THE
BLESSED
VIRGIN
MARY
BY GREGORY ALASTRUEY
TRANSLATED BY

Sister SVT. Janet L.a Qÿlia, Ο. P.

B. HERDER BOOK CO.

A translation of Tratado de la Virgen Santisima
by Gregorio Alastruey, published by Editorial Catôlica,
Madrid, 3rd edition, 195a.

imprimatur ψ Joseph Cardinal Ritter
Archbishop of St. Louis, February 13, 1963

Copyright © 1963 by B. Herder Boole Co.
15 & 17 South Broadway, St. Louis 2, Mo.
London: 2/3 Doughty Mews, W.C. 1
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 63-13532
Manufactured in the United States of America
Designed by Klaus Gemming

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

Countless authors have sung the praises of Mary in poetry
and in prose throughout the centuries. Devotion to Mary has been char­
acteristic of the Christian faithful since the earliest days of the Church.
In recent years, however, professional theologians have returned to this
theme with a renewed zeal and with great success in clarifying the the­
ological foundations for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The present treatise is a scholarly work and a noteworthy contribution
to the ever-increasing library of Mariological literature. If it had been
translated with great exactness from the original Spanish, it would have
been an excellent reference work of Mariology for the professional the­
ologian. However, the book has been translated with a view to a larger
reading public. To this end, many repetitions have been deleted and
numerous lengthy citations have been abbreviated. Involved passages
have been summarized as much as possible in the interests of clarity and
brevity.
I am grateful to Sister Mary Imelda, O.P., former Mother General of
the Dominican Sisters of Springfield, Illinois, for her confidence in asking
me to prepare this work for publication. I am sincerely indebted to Father
Jordan Aumann, O.P., of the Dominican Province of St. Albert the
Great, for selecting this work for translation and for editing the entire
manuscript and checking the translation.
May the reading of these volumes be the means of drawing countless
souls to a deeper love of Mary, the Mother of God and our Mother.

Sister Mary Janet, O.P.

CONTENTS

translator’s PREFACE, V

Chapter One : Mary’s Birth and Early Life
The Name of Mary, i
Mary’s Ancestry, 3
The Parents of Mary, 7
The Birth of Mary, g
The Childhood of Mary, 13
The Betrothal and Marriage of Mary and Joseph, 19

Chapter Two : Mary, Mother of God
Predestination to the Divine Maternity, 29
Annunciation of the Divine Maternity, 40
The Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin,
Dignity of the Divine Maternity, 65

Chapter Three : Mary’s Freedom from Sin
Mary’s Immaculate Conception, 90
Mary and the Debt of Original Sin, 145
Mary’s Freedom from Concupiscence, 147
Mary’s Freedom from Actual Sin, 152

Chapter Four : Mary’s Fullness of Grace
Habitual Grace, 162
Theological and Moral Virtues, 178
Gifts of the Holy Ghost, 200
Actual Grace, 209
Graces Gratis Datae, 210
Mary’s Knowledge, 217

Chapter Five : Mary’s Bodily Attributes
Mary's Bodily Perfection, 230
Mary’s Possibility, 235
vii

CONTENTS

Mary’s Mortality, 246
Mary’s Death, 251

Chapter Six : Mary’s Gifts of Body and Soul
Mary’s Beauty, 268
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, 272
Mary's Assumption and Glorification, 301
translator’s bibliography,
NOTES,

323

INDEX, 337

viii

321

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

CHAPTER ONE

Gary's Birth and Early Life
*

The Name of Mary

T.B name of Mary was given to the Blessed Virgin by her parents,
Joachim and Ann, and it is commonly admitted that this name was
suggested through divine inspiration. Moved interiorly by the Holy
Spirit, her parents preferred the name of Mary to all others.1 We meet
only one woman in the Old Testament who bore the name of Mary
—Miriam, the sister of Moses—who was held in great veneration by
the Hebrews. Moreover, because of that veneration, no other woman
was given the name, Mary, nor do we read that the names of Moses,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were given to others. But the strictness of
this discipline was gradually relaxed, so that by the time of Christ
there were many women named Mary.2 The name, Miriam, is trans­
lated as Mary in the Septuagint. We also find it in the writings of the
Evangelists, and it was used from the beginning of the Christian era
to designate the Mother of God.
The name, Mary, has many meanings, according to the various
etymologies accepted by the writers. Some derive the name from the
Egyptian word, mery or meryt, meaning much loved. According to
others, like Lauth, the name, Mirjam comes from minurjuma, minur
being the equivalent of star, so that minurjam signifies star of the sea.
Others maintain that the name of Mary is derived from the Syriac
word for lady, but this interpretation cannot be held, since the femi­
nine form of this word would not be Mary, but Martha.
In the opinion of most writers, the name of Mary is derived from
the Hebrew, but some consider it a compound word and others say
it is a simple one. Thus, the following interpretations are proposed:
bitter sea, from the compound word, marjam; rebellion or obstinacy,
from the root marah; drop of the sea, from the root marar, which

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

interpretation is found in the Onomasticon of St. Jerome and in many
Latin and Greek writers of the Middle Ages; master of my race, from
the root harah, meaning to conceive or to beget; star of the sea,
whose ety mology is perhaps taken from the I lebrew words for sea and
light, from which resulted light of the sea. This interpretation is very
popular and is attributed to St. Jerome. However, many believe that
the interpretation proposed by St. Jerome is not star of the sea, but
drop of the sea, and that the copyists inadvertently changed a letter,
because there is no Hebrew word for star which is similar to the first
syllable of the name, Mary.
Hope, an interpretation by Philo,8 is allegorical rather than etymo­
logical. Other interpretations are: lofty or sublime, from the root ram,
which means surpassing; enlightened, enlightener, or that which en­
lightens, from the word or in the Hiphil form, which means to give
light; fleshy or robust, from the word mara, which, according to the
concept of beauty among the Orientals, would imply a beautiful and
robust body. This interpretation is favored by Bardenhewer, princi­
pally because it can be applied to the spiritual beauty of the Blessed
Virgin. Bitterness, sorrow, bitter, or afflicted, from the root ntarar, is
an interpretation accepted by the old rabbis and accepted by some
modem experts of Hebrew.4 Myrrh, from the word mar, says Knabenbauer, can be accepted, since so many young women took the names
of trees and plants. Thus Esther was known by the name of myrtle
and Susanna is from the name, lily.®
Although there are many etymologies, it is difficult to judge which
is preferred. However, all of the interpretations enumerated are ap­
plicable to the Blessed Virgin and they express her prerogatives in a
notable way. Thus, Mary is much loved by God, for He bestowed
upon her pre-eminent gifts of nature and of grace. She is truly Lady
and Queen of the universe. She is a sea of graces and gifts of the Holy
Spirit. She is the bitter sea by reason of the cruel pains she suffered
in the passion and death of her Son. Hence, St. Bonaventure says:
‘‘Mary is the sea abounding in graces and suffering bitterly with her
Son.” ·
Rebellion or obstinacy apply to the power of the devil, whom she
hurled down and trampled under foot by her immaculate conception
and divine maternity. Master of my race refers to the highest office for

mary's birth and early life

which she was chosen: to conceive and to bear God. She is the star of
the sea because she acts as the light of heaven toward those who navi­
gate in the midst of this tempestuous life and she directs their course
by the example of her virtues and by means of her protection. She
gave birth to Christ, who is the hope of the world, and she is our hope.
As Ecclesiasticus says: "She is the mother of holy hope.” ’ She is
lofty or sublime by being raised to the dignity of the Mother of God,
which exceeds all dignities possible to a creature. She was enlightened
by the Father of light, from whom the whole race descends, and
enlightened by her Son, true sun of justice, whom she received into
her heart, bore in her womb, and nourished. For this reason she is
described in the Apocalypse as "a woman clothed with the sun.” 8
She is an illuminator, for she gave us the true light which illumines
the world with its rays and brightness. The term, robust, fully corre­
sponds to the singular beauty of the Blessed Virgin over all the
daughters of men, and it expresses that fullness of grace which the
Son heaps upon His Mother. And she can be called myrrh, for myrrh
is an aromatic substance with a mild odor, and this becomes the
Blessed Virgin because of the fragrant odor of her virtues and graces.
Myrrh also suggests sorrow and in Sacred Scripture it is customary to
express pain, suffering, wounds, and even death itself in this way. This
most perfectly fits the Blessed Virgin, who offered God all her miser­
ies and sorrows—with the exception of sin—and, with her Son, of­
fered her soul pierced by the same sword of sorrow.

Mary’s Ancestry
It is one thing to be of the tribe of Juda, the tribe to which David
belonged, and another to be of the family of David, that is, of the
race and generation of David. Not all those who were of the tribe of
Juda bore their origin from David, since Juda had many sons, from
whom other families originated.
Julian, Celsus, and Faustus erroneously affirm that Mary was not
from the tribe of Juda but from that of Levi, because her father,
3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

mary's birth and early life

Joachim, was a priest of the tnbc of Levi and because she was re­
lated to Elizabeth, who was descended from the daughters of Aaron.·

: The Blessed Virgin Mary was of the tribe of Juda and of
the family of David. This is a matter of faith.
Sacred Scripture. Scripture expressly states that Christ was de­
scended from the family of David, for we read in St. Matthew: "What
do you think of Christ? Whose son is He? They said to him, David’s.’’
At Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the Jewish children cried
out: "Hosanna to the Son of David.’’10 Likewise in St. Luke wc read
that the angel, in announcing the mystery of the Incarnation, said
to her: “Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring
forth a son; and thou shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and
shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord will give Him
the throne of David, His father.’’11 lire Apocalypse says of Christ:
"Behold, the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, has over­
come"; and Christ says of Himself: “I am the root and the offspring
thesis

of David.”12
From these proofs it is clearly seen that the Messias was of the
house of David. This origin is not only deduced by reason of legal
filiation with St. Joseph, who was of the family of David,13 but chiefly
by reason of His natural filiation with the Blessed Virgin, His Mother,
who was also of the family of David. Therefore, the Davidic origin
of Christ is according to the flesh, as the Apostle attests in his Epistle
to the Romans when he says: “Concerning his Son who was born to
him according to the flesh of the offspring of David”;14 and in Tim­
othy: "Remember that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was de­
scended from David.”18 Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit, could
not have belonged to the family of David had He not taken flesh
from Mary, His Mother, who was of the house of David.
The Fathers. Tertullian argues that the flesh of Christ was of the
family of David through the flesh of Mary, who was of the family of
David. St. Augustine says: "Since the Apostle has told us that Christ
proceeds from the family of David according to the flesh, we certainly
cannot doubt that the Blessed Virgin herself had a blood relationship
to the family of David.”ie
The Liturgy. The Office of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

4

speaks of the nativity of the glorious Virgin Mary, who was bom of
the tribe of Juda and of the distinguished race of David.
Theological Argument, i ) According to Jewish law, daughters of
good families were supposed to marry a man from the same tribe,”
and it was always understood that the man had to be not only from
the same tribe, but also from the same family. St. Joseph was of the
house and family of David; therefore, so also was the Blessed Virgin.
Hence, St. Bernard says that it was fitting that not only St. Joseph,
but Mary- as well, should be of the house of David; otherwise, she
would not have been espoused with a man of the house of David.1·
This reason does not seem adequate for those who deny the obliga­
tion of the law since the Babylonian captivity, which made the
separation and distinction of tribes impossible. Actually, the law was
not observed in regard to territory, as we can see in the case of St.
Joseph, who was a native of Bethlehem, but lived in Nazareth, the
territory of the tribe of Zabulon. From this fact, we can conjecture a
similar practice with regard to marriage.
z) Christ is not the son of Joseph according to the flesh, but never­
theless His genealogy- is traced through the lineage of St. Joseph,
which proceeds from Abraham and David. The only reason for tracing
the lineage of Christ through St. Joseph is because he belonged to the
same family as Mary, of whom Christ was bom according to the
flesh.
This second argument does not seem valid, because to trace the
lineage of Christ through St. Joseph, it sufficed that Mary and Joseph
be truly married, and that Christ be bom a legitimate son of a legiti­
mate mother, the spouse of St. Joseph. Simply by reason of the true
matrimony, Christ could be called a son of David, even if Mary, His
Mother, had not been of the lineage of David.1·
The Blessed Virgin was of sacerdotal stock.
Sacred Scripture. Wc read in St. Luke that the angel said to Mary:
“And behold, Elizabeth thy kinswoman also has conceived a son in
her old age.” 20 Elizabeth was of sacerdotal stock, for we also read in
St. Luke: “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain
priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the
daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." 21 Consequently,
thesis:

