to the devil, was a cooperation with the latter in working the destruction of the human race. Because Eve induced Adam to accept her proposal, her sin was a direct cooperation with Adam. So, too, Mary's obedience became a cooperation with Christ Himself in His work of redemption, because Christ's first act of obedience was joined immediately to hers. 
Mary's cooperation implies a true dependence of the whole work of redemption on her will. It is a dependence which was willed and arranged by God Himself, and it was such as by no means exposed the execution of the work to the danger of frustration; for together with its decree, God provided also the assurance of Mary's con-sent. But when this dependence is emphasized, it is not wise to carry it to the extent of saying that, if Mary had not given her consent, the redemption would not have taken place. For in that way it would seem that God had not the absolute will or power to 
the redemption into effect and to assure Mary's consent, and that, therefore, by her consent Mary cooperated as independently with God as one man with the other. 
The influence of Mary's consent must not be 

one-sidedly as a 
influence in the sense of merits or of impetration through the moral value of the act. It must be understood as the influence of the will in an agree-ment, that is, as the acceptation of a good and the disposal of it, and also as the power of the will in the use of one's own powers to produce physical effects. On the other hand, we must not exclude the impetrating power of merit, which is comprised in the pious and obedient con-sent to a holy work performed for the glory of God. But we may not so imagine it, as if this act of Mary possessed a greater moral value and power than all her other ac-tions. By its union with the divine action, to which it corresponds, 
act of hers is certainly 
 richest in results among all the actions of creatures. In a certain sense it is even as rich as that of Christ's humanity. But this does not mean that, in itself, it was 
most meritori-ous deed, and it is altogether wrong to assert that, by the act whereby Mary received the Redeemer, she merited in the proper sense all the effects of the redemption. 

When the Fathers 
 say, that by Mary's pious 
 obe-dient consent she broke the chains in which Eve's dis-obedience had bound us, this must not be understood as a deliverance by adequate satisfaction for the sin of Eve, as this is true only in the case of Christ's satisfaction for all the sins of mankind. It must be understood as a prep-aration for the satisfaction which would be given by Christ, and whereby, together with all other sins of 
See supra, chap. 
kind, that also of Eve would be wiped out. Thus directly and formally Mary's activity made up only for the prepara-tion for the sin of mankind by the sin of Eve, and for the shameful responsibility whereby the woman was laden for the iniquitatis rendered by her. 

Besides Mary's fundamental cooperation in the re-demption as 
in her very activity as mother of God, there is  cooperation, a purely moral one, bcforc as well as after the conception and birth of the Redeemer. It is closely, even inseparably, related to the latter. Partly it anticipates the moral cooperation which attends the birth, and partly it brings it to is full devel-opment. 
(1) Before the conception of the Redeemer, Mary 
most perfectly exercised the same moral ac-tivity with which men in general had to prepare them-selves for the reception of the grace of redemption, in 
men living before Christianity for the reception 

of the Redeemer Himself; and this activity she exer-cised at the moment of Christ's conception. We are re-ferring to the pious longing for the Redeemer, and the loving obedience whereby those to be redeemed try to do all that, on their part, they can and ought to do to obtain the grace of redemption. 
As chosen bride of the Logos and instrument of the 
Ghost, and as mankind's most noble flower, un-
touched by sin, Mary could and had, by that activity, to prepare a worthy dwelling for the Redeemer in herself and also in the human race to be redeemed. At the same 
time, by the power of the Holy Ghost working in her, she could also worthily obtain from God the sending of the Redeemer in the name and in favor of the whole race; not indeed by way of a meritum de condigno, but of a meritum de congruo, bearing the mark of a praying impetration. The Fathers indicate this form of Mary's 
when they say, that Mary made the Son of God descend into her womb. Also theologians of later date have explained this form. With regard to Christ's work of redemption it remains a preparing and remote coopera-tion. But in a proper and stricter sense, her efficacious co-operation with the Redeemer Himself begins first at His conception and is completed in His death on the cross. 
 redeeming death is hardly mentioned by the Fathers and is but seldom treated by later theologians. 
(2) After the conception of Christ, Mary's efficacious cooperation with Him as Redeemer, as distinct from her preparation as well as from her maternal activity, must be properly and specifically designated as a bridal coopera-tion. For in His mission Christ's corporal mother co-operated with Him in the closest manner as with her spiritual bridegroom. This cooperation can be, to some extent, and sometimes is absolutely, so understood, as though it were the mere continuation of Mary's former activity which, from then on, accompanied that of Christ, 
because by her personal merits, 
 and prayer she 
helped to obtain de congruo what Christ obtained by His meritum 
condigno. Obviously a meritum de congruo does not add a new and greater power to the meritum de condigno, and thus this formula precludes a proper need of completion in Christ's merit. 
The positive meaning and efficacy of the meritum de 
in this case may and should consist only in this, that Mary, as the most noble member of the race to be redeemed and acting on behalf of the race, effected the application of Christ's merits; or, with due regard to their applicability as dependent on the condition of those re-ceiving them, she even completed them. In a higher degree it is analogous in a way to what the Apostle said 
of himself: "I rejoice in my 
 for you, and fill up 
those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body, which is the Church." 
 It can be defined further as follows: the share in the merits of the 
 could and should originally be gained and appropriated for the whole of mankind, by the activity which accompanies the Head's activity in 
redemption and which belongs to that chief member of the body, 
is in original and close communication with the Head. And this resulted, because the activity of this chief member was, in an eminent degree, united with Christ in faith, love, obedience, and mercy which, in the individual members, is the condition for the participation in the merits of the Head. Hence, also the participation in His merits must necessarily be communicated, in an organic way, by that same member, by which mankind is con-nected with Christ as with its Head. 
It is obvious that, in this view, the moral cooperation of Mary with Christ, in the dispensing of conciliatory justice, stands counter to the cooperation of Eve with Adam, 
since the sin of the ancestor was 
 by the sin of 
the ancestress to become the sin of the ancestors, thus making its effects felt in the descendants in a natural way. 

216 
MARY'S COOPERATION IN THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS This form of Mary's cooperation can be described, clearly and unequivocally, by consistently using the characteristic language of the Sacred Scriptures 
the Fathers. It is thus expressed: the redemption of the world 
or the grace of salvation was obtained, by the blood of the Lamb as the ransom or purchase price, and by the murmur of the Dove as a prayer which is sancti-
fied by the 
Ghost, and offered in the name of the 
redeemed for the acceptance of the ransom; or also, on the one hand, it is the activity of 
 head and the au-thority of the priest, on the other, the disposition of the heart and the supplication of the bride. 
The murmur of the Dove came from a heart which itself was a spiritual sacrifice through loving participa-tion in the life of the Lamb, and which therefore sacrificed itself for the salvation of the world, thus making its prayer a prayer of sacrifice. Because of this we might be tempted to speak of a double sacrifice whereby the world was redeemed. That, evidently, would give occa-sion to a great misunderstanding, especially when the co-ordinate position is not expressly excluded. Therefore it 
be pointed out that only Christ's sacrifice, as being in itself complete corporally and extrinsically, is a sacrifice whicli is complete and independently effective. Mary's sacrifice, being purely affective, is united with that of Christ obviously as a secondary and accompanying sacri-fice only, like the unbloody and incidental sacrifices wliich. according to the ritual of Moses, accompany the bloody. Or rather, since Mary's sacrifice consists entirely and for-mally in a loving co-suffering, hers is a reflection of 

At any rate, because of her activity in conjunction with 

provides the price of redemption. In this respect, with 
Dionysius the Carthusian 
 St. Alphonsus 

we can call her only and consalvatrix. 
This idea is expressed beautifully by Arnold of 
( twelfth century). This much-quoted passage reads: "You see in that temple two altars, one in tlie breast of Mary, the other in the body of Christ; Christ sacrificed flesh, Mary her soul. She wished to blood to 
the blood of His soul 	body, to celebrate 	her 	
Son, with hands up-raised on the cross, 	sacri-	
fice, and to consummate 	our Lord Jesus the 		
of our redemption by the death of her 	it was 	

the sole privilege of the high priest to 
 tribute of 
blood into the holies, and this distinction could 
 shared with no one else. In the reparation of 
 no angel or man could have this authority in with Nevertheless, this disposition 
the mother cooperated much, in its own way, to propitiate God, since 
charity of Christ presented to the Father His own as well as His mother's prayers and desires; for what 

 asked, 

and the holy mother intended, that love devised for all. 
Dionysius De 
B.M.V., 
23 
edition of 1908, XXXVI, 99). 
St. Liguori, 
Maria, 
discourse 6. 
At the same time piety, love, and goodness embraced each other, the mother supplicating, the Son preventing, the Father propitiating. The Son regarded 
 breast and heart of the mother, the Father the cross and wounds of the Son. What would not be moved amid these many pledges, what would this school of holiness teach only piety, what character would save only mercy? Love, holiness, and goodness could not relish anything contrary to themselves. It was fitting that nothing should withstand them or oppose their harmony. It was entirely proper that supplication, sanctification, and clemency came together in the interest of rectitude." 

These same thoughts are expressed in shorter form by the same writer in a little work, De 
s. 
In this work he adds: "Doubtless there 
was one will between Christ and Mary, and both at the same time offered to God one sacrifice, the one in the blood of her heart, the other in the blood of His body." But the one sacrifice is thought of only as the fusion of two sacrifices into one, and both are kept so separate that a special altar corresponds to each. 

Arnold of Bonneval does not regard Mary's 

sufferings as a bloody sacrifice, yet, on the analogy of the bloody sacrifice, he has before him the expression of Sacred Scripture, regarding the sword which shall pierce Mary's 
On the other hand, he loses the analogy of the unbloody, incidental sacrifice accompanying the bloody sacrifice of the Mosaic law, which presents only and really fitting ritual type of the double sacrifice. 

Arnold of 
De 
3; de verbo: Ecce PL, CLXXXIX, 7 PL, CLXXXIX, 1726. 

Luke 
Being 
 this sacrifice does not show an inde-
pendent character of propitiation, and, as it is destroyed only by fire, it constitutes, according to its form, a purely spiritual sacrifice. As to its significance, since it is taken from a lower order of beings, it expresses a real subordina-tion to the animal sacrifice, and when it of hu-man food, it indicates at the same time a participation in the fruits of the bloody sacrifice. Very tactfully Arnold of Bonneval avoids calling Mary a priestess. He lets Mary's sacrifice be 
to God by Christ, and expressly cludcs her participation in the authority of 
 high priest. Although this idea of Mary's cooperation with Christ in the work of redemption is in itself justified, it must be 
joined with another 
 more complete and pro-
found, and yet equally clear, with which the Church pro-vides us. The latter links Mary's bridal cooperation, accompanying Christ's act of redemption, in a close or-ganic 
with her motherhood as well as with Christ's own activity. Thus, the activity of Bridegroom and bride appear, not as next to each other, but as in each other. This presentation follows of itself, if the act of redemp-tion is viewed as an outward sacrifice. And here it comes out most clearly, if the sacrifice is regarded more closely in its hieratical form, allowing of course for the participa-tion of a greater number, which indeed it demands for its full integrity, since their activity intrinsically belongs to the perfection of the sacrifical action. 
This idea presents Mary's cooperation in the act of redemption as 
In the sacrifice of redemption, of which Christ's flesh was the object and matter, Mary was the representative of mankind for whom it is celebrated and consummated. In the proper and full meaning of the 
word, she cooperated as co-offerer and she co-celebrated the sacrifice as hers. And since the sacrifice was offered in this manner, it proceeded completely from mankind and belonged to mankind. 
This cooperation in the sacrifice was possible only in the case of the mother of the Redeemer, but in her case was also required on the part of God and was invoked by Christ. It showed itself in a threefold manner: (1)With a view to the consummation of the sacrifice of redemption, Mary presented Christ the offering from her own flesh 
and blood, and under the influence of the  Ghost she 
produced and nourished this as her (2) With the same purpose she co-disposed of the offering, emanating from her or 
her by God, as of her own fruit and possession, and dedicated it to God as a sacrifice. (3) In the actual dedication of Christ in His redeeming death, she cooperated also by her consent as tradens in By self-abnegation in will and feeling, or by a consensus 
et she participated in the consumma-tion of the sacrifice, so that Christ's sufferings were in 
the fullest sense her 
 also. It is obvious that these 
three factors are connected mutually and most intimately. They are directed to each other and react on each other. 
They can be taken 
 in the idea of consensus in 
sacrifice of Christ, or traditio and 
per 
The first is especially present at the moment of Christ's conception, the second in the offering of Christ in the temple, the third in Mai-y's presence beneath the 
cross. 
the second and third actions can be regarded 
as formal and exterior sacrificial functions. The dedica-tion of Christ in the temple is clearly marked as a formal sacrificial ceremony by the ritual itself, as well as by the spirit of the law which was thereby fulfilled, and by the incidental prophecy of Simeon. But in connection with this, Mary's presence under the cross appears as a sacri-
ficial action; for, inspired and upheld by the 
Ghost, 
she offered to God her Son hanging on the cross as offered by herself, and His sufferings as shared by her for the salvation of the world. 
Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was the specific prototype of this sacrificial activity of Mary, in regard to its form, object, and power. In the obedience of 
Abraham offered up his only son, whom he had received in a won-derful manner. Therebv he merited the of the promise, that by his son, saved from death, 

would be-
come the father of many nations.' In 
 Christ, 
Mary did nothing less, but incomparably more and, there-fore, exercised no less a sacrificial activity. Abraham's sacrifice was no greater than was hers in the presenta-tion in the temple, where the offering of her Son appears an equally independent sacrifice as the sacrifice of Isaac. 
If she did not make the offering as 