5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

mary’s birth and early life

her origin was of the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, who was
high priest in the time of Moses; and for the same reason, the Blessed
Virgin Mary, who was related to Elizabeth, was of a sacerdotal race.
The Fathers. St. Augustine says: "It was fitting that the flesh of the
Master be generated not only of royal stock, but also of a priestly
one."22
Theological Argument. It was fitting that the royal tribe of Juda
and the priestly tribe of Levi be united through marriage in the line­
age of Mar}’, to indicate that Christ, true King and High Priest,
would be bom of her. It was not considered contrary to the law that
the royal tribe of Juda and the priestly tribe of Levi should inter­
marry, because although those of the priestly tribe could not possess
property in the land of Israel, they could marry a woman from any
tribe. However, the woman’s goods could not be turned over to the
priestly tribe, and thus, there was no confusion over inheritance,
which was precisely what the law prohibited. Thus, we see that Aaron,
the high priest, chose as his wife a woman of the tribe of Juda.-3
It is worth noting that the relationship between Mary and Eliza­
beth was on the maternal side, because if the Blessed Virgin Mary
had descended from the paternal side of Levi and not from that of
Juda, we would have to say that she was of the tribe of Levi, since the
distinction of tribes and families was determined from the masculine
side and not from the feminine side. This would not be in agree­
ment with St. Matthew, St. Luke, or the Apocalypse, which affirm
conclusively that Christ was of the tribe of Juda and of the family
of David, and that the Davidic origin of Christ arises from the fact
that Mar}’, His Mother, traces her origin from the line of David. Nor
would it be in conformity with the Apostle, who denies that Christ
was of the tribe of Levi by showing that He was not a levitical priest,
when he says: “For He of whom these things are said is from another
tribe, from which no one has ever done service at the altar. For it is
evident that our Lord has sprung out of Juda, and Moses spoke
nothing at all about priests when referring to this tribe.” 24
The Doctors do not agree in determining the degree of kinship
between Mary and Elizabeth. Some, with Maldonatus, teach vaguely
that the father or grandfather of Elizabeth, a priest of the tribe of
Levi, married a woman of the tribe of Juda and the family of David.
Elizabeth, who was related to the Virgin through the family of David,
6

though not through the lineage of Levi, was bom of this marriage.
Others, like St. Antoninus, say that Mary and Elizabeth were the
daughters of two sisters, Anne and Hismcria, whose parents Eek
identifies as Stolanus and Emerentia.
Niceforus Calixtus, citing the martyr Hippolytus and Baronius, says
that three daughters—Mary, Sobe, and Anne—were born of the priest.
Mathan, and his wife, Mary. Mary was married in Bethlehem and
gave birth to Salome; Sobe also married in Bethlehem and was the
mother of Elizabeth; Anne was married in Galilee and of her was
born Mary, the Mother of God. Toledo believes that this is one of
the most probable theories because of its antiquity and the authority
of Hippolytus. Nevertheless, we cannot propose it as certain, but we
can say only that although the Blessed Virgin Mary was of the tribe
of Juda, and Elizabeth was of the tribe of Aaron, they were related
through their mothers, grandmothers, or great grandmothers.

The Parents of Mary
Since Sacred Scripture docs not mention anything about the parents
of the Blessed Virgin, either in the Old or the New Testament, we
must deduce from Tradition whatever we know about them. At the
same time, we must remember that many apocryphal legends or
stories served as sources for the Greek writers of the Middle Ages and
for later writers. The principal writings of this kind are the Protoevangelium, which is falsely attributed to St. James (second century);
The Book of the Nativity of the Virgin, which is also erroneously at­
tributed to St. James, and of which, as some say, St. Cyril of Alex­
andria was the author; another Book of the Birth of the Virgin, which
Seleucus falsely attributed to St. Matthew; The Book of the Nativity
of Mary, found in the works of St. Jerome; etc.
Some authors assert that the exact names of the Virgin’s parents
are not known, and that the names, Joachim and Anne, are mystical
or symbolic, since the name, Anne, means grace and the name,
Joachim, means preparation of the Lord, which fit Mary’s parents
perfectly. But the most common and most probable opinion is that
Joachim and Anne are their real names.

7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

St. Epiphanius calls Joachim and Anne the parents of Mary, and
St. John Damascene says: “Joachim married Anne, the chosen one, a
woman worthy of all manner of praise. As that other Anne who, being
sterile, bore Samuel after making a vow to offer her son to God, so
also this Anne, by her prayers and promises to God, received the grace
to become the mother of the Mother of God.” 25 Modestus, Bishop
of Jerusalem in the beginning of the seventh century', hailed Mary
as the daughter of Joachim and the Mother of God. Benedict XIV
concludes from the foregoing testimony: “The common opinion of
the Western and Eastern Church throughout the centuries, that the
parents of the Blessed Virgin were called Joachim and Anne, seems
reasonable, chiefly because there are no solid reasons to the con­
trary." 28
The ancient apocryphal writings not only say that the Blessed
Virgin’s parents were wealthy, but that they owned extensive lands
and orchards. They even assert that their ancestors ruled all of Pales­
tine. Other writers considered them poor, because if they had been
wealthy, they would not have consented that their daughter many
an artisan. With such insufficient evidence, it would perhaps be bet­
ter to say that Mary’s parents were of a moderate and humble state
which was perfectly compatible with the possession of a certain

amount of worldly goods.
Indications of their moderate economic condition arc as follows:
When Mary arrived in Bethlehem, the time for her delivery having
arrived, she found no room in the inn and was obliged to give birth
in a stable. In order to take care of the needs of his family, St. Joseph
had to work as a carpenter. At the presentation of the Child Jesus
in the Temple, the Blessed Virgin offered a pair of turtle doves, which
was the offering of the poor, but had they been rich, they would have
offered a lamb as a holocaust. Finally, it would seem repugnant that
the ancestors of Jesus be wealthy when He, the King of glory and
the Lord of majesty, became poor so that we might become rich.27
The Blessed Virgin’s parents were undoubtedly remarkable for
their piety and holiness of life. St. John Damascene says: “O blessed
couple, Joachim and Anne! All creatures are indebted to you.”28 St.
Euthymius, Patriarch of Constantinople, says that Joachim and Anne
were distinguished in nobility and wisdom and observed the law
perfectly. Consequently, it was fitting that they should blossom into
8

mary’s birth and early life

the most eminent holiness and virtue who were granted the privilege
of bringing into the world the one who was to be the Mother of
God and of instructing her in holiness and piety. Moreover, united
more closely through their daughter to the Holy Family, and brought
nearer to God, they should participate more abundantly in grace.
There are reasonable grounds for great veneration of Mary’s par­
ents in both the Eastern and Western Church. It is well known in
the Oriental Church that the Emperor Justinian I built a basilica in
honor of St. Anne at Constantinople in 550. In Jerusalem, in 636,
another church was built in honor of St. Anne and in 705, another
was built in Constantinople by Justinian II. These are not the only
churches built in honor of St. Anne in the East, but there are others,
such as the famous church in Quersoneso.
In the Western Church, devotion to St. Anne goes back at least to
the eighth century, according to the Pontifical of the reign of St. Leo
III. At his command the story of St. Joachim and St. Anne was painted
in the Basilica of St. Paul.20 In the later centuries churches and altars
and various monuments were constructed in honor of St. Anne. The
feast of St. Anne was placed in the calendar and in the martyrology.
She was the first saint invoked in the litany of the saints, and at the
end of the fifteenth century, devotion to her had become so wide­
spread and popular in Western Europe that some feared (an exag­
gerated fear) that the devotion to the mother would obscure the
memory of her daughter.

The Birth of Mary
Two known prodigies are said to have preceded the birth of Mary:
the miraculous disappearance of the sterility of her parents and the
divine revelation made to them of her conception and future dignity.
That the sterility of the Blessed Virgin’s parents disappeared mirac­
ulously is an ancient and constant belief of all the faithful, although
Sorry considers it uncertain and doubtful. St. John Damascene, speak­
ing of St. Anne, says: “With good reason Anne filled with the Holy
Ghost, says to all with a happy and joyful spirit: ‘Rejoice with me, my
sterile womb has given birth to the seed of the promises and I nourish

9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

at my breast the fruit of benediction. I am freed of the sorrow of
sterility and I put on the happy robes of fertility.’ ” Euthymius says
that whereas Joachim and Anne had lamented and wept because of
their sterility, now they receive her who wipes away all their tears,
and an ineffable joy replaces their tears and lamentations. Calixtus
says that the names of Mary’s parents were Joachim and Anne, and
that they fulfilled the law carefully; but they were approaching old
age without descendants because Anne was sterile.30
There are also arguments of convenience. Illustrious men, con­
sidered the best among the Jewish people, were born of parents whose
sterility miraculously disappeared, as in the case of Isaac, Samuel, and
John the Baptist. But who is holier among the Jewish people and
among the whole human race than Mary? Secondly, God willed that
Mary’s parents, by their resignation, prayers, and pious works, should
become worthy to give birth to her who would bear the Lord. Finally,
the miracle of Mary's conception was to be the first of a series of
miracles. "Why,” asks St. John Damascene, "was she born of a sterile
woman? Because it was fitting that she who was to be the origin of
prodigies should begin by a prodigy and gradually progress from the
humblest to the sublime.”31
As to the revelation made to Joachim and Anne concerning the
conception of Mary, St. Epiphanius attests: “We know from the
history of Mary and from Tradition that it was announced to Joachim,
her father, in the desert.” 32 St. John Damascene says that the angel
announced to her parents the conception of her who was to be born.83
It was surely fitting on the part of Mary that her conception should
be announced, lest she seem to yield to others, such as John the
Baptist and Isaac, whose births were foretold.
It was also fitting that her conception be announced, as far as her
parents were concerned, so that, having been assured by the angel
of God’s goodness and mercy, they would thank Him and would
care for her diligently, instructing her in holiness.
Did other miracles accompany the conception and birth of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, or did all occur naturally? Prescinding for the
moment from her immaculate conception, we may consider the mo­
ment of Mary’s conception, the time spent in her mother’s womb,
and her actual birth.

10

Mary’s

birth and early life

We must reject the error of those who, moved by a false zeal of
piety, stated that Mary was conceived by Joachim and Anne, not by
the marital act, but simply by a kiss, as was affirmed by some Greeks.
This error was condemned by the Holy See in 1677.M
Concerning the formation of Mary’s body in her mother’s womb,
Poza believes that it was the work of a moment, and if we can believe
this author, the same opinion was held and published before 1448
by a Parisian Doctor named Philip Malla and by James Granados in
his book, De Conceptione Mariae. Amadeus, Bishop of Lausanne,
held that the body of the Blessed Virgin was perfected in six hours;
Mary of Agrcda says that it developed in seven days. Vega is of the
same opinion, stating that Mary’s body was formed in a short time and
that it was endowed with rationality and many other prerogatives. 85
Regarding Mary’s birth, Theophilus Raynaud denied that at the
birth of the Blessed Virgin, her mother was exempt from pain and
the other discomforts which usually accompany delivery.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived by Joachim and
Anne naturally, by seminal generation.
St. Bernard says: “No one should say that she was conceived by
the Holy Spirit and not by man. This is unheard of. . . . If it is
lawful to state the mind of the Church, I say that the glorious Virgin
conceived of the Holy Ghost but was not herself conceived by Him;
that she gave birth as a virgin, but that she was not herself bom of
a virgin.” 80
Theological Argument. 1 ) It was a singular privilege of Christ to
be conceived by a woman outside the marriage act,37 which privilege
or miracle is demanded by the dignity of the hypostatic union. More­
over, the Blessed Virgin had need of redemption through Christ,
because she was descended from Adam through human generation.
Flesh formed by the power of the Holy Ghost would not be subject
by generation to the law of original sin.
2) Again, it was fitting that the Virgin be generated from Adam,
and according to the law of nature, so that the Mother and the Son
would be of human flesh. Otherwise, if the Virgin had been formed
of a virgin mother, as Christ was by her, one could suspect that she
was not of human flesh. The dignity of Christ’s person required that
thesis:

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

He be bom of a virgin, but if Mary also had been conceived by a
virgin, it would have raised a doubt concerning her humanity, and
then it would not have been easy to prove the humanity of her Son.