Abraham, it is not that the latter did more, but because the object of his sacrifice was so dependent on him that he could dispose of it in the first place. But Mary could dis-
fice, this circumstance itself indicates that the character of Mary's sacrificial action is not adequately represented 
Abraham offered Isaac in the same place, on the same mountain, where Mary her Son. The Sacred do not state that the mount of' Gen. 
is the mountain on which later the temple 

was built 
Par. 
Such, however, is Jewish tradition. 
by the sacrifice of Abraham. For the prototype of the sacrificing Abraham lacks the double relation of the offerer to a people for whom the sacrifice is offered, and to the priest by whom the 
is offered. 
This double relation, and also Mary's entire position toward the sacrifice of redemption, is self-evident in the prototype of the public Mosaic sacrifice. In this sacrifice the functions of the laity, consisting in the bringing of the sacrificial victim, were strictly separated from those of the priest, which consisted in the carrying out of the sacrifice. Between both a double mediation took place, by the heads of the families or the elders representing the people who brought the 
and by the assistants of the priests, the Levites. 
Corresponding to this prototype, Mary stands to Christ as high priest, on the one hand, in the capacity of head member of the people, as the representative of the people in the presentation of the offering, on the other, in the capacity of Christ's bride and the instrument of the Holy Ghost, as the partner of the high priest in the function of offering the sacrifice in a holy manner. Not that she her-self dedicated the offering or offered the sacrifice by her action; but, through her supernatural ordination and full powers, she co-disposed of the offering presented by her, and co-offered the sacrifice offered by Christ as her own sacrifice. In the language of the Church, Mary can be called the public and sacred of the sacrifice of Christ or briefly the deaconess at Christ's sacerdotal sacri-fice, because of the analogy of the or liturgi in the sacrifice of the Church. 
This latter analogy is indeed the most perfect that can be used here. For the deacon is at 
same time the representative of the people and the ordained assistant of the priest. In the first capacity he bears the material for the sacrifice to the priest, in the second he supports the priest in the offering of the chalice and serves him after the consummation of the sacrifice in the distribution of the sacrificial food, and thus the latter function finds its reason in the former. In like manner, a real cooperation in Christ's sacrifice belongs to Mary, a cooperation which forms part also of the subjective integrity of the sacrificial action, without the least damage to the independence and hegemony of Christ's sacrificial activity. 
Finally, Mary's cooperation in Christ's sacrifice attains its complete hieratical meaning in this, that her soul or her heart must be regarded as the living altar, built in and from mankind. On and in this altar the offering of Christ, which came from her flesh or her womb, is offered by the fire contained therein as in the true altar in such a manner that she herself appears as equally filled and touched by this fire, and that she belongs also to the ob-jective integrity of Christ's sacrifice, that is to say, to the concrete form in which, by God's decree, it must be con-summated. 
In this way, by Mary's mediation Christ as offering 
not only as 
by and from mankind, but also as sacrificed in mankind, in such a way that He lives in mankind and the latter, on its part, is co-sacrificed in a living manner in Him by a loving participation of His Likewise, in the capacity of sacerdotal offerer, 

Christ appears not only as offering Himself in Himself, 
but also, through 
mediation, as offering Himself 
in mankind, and mankind in Himself. In the meantime Mary's passive co-offering is sion is fully understood, it portrays 
224 	MARIOLOGY 	
tained 	in 	her 	effective 	union 	with 	Christ's 	sacrifice, 	
whereby she bears this in her heart. 	this expres-	

relation to the 
sacrifice of redemption as 
and profoundly as the 
term 
marks her personal worthiness and posi-
tion.'' The expression is not in 
use, hut its mean-ing can be understood from the following. In general the Fathers compare Mary 
the ark of the covenant, as seat and throne of God and as the place containing the manna and the tables of the law. Likewise, they particu-larly and frequently her with the throne of pro-pitiation and grace above 
 ark of the covenant, the 
propitiutorium, and call her with 
 "the living 

Hereby they do not in the figure dis-
tinguish the ark from the cover, nor differentiate in Mary 
her 
from her spiritual activity as 
from that 
of bride. They 
the whole 
directly to her 
womb. But it is in the intrinsic consequence of the 
and of the very matter, that a distinction is made be-tween these elements without breaking their organic con-nection, or 
apart from her womb, her soul also, in Christ lived in a most special way, is brought into connection with the figure. In that way, bearing Christ 
in her heart and feeding Him with her 

counterpart of the ark of the covenant. Bearing Him in 

It is evident that the name, "bearer of a sacrifice," not 
Now Mary is called bearer of God, 
bearer of a See Vol. I, chap. 10 of this work. 

See 
I, chap. 2. 
only completes but also embraces the idea of offerer or 
deaconess of the 
and with it includes the "altar 
of sacrifice." The same comprehensive meaning can be given to the expression, 
 when by it we understand the agent of propitiation and of the sacrifice of propitiation assisting the priest. Both functions of Mary, which are here taken together, stand out clearly, the first in the presentation in the temple in Mary's arms, the second in her presence at the foot of the cross. Their out-ward form and inward power are reflected at the same time in the fact that Mary bears Christ's priestly self-sacrifice above and within her, as 
heart sustains the head, and she also cooperates and shares the suffering of that offering, as the heart shares with the head. 
It is evident that 
participation of the mother of the Redeemer in Christ's redeeming sacrifice, as here 

 differs from every other participation which other human beings can exercise by taking part in the enduring or offering of Christ's sufferings. The difference lies in 
 intimacy of participation and therefore also in 
its power. Because of its intimacy, 
participation 
forms one whole with Christ's activity, so that, accord-ing to the divine plan, Christ acts as little apart from and without her as she can act apart from and without Him. But for that very reason all effects of His sacrifice must be regarded as effected and obtained conjointly by her in and through this sacrifice. Therefore, we can say that Mary with Christ, that is, by her cooperation with Him, gave satisfaction to God for sin, merited grace, and thus redeemed the world, because of the fact that she shared in giving and providing the ransom. But we may say this only with the express modification, in Christ and 
MARIOLOGY 
through Christ, or also in and through Christ's sacrifice, in so far as she shared in offering this sacrifice with Him. In this sense and under this form we can rightly 

call the Mother of the Redeemer a co-
redemptrix, especially if thereby we further present her as deaconess to the priest and as the altar of sacrifice, or as the bearer of a sacrifice. In this way her subordina-tion to Christ and her connection with Him are clearly 

And her specific activity is 
 not as 
one 
confers value and power on Christ's sacrifice, 
or 
 its value and power by a second 
but as one which communicates to 
the power and possession of the one sacrifice of Christ. But the idea of coredemptrix becomes confused and obscured, and 
complete subordination to Christ, her true con-
nection with 
and her specific activity are not 
sufficiently clear, if in her capacity as co-offerer 
 is 
called priestess and even high priestess or co-priestess. Especially is this so if, apart from the sacrifice of Christ, a sacrifice of her own is ascribed to the priestess, even though but an unbloody and secondary one, which was united with that of Christ to form one holocaust. If is thus called pricstcss next to Christ and in contrast the other redeemed, her priesthood is seen not as a 

priesthood, but as a hierarchical priesthood, and her sacri-ficial function as one of offering and consecrating. It is true that, apart from and next to Christ, there is still an-
other hierarchical priesthood, but 
under the 
 of 
Christ's representative. But Mary's role in Christ's sacri-fice bears no more the mark of a representative of Christ, than it does of a consecration of the offering. 
If, according to what has been already said, it is per-missible to speak of two sacrifices, one main and the other a by-sacrifice, this would no longer hold good if she who offers the second sacrifice is called For in that case the second would be presented as complete in itself and thus as a completion of the powers of the main sacri-fice. Therefore, if we wish to call Mary coredemptrix, we must be on our guard against qualifying her as priestess or as co-priestess. Thereby Mary would be elevated to an assistant of Christ, in the sense of a support, and also the very name would lose its 

Instead of the title of 
 and co-priestess, we may, without fear of ambiguity, use the expression minister or co-minister, which becomes self-evident if Ecclus. 24:14 is applied to Mary. Liturgical minister indicates, in general, the pub-lic office of the sacrificial service and, therefore, is applied to the deacon and the priest alike. In early Christian 

usage it 
 as a specific title for the deacon, in dis-
tinction to that of the priest and high 
Verv little is found in the Fathers relative to the 

ing and essence of Mary's 
 as here 
on, Mary's unique position in Christ's 

was often said to consist in this, that Mary alone steadfast in her faith, and for the reason that she only represented the faith of the Church in an 

manner, but also that she alone constituted the 
The 
Office recently condemned the devotion to Mary 

Priest, a devotion that was propagated by some theologians. 
E. Du-
art. "Maria," in 
de 
cath., 
2397; also 
pp. 142 f. 	
De 	hierarch.; PG, 	425, 	
stands for priest, 	for high priest. 		

Some have even misjudged Mary's heroic virtue in her 
Church. For extrinsic and intrinsic reasons this must be traced to the fact that in Mary alone faith was in no way 

Among the ancient Fathers, St. Ambrose re-peatedly pointed out the loftiness of the 
of the Redeemer, standing at the foot of the cross, and espe-cially in 
homonymous texts, to which also Arnold of 
Bonneval 
St. Ambrose writes: 
the 
apostles fled, Mary stood beneath the cross and viewed with loving eyes the wounds of her Son, because she was looking forward, 
 to the death of the guaranty, but to the salvation of the world. Or perhaps, because she saw 
of the world in the death of her Son, she 

thought that she as royal court could add something to the service of the people by her own death. But Jesus did not need a helper to redeem all, because He created all without a helper." 
 These words do not speak of any relation of Mary's compassion to the salvation of world, neither do they exclude it. They refer only to a completion of Christ's sacrificial death by a second and bloody death. 

A more thorough elucidation and stressing of Mary's compassion was given especially by St. Bernard, in the 
beautiful words at 
end of his sermon De 

in 
he describes the martyrdom of the Virgin as the twelfth star in the Again by Arnold of Bonneval 
 still more emphatically on several 
See 
ac gesta, 
I, disp. 38. 
PL, 1731. 
in 

no. 132; PL, 
1837, and Epist. 
ad Vercell. no. 
PL, XVII, 1218. Bernard, Sermo de 12 PL, 
see Ro-man Breviary, 2nd in 
Fer. VI post 
Pass.and September 15. 
sions by St. 
 until the hymn dolorosa, written by Jacopone in the spirit of St. venture, determined for 

 times the lofty figure of the Mother of Sorrows." St. Antoninus, St. Bernardine of Siena, and St. Peter Canisius have treated this matter profoundly and thoroughly."Since the feast of the Dolors of Mary was sometimes called and because of the church of S. Mariae de in Jerusalem, there arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries an animated dispute over the question whether a that is, a prostration or 
 from excess 

of grief, could be admitted in Mary. Cardinal Cajetan 
the list against it in a special work."Others fol- lowed up the spurious writings of St. Anselm, St. Bernard, and St. Bonaventure, and, with certain restrictions, con- ceded the admissibility 
probability of a swoon. This 
is thoroughly discussed by 

A swoon accompanied by convulsions in the body and a suspending of the use of the intellect in the soul is 
See 
6 of this chapter; St. Bonaventure, 
 no. 28, and 

9 (edited by Quaracchi, VIII, 78 f., 174 f. ). See also 
Stimulus 
p. I, c.3 (edited by Vives, XII, 638 f.). This work is not from St. Bonaventure, but is compiled principally according to his style, probably by the Friar Jacob of Milan. See edit. Quaracchi, VIII, 
 not from Jacopone da Todi; see Wilmart, 
Auteurs Spir. et 
(Paris, 
pp. 508 f. 
St. Summa,p. 4, tit. 15, 
St. Bernardine of Siena, 
2 de 
St. Peter Canisius, De oirg. 
IV, 98. 
De B.M.V. in Opusc. 
(Lyons, 13, 180 f. 

Pseudo-Anselm, Dialog. de (PL, 
of no value; Pseudo-Bernard, 
PL, CLXXXII, 1138; Pseudo-Bonaventure, cap. 79; edited by XII, 607; 
seems 

be the Franciscan Joannes de Caulibus, see D. A. 
Auteurs 
du 
(Paris, 
p. 	no. 	2; Franc. 		et 	
		lib. 6, 	6, cap. 11; 		
209-29. 					

altogether inadmissible. This would not be consistent with Mary's fullness of grace. Mary's sorrows were un-doubtedly so great that they could really have caused her death, to say nothing of a physical collapse. A priori, therefore, it could indeed be 
that a temporary 
stiffening of the 
or a disorder in the nervous system 
have taken place, as a 
of which Mary 
the support of others to keep her from falling. For there is nothing uncommon in this, nor is it a sign of Jesus' fall under 
 burden of the cross presents rather an analogy for it. But, because of 
 significant 

of the Gospels and because of the 
Mary had to fulfill in the completion of Christ's sacrifice, a swoon accompanied by a physical weakness is inadmissible in her case at 

As a rule, 
 significance of Mary's 
 is 
for in many moral factors. Thus Mary, in the name of the redeemed, must render the 
 in His suf-ferings the honor 
 gratitude 
is due to 
 To all she must be an example of suffering, especially of innocent suffering and grateful compassion 
Christ. As in 
 glory, so also she must share in the sufferings of the Savior in a unique way, and thereby 
her 
personal merits. By her 
 she was to become the 
merciful solace of all those who suffer. 
We nearer 
mediatorial significance of 
compassion, if we 
that by her compassion she merited 
the 
 of distributing later 
men the graces 
of the redemption in a more abundant measure by her prayers. Besides Arnold of Bonneval, St. Rupert had given 
John 
op. 
chaps. 1-2. 
a more profound 
 which he 
Mary's com-
passion as similar to the 
of childbirth in which 
with Christ, gave birth to the children of grace. Likewise St. Albert the Great sees in her compassion a privilege which is proper only to her and 
he designates as the communication of 
passion. For that reason Mary appeared as the assistant of the redemption, and of that she herself 
the mother of all per By reason of her 
 the world is to a sense of gratitude toward her analogous in a manner to its gratitude to Christ for His sufferings." 

the basic thought of a "companion who by consent co-operates in His passion." according to St. Albert the Great 
(St. Richard of St. Lawrence and St. Antoninus), the text from Isaias is quoted against "assistant of the redemption" 

("Ihavc trodden the winepress alone, and of the Gentiles 
is 
 a man with me"), it may seem like a play on words to retort that here it is said only: 
there is not a man me,"and not "there is not a woman with me." The words, 

bear a profound 
 The words "therc 
is not a man with me" formally exclude, in Christ's case, only the support of a partner in the fight, co-ordinate 

and fighting in the way 
 of 

like Christ 
sheds his 
in 
 or gains 
the victory by his blood. On the hand, the woman 
in Joan. lib. 13; PL, CLXIX, 789. Albert the Great, 
ad q.148; edited by 

XX,102. 

Isa. 

associated with Christ in His 
 occupies, even as 
such, a subordinate position, and does not cooperate, therefore, by the shedding of her blood but only by shar-ing in Christ's own sufferings. 
The question is touched upon almost as briefly by 
 On this occasion, so far as we 
he is the first to use the title of co-redemptrix, unless-and this 
we have been unable to Bernardine of Siena used it before sive, profound, and sublime manner, developed the signif-icance of Mary's compassion (in connection with the idea that "her consent to the incarnation" was "consent to the crucifixion"), and also her maternal cooperation in bringing forth the children of God, comprehended in that 
consent." On this is based the explanation found in 

In applying Abraham's sacrifice to Mary's sacrificial activity, preachers and ascetics follow the example of St. Antoninus 
 and appeal to St. 
in whose genu-ine works, however, the text in question is hard to find. They like to say that, as Mary excelled Abraham in obe-dience, she was prepared to put her Son on the cross with her own hands for the salvation of the world. But, after all, this thought is unnecessary for the emphasizing of the perfection of Mary's spirit of sacrifice, let alone of her 

in 
tract. 43. 
The idea is 
to be found in St. Bemardine of Siena; see 
Dublanchy, art. "Maria," in Did. 
th. 
who does not cite the word in question there or in 2400 or 2436 f. 
In recent 
de-veloped 
without the strict 

idea or at least without its faulty application. See I, 
8, 11, 
St p. 4, tit 15, 
14; edited at Verona, 

THE WORK OF 
sacrificial activity; for this perfection, as with Christ Him-self, required only a voluntary surrendering or aban-donment to death. Therefore this thought should not be 
stressed unduly since it can with 
 be reconciled 
with maternal love, especially for such a Son, and would only serve to wound unnecessarily tender Christian 
The relation of prototype in which Abraham stands to Mary, though brought out little or not at all by the Fa-thers, is surprisingly clear and beautiful, not only in the sacrifice of Isaac, but in its entire 
 position. The fact that Abraham was a man and not a woman af-fects the figure 
more than does the fact that the eccle-siastical priesthood is exercised by men proves an obstacle to regarding it as an ectype for Mary. For, from both sides, the fatherhood, based on the supernatural cooperation of God, bears a maternal character, and vice versa, the virginal motherhood of Mary, not subordinate to a cre-ated fatherhood, possesses a paternal character. 
The Apostle 
 indeed uses the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham as a figure of Christ's surrender by God the Father, to represent God's love for men. But in so doing, the application to Mary is not excluded, but rather in-cluded; for, together with God the Father, Mary sur-renders their common Son. The typical significance of Abraham in its reference to God the Father is here ex-hausted so little that, in its concrete form, the prototype is far less applicable in this case than in Mary's. For on the part of God the Father, the surrendering does not take place in the form of obedience and of a sacrifice, and as a meritorious deed. 
Prototypes of Mary, acknowledged by the Church, are 

234 MARIOLOGY 
Judith and Esther, not from the viewpoint of an outward sacrifice, but from that of a propitiating intercession, and of the giving up of one's own life, or of one's own 
as the Jews expressed it, with the purpose of ob-taining, through victory over the enemy, the deliverance 
of 
 to whom the bringer of the sacrifice himself 
belongs. Both these prototypes mutually 
 each 
other. Judith exposed herself to danger of 
by cut-
ting off 
 head of her 
 enemy. She is a prototype 
of Mary who, in the 
 is prophesied as the 
one who, in the fight, would crush the head of the ser-pent. Esther exposed herself to the danger of death by beseeching the king to spare her people and to make its enemy powerless. She is a prototype of Mary who inter-cedes 
God for mankind by the sorrows of her soul. Here the expression used in the epistle on the feast of 
the Seven Dolors of 
 is very applicable: 
praise 
shall not depart out of the mouth of men . . . for whom thou 
not spared thy life, by reason of the distress and tribulation of thy people, but 
prevented our ruin in the presence of our God." 
 This is emphasized by the words, "thou 
not spared thy life," ize very well the anguish of the mother's soul in the sacrifice of her Son. For the Son is the soul of the mother in so far as her whole life is 

up in Him, and also because the Jews speak of the soul as of the only child of him to whom it 

In modem times the expression, priestess, is used much in orations. That it has the stamp of the Fathers, is claimed 
Judith 
cf. Esther as Epistle on the feast of the Seven Dolors post Dom. Pass.and Sept. 15). 

by an appeal to St. John Damascene, or rather Theodore 
of Studium, and Epiphanius 
 But instead of the 
title, priestess, they use "bearer of a sacrifice, an expres- 
sion common to all 
who 
 participate in 
the 
Epiphanius says, "She is called priestess and altar at the same time." These words disturb the 
grammatical construction of the text. 
seem to be 
only a comment on the words of the text: "Mary is the treasure of the Church who received the great mystery and presents us the heavenly bread, Christ." At any rate, he had in 
only an analogy of Mary to the Church's priesthood. But even this analogy between Mary's func-tions and 
of the priesthood by no means justifies her being called priestess. For this title is due to the priest-hood of the Church, 
 so much because it exercises a 
ministry similar to that of Mary, but 
 because 
of its power to bless 
 consuminate the sacrifices which are based on the representation of Christ and are anal-
-
to His authority. Since Mary's function is not formal representation of Christ, it appears, next to and under Christ, more as a deaconate than as a priesthood. To emphasize the outstanding loftiness of Mary's atical dignity and power, we must further explain the fact that, in connection with Christ's personal sacrifice, her diaconate contains a higher dignity and a 

union with Him than does the representative priesthood in the renewal of His sacrifice. In connection with Mary's par- ticipation in Christ's bloody sacrifice, the name of priest-ess is used for the first time by St. Albert the Great from 
Pseudo-John Damascene 
Theodorus Studita), Or. 2 in 
no. 7; PG, 
693. E. Huzon (La Paris, 1912, pp. 10 f.) 
the text as being from St. John Damascene. Pseudo-Epiphanius, De B.M.; PG, XLIII, 497. 
whom St. Antoninus borrowed 
did not 

use the expression at all. 
Though Mary's cooperation did not conjointly effect the intrinsic power of the redeeming sacrifice, and did not essentially belong to the essence and substance of the actual work of redemption, it should not for that rea-son be regarded as a 
ornamental and accidental act. As it is joined with Christ's activity to form one or-ganic whole, it was so embodied by God in His plan for the economy of the redemption. Therefore it belongs to the substantial and essential integrity of the redeeming action, in a manner analogous, not similar, to Christ's actions which preceded the sacrifice on the cross. 
The analogy to Christ's own sacrificial activity is most significant for that of Mary. Christ's whole life formed one great 
action. On the cross it obtained its completion. It is likewise virtually or radically comprised in His dedication of the sacrifice, which Christ accom-plished when He came into the world. Hence His whole sacrificial activity is only a development of this first act, and the Apostle could add: "In the which will we are sanctified." 

This whole relationship can be applied also in the case of Mary, so that her maternal consent to the incarnation 
St. Antoninus, Summa, p. 
tit. 15, c.3, Verona, 1740, p. 926: St. Albert the Great is 
indicated here, but chap. 16, 
1017, reads: 

autem 

non re-dignitatis vel 
in ipso de 
fuit. This sentence is found literally in St. Albert's 
q.43 (ed-ited by 
42). Scheeben points also to the 
which are found in the same volume of St. Albert's 
That work is certainly not from him, but probably from (see Genevois, La bible . . . , Saint-Maximin, 1934, p. 26). 
99 Cf. Heb. 
of the Logos was not merely an abstract consent to the existence of the Redeemer, but concrete as to the existence of the Redeemer who must be sacrificed. For, from the prophecies concerning the Redeemer, she undoubtedly 
the redemption had to be 

a bloody self-oblation on the part of the Redeemer. this premise it follows that when, as a rule and in view of that consent, the Fathers simply regard and present Mary 
as a 	cause to the 	they do not 	
exclude, but rather implicitly 	thereby, her par-	
ticipation in Christ's sacrifice. So, the 	explana-	

tion, which later on developed around Mary's sacrificial 
activity, was merely a consequent 
 of the 
doctrine. 
Likewise, when the Fathers present 
in her con-
sent to the Incarnation, as the very opposite of sinful Eve, they would not thereby imply that this is 
 only contrast with Eve's disobedience, any more 
 Christ's 
obedience, 
 on the cross, is the only act in 
which He is in contrast 
the disobedience of Adam. 
In Christ's case, as in Mary's, it pertained to the very obedience of grace against sin, that a whole life of justice and sacrifice should counteract the one unjust act of the first couple. 
The doctrine 
to the co-effecting of our salva-
tion by 
cooperation in Christ's sacrifice must be 
regarded as 
 certain, and not simply as a 
pious opinion. It results as a consequent 
 from 
the teachings of the Fathers, and 
 from the 
idea of 
 anti-Eve as the one 'who crushes 
the 
 and only in this way does the idea find full 
Scriptures, and by the prototypes, Esther and 
which are acknowledged by the Church and used in her 
CHAPTER 
Mary's Permanent Office as Mediatrix 

FROM the explanation given we must conclude that Mary, by her cooperation in Christ's redeeming sac-rifice, shared in obtaining, through the same sacrifice, all the graces of salvation for mankind as a whole. Again, by that cooperation she was given charge of all the merits of 
the 
 sacrifice, the 
as the 

ancient Scholastics expressed it, and in them all graces of salvation for mankind in general. By nature, Mary's co-operation in Christ's sacrifice was so directed and dis-posed by God as to make this sacrifice, through her cooperation, a complete sacrifice for mankind. There-fore it must be said that only in and through Mary did mankind come into possession of Christ's sacrificial merits. Just as God the Father gave the Redeemer to man-kind only through Mary by allowing His Son to man in her womb, so in like manner did the Redeemer give mankind the merits of His redemption only through Mary; because her soul, as bearer of His sacrifice, was made bearer also of the fruits of that sacrifice for 
For literature see Suarez, De 
23; Christoph. 

Mar., pal. 30, cert. 4; p. 2, q.8, and q.2; F. W. Faber, Foot Cross (London, 
chap. 9; P. Simples la de la T. S. la Paris, 1868; Passaglia, De 

6, c.4. 

239 

MARIOLOGY 

manity in general. Mary's consent to her part in the ac-complishing of the Incarnation was an instrumental or rather, the mediating act whereby God the Son, in the first place to her, should be given through her to the rest of mankind also. Likewise, Mary's consent to 

Christ's 
was not less but rather more of a medi-
ating act, rather, it was 
mediating act whereby 

merits of the sacrifice were converted to 
 use of the 
rest of mankind. 
The intrinsic and mutual relation between Mary's co-operation in the sacrifice and her taking incdiatorial pos-session of the entire sacrificial merits for the benefit of 
is about the same as the relationship: (1) 

the sacrifice itself, between the meriting power and the pledging of the good merited; (2) in the altar, between its capacity of bearer of the sacrifice and of bearer of the sacrificial blessing; (3)in the 
 between its capacity of throne of mercy and throne of grace; (4) in human propagation, between the 
and the conceptio 
(5)in the heart, between its co-
operation with the head, and the communication of the 
of the head to the other members. 
It is not a mere rhetorical flourish, but a most profound truth to say that, as she stood beneath the cross, Christ poured forth all His redeeming blood into the heart of the mother from whom He had received it, so that 

her, as through a 
it might flow over 
all mankind. Again, as 
 Mary drank first of the chalice of salvation, in order to pass it on to man-kind. Further, according to St. Bernard,' Mary's soul alone remained in Christ's body after His soul had left it; and, 
St. Bernard, 
12 
likewise, in the piercing of His side Mary took up in her-self, through the blood and water flowing therefrom, all the power of His redeeming death in order thus to give birth to a new life for mankind. The profound and 
thought of these expressions is reflected in the idea which, although not sufficiently supported by historical evidence or by any intrinsic reason, is nevertheless gen-erally propagated in the Church, namely, that in 

Christ's sacrificial body down from the cross, Mary ceived it in her bosom. Thus, she appears in reality as the depositary of the sacrificial fruit. At any rate, in this 
thought lies the only concrete and 
expression of 
the traditional and ecclesiastical idea according to which, in the pouring forth of blood and water from His side, 
Christ transferred to His Church the merits of 
 sacri-
fice for distribution to mankind. For, in her person as 
of redeeming grace, Mary was well-adapted to represent the Church since, of those who stood beneath the cross, no one else could be so considered, the more so since Peter, the head of the Church, was absent. Later on, moreover, in beseeching and in receiving the Holy 
Mary appears among and at the head of the col-lege of the apostles, which formed the nucleus of the Church organism. 
This teaching is often based on the words of the dying 
Savior to Mary and 
 as if these words contained the 
testament in which Christ transferred 
merits to His mother, so 
as mother of all men, she might distribute their fruit among them. But the doctrine 
 not follow from these words with sufficient certainty, neither as to 
Acts 
2:l. 

4 John 

its 
 import, nor its perfect form. In reality, the mean-ing of these words must be deduced from the rather than the doctrine from these words. This doctrine is the essential supposition for the complete idea, as gen-erally accepted in the Church, of Mary's spiritual mother-hood over all the redeemed. 

In the work of the redemption, Mary's cooperation is a maternal activity truly productive or generative in the sense that it has as its aim and effect that, by virtue of Christ's merits, the redeemed should be born children of God. For that reason she contributes in obtaining spiritual life for the redeemed as much as an ordinary mother does in obtaining natural life for her children. By her contri-bution she cooperates with Christ, the spiritual founder of redeemed humanity, in a bridal cooperation as the organic connecting member between Him and His chil-dren, and this as closely and efficaciously as a mother cooperates 
the father in natural propagation. By His sufferings Christ, as the father, produces the 

pours into it the efficacy of His sufferings as the sap of the new life. Likewise, by her compassion, Mary, as mother, brought forth the new mankind. By the closest bodily and spiritual union with Christ's sacrifice, she takes up this sacrifice in herself as the seed of the new mankind and helps the rest of men to appropriate its vivifying power. In Christ's case, the salutary activity of His sufferings is 
the more a true and perfect paternal 

OFFICE AS MEDIATRIX 
production, for the reason that, by His sacrificial merits in the pouring out of His blood, He gives forth the divine vital strength which is inherent in Him and which is con-tained in His divine blood. In Mary's case, the salutary activity of her compassion is a true and perfect maternal production, the more so as by the offering of her own Son, in whom she lived more than in herself, she thus, by the use of her own being and life, communicates to man the life of grace. For that reason also, by her substantial and generating activity she exercises her influence on the re-birth of mankind. Under a form equally efficacious, her maternal production is represented as the vivifying ac-tivity of the heart in relation to the other members of the human organism. For although, unlike the heart, Mary does not feed with her own blood the head and the other members, yet she obtains life for them. She communi-cates it to them in such a way that by the giving of her blood to the head, and by her participation in its use by that head, she causes the vivifying strength received in and by it to descend upon herself and the other members. 
Mary is the spiritual mother of men 
 in her capacity as throne of the sun of grace and as the organic link that connects mankind with Christ as its Head; and this capa-city is included in her role as Mother of Christ. There-fore Christ's conception must be regarded as the act by which she became both the Mother of Christ and the mother of men. In Christ, His capacity of incarnate Son of God and as essential and supernatural Head of man-kind forms the basis and nucleus of His spiritual pa-ternity. In Mary, as the result of Christ's conception, her organic and substantial relation to mankind, in and 
See 
I, chap. 11. 
through Christ, forms the basis and nucleus of her spir-itual motherhood. Christ became actually and completely the spiritual father of mankind only by His sacrificial activity culminating in His sacrificial death; because 
the shedding of His blood, He, as it were, caused the divine vitality stored in Himself to become available. Likewise, Mary became actually and coinpletely the spiritual mother of mankind only by the fact that, through her participation in Christ's she carried this sacrifice in her heart and made its efficacy to descend upon mankind. Because of her spiritual motherhood, this second maternal activity of Mary bears the true char-acter of a conception, but in relation to the other con-ception which coincides with that of Christ, it stands in 
a more limited sense as the 
 forth, that is, the 
 or 
of the proles 
From this point of view, Mary's productive activity in her spiritual motherhood appears as a sorrowful birth. Yet this pain 
essentially from that of natural births, which take place under the curse of sin. Mary's sorrows are purely spiritual. They not only accompany the spiritual birth but really effect it, and thus are in themselves fruitful and full of blessing. 
The most perfect prototype of Mary's motherhood over 
the spiritual 
of God lies in the manner in which, 
by the wonderful conception and sacrifice of Isaac, Abra-ham, according to the flesh, became the father of God's people.' There is this notable difference: Abraham's pa-ternal sorrows must be regarded only as merits for the obtaining of a greater posterity; Mary's maternal sorrows were the conception and birth of a spiritual posterity. 
22:1-18. 