The body of the Blessed Virgin Mary was formed in the
womb of her mother in the usual manner.
In the Index of 1640 we read that John of Poza asserted that the
bodies of Jesus and of His Mother were, from the first instant of their
conception, endowed with bones, nerves, flesh, and cartilage, just as
they possessed at twenty or thirty years of age. The Index then orders
that these and similar things which surpass the power of nature should
be suppressed and deleted. There is no need to assert that the body
of the Blessed Virgin was formed in such a short time in the womb of
her mother and with such perfection.
Concerning the animation and growth of Mary’s body before birth,
the teaching of theologians is not unanimous. Some insist that Mary’s
body, from the first moment of her conception, though not perfectly
developed, was sufficiently organized to receive her soul. They con­
sidered this rapid organization a special privilege of the Mother of
God, since, according to natural law, the organization of a fetus does
not take place until at least eighty days after conception. Henry of
Ghent and others consider the miraculous formation of Mary’s body
to be without any historical basis. They maintain that Mary’s body
was endowed with life on the eightieth day after her conception. Both
of the foregoing opinions are based on the Aristotelian theory, held
by Scholastics until the seventeenth century; namely, that the human
embryo is not animated until it is apt for the reception of the soul.
The common teaching of Catholic philosophers and theologians
is that the rational soul is created by God and infused into the body
at the moment of conception. Accordingly, we maintain that the body
of the Blessed Virgin Mary was endowed with life at the moment of
her conception and that her body grew and was perfected according
to the laws of nature and in the customary period of time. Contenson
says that it is not fitting to imagine ridiculous miracles, which please
certain innovators but are not recognized by the Fathers of the
Church, nor does the glory of Mary need fictitious and fantastic
honors, since she abounds in so many true honors.38
thesis:

12

mary’s birth and early life
thesis:

The birth of the Blessed Virgin did not inflict pain on the

mother.
Cardinal Lcpicicr teaches that we must affirm that because of the
dignity and perfection of the Immaculate Virgin, God bestowed on
St. Anne what would have been granted a woman in the state of
innocence, that is, to give birth without pain, though she was deprived
of this privilege because of original sin. This is not a gratuitous state­
ment, for St. John Damascene says that it was fitting that a miracle
prepare the way for the greatest of miracles; namely, the conception
of Christ by Mary without the aid of man. Therefore, when we say
that St. Anne gave birth to the Mother of God without the loss of
her integrity, we do not mean to exclude any rupture or opening, since
even in the state of innocence, women would have given birth in the
normal fashion and Mary alone gave birth to Christ miraculously,
without any of the dilations of the uterus naturally involved in de­
livery. Hence, we maintain that in giving birth to Mary the womb
of St. Anne opened in a natural but painless fashion, for it was not
fitting that the birth which was to give such happiness and joy to
the world should inflict pain on St. Anne. In this case we may say that
God lifted the curse of the pain of childbirth. St. Bernard says that
what has been granted to a few should not be denied to Mary, and
history states that the mothers of many saints bore them without
pain, as in the cases of St. Teresa, St. Lydwina, and St. Stanislaus
Kotska. We must conclude that this privilege should likewise be
granted to the mother of the Blessed Virgin.3®

The Childhood of Mary
There is little to be said in regard to the childhood and adolescence
of the Blessed Virgin, that is, of her life from the age of three until
her marriage to St. Joseph. While the Evangelists are silent on this
point, the apocryphal books describe the life of the Blessed Virgin
during this period as full of prodigies. Although we cannot admit all
that is narrated, many things may be judged as substantially true be­
cause they are based on ancient tradition and accepted by the Fathers
of the Church.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

It is common opinion that Mary was offered in the Temple by
her parents, since the Church celebrates the feast of the Presentation
to commemorate the offering of Mary by her parents. However,
theologians do not agree on the significance of the name and feast of
the Presentation of Mary in the Temple. Serry and Billuart say that
under the title and name of the Presentation is celebrated that gener­
ous act of the Blessed Virgin whereby she bound herself at a tender
age by the vow of virginity and consecrated herself to God by the
profession of a more perfect life. It is believed that this was done in
the Temple. On the other hand, the prayer of the Church for the
feast of the Presentation seems to contradict this and to indicate that
the offering was not made by the Blessed Virgin herself, but by others,
since the prayer says that she was presented, and not that she pre­
sented herself.
The opinion which should be accepted as most certain is that which
affirms that the feast of the Presentation commemorates the offering
of the Blessed Virgin in the Temple by her parents so that she might
be dedicated to the service of God and there be properly trained.
Pope Benedict XIV says: "Not wishing to separate ourselves even a
little from the common teaching of the Church, we say that the
Blessed Virgin was presented in the Temple in order to be perfectly
educated there.”40 This must not be understood as though she could
not have been adequately instructed by the holy example of her
parents, but that her life would seem holier if she were separated
from the world, and her life in the Temple and the service to which
she would be dedicated would inspire and instill greater piety in her.
Many of the Greek and Latin Fathers and ecclesiastical writers
are of this opinion. St. John Damascene states that she was born in
Joachim’s house and was later brought to the Temple; there enriched
by the Holy Spirit, she became the abode of all the virtues.41 St.
Euthymius says that Zachary received her and placed her in the holy
of holies, she who is holier than the saints.42 Escolarius, after extolling
the virtues of the Blessed Virgin, says that she practiced the virtues
from the first moment of her entrance into the Temple at the age of
three and that through her education under the high priest and an
angel, she progressed in the beauty of age and virtue.43 Denis the
Carthusian says that it was fitting that the chosen one, who was to
conceive the Lord of the Temple, should herself be consecrated in
M

mary’s birth and early life

the same Temple and there obey the Lord and spend her childhood
in pions exercises and be instructed in sacred doctrine.
It was not unusual for the Hebrews to consecrate women to God
so that they could perform services fitting to their sex in the Temple.
We read in Leviticus: "The man that shall have made a vow, and
promised his soul to God, shall give the price acccording to estima­
tion.” 44 But if a man or woman were consecrated wholly to God,
they could not be freed except by death, for we read in verses 28 and
29: "Anything that is devoted to the Lord, whether it be man or
beast, or field, shall not be sold, neither may it be redeemed. . . .
And any consecration that is offered by man, shall not be redeemed,
but dying, shall die.”
Now Scripture infers that since the time of Moses and Aaron there
were women appointed to the service of the Temple: "The skillful
women also gave such things as they had spun, violet, purple, and
scarlet, and fine linen”; and: “He made also the laver of brass, with
the foot thereof, of the mirrors, of the woman that watched at the
door of the tabernacle.”40 For this reason St. Ambrose says: “We
also read that virgins were assigned to the Temple of Jerusalem. But
the Apostle Paul says: ‘All these things happened to them as a type,
and they were written for our correction, upon whom the final age
of the world has come’ ” (I Cor., 10:11).40
That all these women consecrated to God and dedicated to the
ministry of the Temple not only frequented it constantly, but lived
there, is sufficient proof that in the Temple there were dwellings for
men and women, as is evident from the life of Samuel, who from a
tender age ministered in the Temple.47 It is also evident from the
case of Josaba, the daughter of King Joram and sister of Ochozias,
who, to free Joas, the son of Ochozias, from the anger of Attalia, hid
him in the house of the Lord for six years.48 Again, there is the case
of Anna, the prophetess, who “never left the Temple with fastings
and prayers, worshipping night and day.”48 Josephus refers to the
dwellings for women in the Temple, and Origen speaks of a tradition
"that there was a place in the Temple where virgins were permitted
to live and pray to God, but married women were not allowed to
live there.” 80 Cornelius de Lapide writes:

There were in Israel women who, worshipping God and disdaining
the vanity of the world and desiring only to please God, consecrated
!5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

themselves to Him. They came daily to the courtyard to pray and to
hear the commandments of God. This custom continued after the
erection of this solemn tabernacle and especially after the construc­
tion of the Temple, when certain dwellings were constructed at the
door or atrium of the tabernacle, like Anna the prophetess.51 ....
From the time of her presentation at the age of three, the Blessed
Virgin lived among these women and was educated there. It was like a
religious community of devoted women, the type and shadow of our
religious women today.52
The same teaching is held by authors of our time, such as De la
Broisse53 and Morineau, who said: "It seems that this point of his­
tory is firmly established. It is not a question of the infallibility of
the Church, but this truth emerges from the apocryphal gospels, in
spite of the fantasies with which it is surrounded. The Greek Fathers
did not preach otherwise concerning Mary’s infancy, so that one
could say that it comes from the first generation of Christians. Thus,
the feast of the Presentation, older in the Eastern Church than in
the Roman, has a firm traditional foundation. Moreover, there is
nothing unlikely in her sojourn in the Temple. Women could dedi­
cate themselves to the Lord. Without taking part in liturgical services
as such, they could embroider, take part in the chant and in certain
ceremonies. There were buildings reserved for them. It was there that
Joachim and Anne brought their child.” 54
It is likely that the Blessed Virgin’s parents had vowed to conse­
crate their child to God and they fulfilled this vow by offering Mary
in the Temple, imitating Anna, the mother of Samuel, who being
sterile, had vowed to offer to God the son who would be born to her.
St. John Damascene expressly teaches this when he says: “Just as the
ancient Anna, suffering from sterility and having made a vow, gave
birth to Samuel, so this other Anne, by her prayers and promise to
God, merited to bear the Mother of God.” 55
According to accounts in the apocryphal books, the presentation of
Mary in the Temple was not without pomp, and wonderful things
happened at her dedication and during her stay in the Temple. In
accordance with the promise made by her parents, Mary was taken to
the Temple at the age of three, accompanied by many young Hebrew
girls, carrying torches; and she was attended by the primates of Jeru­
salem and by singing angels. There were fifteen steps leading to the
16

mary’s

birth ano early life

Temple, which Mary, though a small child, climbed without any
help. At the door she was received by the priests and levites who were
associated with the high priest. After kissing her, they led her to the
third step of the altar.
The apocryphal writers mention many wonders connected with
Mary’s stay in the Temple. For example, she did not eat ordinary
food, but was fed by angels; she did not live in the common dwelling,
but in the holy of holies, in which the high priest was allowed to enter
only once a year. Having completed her eleventh year, the high priest
wished to arrange a marriage for her and by divine inspiration he called
together suitable men of the tribe of Juda. Each carried a staff, but
the only one which blossomed was Joseph’s, and the Holy Spirit came
down upon him alone in the form of a dove. This made it clear that
Joseph had been chosen by the Holy Spirit as spouse and guardian of
Mary’s virginity.
These public and prodigious signs which are said to have happened
while Mary was in the Temple are uncertain or even false. If so many
honors and prodigies had surrounded the infancy and childhood of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, she would have acquired great renown
among the Jews and her name would have been venerated by the
members of her tribe, who undoubtedly would have surmised that she
was to be the Mother of the Messias. In that case, the Jews would
not have offered as an insult to Christ the lowly condition of His
Mother, in order to belittle His miracles, wisdom, and virtues; nor
would they have said: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his
mother called Mary. . . . Then where did he get all this?”55
The accompaniment of young girls with burning torches is nothing
but an unfounded conjecture, perhaps taken from our use of candles
in sacred ceremonies. The procession of the primates of the city ac­
companying the child not only supposes that Joachim belonged to a
noble family, which can readily be granted, but that he was very
wealthy, to the point of being numbered among the important people
of the city, who, in order to honor him, would have been present at
the offering of his daughter. But Joachim was not wealthy; he was of

moderate means.
Although St. Antoninus and St. Bernardine of Busti say that the
Blessed Virgin climbed the fifteen steps of the Temple without any
help, there are no ancient documents of any value which enable us to

>7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

accept this story without distrust, chiefly because it is not at all certain
that there were fifteen steps leading to the Temple.
Concerning the accompaniment of an angelic choir at the time of
Mary's presentation in the Temple, Trombelli says that the angels re­
joice and sing because of our good acts and that they would with
greater reason do so at Mary’s presentation, but that he would demand
many ancient and serious proofs before believing that the angels were
visible and that their songs were heard by men.
The story of the nourishing of the Blessed Virgin by the hands of
the angels has no foundation whatever, for although certain writers
such as Gregory of Nicodemia, Cedrcnus, and John of Cartagena af­
firm it, they are not to be believed, for they took this account from
the apocryphal books.
Mary’s entrance into the holy of holies cannot be accepted as true
because the Apostle says that only the high priest was allowed to enter
the holy of holies, and that only once a year.67 This reservation was
still in force among tire Jews during the time of Philo, as he states in
the book, De Legatione ad Cajum Imperatorem. It does not seem
likely that the priests and levites would admit to the holy of holies a
little girl whose eminent virtues and purity were evident, but whose
sublime dignity to which God had destined her was still concealed.
The tradition of the blossoming staff and the appearance of the
Holy Spirit in the form of a dove in choosing St. Joseph as Mary’s
spouse was widely accepted in the early centuries. However, it is very
difficult to admit this prodigy, since the Latin Fathers arc completely
silent on this point. If we find any remnants of it among the Greek
Fathers, it is evident that they were over-credulous in accepting it
from the apocryphal books. Moreover, unfounded and unnecessary
miracles cannot be accepted. It was unfounded and unnecessary be­
cause Mary’s marriage to St. Joseph was to be different, was provided
for in a different manner. It would not be far from the truth were we
to say that this dream of the apocryphal author was taken from the
Book of Numbers, in which we read that God confirmed by the
miracle of the blossoming rod, the priesthood conferred on Aaron:
"Whomsoever of these I shall choose, his rod shall blossom. . . .
He returned on the following day and found that the rod of Aaron
for the house of Levi, was budded: and that the buds swelling, it had
bloomed blossoms, which spreading the leaves, were formed into al­

18

mary’s birth and early life

monds."68 Notwithstanding, the Church has permitted that St. Jo­
seph be portrayed with a blossomed rod in his hand, not to confirm the
account in the apocryphal books, but to draw the faithful to imitate,
under this symbol, the excellent virtues, especially perpetual virginity,
of the chaste spouse of the Mother of God.
Apropos of this, Cardinal Dubois says that the art of the Middle
Ages was inspired by the Golden Legend of James of Voragine, who
drew greatly on the apocryphal books. Giotto’s frescoes at Padua and
the miniature portraits scattered in museums and libraries illustrate
the story summarized above, but remain a dead letter for one who
meditates on them, if he does not know the legend. As for explaining
the lily placed in Joseph’s hand by recent painters, it is likely that these
painters are ignorant of the legend that has long been forgotten and
simply wish to call attention to the virginity of Mary’s chaste spouse.5·

The Betrothal and Marriage
of Mary and Joseph
According to many interpreters of Sacred Scripture, one must dis­
tinguish two acts in the celebration of marriage among the Jews, at
least in the last centuries before Christ: the betrothal and the solem­
nization of the nuptials. Betrothal among the Jews was not the same as
ours, which is a solemn promise of future marriage. In the Old Law,
the betrothal constituted a true marriage. Even before the nuptials,
the betrothed enjoyed the marriage rights, although the bride did not
live with her husband immediately after the espousal, but continued
to live in the paternal home until she was conducted to the house of
her husband where the solemn nuptials were celebrated. During the
period of betrothal, the bride and groom could use the marriage right
if they wished. This was not considered fornication, but the true mar­
riage act, and the offspring was considered legitimate. The groom had
to give his bride a bill of divorce if he didn’t wish to take her as his
wife later. In case of infidelity that could be proved legally, the bride
was stoned as an adulteress.00
It is certain that Mary was betrothed to St. Joseph. Thus, we read
in Scripture: “When Mary His Mother had been betrothed to Joseph,

19

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

before they came together, she was found to be with child by the
Holy Spirit.”01 "The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of
Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph,
of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.” 02

mary’s birth and early life

A true marriage existed between Mary and Joseph.
Pelagian denied that Mary and Joseph were really married because
the marriage was not consummated, and this constitutes the essence
of a true marriage. Wycliff also held this opinion. Among Catholics,
Gratian, Medina, and Freisen (who asserts that the marriage contract
is essentially a promise of future carnal union) also maintain that
there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph.
Canisius believed that the existence of a true marriage between
Mary and Joseph can be defended in accordance with one’s judgment.
Suârez es held it to be a matter of faith and as such, accepted by all
theologians. Vâzqucz and Pope Benedict XIV cautiously call it cer­
tain, so that the contrary opinion should be considered temerarious.
Sacred Scripture. St. Matthew says: “Jacob begot Joseph, the hus­
band of Mary, and of her was bom Jesus who is called Christ”; and
“Joseph, her husband, being a just man. . . . Do not be afraid, Jo­
seph, son of David, to take Mary thy wife.” 84 In St. Luke we read:
“And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth, into
Judea to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem ... to regis­
ter, together with Mary, his espoused wife, who was with child.”·5
Thus, wc see that Joseph was called the spouse of Mary, and Mary,
the spouse of Joseph, titles which could not properly be applied except
to people united by a true bond of matrimony.
Joseph is called the father of Christ in St. Luke: “And His father
and mother were marvelling at the things spoken concerning Him”;··
and in verse 48: "And when they saw Him, they were astonished. And
His mother said to Him, ‘Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold,
in sorrow Thy father and I have been seeking Thee.’ ” Similarly, Jesus
is called the son of Joseph: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His
mother called Mary?”07 “Tire Jews therefore murmured about Him
because He had said, ‘I am the bread that has come down from
heaven’; and they kept saying, ‘Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know?’ ” 08 Moreover, Mary and Joseph
are called the parents of Jesus: “And when His parents brought in
the Child, Jesus”; “His parents were wont to go every year to Jeru-

salem”; "The boy Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and His parents did
not know it.” 00 Since we are certain through faith that Jesus did
not originate from Joseph, there can be no other reason for these titles,
except that Joseph was, by a true and public marriage, the husband
of Mary, who engendered Christ according to the flesh.
We read in St. Matthew: “When Mary, His Mother, had been
betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be
with child by the Holy Spirit”; and in St. Luke: “The angel Gabriel
was sent from God ... to a virgin betrothed to a man named
Joseph.” 70 Commenting on these words, Palmieri argues that either
the nuptials had been completed or they had not yet been solemnized.
If it was the former, it was a true marriage according to the Jews; if
the latter, the betrothal itself constituted true marriage among the
Jews, since the leading of the bride to her husband's house or the
celebration of the wedding gave the couple the right to use the power
already agreed upon and accepted. And if matrimony consisted in
the granting of this power, then the Blessed Virgin Mary was married
to St. Joseph. With regard to the latter, if something was lacking to
the marriage, such as the solemnization of the nuptials, it was because
they had not as yet done so. Otherwise, according to the law, Joseph
should have given Mary a bill of divorce.71
The Fathers. Origen says: “Christ had to be bom of a virgin who
not only had a husband but, as St. Matthew says, who was given to
a man, although the man did not know her. . . . Her virginity was
concealed from the prince of this world (the devil); it was hidden
by Joseph, by the marriage, and because it was thought that she knew
man.” 72 St. Basil says that although Joseph treated Mary with all
the love and attention proper to married couples, he abstained from
the marital act. St. Ambrose states that it matters not that Holy
Scripture frequently refers to her as a wife, for that does not refer to
the loss of her virginity, but merely testifies to her marriage. St.
Augustine says even more clearly: “You argue against my opinion
because I called Joseph Mary’s husband, as the Gospel attests, and
you try to prove that there was no true marriage because there was
no marital act. Then, according to you, if a husband and wife cease
to have sexual relations, this cessation would be equivalent to a di­
vorce.” 73 In another passage he says that because of their true mar­
riage, both deserve to be called Christ’s parents.
Some of the Fathers seem to use phrases which indicate that Mary

20

21

thesis:

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and Joseph were only betrothed and not united by a true bond of
matrimony. Thus, St. Gregory the Great says that God willed that
Mary should take a husband, but without solemnizing the nuptials;
St. Hilarj' says that it is better to speak of Mary as the Mother of
Christ, which she was, than the wife of Joseph, which she was not;
St. Jerome says that Joseph was Mary’s guardian rather than her hus
band; St. Bernard says that the Evangelists refer to Joseph as a just
man, not because he was her husband, but because he was a man of
virtue. However, these and similar expressions should be interpreted
in the sense of a consummated marriage, since the Fathers only
wished to point out that the Mother of God preserved her virginity
intact and that there was no consummation of the marriage. For that
reason they carefully refrained from using the words, wife, husband,
and marriage, because although these terms can refer to persons who
preserve virginity in an unconsummated marriage, they seem to infer
the idea of a consummated marriage.
Theological Argument, i ) A true marriage is one which attains its
perfection. But the marriage between Mary and Joseph attained that
perfection, both in its primary and essential perfection and in its
secondary and accidental perfection, or at least, in part.
The first perfection consists in its very form, from which it receives its
species; while the second perfection of a thing attains its end. Now
the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls,
by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection
that cannot be broken. The end of matrimony is the begetting and
upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by marital in­
tercourse; the second, by the duties of husband and wife, by which
they help one another in rearing their offspring. Thus we may say of
the first perfection that the marriage of the Mother of God and Joseph
was absolutely true, because both consented to the nuptial bond, but
not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it
was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of
Joseph, saying to him: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife,"’1
on which words Augustine comments: “She is called his wife from the
first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was
to know by carnal intercourse.” 78
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage
act, if this refers to carnal intercourse by which children are begotten,
this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Luke

mary's birth and early life

1:26-27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact
of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but
to witness to the reality of the union.” Nevertheless, this marriage had
the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine
says: "All the nuptial blessings arc fulfilled in the marriage of Christ’s
parents: offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have
been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery; sacrament, since
there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none.”78

2) Many arguments of convenience prove the true marriage of
Mary and Joseph. The principal ones are: first, that Christ would not
be rejected by the Jews as illegitimate, for if in spite of thinking Him
bom legitimately, they rejected Him as the son of a workman,77 what
would they have done if it could be proved that He was illegitimate?
Secondly, in order to trace Christ’s genealogy through the father, as
was the custom, for if St. Joseph had not been the husband of Mary,
they could not have derived the lineage of Christ from him, for
neither by flesh nor by matrimonial right would he have been His
father. On the other hand, since Mary was the true spouse of Joseph
according to law, which prescribed that female heirs should marry
a kinsman, the origin of Mary and her Son from the race of David
was well established. Thirdly, that Joseph, with Mary, might serve
as helper and guardian of the Child Jesus and provide Him the ne­
cessities of life. Fourthly, so that the birth of Christ would be hidden
from the devil under the veil of matrimony lest the devil attack Christ
before it was time for Him to suffer or manifest His power. Although
the devil, by his natural wit and intelligence, could recognize that
Mary remained whole and incorrupt after childbirth, nevertheless he
did not discover this, but believed that she had given birth in a natural
way and he did not investigate further. St. Basil says that the devil
was deceived by Mary’s public betrothal because he knew that it had
been prophesied that a virgin would conceive and bring forth a son.7’
Fifthly, so that Mary would be free of the disgrace of having lost her
virginity and from the punishment of being stoned, if the Jews had
seen her bring forth a child outside of wedlock. Sixthly, the testimony
of Joseph would prove her purity and the virgin birth. Thus, St. Ber­
nard states that as that doubting Thomas is a most firm witness of
the resurrection of Christ, so Joseph, by marrying and caring for Mary,
is a most faithful witness of her purity.7’