In contrast with Christ's own birth, therefore, the spir-itual birth of the redeemed, as effected by Mary, appears as a cooperation with Christ, her spiritual Bridegroom and the spiritual Father of the redeemed; and also as a birth most painful because of its specific object. Never-theless this productive activity of Mary, which forms her spiritual motherhood, can also be understood as mean-ing that Mary thereby brought forth, not only 
 re-deemed, but also Christ 
and the redeemed in Christ; in other words, that she cooperated with Christ in the offering of 
as sacrifice, and this participa-tion in Christ's sacrifice had the specific aim of Christ to mankind, through His sufferings, as 
 perfect principle of salvation.' 
This idea seems indeed to form the basis for 
 figure found in the Apocalypse,' of the Church rooted in Mary, since "the woman's pains of childbirth" are, in this case, brought into special connection 
 Christ's birth. It contains also 
 fact that, from the time she bore Christ in her womb, she bore Him as the mother of sorrows, be-cause she knew Him as the lamb destined for the sacrifice of redemption, and offered 
up with deep anguish of soul. St. Augustine does not expressly mention this, but it agrees undoubtedly with his idea, if his words, 
to co-operate out of charity, in order that the faithful be born in the Church," 
 are applied to Mary's cooperation in Christ's sacrifice. Upon these words he bases Mary's 
Heb. 
Apoc. 12: 
St. Augustine, De 
cap. 
PL, XL, 399. St. Augustine 
writes: cooperari ut 
in He puts this in 
contrast to 
motherhood over Christ's members. He contrasts the phrase, "to cooperate out of charity in order that the faithful be born," with "to bring forth bodily" in rela- tion to Christ, so that the "charity"is represented not only as determining the end but also as fruitful in itself and in its own way; and nowhere is this more the case than in the participation in Christ's sacrifice. This idea relative to Mary's motherhood certainly appears in tradition of fairly recent date.'' As to the traditional character of this idea in general, what has been said before concern- ing the significance of Mary's sacrificial activity, holds here 
It finds its scriptural motivation in all that is advanced for Mary's cooperation in the redemption. A formal scriptural argument for Mary's motherhood over mankind, based on her maternal production, is given by the well analyzed text from the Apocalypse in which, after Christ, the redeemed are called "the rest of her seed." The vision of the beloved disciple of our Lord pro- vides a positive and exegetical reason for applying to Mary's spiritual motherhood over all the redeemed, in a more sublime yet general sense, the words of the Savior: "Woman, behold thy son. Son, behold thy mother." Literally, they do not exclusively contain a recommen- dation of the mother to the loving care of the son, or an admonition to that son to honor the mother; but they do undoubtedly hold a recommendation of the son to 
care of 
mother which in a higher, more universal sense refer to Mary's spiritual motherhood of the re- 
See 
d.,pp. 162 f., and La 
la (Paris 

See preceding chapter. 
Apoc. 
About the form of the see 
I, chap. 1. John 
deemed. Consequently these words must be applied to this latter aspect of her motherhood, in the sense also that they not only signify Mary's appointment to the rights and duties of a foster-mother, but especially contain an explanation of her motherhood based on her coopera- tion in the sacrifice of the redemption and therefore on her maternal share in the production of the redeemed. Or, by explaining her motherhood, based on her maternal 
production, 
rather express Mary's appointment to 
the authority and office of a truly maternal solicitude in the care and nourishing of her children. It would be 
to draw a real proof for this ex-planation from these words themselves and from the his- torical circumstances. The clever manner in which 
attempted this is not without value. He shows at least how the more sublime and general meaning links up with the words and the circumstances. Of special in-terest is the fact that he takes into consideration the ad-dressing of Mary as woman instead of mother, and the indication of John as "the disciple whom Jesus loved instead of by his name. Among the historical circum- stances in which the Savior spoke, the fact 
be de-termined, even apart from His words, that Mary, by her cooperation in the sacrifice of the redemption, became at that time the spiritual mother of the redeemed. If we note this fact, we may conclude with greater probability that, although the Savior wished to appeal to this function of her motherhood, these words do not, for that reason, con- tain an absolute proof of Mary's universal motherhood. But, once this aspect of her motherhood is premised, it gives a presumptive proof of Christ's will, that Mary 
p. I, 
6. 
should care for and nourish the children she received. To that extent it is altogether right for us to conclude from 
words, in their ascetical meaning, that Mary should take the redeemed into her care and that they, in turn,  should honor Mary and entrust themselves 
her pro-tection. From the text from the Apocalypse, and in general from Mary's relation to the Church, it is evident that we can also apply to Mary's spiritual motherhood the beauti-ful words from Isaias 
 in which, after bitter trials, a supernatural fruitfulness is prophesied for Jerusalem. This much, at least, can be done by way of illustration, but to use these words as a proof would be going too far. 

Mary's spiritual and maternal function and position, of which a positive prototype is certainly found in Eve 
as the mother of the 
 must be regarded as in 
marked contrast with Eve as the mother of sin. 

nius 
unites both 
of this 
in Eve. In this re-
spect, the contrast or the contrasting parallel can be carried through in details in many ways, but especially in regard to the relation between Mary's primary and secondary motherhood. In this latter respect, a complete parallel exists in the contrast between the mother of sin and the mother of grace, in that Eve becomes also the mother of sin in her posterity, or in her descendants as sinners. This is so, because she is the mother of sin in Adam, or of Adam's sin as the principle of sin in mankind, and as such she unites herself with Adam as her bride-groom in the sin of the race. On the other hand, as to 
Isa. 

ff. 

St. Haer. 78, no. 18; 
XLII, 728 f. 
the position of her physical motherhood, which is con-nected with and conditions the spiritual, there here ex-
ists a reversed relation, in so far as Mary 
her physical 
motherhood is the principle of justice, whereas Eve by her physical motherhood propagates only sin. In union with Christ, Mary's productive activity appears as a sacrificial activity, sorrowful, propitiatory, and sustained by a holy love, as much towards the common sin of the ancestors as towards their physical act of propagation 
sustained by sensual 
 and lust. But in relation to 
the propitiation for sin, Mary's sorrowful productivity forms not less a parallel with that of Eve, whose mother-hood belongs to the curse of sin. Even the propitiatory sufferings of the new Adam can be regarded as an assump-tion of the pains of childbirth, imposed as a punishment for sin. But in the specific condemnation of the man to "labor in the sweat of his brow," 
can be seen also the burden of man in his capacity of father, since by his labors he must provide for the sustenance of his family. 
 curse of the man is offset by Christ's 
bloody sweat and His 
 of blood, as Mary's 
maternal anguish counterbalances the curse of the 
woman. 
It is evident that Mary's motherhood differs not in degree only, but completely and essentially, from the spiritual motherhood ascribed to other saints, who by their prayer, example, etc., contribute towards the spir-itual rebirth of others. In a sense and in a measure incom-parably higher, we can apply to Mary what the Apostle says of himself: "If you have ten thousand in 

250 MARIOLOGY 
Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you." 

Indeed, Mary is the spiritual mother of mankind in a manner still more sublime even than is the Church, in so far as the latter is distinguished from Mary in the fact that it does not contain Mary as its head member or heart. For, although in contrast with the saints, it must be said of the Church, that it not only teaches but also brings forth, Mary is connected yet more closely with Christ, the spiritual father of mankind, and indeed to the extent that she even helped to achieve the union of the Church with Him, and thus is also mother of the Church. Conse-quently Mary cooperated in a more fundamental way in effecting and obtaining the rebirth of 
mankind, whereas the Church is active only in applying the fruits of redemption to the individual soul. However, in so far as Mary is the head member or heart of the Church, her motherhood unites with that of the Church to form one motherhood in the same manner as Christ's spiritual fatherhood also forms one fatherhood with that of God. But, even in that case, Mary's motherhood remains the root and soul of that of the Church in such unity that the Church can have and exercises its motherhood only in so far as it contains and acts through Mary's motherhood. 
In general, there exists between Mary's motherhood and that of the Church so close, complete, and mutual a relation, rather so intrinsic a connection and likeness, that one can be known only in and with the other. The two are connected and resemble each other by the very fact that they depend on the Holy Ghost for their fecundity and life, and are thereby intended to communicate a holy and spiritual life. In both cases, moreover, the spiritual mother-hood over the redeemed includes a motherhood over Christ Himself, and indeed owes its perfection to this factor. For, all other maternal functions of the Church center round that by which she brings forth in her womb 

the Eucharistic Christ as the Head, the 
 and the 
food of the members of His mystical body. But that very fact reveals very specially the more sublime and funda-mental character of Mary's motherhood in comparison with that of the Church, and at the same time the organic connection of the two, as a result of which the Church's maternal activity is exerted because of and by virtue of Mary's motherhood, while Mary carries on her maternal work in and through the Church. 
An abundance of practical and theoretical conclusions is attached to the connection and analogy of the mother-hood of the Church to that of Mary. The Fathers have emphasized this connection and analogy although, more often than not, in individual points only." By way of example we may note the celibacy of the sacerdotal organs of the Church. In them, as in the bearers of an essentially virginal motherhood, this celibacy is required, not be-cause of an absolutely similar necessity, yet for reasons altogether analogous to Mary's perpetual virginity in soul and body. On the other hand, Mary's relation to the 
Eucharist is also extremely 
 for the full under-
standing of her spiritual motherhood. First the Mother of Cod, in a truer and fuller sense than the Church, pre-pared the flesh and blood of Christ, which are contained 
See St. Leo the Great. 
26 
c.2; PL, LIV, 213. 
Abundant material is to be found in J. B. Terrien, 
p. 
lib. 8, c.3 
( Paris edition, IV, 
in the Eucharist as the essential spiritual food for her children. Secondly, in the 
 Communion, through Christ's flesh and blood which is taken from her-self, she enters into a substantial and organic relation to her children, whereby they become dear to her and obtain a special right to her motherly care and interces-sion. 
An unhealthy mysticism put a fantastic interpretation on Mary's 
to the Eucharist, holding that a real presence of Mary, or a part of her flesh and blood, was contained therein. This part of her flesh and blood, which had gone over to Christ, but remained distinct from His own, would still belong to her and, apart from Christ's flesh, should be venerated by a special cult. That was the teaching, in the seventeenth century, of Christopher Vegas; 
the eighteenth century, of Zepherinus de 

Guido Carmelita a like error held by some Greek writers who, in the Eucharist, saw "relics of the Blessed Virgin." This doctrine was condemned by Rome as "false, dangerous, and scandalous." A partial renewal of this error occurred in the middle of the nine-teenth century. A study in Mariology by a German the-ologian contained this doctrine, and for that reason was 
placed on the 	At best it can be said that the 	
Christoph. Vegas, 	Mar., palaestra 21. 		
Zephyrinus de 	erga 	in 	

Carmelita, Summa de 
de 
graecomm, c. 13. See Benedict 
De Dei lib. 4, 
p. 2, dogmatic study in by H. 1855) was on the Index, December 6, 1855. 

bodily substance, 
 taken from Mary, remained 
materially identical in Christ's body as His flesh and blood; but even this is pure conjecture. Only the organic connection is certain of Christ's flesh and blood at His death with that of 

Instead of emphasizing a formal, or even a merely ma-terial, identity of Christ's flesh and blood with that of Mary's in the Eucharist, the fact should rather be stressed that, by her will, Mary cooperated and still cooperates formally and directly in the preparation of the Eucharist: first, because this, implicitly at least, was her object in the production of Christ's flesh; secondly, because the insti-tution of the Blessed Eucharist can be regarded as accom-plished in consideration of her prayers. With this we might associate her intercession at the undoubtedly typ-ical miracle at 

On the part of the Redeemer, the work of salvation continues after His death; in order to apply to the indi-vidual soul the fruits of that death. Mary likewise con-tinues her cooperation with the same purpose, the more so since, in the very application of the redemption, much room is left for human cooperation. While the Redeemer, reigning on the throne of God, continued His work of salvation no longer as one obtaining and meriting but rather as one commanding and distributing grace; it is obvious that Mary's activity, as long as she was separated 
See Dublanchy, art. "Marie," in 
f. 
John 
from her Son and continued to labor on earth among redeemed mankind, retained its former characteristic of winning and meriting. It remained that impetratio, by which he who prays makes himself and others worthy to obtain grace, possesses a power which is based on a pious longing. Perhaps it is more correct to say that, in relation to the accomplished act of redemption, it had the characteristic of an obtaining or disposing application. The Sacred Scriptures do not give the slightest hint as to the duration and continuance of Mary's salutary ac-tivity on earth. They mention only the first, but the most important, exercise of that activity, her prayer among the apostles before the descent of the Holy Ghost." 
As for Mary's specific position in the work of redemp-tion after its completion, her function is as natural and significant as was her activity before the conception of the Redeemer. At that time, as an instrument of the Holy Ghost and head member of mankind not yet redeemed. Mary had the task of preparing the latter for the coming of the Redeemer. In the same capacity must she, now as then, work among the redeemed in order to convey to them the grace of redemption and thereby show herself for all time the bearer and mediatrix of the grace of redemption. 
In Mary's prayer among the apostles, especially be-fore the descent of the Holy Ghost, we have for all time a figure of the relation between the Church as mediatrix of the grace of redemption and Mary. This relation con-sists not only in this, that the prayer of the Church on earth is generally animated and supported by that of Mary; but also and especially in the fact that, by virtue 