23

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

3) Like every contract, marriage is perfected essentially by the
mutual consent of the contracting parties. Thus Pope Eugene IV,
in his decree Pro Armenis, states that the efficient cause of matrimony
is generally the mutual consent expressed by words, and this applies
to matrimony among all peoples under every law, natural, Mosaic,
or Christian. In addition to the consent of the contracting parties,
which constitutes marriage in fieri, many other things can be dis­
tinguished in matrimony, for example: the conjugal bond which re­
sults from the contract and constitutes marriage in facto esse; the
radical right and power with its correlative obligation in both parties
to the marriage act; the proximate right to the marriage act; and the
actual use of this right.
It is true that marriage cannot be understood without some relation
to the marital act. First, because marriage by its very nature is or­
dained to the procreation of children; secondly, because the union of
souls by the mutual love of the spouses, although it may be a condi­
tion for a successful marriage, docs not constitute marriage. If mar­
riage consisted only in a union of love and cohabitation, says Hugh
of St. Victor,80 marriage would exist between brothers and sisters and
even between persons of the same sex, not through any carnal act,
but through mutual love and cohabitation.
The use of the marital act is not of the essence of marriage. The
Roman Catechism teaches that besides the consent expressed by word
of mouth by the two parties, the use of the marital right is not neces­
sary for true marriage. Our first parents, before the Fall, were joined
in true marriage, without sexual relations, according to the testimony
of the Fathers. These same Fathers taught that marriage consists in
the consent and not in the marital act.
Nor does proximate right to coition pertain to the essence of matri­
mony. This right presupposes the legitimate union of man and wife,
and even after marriage has been contracted, the spouses could agree,
temporarily or perpetually, not to use this right, but true marriage
would still exist. The radical right to the marriage act is not distin­
guished from the marriage bond, for this is the basic root of all the
rights and obligations of married couples regarding the marriage act
and the other ends of marriage.
Consequently, we must say that the marriage of Mary and Joseph,
although a most chaste one, cannot be understood without some

mary’s

birth and early life

reference to the marital act. The consent of the Blessed Virgin and
St. Joseph in the celebration of their marriage would not refer to the
use of the marriage act or even the proximate right to that act, but
it would necessarily refer to the indissoluble marriage bond, without
which marriage could not exist, and to the radical right to the mar­
riage act which is included in the nature of marriage. We cannot
infer from this that the consent of the Blessed Virgin could not ex­
tend to that radical right to coition without tending implicitly to
the marriage act itself. Sânchez says that the implicit consent to the
marriage act can be understood in two ways: first, on the part of the
contract, and in this sense the implicit consent to the marriage act
was necessary since the marriage contract is intrinsically ordained
to the marital act; secondly, on the part of the contracting party, and
in this sense the implicit consent to coition is not necessary; conse­
quently, although the contracting party does not intend to consent
to coition, a true marriage exists.81
This explanation does not satisfy many authors and they assert that
the Blessed Virgin’s consent did not refer either implicitly or virtually
to the marriage act because this act is not a necessary effect of the
matrimonial bond nor of the radical right. The marriage act is neither
virtually nor tacitly contained in the marriage bond nor in the radical
right. Therefore, although the consent required for matrimony has
as its object the marriage bond and radical right, which is one with
the essence of matrimony, it docs not have to refer either implicitly
or tacitly to the marriage act, although it is connoted in obliquo.92
All of this demonstrates the fact that the Blessed Virgin’s marriage
did not in the least affect her virginity.

The time of Mary and Joseph’s marriage.
Calmet, Knabenbauer, Van-Steenkiste, Fillion, and Campana hold
that the marriage was solemnized after the Annunciation and that,
therefore, the Virgin conceived Christ after her betrothal but before
the nuptials were solemnized. We read in St. Luke: "The angel Ga­
briel was sent ... to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph."83
This indicates that they were espoused, and that this is what was
meant, we conclude from St. Matthew, where Joseph, worried on
discovering the pregnancy of the Virgin Man·, was assured by the
angel: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to thee Mary,
thesis:

»5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit." 84
The words “to take” signify to solemnize the betrothal by marriage.
Again, in St. Matthew: "Before they came together, she was found
to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” 80 Here the words signify that
they had not as yet celebrated the nuptials, at which time the hus­
band brought his wife to live in his home. Among the Jews, the nuptials were celebrated when the husband received his wife and brought
her to his home. Joseph received Mary, his wife, and led her to his
home after the Annunciation and virginal conception, that is, after
the angel had instructed him on the mystery of the Incarnation and
assured him of the fidelity and integrity of Mary.80 Immediately after
the Annunciation, Mary went in haste into the hill country, into a
city of Juda to visit Elizabeth. Holy Scripture docs not mention that
Mary was accompanied by anyone on this journey, but if the marriage
had been solemnized, Mary would not have made the journey of three

or four days without St. Joseph.
Cornelius a Lapide, Suârez, Maldonado, Benedict XIV, Palmieri,
and Lepicier believe that Mary and Joseph were married before the
Annunciation and that she conceived Christ after being betrothed
and married. Had Mary not been married before the Annunciation,
since she immediately went to Elizabeth and remained there for
about three months, she would not have been married until three
months after the conception of her Son, at which time gestation is
manifest in the womb. According to this hypothesis, the Blessed
Virgin would have been noticeably pregnant before becoming Joseph's
wife and would have given birth to her Son six months after her
marriage. This would entail a loss of prestige by the mother and her
Son, and one of two things might be said by unbelievers: either the
Virgin had conceived in adultery, or she had acted contrary to the
law and had carnal relations with her husband before the celebration
of the nuptials. This union before the nuptials, although legitimate
and valid, was looked upon as unchaste and dishonest.
Noticing the external signs of pregnancy and being ignorant of the
mystery, Joseph wished to put Mary away privately.87 This secret
separation would have preserved the Virgin’s honor if it had taken
place after the nuptials, but not before them. After the nuptials,
people could have thought ill of Joseph, but not of Mary who, giving
birth at a legitimate time, would not have lost her reputation of
chastity. If, on the contrary, the separation had taken place before

26

mary’s birth and early life

the nuptials, the Virgin's disgrace would have been very grave, because
the fact that the bridegroom would put her away before the nuptials
would have given the impression that she had conceived by someone
else.88
The ages of Mary and Joseph at the time of their marriage.
There are two opinions among ecclesiastical writers with respect
to Mary and Joseph’s ages at the time they married. Calixtus, Christo­
pher de Castro, St. Bonaventure, Suârez, Vazquez, and many modems
believe that Mary was about fourteen or fifteen years old when she
married St. Joseph. St. Albert the Great, Cajetan, Serry, and Billuart
say that the Blessed Virgin was older when she married; St. Albert
says at least twenty-five years old and Cajetan considers twenty-four
or perhaps nineteen reasonable because, as Suârez says, she needed
a strong and perfect body, in order to conceive her Son. Serry and
Billuart believe that she was even older. Although there is nothing
certain regarding their ages, the first opinion is most common and
the most probable, since the Fathers tell us that it was the Jewish
custom to marry off one’s daughters when they were young. Mary’s
nuptials were not deferred; rather, there was a special reason for has­
tening them, so that the desires of the patriarchs and fathers would

thesis:

be fulfilled sooner.
With regard to Joseph's age, the ancients held that he was already
old. St. Epiphanius believes that he took Mary as his wife when he
was about eighty years of age;80 Gerson says that Joseph was about
seventy. The most common opinion is that Joseph was not old when
he married the Blessed Virgin, but that he had attained to the perfect
age of man, that is, around thirty or at most forty years of age.
The Virgin Mary was given to St. Joseph in marriage so that he
would be her protector and the guardian of her chastity and that her
Child could be attributed to her husband by those who did not know
the mystery worked in her. Therefore, it is not likely that he was an
old man. Moreover, he was to help, feed, and educate her Child, and
to be her companion.
According to Janssens, one does not have to reject the statues and
paintings that portray him as a man advanced in years. Neither is it
necessary to reject those which show him as a young man, holding
the Child Jesus in his arms.00
By what means was the marriage of Mary and Joseph arranged?
27

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Wc may surmise that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was not veri­
fied without the special disposition of God, since the Church, on the
Feast of the Solemnity of St. Joseph, says: "O God, who in Thine
unspeakable providence, didst vouchsafe to choose blessed Joseph for
Thy most holy Mother’s spouse.” But how was divine providence
fulfilled?
According to the apocryphal accounts, Joseph was chosen the spouse
of Mary by the miracle of the blossoming rod, but this account has
been rejected. Others say that it was by divine inspiration. Thus, St.
Gregory Nazianzen says that under divine inspiration the priests took
counsel and decided to give the Virgin in marriage to the man who
would best guard her virginity.01 Others resort to the ministry of an
angel, like Trombelli, who asserts that although the Gospels are silent
on the point, it must be believed that it was by express sign of an
angel, inasmuch as the redemption of the world and the education
of Mary’s Son depended on it.
However, it would seem better to say that Mary contracted marriage
with Joseph because, as the only child and heir of her parents' goods,
she had to marry Joseph in virtue of the prescription of the Mosaic
precept: “Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to
men of their own tribe. . . . For all men shall marry wives of their
own tribe and kindred; and all women shall take husbands of the
same tribe, that the inheritance may remain in the families and that
the tribes be not mingled one with the other, but remain so, as they
were separated by the Lord.” 02 St. Jerome proves this by saying that
Mary and Joseph were of the same tribe, and according to the law
they were obliged to marry within the same tribe. St. John Damascene
states it more clearly when he says that Joseph, who was of the tribe
of David and a just man, would not have married the holy Virgin
if she had not been of the same tribe. Hence, Lepicicr concludes that
God arranged the marriage of Mary with Joseph by no other means
than the fixed prescription of the Mosaic law. Through the media­
tion of Moses, God sanctioned that law in preparation for this singu­
lar marriage, from which so much good was to come to the human
race.

28

CHAPTER TWO

T/lary, ^Mother of Qod
*

Predestination to the

Divine Maternity
According to the etymology of the word, predestination means

to determine to do something before actually doing it, or to direct
or destine one thing to another before carrying it through. Predestina­
tion can be understood in a wide sense or in a strict sense. Taken in
a wide sense, it designates the pre ordination or intention of doing
something at a future date; in the strict sense, it denotes the divine
pre-ordination of things which will be accomplished through grace.
Thus, St. Thomas says that predestination in its proper sense is a cer­
tain divine pre-ordination from all eternity of those things which
are to be done in time through the grace of God.1
By its very nature, predestination is directed to the supernatural
union of the soul with God. This union is twofold: one, according
to operation, which attains its ultimate perfection in the beatific
vision; and the other, according to being, through which God is united
to a creature in its very subsistence, so that it can be said properly
that God is man hypostatically.
Although predestination in men is understood principally as the
predestination to beatitude or eternal life, which is attained by grace
and merits, in Christ it devolves on the hypostatic union itself, from
which flow connaturally all the gifts of grace and all the prerogatives
that exist in Him. That is why St. Thomas, when treating of the
mystery of the Incarnation, proposes the question of the predestina­
tion of Christ as the Son of God.2
By analogous reasoning, since the divine maternity approaches the
hypostatic order and is the root and foundation of the other graces
and prerogatives which were given to the Virgin, we shall first study

29

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

her predestination to the divine maternity and then her predestina­
tion to grace and glory.

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

: The predestination of the Blessed Virgin as Mother of
God depends on the prevision of Adam’s sin in such a way that if

Adam had not sinned, Mary would not have been predestined to the
divine maternity.
It is evident that the Blessed Virgin, by reason of her predestination
to the divine maternity, cannot be separated from Christ in this pre­
destination, since Mother and Son are correlatives which exist with
a simultaneity of nature and knowledge. Hence, we must say that
God predestined, in one and the same decree, the Incarnation and
the divine maternity of the Virgin, as the liturgy clearly states: “0
almighty and merciful God, who from all eternity hast, in the spirit
of sanctification, predestined according to the flesh, Thine onlybegotten, co-equal and consubstantial Son, our Lord Jesus Christ:
and has singled out before all ages the most holy and acceptable Vir­
gin Mary to be His Mother.” 5
It is likewise indubitable that the Incarnation of the Word was
decreed by God for the redemption of the human race, as Sacred
Scripture clearly attests: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to
save what was lost”;0 “But when the fullness of time came, God sent
His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that He might re­
deem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adop­
tion of sons.” ’ We confess this same doctrine in the Credo: "For us
men and for our salvation He came down from heaven.” It follows
that Christ not only actually came as a Redeemer, of human lineage,
and that the Blessed Virgin was thereby the Mother of the Redeemer,
but they were both predestined—Christ as the Redeemer of men
and Mary as the Mother of the Redeemer—since the order of execu­
tion manifests the order of intention.
Therefore, the question is whether Christ, with His Mother Mary,
was predestined in the order of intention, before all creatures, for
the glory of Christ, the exaltation of human nature, and the beauty
of the whole universe, independent of the foreknowledge of sin, so
that in the actual decree and historical reason for the Incarnation He
appears primarily as Head of all the universe and Firstborn of all
creation, and then as Redeemer of the human race, consequent upon
the prevision of sin; or whethei the Incarnation was prepared purely
and simply as a remedy for sin, in such wise that it was decreed only
after the foreknowledge of sin, so that Christ would appear in the
intentional decree of the Incarnation primarily as Redeemer of the
human race, and Mary as Mother of the Redeemer.

3°

«

: The Blessed Virgin was predestined to the divine mater­
nity.
Magisterium of the Popes. In the Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, by Pope
Pius IX, we read: "From the very beginning, and before time began,
the Eternal Father chose and prepared for His only-begotten Son
a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from
whom, in the blessed fullness of time, He would be born into this
world. Above all creatures did God so love her that truly in her was
the Father well pleased with singular delight.”
Sacred Scripture. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His
ways, before He made anything from the beginning. I was set up
from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.” 3 "I came out
of the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before all creatures.”4
Again, in his Bull Ineffabilis, Pope Pius IX says: “The very words with
which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom and set
forth His eternal origin, the Church, both in its ecclesiastical offices
and in its liturgy, has been wont to apply likewise to the origin of the
Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as God, by one and the same decree, had
established the origin of Mary and the incarnation of Divine Wis­
dom.”
Fathers and Doctors. St. Augustine says that before He was bom
of her, He knew His Mother in her predestination. St. Bernard says
that an angel was sent to the Virgin Mary, a virgin in flesh, in mind,
in will; a virgin, as the Apostle describes her, holy in soul and in body.
And she was not found by chance, but she was chosen from the begin­
ning of time, foreknown and prepared by the Most High, guarded by
the angels, foretold by the patriarchs, and promised by the prophets.
Theological Argument. Predestination is the eternal divine pre­
ordination of those things which, by the grace of God, will be accom­
plished in time. Therefore, if the Blessed Virgin, by the singular grace
of God, became the Mother of God in time, it is evident that she
must have been predestined to it from all eternity.
thesis

thesis

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Opinions. The Scotists affirm that the decree of the Incarnation
was formulated prior to the prevision of sin, for the glory of Christ
and beauty of the universe, and that Christ was predestined as Re­
deemer after the prevision of sin and the fall of Adam. In this case,
although Christ would not have assumed a passible, but a glorious
body, it would not follow that it would not be necessary to choose
a mother who would bear Him and give Him birth, but He would
have proceeded glorious from her womb.
Thomists generally maintain that the Incarnation, having been
decreed by God after the prevision of Adam's sin, was ordained ex­
clusively to the redemption of the human race, so that if there had
been no sin, the Incarnation would never have been realized. There­
fore, Christ appears in the intentional decree of the Incarnation as
a Redeemer, and Mary, as Mother of the Redeemer.
Suârcz attempts to reconcile these two opinions by establishing
a double decree of the Incarnation, in harmony with the double total
motive: one absolute, namely, the glory of Christ, and the other
hypothetical, namely, the redemption of the human race in the event
of Adam's sin. Molina also tried to reconcile the two opinions, postu­
lating one decree which comprised both, in which the creation and
redemption, with some mutual dependence, are decreed by God. The
Carmelites of Salamanca, while teaching that the redemption of man
is the only adequate motive for the Incarnation, classify the divine
decrees in such a way that Christ was willed simply, as finis cujus
gratia, and the salvation of man was willed as finis cui.
Magisterium of the Popes. Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX states:

God ineffable . . . having foreseen from all eternity the lamentable
wretchedness of the entire human race which would result from the
sin of Adam, decreed, by a plan hidden from the centuries, to com­
plete the first work of His goodness by a mystery yet more wondrously
sublime through the incarnation of the Word. This He decreed in
order that man who, contrary to the plan of divine mercy, had been
led into sin by the cunning malice of Satan, would not perish; and
in order that what had been lost in the first Adam would be gloriously
restored by the second Adam. From the very beginning, and before
time began, the Eternal Father chose and prepared for His onlybegotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become in­
carnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, He would
32

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so love her that
truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight.

The Fathers. St. Augustine says that if there had been no transgres­
sion on our part, our redemption would not have followed, since there
would have been no need of redeeming the sinner. He then asks why
Mary should be the Mother of the Savior, if there was no need for
salvation.8 St. Andrew of Crete exclaims that if there were no Cross,
Christ would not have come to earth, nor the Virgin, nor would the
second birth of Christ have been realized.® Eadmer says that she was
made the Mother of God more for sinners than for the just, since
her own Son said that He did not come to call the just, but the sin­
ners, and the Apostle also said that He came to save sinners.10
Theological Argument. The divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin
was not decreed except through the incarnation of the Word. But
since the Incarnation, by being ordained exclusively to the redemp­
tion of the human race, would not have existed had Adam not sinned,
neither would the divine maternity have existed.
: The Virgin Mary was predestined to be the Mother of
Cod by the gratuitous will of God, prior to any prevision of merit.
Vazquez asserts that Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God
after the prevision of her merits." This opinion is commonly rejected
by theologians, headed by Suârez, who says that it is certain that the
Blessed Virgin was chosen and predestined from all eternity to the
dignity of the Mother of God before the prevision of her merits.12
All the merits of the Blessed Virgin are founded on the graces
bestowed on her and their consequences. But all these graces derive
from the divine maternity as their root and foundation; therefore,
Mary was predestined to this motherhood gratuitously and before
all prevision of any kind of merit.
The notable prerogative of the immaculate conception, since it re­
fers to the first instant of the Blessed Virgin’s life, necessarily precedes
all her merit. Now, the immaculate conception was bestowed on Mary
in view of her maternity, so that she was predestined to the former
because she was chosen for the latter.
thesis

T h e s i s : In the order of execution the Blessed Virgin did not merit
the divine maternity de condigno.
33

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

It is one thing to merit some dignity' and another to merit the dis­
position necessary for the worthy reception of that dignity. If there
is no physical connection between the disposition and the dignity,
but only a moral and congruous relation, they can be separated.
Therefore, although one is worthily disposed to receive a dignity, it
may happen that the dignity is in no way due to the individual. Thus,
the doctorate disposes one more for the episcopacy, but the dignity
is not due an individual on that account.
It is certain that the Blessed Virgin was worthily disposed to be the
Mother of God. Thus, the Church proclaims her in her liturgy: "0
God ... you preserved the Virgin Mother immaculate at her con­
ception so that she might be a fitting dwelling place for Your Son.” “
She was immune from all sin and adorned, from the first moment of
her conception, with pre-eminent habitual grace, a most worthy dis­
position for the divine maternity. Further, her extraordinary graces
and growth in virtue, her works and condign merits, by which grace
and virtue were augmented up to the time of the conception of her

Son, all contributed to this disposition. On her part (ex opere oper­
antis), the Blessed Virgin obtained this disposition for divine mater­
nity by works and merits. Hence, Gotti says that as the just man, by
works performed in grace, merits de condigno an increase in that
grace, so the Blessed Virgin, by the fervent acts of charity which she
performed, merited de condigno that high degree of sanctity so that
she rather than any other was chosen as the Mother of God.’* There­
fore, the question is whether the Blessed Virgin merited the divine
maternity de condigno or de congruo.
Opinions. Gabriel Biel affirms that the Blessed Virgin merited the
divine maternity de condigno}6 Janssens believes that the merit was
not strictly de condigno but that she came as close as possible to it.”
St. Bonaventure, distinguishing between merit de congruo, de digno,
and de condigno, affirms that the most Blessed Virgin merited to be
the Mother of God surely, not by any merit de condigno, but de con­
gruo before the annunciation and de digno after it. He applies the
merit de digno to that work which is not in itself equal in dignity to
the reward, but which obtains it through the mercy of God, who ac­
cepts such a work for such a reward.17
Lorca denies de congruo merit of the divine maternity, both in a
strict sense or of retribution (for which some promise of the maternity
34

MARY,

MOTHER OF GOD

as a reward would be necessary—a promise we do not find in Sacred
Scripture) and in a wide sense or of impétration (for it is not likely
that the Blessed Virgin, in her humility, would have requested the
divine maternity which, on the other hand, she accepted when the
angel announced it, as something unexpected). ”
The surest and most common opinion is that the Blessed Virgin
merited the divine maternity de congruo. Among the defenders of
this opinion, some, like Sylvius, Billuart, and Paquet, understand
merit de congruo improperly speaking; others, like Gonet, Hugon,
and Bittremieux, refer to merit de congruo properly speaking.
The Fathers. St. Augustine, addressing the Blessed Virgin, exclaims:
"Who art thou who will conceive? Whence did you merit it? From
whom have you received it? How shall He who made thee be formed
in thee? Whence, I ask, such a great blessing for thee? Thou art a
virgin; thou art holy; thou hast taken a vow. Thou hast merited much,
but thou hast received much. But how did you merit this? Let the
angel answer. Tell me, angel, whence comes this to Mary? I have al­
ready said, when I saluted her: Ave, gratia plena." ”
Theological Argument, i ) Merit de condigno must be proportion­
ate to the reward. But the Blessed Virgin could not merit the divine
maternity condignly because her merits were of an inferior order of
grace and, therefore, were disproportionate to the divine maternity,
which belongs to the hypostatic order.
2) The Blessed Virgin’s merit de condigno proceeded from sancti­
fying grace, which gave all her acts a supernatural dignity. Now, such
meritorious acts are ordained to the increase of that grace and to the
attainment of glory, so that they are compensated in full value by that
increase of grace and glory. Thus, St. Thomas says: “The meritorious
works of man are properly ordained to beatitude, which is the reward
of virtue and consists in the full fruition of God." 20
3) For merit de condigno, besides the dignity of the work, God's
promise is required to give a reward to the works accepted by Him.
And it is clear that the most Blessed Virgin was not promised the
divine maternity as a reward for her good works, since neither Tradi­
tion nor Scripture tell us so.
4) If the Blessed Virgin had merited the divine maternity con­
dignly, she would also have merited the hypostatic order and the in­
carnation of the Word, for although the Incarnation could have
35

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

been realized without her maternity (the Word could have assumed
human nature without the work of a woman), the divine maternity
could not have existed without the Incarnation. And as the merit de
condigno of the Incarnation is impossible to any creature, it is logical
that the divine maternity could not be merited condignly.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the order of execution, mer­
ited the divine maternity de congruo, both in the strict and wide sense.
The thesis must be understood of the merit of the divine maternity
taken inadequately, which consists in the corporal conception and
birth of the Son of God, for if it is understood in a total and adequate
sense, it must be said that the Blessed Virgin was adorned with the
dignity of Mother from the first moment of her existence. She was
Mother of God before the conception and birth of Christ, not actu­
ally, but in the divine predestination or morally. In this sense the
divine maternity is prior, at least in nature, to every meritorious action

thesis:

MARY,

MOTHER OF GOD

Strictly speaking, merit de congruo is based on the proportion of
friendship and the works which the friend performs in the state of
grace. Now, the Blessed Virgin was eminently pleasing to God and
enjoyed His divine friendship. Hers was a most lofty sanctity which,
after her immaculate conception and through the grace with which
she was enriched, increased with every act until she gave the angel
her answer, so that she could be the Mother of God in preference
to all others. Therefore, she merited this dignity de congruo in the
stnet sense aha.
J

of the Blessed Virgin.21
The Fathers frequently state that the Blessed Virgin merited to
become the Mother of God. Thus, St. Epiphanius asks why anyone
would impugn that incorrupt virginity which has merited being the
abode of the Son of God. St. Jerome proposes her as a model whose
purity was so great that she merited becoming the Mother of the
Lord. St. Peter Damian says that she was so fashioned by Eternal
Wisdom to be made worthy to receive Him in her womb. St. Au­
gustine reminds us that the Virgin Mary was given so much grace
in order to merit to conceive and give birth to the sinless One. But
since the merit of which the Fathers speak cannot be de condigno,
it must be de congruo.
The Liturgy. The final antiphon of the Easter season greets Mary
happily, saying: “O Queen of heaven rejoice, alleluia. For He whom
thou didst deserve to bear, alleluia, has risen as He said, alleluia.”
Theological Argument. Taken in the wide sense, merit de congruo
rests on impétration. The Blessed Virgin, as well as the patriarchs
and fathers of the Old Testament, desired and begged with fervent
prayers that the promise of the Redeemer be fulfilled. Now, Cajetan
says that it is becoming that God hear the prayers of those who obey
Him, and in this sense also, it can be explained how Mary merited
de congruo to bear Christ.22