OFFICE AS MEDIATRIX 
of the formal identity of the Church of all times with the original Church, the prayer for the fruits of the redemp-tion, offered by the Church on earth, is animated and supported by Mary's pious prayer, as a prayer from the heart of the Church, now as much as when Mary formed part of that Church on earth. 
The nature and 
 of Mary's continued ac-
tivity on earth comes into evidence more clearly and forcefully when considered from the viewpoint of her spiritual motherhood. In that case her activity at once appears as running concurrently with that fruition by which a physical mother, after the conception of the fruit, cherishes that fruit in her womb in order to bring it to full development. In contrast with the maternal or concipere, this function is called 
or and 

In physical motherhood, after the conception of the propagating power from the father, it is the task of the mother to make the germ-cells available for the vivification by the spiritual soul, and to give complete development to the body thus vivified. For that purpose it supports the influence of the soul on the formation of the members, and thus aids in making these into living members; it is, in a manner, within the human organism, analogous to the heart which serves the head in the formation and vivification of the other members. Like- wise in Mary the germ-cell of the Church, that is, re- deemed mankind, had to be developed into an organic, living, and mystical body. As receiver of the productive 
power from Christ's 
 Mary was able and ob- 
liged to make this germ-cell available in her heart for the reception of the Holy Ghost who is the soul of that mys-tical body. After the reception of the Holy Ghost, she had 
to cooperate in the first development of this body by the formation and vivification of its individual members. The figure of this maternal function of Mary does not limit itself to her activity on earth, but is applicable in general also to her whole maternal care for redeemed humanity; hence it refers likewise to that care which, with Christ, she exercises in heaven. In a physical mother, the type of maternal care she exercises towards the child in 
womb is not less the standard for the activity which later, together with the father, she shows in the rearing of the child. In this case the kind of maternal cooperation 
in the full 
 of the child presents itself under 
two forms, the second of which really supposes the first. Likewise it is obvious that, in an analogous manner, this cooperation is realized in Mary's spiritual motherhood under two forms corresponding to those of physical motherhood. From this it follows that the activity exer-cised by Mary on earth corresponds most specifically in form and effect to that by which, without external rela-tion to the father, but in close union with her child, the physical mother nourishes and cherishes that child in her womb until it is matured for an independent life. 
This resemblance goes so far that even the pains of childbirth are not lacking in this maternal care of Mary for the 
Church. These very pains of birth which coincide with those of the Church are indicated par-
ticularly in the 
 This maternal care of Mary 
naturally includes in a broader sense her being regarded as paracleta, that is, protectress, educatrix, and consolatrix of the infant Church. To the apostles, orphaned by His departure to the Father, Christ gave Mary together with the Holy Ghost whose special figure and instrument she is, in order that she might take His place as visible guar-anty of His assistance and as mediatrix of His illuminating grace. 

Since this idea presents the effective rebirth of the indi-vidual redeemed, viewed from the birth that takes place 

the redeemed person, it is realized by the very mother-
hood of the Church itself. But for that very 	this 	
idea justifies our saying, that the Church, as 		
the new mankind, at the foot of the cross 	forth in 	
such a way from the side of Christ as to be 	in 	

Mary's heart in order to be born This idea 

Mary's spiritual motherhood in closer connec-
tion with her physical motherhood towards Christ Him-self. On this account Mary's maternal activity toward re-deemed humanity is formally directed to this, that by the power of Christ as Head she brings forth the redeemed unto unity with Him "as into the perfect one Christ" in the sense given by the 

Christ's words from the cross to Mary and 

in their literal sense, indicate a maternal relation to John which had to be established for the duration of Mary's life. In a higher sense they refer also to Mary's maternal relation to the members of Christ's mystical body during 
About the Church as daughter of Mary, see Terrien, op. 

p. 

lib. 8, c.2; 

Eph. 4:13. 
John 

f. 

her life on earth. This holds in 
 for the Church 
which was represented by the apostles. It holds for the 
apostles also, because 
represented the 
as a 
figure of Mary's virginal motherhood. This was particu-larly true of St. John. If from this application we pass on to the universal meaning of the words, the latter takes on a richer and more beautiful significance. We can more easily and naturally imagine it as contained in 
 words themselves, than if, from the literal meaning, we pass directly and immediately to the whole of the faithful. 

Mary exercises her final cooperation with the Re-deemer after her Son had taken her to Himself into His heavenly glory. This cooperation is again in immediate union with Christ and will continue until the full number of the redeemed is complete. As "Queen standing at the right hand of her Son," 
 she shares in His divine tivity of salvation in the same way as she cooperated with Him while on earth in obtaining the grace of redemption. Like the activity of Christ Himself and of the glorified saints, or like 
of all members of the perfected Church in heaven, among whom it is exercised for the 

of the yet imperfect Church on earth, Mary's salutary ac-tivity consists in intercession. In contrast with the activity of obtaining, or of obtaining and applying, on behalf of the 
her activity bears the character-
istic of a participation in the distribution, 
 of 
God's graces, especially the grace of redemption. For, her activity is the effect of her elevation to the state of reigning with God. In contrast with 

Ps. 44:10. 

in the distribution of grace must, like that of the 
saints, be limited to a glorious It has always been the conviction of the Church that 
in heaven 
 intercedes in the most comprehensive 
and irresistible manner for the Church on earth; also, that, according to the doctrine of the Church and the Sacred Scriptures, all glorified saints pray more or less effectually for the Church here below. This follows clearly both from reason in general and from Mary's special rela-tion to Christ because of which, while on earth, she co-operated most earnestly and constantly with Him in the salvation of mankind. As for the nature, position, and power of Mary's intercession in heaven, it is equally ob-vious that her intercession bears a characteristic entirely its own, distinguishing it no less from that of the saints than from that of Christ. This characteristic can be ex-pressed as follows: it is the maternal intercession in the order of grace, that is, it is purely maternal in contrast with that of Christ, and it is truly maternal in contrast with that of the saints. 
As a purely 
intercession, or as that of the maternal bride, Mary's intercession is to that of Christ as one that is based on the sublime and proper power of God the Son, which is expressed in the full spiritual fatherhood over mankind. Mary is subordinate to this, consequently she pleads and petitions for all that she desires, but only by and in Christ. Thus, in the strictest 
sense of the word, Christ's intercession is the 

Some wish to ascribe to Mary a physical and instrumental 
causality with 
to the distribution of grace. See Rittremieux, De 
B.M. 
(Bruges, and B. Lavaud, "De la causalitk instrumentale de Marie, mkdiatrice de toute 
in 
( 1927 ),423-45. 

of a king and priest, based on the lofty dignity of His person and the sublime value of His sacrifice. It thus bears 
characteristic of a supreme jurisdiction. That of Mary, on the contrary, remains always the ministerial suppli-cation of a deacon. 

In relation to the intercession of other saints, Mary's is truly maternal and on an essentially higher plane than theirs. Their intercession is based on their capacity as friends and servants of God. The intercession of the Mother of God the Redeemer, is based on the manifold and unique union of Mary with Christ in His person and in His work, and on her unique capacity 
of 
 and 
 resultant 

In so far as it is directed to Christ Himself, it is based especially on the services which she alone rendered to His person and, therefore, it possesses the interpellatory characteristics of Christ's mediation. The of the saints is exercised only as an act of friendly interest. That of Mary, as spiritual mother of the redeemed, is such that, in virtue of her vocation as mother, she inter-cedes with a truly maternal love for the children whom she conceived and brought forth, in order to perfect them in and with her first-born Son as children of God, and thereby to win and possess them also as her children. From this it obviously follows that other saints, in their intercession, are naturally subordinate to Mary, partly because they depend on her intercession or direct their prayer to God and Christ through her, partly because by their intercession they place themselves at the disposal of Mary's maternal direction. 
The antiquity of the Church's concept of Mary's 
See 

I, chap. 
and this volume, chap. 11. 
OFFICE AS MEDIATFUX 
cession is especially apparent from the so-called representations in the catacombs, that is, the pictures of women standing with arms extended. In many of these representations, Mary's name is expressly mentioned, especially when the is pictured among the apostles. Among other saints, apart from and next to Mary, St. Agnes is by preference represented as 
because she was particularly suited to represent the Church as virginal daughter of Mary. Whenever the appears alone and without a name, she naturally signifies the Church directly; yet, in 
manner that she is either represented as mother of the faithful in Mary herself, or imagined as daughter of 

The analogy of the interpellatory characteristic in the intercession of Mary and Christ was summarized signif-icantly in the Middle Ages in the expression: "The Son shows the Father His side and His wounds, the Mother shows her Son her bosom and her breasts." The expres-sion is a delicate one, hence cannot be used indiscrimi-nately. 
It is obvious that in oratorical language, in order to emphasize strongly the contrast between the 

of the mother and the simple supplication of the servants, we meet expressions such as the famous text in St. Peter Damian: "Thou approachest before that golden 
throne of human reconciliation not 
only, but com-
manding as Dontina, not as handmaid." 
 Such 
bolical and metaphorical language can be used only for pious and understanding hearers. With St. Bernardine of 
See H. 
art. "Marie, Mbre de 
in 
	X 	1982 ff. 	
St. Peter 		rather Nicholas of 	1 	
B.V.; PL,CXLIV, 740. 			

Siena, perhaps also with St. Bonaventure, we may speak of a jurisdiction which Mary exercises in her intercession. In itself this expression does not mean a special privilege of Mary. To a certain extent it is applicable also to the intercession of all the saints, since 
intercession re-ceived from God the certain guaranty of realization, and thus is equal to having the disposal of the graces to be dis-tributed. It would mean a special privilege for Mary only when applied, in the sense of St. Bernardine, to an innate and general 

The Greek Fathers use the word 
 (intercession) for the interpellation of both Christ and Mary; for Mary's intercession they more often use which means an ambassador's mediation. In this function Mary herself is designated now as "leader of a faction,"now as "mediatrix of foreigners," again as ambassador," but especially is the title "advocate" applied to her. This latter expression is used almost exclusively for Mary, and not for the saints. Because of its broad import and because it is a name of the Sacred Scriptures proper to the Holy Ghost 
 it con-tains also a special consecration. In this respect it is par-ticularly appropriate to Mary, the more so since, by reason 
of her special relationship to 
 the 
Ghost unites 
Himself to Mary's petition with unutterable sighs. 

In all the forms and phases of her cooperating activity so far elucidated, Mary appears next to and under Christ, 
St. Bernardine of Siena, De angelica, a. 1, 
in the edition of Opera I, 386 f. See text quoted by 
E. Blondeel, de 
. . . (Collect. Franc., V, 1935); see also St. Bernardine of Siena, De 
cap. 8. 
John 
f. 
See 
I, chap. 11, and this volume, chap. 9. 
as the eminently active and 
mediatrix of salva-tion, the reason being her unique central position be-
tween Christ and 
 or her fundamental act of 
mediation, that is, her consent to the conception of the 
She converts the grace of redemption to the use of mankind; or, rather, she leads each individual to a participation in the grace of redemption and thereby to a union with God. If we usually think only of this aspect of Mary's mediatorship, that is because, in prayer, we appeal to Mary in so far as she exercises that office by her heavenly intercession. Moreover, we call directly not only upon Mary, but also upon Christ and God, and upon the saints apart from Mary. Consequently, from that aspect, we do not easily come to the idea that the media-tion of 
like that of Christ, is simply 

in the sense, that no grace is granted by God without an actual and intercessory cooperation from Mary, and that, therefore, all graces of salvation come to us through her hands. 
Many theologians, it is true, have admitted this thesis only as an opinion which is at most remotely probable. It has even been called an empty exaggeration or a pious but unfounded phantasy, as was the case with Muratori 
against St. 
 We need only to define the mean-
ing of the thesis and consider the of Mary's 
as mediatrix in heaven with her functions of mediatrix in general, in order to see that a scientific 
See Vol. I, chap. 11. supra, chap. 