: The Blessed Virgin was predestined to glory antecedent
to the prevision of her merits.
Opinions. Thomists in general, and those from other Schools, such
as Suârez and Bellarminc, who deny the election of the predestined
to glory consequent to their merits (because they defend, with Bafiez,
Alvarez, and Gonet, predestination before the foreseen merit, or they
wish, like Satolli, that glory be decreed together with infallible future
merits, under the influence of efficacious grace) seem obliged with
greater reason to affirm the same doctrine concerning the Blessed
Virgin. The Molinists, maintaining in general that predestination
follows the merits of grace, also maintain that Mary’s predestination
to glory was decreed after her foreseen merits. Lercher softens this
opinion by saying that the Blessed Virgin was predestined before
the foreseen merits to the glory due her as the Mother of God, but
since Mary accumulated innumerable merits during her life, for which
she deserved an increase of glory, she was predestined to this glory
after her foreseen merits.23
Other theologians, such as Ockam, Gabriel, and chiefly Catharinus,
maintain that God predestined to glory, antecedent to all merit, very
few souls, and among them, the Blessed Virgin, St. John the Baptist,
and the apostles. Vega approaches these theologians by saying that
the election of all the predestined for glory, except Christ and Mary,
is not anterior to, but posterior to the prevision of merits.24
Theological Argument. 1) The divine maternity is, with relation
to the rest of the Virgin’s prerogatives, what the hypostatic union is
with regard to the graces and gifts with which the human nature of
Christ was adorned. Now, if Christ was chosen and predestined
antecedent to the prevision of His merits to the highest degree of

36

37

thesis

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

glory, as becomes the only Son of the Father, the Blessed Virgin also
was elected antecedent to her merits for the divine maternity and for
a glory’ superior to all the saints, as becomes the Mother of God.
2) The Blessed Virgin was adorned by God with a most singular
grace, was confirmed in grace, made immune from all sin, even venial
sin, and enriched with special helps by which she would progress in
the exercise of all the virtues and accumulate immense merit; gifts
which are, with respect to Mary’s glory, a means for the attainment
of the end. Now, order always demands that the end be determined
before the means to the end be decreed and, therefore, Mary was
predestined to glory antecedent to all her merits.

The Blessed Virgin was predestined to the divine maternity
before being predestined to such grace and glory.
Salazar denies this thesis by saying that if the election of the most
Blessed Virgin to the divine maternity is placed before the prevision
of her grace and glory, this choice would necessarily precede the merits
of Christ and, therefore, one would have to say that Mary was chosen
and elevated to the glory of the divine maternity absolutely, by the

thesis:

liberality of God and without the merits of Christ.
The Fathers and Doctors. St. Ambrose says that Mary was not
wanting in that which fitted her to be the Mother of Christ.25 St.
Bernard affirms that the Creator of men, to become man, had to be
born of man, and had to choose for Himself, among all, so great a
Mother; even more, He had to create her as He knew would be fitting
and pleasing to Him.20 St. Thomas says: “In every genus, the neater
a thing is to the principle, tire greater the part it has in the effect of
the principle. . . . The Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ
in His humanity, because He received His human nature from her.
Therefore, it was due her to receive a greater fullness of grace than
others received." 27
Theological Argument. The order of execution always reflects and
manifests the order of intention. If, then, in the order of execution,
the Blessed Virgin received the grace and glory necessary to be pre­
pared to be the Mother of God, it is clear that in the order of inten­
tion she had to be chosen beforehand for this office of Mother. It
is no obstacle to this doctrine to maintain that in this case the mater­
nity would not have been given to Mary through the foreseen merits
38

MARY, MOTHER OF COD

of Christ since, in the order of intention, all the merits of Christ are
posterior to the election and predestination of Mary to the divine
maternity, since they are posterior to the Incarnation and, therefore,
to the causes which concurred in its realization. Lorca says that just
as Christ could not merit His incarnation, the creation of His soul,
nor the production of His humanity, so neither could He merit the
causes nor the instruments which fulfilled and executed these things.
All this had to be separate from the merits of Christ and, in general,
all that could be considered antecedently a means in the execution
of the Incarnation, among which is the causality of the Blessed Vir­
gin, on which is based the relation of her maternity.28
The Blessed Virgin Mary would not have existed had she
not become the Mother of God.
Sacred Scripture. Mary is never mentioned separate from Christ,
but is always a Mother intimately united with her Son.29 Terrien, com­
menting on this method of speaking of Sacred Scripture, says that he
has but one answer from the Gospel concerning the existence and
maternity of the Virgin, and it is: Mary of whom was bom Jesus,
who is the Christ, and more briefly: Mary of Jesus.30
The Fathers. St. Ephrem asks: “If God were not to become man,
why would He have created Mary?”31 St. John Damascene says that
she had a life superior to nature, but not for herself, because she was
not bom for herself, but came into this life to possess God.32
Theological Argument. Had the most holy Virgin not been the
Mother of God, she would not have been the same individual that
she is, since in view of the divine maternity, she was adorned by God
with such supernatural and natural perfection of body and soul that,
had she not possessed these, she would have been another person.
And if it be said that the actual existence of the Blessed Virgin did
not depend on her predestination to the divine maternity because she
was bom by the natural generation of her parents, which pertains to
the order of natural providence and not to supernatural predestina­
tion, Müller offers two answers. First, over and above the fact that
natural conception and generation depend on God in many ways,
by the fact that the soul is created and infused by God in the body,
it should be noted that in the creation and infusion of the soul of
the Blessed Virgin, God was guided by His design of preparing a
thesis:

39

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

Annunciation of the
Divine Maternity
From all eternity and independent of the prevision of merits, Mary
was chosen and predestined to the dignity of the Mother of God. As
the time appointed by God for the Incarnation drew near, it was

40

MARY,

MARY

worthy Mother for His Son, who was to be born in time. If this de­
sign had not existed, God would not have infused this particular soul
in the body. Secondly, there is the ancient tradition to the effect that
Joachim and Anne were sterile and miraculously conceived her as an
answer to continual prayers.83
Corollary. From what has been said, wc may conclude that the
predestination of the Blessed Virgin embraces many effects which do
not fall under the predestination of the rest of men. The predestina­
tion of Mary embraces not only the divine maternity and, through
it, all the supernatural graces and prerogatives from her immaculate
conception to her glorious assumption into heaven, but also her very
existence and the natural gifts of body and soul which adorn her.
In the rest of the predestined some effects, such as grace and glory,
are derived from predestination; others, instead, pertain to the order
of natural providence, such as their existence and their natural gifts,
which predestination presupposes and orders to their end. For that
reason Cajctan distinguishes between the effects of predestination.
Some effects, such as grace and glory, and in general the end and
means as such, are not only ordained but produced by predestination.
Others are only ordered by predestination.34
Campana beautifully describes Mary’s predestination when he says
that it is clear that as in Jesus, so in Mary, everything is an effect of
providence governing the supernatural order. It is clear that in Mary,
not only the divine maternity, not only her extraordinary gifts of
grace, but her existence, soul, body, faculties, and every least thing, is
dependent on her predestination. If Mary was not to be the Mother
of God, she would not have existed. In Mary the divine maternity
permeated her entire essence. Hence, who cannot understand her
singular position in the scale of created beings, coming right after
Jesus?ss

MOTHER OF GOD

announced to Mary that she would conceive Christ. St. Luke records
the event as follows:

The angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called
Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of
the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel
being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at
his saying, and thought within herself what manner of salutation this
should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast
found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
shalt bring forth a Son; and thou shalt call His name Jesus. He shall
be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord
God shall give unto Him the throne of David, His father; and He shall
reign in the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall
be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, be­
cause 1 do not know man? And the angel answering, said to her: The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High
shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be
bom of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin,
Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the
sixth month with her that is called barren, because no word shall be
impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the
Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed
from her.3®

Although the Annunciation was not absolutely necessary for the
accomplishment of the mystery of the Incarnation, since the Word
could have assumed flesh without it, nevertheless, it was more fitting
that it be announced. It was not fitting that the Wisdom of God
dwell in Mary’s womb and that she be ignorant of that which was
being effected in her. Moreover, it was fitting that Mary be a most
certain witness of such an unusual conception, and this required that
she be instructed previously concerning so great a mystery. On the
other hand, it is certain that God could have accomplished the In­
carnation in the Virgin’s womb without asking her consent, just as He
formed Eve from Adam while the latter slept.
The Incarnation should have been announced supernal·
urally to the Blessed Virgin in order to obtain her consent, without
which the Incarnation would not have been effected.

thesis:

41

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.” 38
St. Bernard addresses Mary in the following words: “The angel
awaits your answer, for the moment is at hand when he must return
to God, who sent him. And we, too, O Lady, await the word of com­
passion; we who are wretchedly weighed down by the sentence of
condemnation. Behold the price of our salvation is offered to you;
if you give your consent, we shall be freed at once. We have all been
created by the eternal word of God, but we are dead. By your brief
answer we are to be restored, in order to return to life. This, O loving
Virgin, Adam and his wretched descendants beg of you, having been
cast out of paradise; this, Abraham and David implore and all the
fathers also, your ancestors, as well as those who dwell in the valley’
of death. The whole world, on bended knee, begs for this answer,
and not without reason, for on your word depends the consolation
of the wretched, the redemption of captives, the deliverance of the
condemned, and the salvation of all the sons of Adam. O Virgin,
give your answer quickly. Speak, O Lady, speak the word which the
earth, heaven, and hell are awaiting.” 39
St. Laurence Justinian, commenting on the words: “Behold the
handmaid of the Lord,” says that her answer filled heaven with joy,
the angels with happiness, the captive world with hope, the devils
with terror; made the messenger happy and renewed the promise of
the grace of liberty to those detained in limbo. With loving eagerness
and hands raised to heaven, they awaited the answer. Their desire for
merciful liberty had made their waiting exceedingly long and they
were fearful lest, through humility, the Virgin would withhold her
consent. But on learning Mary’s answer, they burst forth in songs

of praise to the Lord, saying: "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
because He hath visited and wrought the redemption of His peo­
ple.” 40
Theological Argument, i ) The hypostatic union is a kind of spirit­
ual marriage contracted by the Word, not only with the human
nature which He assumed, but also with all humanity. But marriage
requires the mutual consent of the contracting parties. The consent
of the Word to the work of the Incarnation appears in the act of
freely assuming our flesh; the consent of human nature cannot be
looked for in the singular nature taken by the Word, since this did
not exist before the hypostatic union, and consent had to precede
it. No one was better qualified among all creatures to represent the
human race and to consent to the Incarnation in its name than the
Blessed Virgin, since she, as the chosen Mother, is the second Eve.
As the first Eve was associated with the first Adam in the fall, Mary
is associated with the second Adam in the work of salvation. She is
the spiritual mother of the living in the order of grace, the purest fruit
and most select member of Adam’s family.41
Pope Leo XIII says: “The ways of divine wisdom are identified
with religion. The eternal Son of God, about to take upon Himself
our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to con­
summate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind,
did not accomplish His design without obtaining the free consent
of her who was to become His Mother. She was the representative
of all mankind, according to the illustrious and learned opinion of
St. Thomas, who says that, 'the Annunciation was effected with the
consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.’ "43
2) Similarly, it was fitting that the work of the restoration of the
human race after the sin should resemble the work of ruination.
Therefore, as the latter was caused by the consent of a woman, so the
restoration had to begin with the consent of another woman. St.
Peter Chrysologus uses this argument in proving the restoration of
man through Mary’s consent. Moreover, Mary was not only destined
to be the Mother of God, but also to conceive Him worthily. And
although she was well prepared for the divine maternity by the full­
ness of grace with which God had enriched her and by the exercise
of all the virtues, a more actual and immediate preparation was
needed. This was effected when she received the divine message with

42

43

Sacred Scripture. In the Gospel account 37 the Blessed Virgin's
consent is asked concerning the Incarnation, since the angel docs not
intimate that the divine decree would be fulfilled without her wishing
it. He explains God's plan, and when Mary proposes her vow of vir­
ginity as an obstacle, he answers her objection and docs not leave,
until Mar)', convinced that her virginity will be left intact, responds:
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to

thy word."
The Fathers. St. Ambrose says that God does not work in His elect
as does the artist on insensible and inanimate matter. He requires our
consent, which the angel also obtained from the Virgin when she