Ludov. Ant. Muratori 
his book in 1747; it was not directed against St. whose work was written only two years later. St. Alphonsus' book is really an to Muratori. About this, see Dillenschneider, 

de S. 
de 
I, and (1934) 11, 
sequence forces a real theologian to accept the thesis and to realize, too, that a criticism of it may be traced to a superficial consideration of the state of the case. 
Indeed real meaning of the thesis is not that we not receive any grace unless we ourselves beg Mary's intercession. It means only that no prayer is without the assistance of her intercession, and that a 

and positive exclusion of that intercession in 
intention of him who prays, must most certainly en-danger the granting of the petition. (2) The should not mean that Mary's intercession is altogether and in general to move Christ to 
 inter-cession for us, as if, of 
He were not willing to do so. It that, according to the order fixed by God and Christ Himself, Christ's merits and intercession will be of no avail without Mary's cooperating intercession, and that, accordingly, every grace is granted only as con-jointly obtained by her. 
The existence of this order is shown from its fitness to the dignity of the Mother of God, to her characteristic of Domina and Queen, to the magnitude of her fullness of grace, and especially to the universal dispensation according to 
in the apportioning of grace, God follows a gradual distribution. In reality, these are only reasons de convenientia which may recommend the doc-trine, but do not prove it. For lack of positive evidence in revelation, a real proof for the existence of this order can be built up as follows: We must show that it forms an integral part of a special and actual order capable of proof, which, without it, would be incomplete, or inter-
ted in its natural development. Thus the non-existence of this order would be objected to as a real anomaly. 
MARY'S OFFICE AS 

The lack of the universal mediation of 
through Mary's intercession appears at once as such anomaly, when we observe that not only Mary's whole position as mediatrix, but also all her preceding mediatorial func-tions are entirely designed for a universal mediation of grace, and condition the communication of all grace with-
For all Mary's functions as mediatrix form mutually one organic whole, in which the later ones are based on the preceding and make their influence felt; 

in the granting of the very 
took place in the conception and birth of Christ, indicates that Mary was destined also for the universal and continuous communication of the flow of grace from this source as "aqueduct of grace." 
(2)It is further indicated by the fact that, by her cooperation in the sacrifice of the redemption, Mary conjointly ob-tained all graces. For it is evident that her heavenly inter-
cession must be to Christ's 
 in heaven as 
her sacrificial activity on earth was to that of Christ. So also the scope of her intercession must answer to that of 
her earthly activity, as Christ's 
 to His sacri-
ficial activity. (3) By her cooperation in Christ's sacrifice, Mary 
the depositary of the merits of the redemp-tion for all mankind and for all times. In the first place she cooperated in imploring the Holy Ghost to hasten His descent upon the infant Church. Likewise, her continu-ous cooperation must hold as a normal condition for all future fruits of Christ's merits and for the action of the Ghost. (4) By her cooperation in the redemption, 
Mary became the spiritual mother of all the redeemed. 
The expression is from St Bernard(cf. 

and the completion of the life of grace, and for this very reason Mary's continuous and universal cooperation is as natural as is that of a physical mother in the rearing of 
children. (5)Finally, the communication of the grace of redemption is linked to the Church in an abso-lutely universal manner, so 
 no one obtains grace without some sort of relation to and cooperation with the Church. 
 may conclude from this, first, that Mary is the ideal model of the Church; secondly, that the universal media-tion of all graces by the Church cannot exist entirely of itself, if Mary is not regarded as the unfailing mediatrix of grace. For Church also, by her prayer especially, 

the life of grace; because, as the veiy bride and living body of Christ, she thereby obtains grace for 
all her children or members 
 the organic inter-
action with 
Bridegroom and Head. There is in the Church no othcr individual or group of persons whose prayer can represent that of the whole Church in so 
a as Mary, the heart of the Church, who was called to and most perfectly 
for this 
In keeping with 
whole position in the kingdom of grace, 
 in relation to the influence 
her plenitude of grace has 
His mystical body, her continual coopera-tion with Christ must, in general, be held to 
as natural as is 
incessant cooperation of the heart with the head in 
influence of the latter on the vivification of the 

othcr members of the body. Hence, it 
not be surprising that the Church, in her liturgy, uses the texts of the Sacred Scriptures refer-
ring to Wisdom incarnate, especially Ecclesiasticus, chapter 24, in so far as, under the figure of a paradise, Wisdom is represented as the mother and seat of all and that mankind is then invited to seek grace 

in her. Likewise, we can understand that to Mary, as figure and instrument of Wisdom, the description is ap-plied which represents Wisdom under the figure of a channel or watercourse which, issuing from a stream, sends out in turn rivulets which render fertile the gar-dens of 
 And conversely, this idea, which is self-evident in this method of the Church and the saints in relation to the scope of Mary's activity, is also an ec-clesiastical guaranty for our thesis; it can be understood only in this sense. There is no reason for understand-ing this idea in a more restricted sense, 
that by her cooperation in the incarnation of Wisdom, by which she prepared the way for the stream of Wisdom in the world, Mary participated only indirectly in the activity of Wisdom. The Church's application of these texts to Mary, as figure of the absolute Wisdom, requires rather that Mary be also regarded especially as the figure of Wisdom in her continual, universal, and personal activity and power, which makes it necessary for man to seek grace from her and in relation to her. Thus Mary must be regarded as one who, by virtue of her fullness of grace, 
exercises 
continual activity a universal influence in 
heaven also. 
idea is reflected in the fact that even 
from ancient times 
 was called the treasury of grace 
or the throne of grace, the ladder and 
of heaven, and the hope of the children of Eve. These expressions, used 
Ecclus. 24 :25 ff. 47 Ecclus. 
ff. 
of no other saint, proclaim not only that the Cause of grace once abided in her, through her descended from heaven, by her established our hope, but they are also connected 
Mary's actual place in heaven. So certain is their interpretation that they frequently serve to elucidate the manner in which the order in the distribution of grace corresponds to the order of its origin, and as the Redeemer through Mary came down to earth, so mankind through her must be brought to heaven. 
This question was little discussed in learned circles. Although it obtained the approval of many preachers and ascetics, its justification was weak, rather oratorical than scientific, 
 based on mere reasons of fittingness. The result was that theologians held more 
 Bossuet 

correctly indicated the road to its 
 applied the 
principle from the Apostle: "The gifts of God are without repentance," 
 to the granting of the Principle of grace through Mary; and concluded that, in the distribution of grace, the order established by that act was not an-nulled by God, but rather was consistently carried through; but he did not follow the matter through. St. Alphonsus by preference based the thesis 
 on texts taken from St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernardine, and some others, but these texts were either poorly chosen or not sufficiently clear and decisive. Among them there is an annotation on the twofold fullness of grace in 

In recent years the attitude of the theologians toward this question has changed. See the abundant bibliography on 
question in 1936, pp. 320-28. This bibliography completes the list of literature of De pp. 

Christ and in Mary: "In Christ, there was a fullness of 

brought out the intrinsic reasons for attaching greater im-
portance to 
cooperation in the work of redemption. 
For the rest he appealed to texts previously quoted, among which some, again, were of little or no value. Against Muratori he proved especially that St. Bernard had not only spoken about the universal mediation of grace in Christ's conception, but that he had also cham-pioned the thesis in his famous sermon De 

This classical text of St. Bernard, which so beautifully interprets Mary's position in the distribution of reads thus: "Observe, 

man, the council of God, ac-knowledge the council of wisdom, the council of piety. He who is to bedew the ground with heavenly dew, poured it first upon the entire fleece; 
 He who is to ransom the 
This gloss is from 

Casale, Arbor 
Venice, 1485, but 
was attached to the text of 
me by St. of Siena, who 
copied Ubertino. (See Blondeel, op. 
pp. 30 f., 36.) He quotes the gloss alone as being from ( Pseudo-) Jerome in De B.V., chap. 8 ( Lyons, 

 Scheeben here confuses two things: (1) Under the pseudonym of 
Pritanius, L. A. Muratori published a book De mod-in 
( Paris, 
directed mainly against the ad-vocates of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and later, under his 
own name, 
 (2) After death, his nephew 
partly under the pseudonym of Pritanius also against 

di 
St. Alphonsus, wrote an apology for his uncle: 
ad P. Ben. SJ, minus 

(Venice, 
to which St. Alphonsus 
replied with 
ad 
in which he elucidates mainly the ideas of St. Bernard. 
St. Bernard, 
in 
B.V.; PL, CLXXXIII, The most recent treatise on this question by G. Mislei (Rome, 1862, p. 
chap. though deep and very detailed, is not very sound. 
Judg. 
no MARIOLOGY 
human race deposited the whole price in Mary. And to 
what 
 Perhaps that Eve might be pardoned 
through her daughter and that the accusation of the first man against the woman might be wiped out. Thou shalt no longer say, 
Adam: The woman whom Thou me gave me of the forbidden tree; say rather: The woman whom Thou 
me gave me to eat of the blessed fruit. A council most pious, indeed: But it may be that some further meaning is intended, and that this is not the com-plete sense; this may, indeed, be true but, unless I am mistaken, it is not enough for your desires; it is like the sweetness of milk; it can be drawn out perchance if we press harder. Let us, therefore, observe more closely with 
how great a desire of devotion He who thus 

Mary the fullness of all good, wishes to honor her so that, 
is any hope, any grace, any salvation in us, we may know that it comes from her who ascended abounding in delights. Clearly, a garden of delights upon which the coming south wind of God shall not only breathe, but shall blow over and breathe through and through, so that His fragrance, that is, the charismata of grace, shall flow, and 
abundantly. Take away this sun which illumi-nates the world; where is the light of day? Take away Mary, the Star of 
Sea, of a vast and boundless sea; what is left but an encompassing mist, a shadow of death, a profound darkness. Therefore, let us venerate this Mary with our innermost heart, with all the affections of our breast, and in all our prayers, because such is the will of Him who wishes to possess us entirely through Mary." 

By this latter expression: 
who wishes to possess us entirely through Mary," St. Bernard understands her 
St. Bernard, 
nos. 
PL, 440. 
permanent mediation through intercession. This is quite evident from the fact that, in regard to its universality, he immediately compares Mary's interces-sion with that of Christ. He explains how beautiful and consoling is this divinely decreed and twofold com-munication of grace by Christ and Mary. The words he uses are, "Since, indeed, there is in Mary an undefiled human nature, free not only from all contamination, but free also because of the singularity of her nature"; these words are sometimes explained as contradicting the context, as if by the latter part of the sentence, Mary is dis-

tinguished from the rest of mankind 
a particular kind 
of nature, whereas they express only the contrast with Christ's twofold nature. St. Bernardine of Siena 
 goes more deeply into the basis of our doctrine and gives it the correct interpreta-tion, although in this form the reason is only a reason of convenience and the expression sounds somewhat exag-gerated. He says: "Since it appears that the whole divine nature, that is, His will, power, knowledge, His whole being and existence, is enclosed in the Virgin's womb, I do not fear to say that this Virgin had a certain jurisdic-tion over the outflow of 
graces, for from her womb, as from an ocean of divinity, flowed streams and rivers of grace. . . . And because the mother of the Son of God, 
produced the Holy Ghost, is so exalted . . . all gifts, virtues, and graces of the same Holy Ghost are ad-ministered by her hands to whomever she desires, when, in what manner, and to 
 degree she wishes." It is evident that both texts are concerned with only the 
no. 7. 
St. of Siena, De 
B.V., chap. 8 (Lyons, 
96. 
first foundation upon which Mary's universal mediation of grace is built. The figure of "the neck of 
 mystical body," 
 used especially by St. Bernardine and answer-

ing to St. Bernard's figure of the 
 indicates 
very clearly indeed both Mary's total subordination to Christ in the communication of grace and 
universality of this 
as well as its form, in part at least. It represents Mary as the connecting link which projects from the body and which is lifted heavenward 
 the head. It illustrates less the communication of grace by Mary's own activity than do the more profound reasons. In this respect the figure of the heart deserves the prefer-ence and is, in general, more plastic and vivid. 
From this thesis follows as corollaries that, according to its nature, Mary's intercession not only possesses a greater and more universal influence than that of all other saints, but also, which is not the case in any other saint, forms an ordinary and indispensable means of salvation for all men. Consequently the invocation of Mary to ob-tain her intercession possessed a meaning quite different from the invocation of other saints, since it must be con-tained at least implicitly in every prayer. Further par-ticulars about 
invocation as a means of grace and about the principle that the devotion to 
is a cer-
tain sign of election, belong to the doctrine of grace. In recent years 
 devotion to Christ's sacred hu-manity is concentrated in the devotion to His Sacred Heart, and is thus deepened, vivified, and as it were, trans-formed. In an analogous way, with ecclesiastical per-mission and approval, the devotion to the most pure Heart 
De 
angel., a.1, 
(quoted by Blondeel, 
p. 36). 
See supra, note 54. 
MARYS OFFICE AS 
of Mary has been developed. Both devotions have a pro-found theological foundation. Their special object forms, as it were, the focus to which is brought the entire full- ness and greatness of Catholic thought regarding Christ's human nature and Mary's person. From this focal point 
the 
can 
clearly elucidated on all sides. In the 
case of Christ, the heart can be regarded only as a mem-ber of His body and thus formally represents only His human nature. In the case of Mary, the heart is the center of her person and, as such, it represents the latter even in the maternal distinguishing mark of her person, since her heart is the instrument of her physical spiritual motherhood. 
The profound and dogmatical grounds defining the de- votion to Jesus' Sacred Heart and to the most pure Heart of Mary present both hearts in an intimate and organic 
union. They 
also the union of both as objects of 
devotion and, therefore, their being represented side by side. At the same time, those grounds are of such a nature, that only by a complete denial of them would it be pos- sible to add to these hearts the heart of St. Joseph." 
See Vol. I, chap. 7. 

Aaron, priesthood of, 
189 St., 
70 
233, Mary at the cross, 11,228
Abraham, prototype of Mary, 
244 
Abraham's sacrifice, prototype of Mary's sacrificial activity, 
221, 232 
Actio productiua and actw unitiua in 
the I, 84 Actw I, 62 ff. Actw unitiua, I, 74: ascribed to the 
Ghost, I, 247; and the In-carnation, I, 79, 84, 92 
Actw 
and 

I, 88 
doubt, 
131 
Mary s 
64 
nature of Mary's death, 

157 
virginal birth of 
I, 104 f. Andrew (apostle), of mar-tyrdom of, I, 37 note 
Andrew of Crete (St.), 11, 79, 147: on Mary's exemption from de-composition, 11, 160 
Angel, salutation 
, I, 13 f.; 
Angels: Mary and $11,115; grace and that of, 

Actions, Mary's: value "Anna," meaning of, I, 6 of, 
188 ff. Annunciation, the, I, Activity, Mary's: dynamic and super-
St.: 
homo by, 
by,
natural, 
187; related to that 87; De 

of Christ, 
190 ff. 87; Mary's purity, 
63, 97 Adam, prototype of Christ, I, 36 Ante-Nicene Fathers, view of, I, 
use of the term, 
196 28 ff. "Advocate," title, 11, 262 11, 153 Aethelsige; see of St.: on Im-
161 maculate Conception, 
108 
Agnes, St.: as 11,261 
 the, I, 106 Albert the Great, St., 

97 in the, 1, 9, 15 231 
Marian, I, 43 and note Mary's 
11, 134 Apocryphal Gospels, Mary's motherhood, I, 222 of, I, 43 nature of Mary's death, 11, 
and, 1, 45 term used by, 
235 Ark, Noe's: as symbol, I, 38 
Alexander VII on Immaculate Con-Ark of the covenant, figure of, I, 39; ception, 
35, 38 11, 93, 96, 114, 159, 168, 172 f., 
Alexander of Hales, questions on Im-224 maculate Conception, 
94 Armenians on Mary's assumption, 
note 178 Alphaeus and Cleophas, 
Dominicus; see Dominicus St.: on Mary as 
115 
of De S. 263, 268 by, 11,218; Mary at the 
Amhrogio Catarino, 11, 48: on Im-cross, 11, 228; Mary's maculate Conception, 
109 
217 2i'5 

Assumption, feast of the,11, 169 f. date, 174 note date of origin, 174 in Eastern Churches, 
Missal, 	176 	
Gothic Missal, 	175 f. 	
175 			

175 St John Damascene, Assumption, Mary's, 164 ff. Armenians on, 
148 Eusebius, 142 historical tradition, 142 
Latin liturgies, 169 f. Peter de La Celle, 172 reasons for, 31 request for dogmatic definition, 
171 St. Gregory of Tours, 11,147 St John Damascene, 11,171 
basis, 166 f. Vatican Council, 140 St., 75: Mary's as-sumption, 11, 
Augustine, St Eve and Mary, 11, 204 f. Marriage feast of 11, 73 Mary's death, 11, 156 
I, 221,236 Mary 67 f., 1.28 Mary's spiritual motherhood, 
245 f. universality of sin, 110 the virginal birth of I, 105 
Aureolus, Peter; see Peter Aurora as symbol, I, 37 
Bacon, John: on Immaculate Concep-tion, 104 Baius on Mary's death, 156 Vincentius: on Immaculate Conception, 109 of on Immac-ulate Conception, Bernhard: on I, 
 of (1439):on Conception, 
34, 104, 108 St: on Simeon's prophecy, 130 of Seleucia on Mary's excel-lence, 11, 5 "'Bearer of a sacrifice," title, vision, Mary's possession of, 11, 13 Bede, Venerable: on Mary's happi-ness, I, 221 Bernard, St. 
"A woman clothed with the sun," I, 
 8 
Eve and Mary, 

207 bestowed on Mary, 
20  east of Mary's conception, 

83, 
88-91 Mary as 
269 Mary's fullness of grace, Mary's martyrdom, 
228 Mary's place m the divine plan, 
4 Mary's immunity from sin, 

1.28 
writings of, I, 54 of 
St.: Mary as 11, 271; Mary's com-passion, 
232 Bible, Mary m the, I, 941 Birth of Christ, the virginal, I, 102 
Isaias' prophecy, I, 105 on, I, 104 Council (649),I, Leo I, I, 
I, 107 St I, 104 St. I,105 
Bodily organism of Christ, forming of. I. 76 incorruption of Mary's, 
Bonaventure, St.: concupiscence in Mary, 
119; feast of Mary's conception, 
105; human son-ship of Christ, I, 157; Immac-ulate Conception, 
96; Mary at the 
229 in 
mar-riage, I, 
129 

Mary as mediatrix, 11, 268; Mary's 
in 

Bridal motherhood. the. L
. 
86, 194 Bride of Christ. Marv as.  Bride of the the, I, 174 Bride of the Holy Ghost, Mary the, I, 
175 f. Bride of the Word, Mary the, I, 

Bromyad, John, 
99 "Brothers" of Christ, 
114 Bull 

I, 47, 201, 203, 243; 
33 Bull 
35 
Cajetan, 
 100: De B. V. M. by, 
229; on Immaculate Con-ception, marriage feast at: St. tine on, 

73 
St. Peter: on mcnt of Mary, 
132 
Canticle of Canticles, Mary in the, 

I, 19 f., 22 by 
71 Ambrogio, Central position of 

I, 236 Centuriators of Magdeburg, 
132 
of,11,179 Child of God, Mary as, I, 168 f. Christ: ancestral descent of, I, 133; 
"brothers" of, I, 114; infusion of the soul of, I, 96 ff.; the person of, I, 150; son of man, I, 133 
rejection of the term, 135 
Christopher Vega, I, 210: on Mary in the Eucharist, 11,252; on Mary's having the beatific vision, 
13 
Christ's apparent disparagement of Mary, I, 
f. 
Christ's submission to Mary, I, 173 see Peter see John 
Church and Mary compared, 
66 f. Mary the prototype of the, I, 211 

Church ( Mary's motherhood and that of the, 

250 mystical body of Christ, I, 217 supernatural power of the, 
189 temple of the Holy Ghost, I, 215 and I, 115 
see Cleophas "Cloud of 

ht," I, 
29, 3.3; 
56 
 (fetter of Pseudo-Jerome) 11, 116 f., 161, 170, influence of, 
179 
154 
Mary the, I, 171, 224 "Co-minister," Mary's title of, 
227 Compassion, Mary's, 

243: St. Albert the Great on, 
231; St. Bernadine of Siena on, 
233; St Rupert on, 230 
Conception, Mary's, I, 61-101 and Christ's compared, Fulbert of Chartres, 
86 
Paschasius Radbertus, 

86 St John Damascene, 11, 77 St. Peter Damian, 
86 
St. Thomas, 

98 ff. Conception, feast of Mary's, 

36 f., 

83: in England, 
note; Paris University, 
90; St. Bernard, 
88-91; St. Bonaventure, 
105 of St. AM, feast of. 

of St. feast of. 76 
de Spiritu 
meaning of, I, 79 Concupiscence, Mary's immunity 
11, 114 ff. Peter de La  115 Pseudo-Jerome, St. Bonaventure, 
119 St. Thomas, 
119, 
115 
Vasques, 

122 ff. 

( sacrament), Mary's reception of, 
17 title of, 
I99 title of, 
217 Consent, nature of Mary's, 

211f. 

Cooperation, Mary's, 
 193-208 after Christ's death, 
253 
de  on Christ, 

195 
in 

258 

in the redemption, 11, 193-238: reasons for, 
206; in the sac-rifice of the cross, 
216; by 
way of her motherhood, of 

Redeemer, 
217 title of, 11,227 title of, 217, 226 f. Cremona, feast of Mary's conception at, 11, 85 Cross.  at the: Arnold of Bon-

228; St Ambrose on, 
 St. on, 229 
Cross, Mary's cooperation in sacrifice of the, 
216 
Cur 
homo by St. 
87 Cyril 11, 143, 178 Cyril of Alexandria, St., 
150 
glories of Mary, 

194 

Mary at the cross, 11, 131 
weaknesses, 

131 Sirneon's prophecy, 11, 130 term Theotokos, I, 138 
see John Damascene "Daughter of God," wisdom as, I, 27 "Daughter of 
 the Father," Mary as, I, 176, 224 
De B. 
on incor-of Mary's body, 11,161 De S. by Arnold of 
218 De S. ( apocryphal), 
145 Dea, title of, 223 Death, Mary's, 
142 (see 
As-sumption ) 156 Dominicus Arnaldi, 

155 
Juvenal, 

144 
nature of, 

153, 156 f.: St. Albert the Great,  157; St. Ambrose, 
157; 
Damascene, 157 Death, Mary's ( continued) Callistos. 11, 144 

V, 
156 
Pseudo-Dionysius, 

143 
St Augustine, 

156 

153-55 
St  Damascene, 11, St. Confessor, 11,143 tradition about, 
147 f. 
Death, Mary's exemption from bonds of, 
140-81: historical discus-sion, 
141 
theological &-
150 ff.; threefold, 151 Death, Mary's exemption from do-

minion of, 11, 151 ff. Death, Mary's freedom from reign of, 
Decomposition, Mary's exemption from, 
158 ff. 
145 note: authorship of, I, 43 note Dei I, 135 

I, 135 Deneffe, Father: on I, 
of Christ's merits, Mary  I, 240 Diaconate, Mary's, 
235 Dignity, Mary's surpassing, I, 219-
40: St. Thomas on, I, 220 of Alexandria, 
74 and Mary's assump-
 tion, 148 mark of Mary's person, 
I. 187-218 influence on the Incarnation, 1, 72 Divine motherhood, the, I, 132-53: 
grace of the, I, 195 "Divine" applied to Mary. I, 223 Dolors of Mary, feast of; see Seven 
as title of Mary, 
226 ff. Dominicans on Immaculate Concep-
tion,  35, 104 Dominicus on Mary's death, 
155 Doubt, Mary's: 

on, 
130; St on, 
131; St 

Doubt (continued) Basil on, 
130; St. Thomas on, 
130 Dove, murmur of the, 
216 Dove of God, Mary the, 1, 27, 179 f. Dulia, I, 239 

Eadmerus, 
71 Ecclesiasticus, Book of: Mary in, I, 
22; Wisdom" in, I, 27, 31 ff. Egidius of Cologne, 
99: on Im-maculate Conception, 
97 assumption of, 
154 Elizabeth's salutation of Mary, 

13; 
see 

I, 251 England, feast of Mary's conception in, 11, 86 note Ephesus, Council of, I, 46: defined, I, 135 Ephraem, St.: hlary the new Eve, 69; Mary's 
65; 
term Theotokos, I, 138 Epiphanius, St., 
 Eve and Mary, 
248; Mary's death, 11, 142, 153-55; Mary's perpetual virginity, I, 112 
ad on Mary's virginity, I, 47 on 
of grace," I, 13 Essenes, the, I, 117 Esther as type, I, 38; 
61, 234 Eucharist: hlary's reception of the, 
17; Mary's relation to the, 
251 
by, 

142; on Mary's assumption; 
142 
Eve creation of, I, 200-202 Mary the 
69 Mary the new,  St. Ephraem on, 
69; Theodotus of on, prototype of Mary, I, 36, 211; 11, 

197 
sin of, 

201 Eve and Mary compared, I, 200-202; 
ff., 237, 248 St. Augustine, 
204 f. 

Eve and Mary compared (continued) St. Bernard, 11,207 St. Epiphanius, St. 

203 f. St. Jerome, 
206 

Justin, 11,203 
203 Excellence, Mary's unique, I, 219 ff. 
Facundus Hermianensis on the virgin birth, I, 136 Faith, Mary's: in 

129; 
on, 

129 course of redemption and that of the, 11,200 
Father: Mary's relation to the, I, 173; Mary the bride of the, I, 174; Mary the daughter of the, I, 176; Mary the image of the, I, 176 
( deacon) on the Incarna-tion, I, 152 I, 38 116 note, 
see 

Concupiscence Franciscans on Immaculate Concep-tion, 
104 Frankfurt, Council of: on Mary's sin-
66 "Fruit"and "child," idea of, I, Fruits of the redemption, Mary 

principle of, 
193 
of on Mary's con-ception, 
86 
of grace," Mary, I, 13,206 Fullness of grace, Mary's, 11, 3-31 
Gallic Missal (ancient), feast of As-sumption, 
176 "Garden enclosed,'' 
61 Gate of the Temple as 

I, 40 ( Rome), at, 

on Mary's gifts of grace, 11, 20 Gospels, obscurity of Mary in the, I, 
feast of Assumption, 
175 
280 INDEX 
Grace, Mary's fullness of Basil of Seleucia, bull 
6 contrasted with that of Christ, St. Bernard. 
9 
St. Gregory the Great, 

4f. 
St. Peter 

9 f. St. Thomas, 
 8 f., 12 
Scholastics, 

10 Grace, Mary's 
of: 
on, 20; Raynaud on, 
20; St. Bernard on, 
20; St. Thomas 

on, Grace, Mary's growth in, 

12-18 causes of. 11, 17 
ex 
operantis, 11, 17 f. ex 

St. John Damascene on, St. Thomas on, 
15 f. on, 
 18 

in Christ, I, 204 gratis 
in Mary, 
19 Greek Fathers on Mary's 
111 Greek liturgies, 

in, I, 28 Greeks on Immaculate Conception, 
107 f. Gregorian University ( Rome), I, v Gregory XV on Immaculate 
 35 Gregory of Nyssa, St.: on the serpent, 29 Gregory of Tours, St.: on Mary's as-
sumption, 11,147 Gregory the 
St.: on Mary's ex-cellence, 
5 
Growth of grace in Mary, 11, 12-18; see also Grace 
Heart of Mary, devotion to the most  pure, 272 f. intercession in, 259 revelation to, 
87 note, 89 Helvidius, denial of Mary's virginity, I, 
Henry of Ghent on Immaculate Con-ception, 
97 
Herder, Beniamin: friend of I, 
f. 
Die 
adapted by Scheeben, I, 
Hesychius on the ark of the covenant, I, 182 High priest, Mary as, of on Simeon's proph-ecy, 

129 
of 

on incorruption of Mary's body, St.: on Mary's ness, 

65 

144 f. 

Holiness, Mary's perfection of: St. on, 
112 
Holy Ghost, the the 
ascribed to, I, 247 the Church the temple of, I, 215 and the Incarnation, 1, 72 ff. in the Incarnation, I, 76, 98 f. Mary the bride of, I, Mary the or an of, 

185 ff. taking the p ace of 
semen 
I, 73 Hugo de Surnmo, 
85 Human nature, Protestant view of, 
5 

Hyperdulia, I, 239 Hypostatic union, I, 45 
of Antioch, St.: on Mary's virginity, I, 47 Ildefonse, St., 
85 of the eternal Father, Mary the, I, 174 
Immaculate Conception Alexander VII, 
35, 38 
Alexander of Hales, 

 94 note 109 appropriateness of, 
51 
11, 109 Bartholomew of Medina, basis of the privilege, 
43 bull see Cajetan, 
109 
controvers  Council 34, 104, 108 Council of Trent, 

34 

Immaculate Conception ( dogma of, 
ff. Dominicans,11,104 of Cologne, 
97 
Francis hlayron, 
104 
Franciscans, 
104 
Greeks, 
107 f. Gregory XV, Henry of Ghent, 
97 
John Bacon, 
104 
John of 
104 
John of Segovia, 
108 
John of 
108 
meaning of 
38 Nicholas of St. Akan, 92 objections to, 11, 109 ff. 
of the feast of, Paris University, 
104 
Paul V, 
34 f. 
Peter I, 104 V, 
34 
IX, 
33 
proof from Scripture, 

57-82 Protestant attack on, I, 4 Pseudo-Anselm, 
103 
reason for, 
31 
St. Antoninus of Florence, 
108 
St. Peter Damian, 
118 
St. Thomas, 
98 ff. Scholastics, 
93 f., 
f. 84, 103, 105 f., 108 11, 34 

Spina, 
109 
teaching of 
62 
"Immaculate earth," 
74 Imminent position of Mary, I, 231 Immunity from concupiscence, 
Mary's, 
114 ff. from sin, Mary's, 

37 
Impeccability, Mary's, 
132: Alex-ander of Hales, 
134; St. Thomas, 
134; see 

Incarnation, the and I, 84 

and, cooperation of Mary in, I, 78 divine influence on, I, 72 
Incarnation, 	the ( I, 152 bodily organism of Christ in, I, 76 Holy Ghost in, I, 76, 98 f. maternal principle in, I, 68 ff. and, I, role of Mary in, I, 62 St. John Damascene, I, 82, 89 f. St Confessor, I, 90 St. I. 86 I, 91 of Mary's 158 ff.: of Reims on, 

104; reasons for, 
162 f. 
I, 47, 201. 203, 
6, 
48 f. feast of Mary's conception, 11, 85 note Irenaeus, St.: on Eve and Mary, 203 f. 
Isaias, prophecy of virgin birth, I, 15, 17, 105 
ladder as symbol, I. 40 by, 11,229 Jeremias: prophecy of, I, 18; sanc-tification of, 

32 note Jerome, St.: on Eve and M 
on Mary's 

ginity, I, 113 Jerusalem, hlary's tomb at, 11, 146 Jerusalem, Council of ( 1675, schis-
matic): on the Assumption, 
178 meaning of, I, 6 John (apostle): legend of death of, 
146, 154; 
de S. 
145 
John Bromyard, 
99 
John Chrysostom, St.: on Mary's weaknesses, 
131 
John Damascene, St. the Assumption, 
171 
feast of the Assumption, 
177 
the Incarnation, I, 82, 89 safeguarded from the devil, 
79 
Mary's conception, 
77 
Mary's death, 
144 f. 

John Damascene, St. ( Mary's growth in grace, 
 16 nature of Mary's death, 
157 John of Euboea on Mary's concep-tion, John of Monzon on Immaculate Con-ception, 

104 
John of Segovia on Immaculate Con-ception, 
108 
John of Torquemada on Immaculate Conception, 
108 
John the Baptist: feast of, 

36; his enlightenment in the womb, 22 
Joseph, St.: death of, 
192; devo-tion to the heart of, 11, 273; marriage of Mary and, I, 122 
of, I, 129; virginity of, I, 130 Jovinianus: denial of Mary's virginity, I, 
denial of virgin birth, I, 
Judith, prototype of Mary, I, 38; 
 Apostate and title "Mother of God," I, 137 
(a 
Justin, St: on Eve and Mary, 
Juvenal ( 

) on Mary's death, 
144 
(ninth century) in Naples, 
85 note by, 

Knowledge, Mary's growth in, 
23 
La 
Peter de: on Mary's prog-ress in grace, 
14 f. of God, Mary the, I, 171, 208 Pritanius; see Council (649) on virginal 

birth of Christ, I, 107 Leo I, St.: on the virgin birth, 1, 117 "Lily among thorns," 
60 Litany of 
230: at Exposition 
of Blessed Sacrament, I, 240 Literature about Mary, I, 49-60 Logos, person of the, I, 155 "The Lord is with thee," 
60 
143, 178 
Lyons  on Mary's 

 91 
Man Christ, Mary's relation to, I, 172 hlaracci, by, 
198 
Marian apocrypha, I, 43 and note 

Arianism and, I, 45 basic principle of, I, 187-240 foundations, I, 
186 concept of, I, 3-60 Deneffe on, I, early development of, I, 45 fundamental principle of, I, as an independent I, xix Protestant reproach of Catholic, I, 
... 
sources of, I, 3-60 starting point of, I, 8 Marriage: Mary's virginity and her, I, 121; union of natural, I, Martyrdom, Mary's, 
228 
of St. Ado, 
179 
Martyrology of 

179 meaning of, I, 6, 227 Maternal principle in the Incarna-
tion, I, 68 Maternal production of Christ, I, 67 Mattes, Wenzeslaus: on Scheeben, I, 
on authenticity of tinian texts, 
205 
Confessor, St.: on the camation, I, 90; on Mary's death, 11, 143 
of Turin, St., 
70 
Francis: on Immaculate Conception, 
 104; on Mary's 22 Mediatrix, Mary as, I, 237 Mary the universal, 
262: proof, 
264 ff. 
Mediatrix, Mary's office as, 
239-73 
"Mediatrix," 

194 Melito of Sardis, De B. M. 
I, 43 Memorare, the, I, 151 
INDEX 	283 

Merits of Christ, 
 the depositary of, of Mary, St. Thomas on, I,196 Mary's, 
214 f. 
Mary's, I, 195 Methodius, St: Church as 
sub-

I, 216 Francis of; see Mayron Micheas' prophecy, I, 19 title of, 
198, 227 "Mirjam," etymology of, I, 6 
on Mary's exemp-tion from 
160 
 11, 147: on Mary's death, 
142 11, 75 as symbol I, 37 
G.: on authenticity of Augustinian texts, 
205 note "Morning 
60 Mother of all men, Mary the, 11,241 of the I, 17 Mother of God: fundamental mark of Mary, I, 188; title, I, 136 ff. of Jesus, fundamental mark of Mary's person, I, 187 "Mother of the world," Wisdom as, 
I. 27 of the Logos, Mary as, I, 170 
Motherhood the bridal I, 15-86 the divine, I, 132-53 
ace of the divine, I, 195 I, 140 ff. I, 64: St. Albert the Great on, I, 222; St. on, I, 221, 

universal, I, 232; Bede on, I, 221 the virginal, I, 102-9 
L. A.: on Mary as 263 

Mysteries of by ben, I, x ff. 

body of  Church the, I, 217; Mary's position in, I, 233 
Naples, feast of Mary's conception, 
85 

Nativity, feast of Mary's: breviary lesson, 
206 note by Scheeben, I, vi 

denial of human birth of the Logos, I, 134; and the In-carnation, I, 84; and Mary's divine motherhood, I, 138 f. 
New Testament, Mary in the, I, 9-16 
J. H.: on news weaknesses, 

131 
on feast of the Assumption, 
 174 note; on Mary's death, 
144 Nicholas of St. 
on Immaculate Conception, 
 92 
I, ark as I, 

meaning of, I, 50 
"Oil poured out," I, 24 
Old Testament, Mary in the, I, 17-41 Mary as, 
261; St. Agnes 
as, 

261 
 75: 	on Mary's doubt, 
130; on Mary's perfection, 11,130 Original sin, 
freedom from, 

 his study in condemned, TI, 252 of the power of the I, 
 93 f. 
Paris University: and feast of Mary's conception, 
John of zon censured by, 104 on Mary's birth, Patrology, knowledge of, I, Paul ( apostle 

 Abraham's a figure, 
233 V on Conception, 
34 f. Paul the Deacon, 
71, 74 on Mary's 
Penance ( sacrament), Mary's recep-tion of, 
17 edited by 
ben, I, xi Perpetual virginity, Mary's, I, 
INDEX 

Perseverance, Mary's perfect, 
132 Person of Christ, the, I, Persona dioina as title of Mary, I, 223 
I, v Peter on Immaculate Con-ception, 
104 Peter St.; see Peter St., 
70 
feast of John the Baptist, 

36 Mary's fullness of grace, 

marriage, I, 194 Mary's privileges, 
27 Peter St., 
71, 74 
Mary demanding as 

261 Mary's birth, 11, 86 Mary's purity, 
118 
nature of Mary's death, 11,157 Peter de La 
on the 172; on Mary's nity 

concupiscence, 
115 Peter on Mary's 
 117 "Pillar of smoke," 
56 
V: on Immaculate Conception, 
34; on Mary's death, 
156 bull 
 I, 47, 243; 
33 
XI on Scheeben, I, 
by 

198 Porrecta, Serafino, 
99 Post-Nicene Fathers, view of, I, 29 Power, Mary's 

189 Predestination of  of the 
I, 197 Presentation in the Temple, Mary's, I, 44 "Priestess," title of Mary, 
227, 
f. Priesthood of Aaron, 

189 
Lamindus; see Proclus, 
75 
the human, I, 245 Production, of, I, 96 
attack on Immaculate Conception, 4 attitude to Mary, I, 5 
in divinity of Christ, I, 193 Mary's divine motherhood, I, 139 
( 

reproach of Catholic I. 
view of human nature, I, 5 I, 17, 201, 241-44; 
193, 202: and Catholic the-ology, I, 5; Mary promised, 57 Proteoangelium Jacobi, I, 44 Prototype of redeemed mankind, 
Mary the, I, 7 Prototypes of Mary, I, 3541 Proverbs, Book of: Mary 
I, 22; 
"Wisdom" in, I, 30 Psalms, Mary in the, I, 
f. 
Pseudo-Anselm on Immaculate Con-ception, 
103 Pseudo-Augustine, De assumptione 

 171, 178 f. Pseudo-Jerome:  me ( see on Mary's 
67; on 
im-munity from concupiscence, 116 
Pseudo-Proclus, 
131 Dei, Mary the, I, 208 
in Nooo Testamento on Mary's doubt, 
129 
Ratramnus on virginal birth of Christ, I, 107 on Mary's ilegcs of grace, 
20 Redemption: course of 
Fall and that of, 

200; Mary as of fruits of, 
193; Mary's cooperation in work of, 
193-208 
use of 

title, Relics of Mary, lack of, 
141 I, 210 
 I, 34 Rupert, St.: on Mary's compassion, 
230 
Sabbas, St.: ritual of, 
75 title, 
199 

and feast of Assumption, 
175 150: and feast of Assumption, 

175 Sacrifice of Christ, Mary's consent, 
of the cross, Mary's coopera-
tion in, 	
11, 	
Arnold of 		18 f. 	
St. Ado, 	of, 		
of 			
232 			

Salutation, the angel's, I, 13 f.; 11, 59 Salutation, Elizabeth's, I, 458 Sisters ( 
217 Sanctae Manae (church), 
Sanctuary, Mary as the, I, 19 
Sapientia I, 25 
Sapientia I, 26, 28 
Sapientia I, 25 "Scepter of the right faith," I, 5 Scheeben, 
Benjamin Herder friend of, I, viii f. editor of I, xi at the Germanicum (Rome), I, v 
Die 
adapted by, I, viii his I, xv of I, viii Mattes on, I, of by, I, x ff. by, I, 
XI on, I, professor of dogma, I, student life of, I, iv theological work of, I, writings of, I, 
Scholastics: Immaculate Conception, 
Mary's conception, 107 f.; Mary's fullness of grace, 11, 10; Mary's immunity from concupiscence, 115; in Mary, 16 view of Mary's divine 
motherhood, I, 149 
on Immaculate Conception, 11, 108; on Mary's conception, 
103; on predes-tination of Christ, 
48 Scripture; 
Bible I, 26,201 

Carmen 
by, 71 Seed of the serpent,458 John of; 
John Serpent: St. Gregory of 

on the, 

29; seed of the, 
58 Seven Dolors, feast of, 
229, 234 Sicardus, feast of Mary's conception, 

Sicily, feast of Mary's conception, 85 prophecy: St Basil on, 130; St. 

of Alexandria on, 11, 130 Sin Mary's freedom from, 
26: the of, 
138 
Mary's freedom 

personal, ff.: the dogma, XI, 32 freedom from personal, 126 ff. Mary's permanent immunity from, 

Mary's preservation from effects of 
original, 

28 f. universality of: St 
Mary's, 11, of Frankfurt, 
66 Council of Trent, 
127  130 

68 
St 4 

St. 
67 
128 St. Bernard, 128 St I, 65 St. Hippolytus, 11, 65 

(mount) as symbol, I, 40 IV on Immaculate 

Solemn vow of virginity, I, 119 and 
(bull), throne as symbol, I, Son of man, Christ the, I, 133 
INDEX 

St: 	on 
I, 86 
the breath of 
 I, 35; infu-
sion of Christ's, I, 96 ff. Source of Mary's dignity. I, 219-40 Spain, feast of Mary's conception, 

11,229 
on Immaculate Conception, 

 affinity 
God, 

Spiritual mother of the Church, I, 3 Spiritual mother of the redeemed, 
242 Spiritual motherhood, Mary's, 11,256 Sponsa I, 26 
the, vine in Mary, Scholastics on, 

, 

Suarez: on fomes 
in Mary, 121; on Mary's growth in 18 
I, 22 note Supernatural activity, Mary's, 
92 
Supernatural knowledge, Mary's, 
-2-1 
value of Maw's 
188 ff. Swoon at the cross, Mary's, 11, 229 in Old Testament, I, 35 ff.; prototypes as, I, 36 
Tabernacle of the testimony as sym-bol, I, 39 of God, Mary the, 1, 202 Temple of Holy Ghost, Mary the, I, 
179 on Eve and Mary, 11,203; on power of Mary's faith, 
129 154 

Thwdotus of 
 on Mary immaculate, 
70 
Theotokos, 
135: people of on, I, 137 
Thomas Aquinas, St. concupiscence in Mary, 
119, 122 ff. 
feast of Mary's conception, 
38 

Thomas gift of subtlety, I, 108 human 
of Christ. I, Mary's conception, 
98 ff. 
Mary's doubt, 
130 Mary's fullness of grace, 11,8 f., 12 
134 Mary's marriage, I, 128 Mary's merits, I, 196; 

118 
Mary's perfection by grace, 
15 f. Mary's perpetual virginity, I, 113 Mary's 
20, 30 
Mary's sublimity, I, 220 I, 143 
Thomism on the Incarnation, 
91 Throne of Solomon as symbol, I, 40 Tomb, Mary's, 11, 145-47: empty, 
141 
Torquemada, John of; see John Tradition, Mary in, I, 42-48 Traditions, caution about, I, 44 Transcendental position of Mary, I, 
223 
Trent, Council of: on Immaculate Conception, 
34; on Mary's freedom from personal sin, 
127 Trinity, Mary's relation to the, I, 171 vita ac 
by, I. Types in Old I, 35 ff. 
Universal of grace, as, 

262 
of sin. St on. 
116 Martyrology of, 11, 179 
Vanity, 	Mary's: St. John Chrysostom 131 Mary the, I, 205 Vasquez: on concupiscence in 122 ff.; view of Mary's 

motherhood, I, 149 Vatican Council, Mary's assumption, 
140 
Vega, Christopher; see Christopher Veneration, Mary's right to, I, 238 Veneration of Mary in Catholic 
Church, I, 
f. 
on 'Woman, behold thy son," 
11,247 Vessel of election, Mary the, I, 197 "Virgin priest," as title of Mary, 
227 note Virginal conception, the, I, 61-101 Virginal motherhood, the, I, 102-9 Virginity: Israelites' view of, I, 117; 
Mary's bodily, I, 
Mary's marriage and 
 I, 121; hlary's perpetual, I, 110-31; Mary's of, I, 116 
Virginity of heart, Mary's, I, 120 of spirit, 
 I, 115 ff. as 
Mary, Vow of virginity: 
I, 116; solemn, I, 119 and note 
Walter of St. Victor, 
117 
Weaknesses, Mary's: St. Cyril on, 131; St. on, 
131 
Wisdom: ante-Nicene Fathers' view of, I, 
ff.; in Ecclesiasticus, I, 27; personified, I, 24 f.; ities of, 24 ff. 

Wisdom, Book of: 
in, I, 22 Wisdom texts applied to 
I, 26 ff. 'Woman": Mary addressed as, I, 11; the term, I, 'Woman 
 the sun," I, 208; 
114, 127, 173 f. "Woman shrill compass a man," I, 

and note Wool 
 figure of, 
14 ff., 
117 Words of Christ to 
 and John, 
241 
257 
de Someyre on 
in the Eucharist, 
252