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

a lively faith, obedience, profound humility, piety, and an intense
love of God, thus attaining graces and gifts in abundance. For thb
reason St. Bernardine of Siena says that by her consent to conceive
the Son of God, the Virgin merited more than all angelic and human
creatures do by their acts, impulses and thoughts.43
3) God does not draw to His friendship any person who has at­
tained the use of reason, without that person’s consent. So also, since
Mary', as the spouse of the Holy Ghost, was to be elevated by this
mystery to a unique union with God, it was necessary, according to
the gentle dispositions of divine providence, to obtain Mary's volun­
tary consent.4* Moreover, the Annunciation shows Mary’s participa­
tion in the Incarnation and the restoration of a fallen world, since
God Himself deigned to await for her consent before assuming flesh
in her womb. With what great reason, therefore, should we trust in
her intercession. Nor is the dependence on this mystery of the free
consent of the Blessed Virgin opposed to the infallibility of the divine
decree on the Incarnation, since, as Billot says, God holds man's heart
in His hand and carries it wherever He pleases, so that our will con­
sents freely but infallibly. If the execution of an eternal decree de­
pends on the contingent act of a creature, this conclusion must not
be deduced, namely, that the outcome is uncertain and that what God

wills, even by His absolute will, may sometimes not come to pass.
God, in His eternal and efficacious plan, not only proposes to do a
thing, but also to do it in a certain manner, dependent on certain
causes which, although contingent, were so prepared in His foreknowl­
edge and eternal providence that it will certainly come about.45

The Annunciation was fittingly made by an angel.
Although God Himself could have announced this mystery to the
Blessed Virgin immediately or could have done so through a prophet
or some pious man, it was fitting that He do so through an angel. First,
because it is the ordination of God that divine things should come to
man by means of angels, and there was no reason to exempt His
Mother from this law, for although she surpassed the angels in dignity
and grace, by what concerns the present condition of life, she was in­
ferior to them as a creature on earth and not among the blessed as
they were. Secondly, as human perdition was begun by the evil spirit's
conversation and deception of Eve, the reparation of the human race

thesis:

44

MARY,

MOTHER OF COD

should begin by the angel's speaking to Mary and communicating the
heavenly message of the Incarnation. Thirdly, as virginity is connatu­
ral to the angels, an angel should be sent to Mary, who lived a truly
angelic life.4’ Fourthly, not a man stained with sin, but an angel who
is free from all sin, is the most fitting messenger to be sent to the Vir­
gin who was also exempt from all stain of sin. Fifthly, since God chose
to assume human nature rather than angelic nature, it was fitting that
an angel be sent to the Virgin so that the angelic nature would not be
totally excluded from participation in this great mystery. Finally, it
must not be forgotten that from the beginning of the world God used
the ministry of angels for the welfare of men. He revealed many things
through them. It was, therefore, fitting that the mystery of the In­
carnation be announced to Mary by an angel.

The angel Gabriel was rightly chosen as the messenger of
so great a mystery.
It is evident from the Gospel account that the angel Gabriel was the
messenger of the Incarnation.47 Why was he chosen from among the
almost infinite number of angels to carry out this mission? Two rea­
sons can be cited. First, the very name of Gabriel, according to its
etymology, seems to signify man of God or strength and power of
God. If it signifies man of God, Gabriel is rightly sent to announce
the mystery of the Incarnation, which is none other than God made
man; if it is interpreted as strength or power of God, he would also
have been chosen to announce Christ, who was to fight the devil and
gain complete victory over him. Secondly, because of the ministry
exercised by Gabriel in the Old Testament; when God was pleased
to reveal the time of the Incarnation, He sent Gabriel to announce it,
as we read in the Book of Daniel.48
thesis:

T h e s i s : It was fitting that the angel appear to the Blessed Virgin in
visible form.
Sacred Scripture. The Gospel of St. Luke relates the entry of the
angel to the place where Mary was kneeling, his conversation with her,
and his departure; all of which indicates that the angel appeared in
visible form.
The Fathers. St. Jerome says that the angel Gabriel came down to
her in the form of a man and that she was amazed and afraid and
45

THE BLESSED

VIRGIN

MARY

could not answer his salutation since she had never been greeted by

any man.40
Theological Argument. St. Thomas proves the fittingness of the
corporeal apparition of the angel by these three reasons: "First, in re­
gard to that which was announced, for the angel came to announce
the Incarnation of the invisible God. Wherefore, it was fitting that, in
order to make this known, an invisible creature should assume a form
in wliich to appear visibly, since all the apparitions of the Old Testa­
ment are ordered to that apparition in which the Son of God appeared
in the flesh. Secondly, it was fitting as regards the dignity of the
Mother of God, who was to receive the Son of God not only in her
mind, but in her bodily womb. Therefore, not only her mind, but also
her bodily senses should be refreshed by the angelic vision. Thirdly,
it is in keeping with the certainty of that which was announced, for
we apprehend with greater certainty that which is before our eyes than

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

could not doubt, but to corroborate this thing which in itself was so
unusual. The same thing was done at Saul's anointing as a king: "And
this shall be a sign unto thee, that God hath anointed thee to be
prince.” 52 So also, the angel gives Mary a sign in confirmation of the
truth of the great mystery: "And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she
also hath conceived a son in her old age.”53

The Divine Maternity
of the Blessed Virgin
We must consider two things under this title: the fundamental
dogma or truth of the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin and the

conception and birth of Christ.

that which is in our imagination." B0
The Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God.
It is certain that Mary is the Mother of Christ, for we read in St.
Matthew: "Arise, and take the Child and His Mother”;54 and in St.
John: “And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee,
and the Mother of Jesus was there.” 55 Actually, one is truly a mother
from whose substance a child is conceived and bom. Therefore, Christ
is the Son of the Blessed Virgin, because she conceived and gave birth
to Him, as all mothers do, of her very flesh. Our question, however,
is whether the Blessed Virgin, Mother of Christ, is and can be called
thesis:

The Annunciation took place in a fitting order.
St. Thomas says that there was a three fold purpose in the Annunci­

thesis:

ation.
First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such
moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unusual saluta­
tion . . . which salutation he began by asserting her worthiness of
the conception, by saying: “Full of grace.” Then he announced the
conception in the words: “The Lord is with thee.” Then he foretold
the honor which would result to her from it: ‘‘Blessed art thou among
women.” Secondly, he intended to instruct her about the mystery of
the Incarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did by
foretelling the conception and birth, saying: “Behold, thou shalt con­
ceive in thy womb," etc., and by declaring the dignity of the Child
conceived, saying: "He shall be great”; and further, by making known
the manner of conception, when he said : "The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee.” Thirdly, he intended to lead her mind to consent, by the
example of Elizabeth and by the argument of the divine omnipo­
tence.51

It should be noted that the angel confirms the annunciation of the
future conception by the example of Elizabeth, not in order to influ­
ence the Blessed Virgin, as if she were doubtful and incredible, for she

the Mother of God.
Errors. The Gnostics and Manichaeans taught that the body of
Christ was only apparent or, if it was real, it came from heaven in such
a way that it passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel,
without having been conceived and formed by her. As a result, they
reduced the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin to an apparent
maternity.
The Valentinian error concerning the heavenly origin of Christ’s
body was revived in the sixteenth century by Simon Mennon, leader
of the Anabaptists, who obstinately asserted that the body of Christ
emanated frem the seed of the heavenly Father and not from the sub­
stance of Mary. Schwenkfeld also denied the maternal origin of Christ,
maintaining that His flesh and blood were spiritual and wholly divine.

46

47

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY
MARY, MOTHER OF COD

Lastly, Michael Seivet dared to asseit that Christ's body was the body
of the deity, and that His divine flesh was generated from the substance of God. According to Canisius, this doctrine was common to
all the Anabaptists, and they defended their teaching that Christ
brought a spiritual body from heaven and received nothing from
Mary.5*
The Monophysites maintained that the Word was united to the
humanity in nature and that consequently there was one nature in
Christ, made up of the deity and humanity. Therefore, Christ was not
truly God, and Mary could not be called the Mother of God.
Tire Nestorians denied the hypostatic union of the Word with His
humanity and, consequently, the personal unity of Jesus Christ. They
placed in Him two persons, that of the Word and that of Christ man,
joined together morally, extrinsically, or accidentally by the indwelling
of the Word in man as in a temple, by the conformity of love and will,
by the office of instrument to the Word on the part of His humanity,
and the honor which redounded from the Word. Christ can be called
God only by reason of a moral union between the Person of the Wor
and the person of man. As a result, it is true that the Blessed Virgin
was the Mother of the man, Christ, but not the Mother of God. How­
ever, the Nestorians conceded that Mary could be called Mother of
God in an improper sense, so far as the man Christ, whom she engen
dered, was united to the Word of God in a special way and merited
divine honors. In the same way, a woman who gives birth to a child
who later becomes a priest or a saint may be called the mother of a
priest or the mother of a saint.
The early Protestants, such as Luther, Calvin, Buccr, and Bullinger,
did not deny Mary’s divine maternity, although their closest followers
showed traces of Nestorian teaching. Modern Protestants, who call
themselves orthodox, while professing the divinity of Christ, abhor the
title, Mother of God, given the Blessed Virgin, and call her the
Mother of the Lord. Nevertheless, “at the present time there are
Protestants who acknowledge the dignity of the Virgin Mother of
God and are moved to reverence and honor her fervently.” 57 The
Liberal Protestants, Rationalists, and Modernists reject the divinity of
Christ, whom they consider merely a man, though a most perfect man,
and hence they also deny the divine maternity.
Teaching of the Church. The Council of Ephesus declared: “If any-

48

one does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this
account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (since according to the
flesh she gave birth to the Word of God made flesh), let him be
anathema.” 58
The Lateran Council teaches: “If anyone does not confess, in ac­
cordance with the Holy Fathers, that Mary, ever virgin and immacu­
late, was properly and truly the holy Mother of God, because in the
last days she conceived of the Holy Ghost without seed and gave birth
without corruption to the very Word of God, her virginity remaining
intact even after parturition, let him be anathema."59
The Third Council of Constantinople refers to previous declarations
by various councils and then states its own confession that Jesus
Christ, true God and true man, was begotten “of the Holy Spirit and
of the Virgin Mary, properly and truly the Mother of God according
to humanity.” 60
The same doctrine was stated by Pope John II in a letter to the
senators of Constantinople,®1 by Pope Paul IV in his ordinance, Cum
quorundam,e- and by Pope Benedict XIV in the Constitution Nuper
ad nos.®3 Lastly, Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical, Lux Veritatis, states:
“From this principle of Catholic doctrine, which We have treated
thus far, there necessarily follows the dogma of the divine mother­
hood which we attribute to the Blessed Virgin Mary; not, as St. Cyril
reminds us, that the nature of the Word and His divinity took the
principle of its birth from the holy Virgin, but that He took from her
that sacred body, perfected by an intelligent soul, to which the Word
of God was hypostatically united. But if the Son of the Blessed Vir­
gin Mary is God, certainly she who bore Him should rightly and deservingly be called the Mother of God. If there is only one Person in
Jesus Christ, and that divine, surely Mary should be called not only
Mother of Christ as man, but also Mother of God.” ®*
Sacred Scripture. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Ghost, salutes the
Blessed Virgin: “And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my
Lord should come to me?” *s The word Lord, Kyrios, is equivalent to
God. In the same Gospel, the angel announces the mystery of the
Incarnation to Mary with these words: "Behold, thou shalt conceive
in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His name
Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High.
. . . And therefore also the Holy which shall be bom of thee shall be

49

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

called the Son of God." 00 It seems that the words "He shall be called*
express what He is who will be born, whose Mother the Blessed Vit.
gin will be. He is the Son of the Most High, the Son of God, God.
In the Epistle to the Romans wc read: “Concerning His Son who
was made to Him of the seed of David, according to the flesh";’’and
in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But when the fullness of the time
was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the
law."08 Therefore, He who was begotten by the Father from all
eternity and He who was to be conceived of the Virgin in time was
one and the same. And as He is the Word of God, it follows that the

Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.
In other places in Sacred Scripture it is expressly stated that Mary
is the Mother of Christ or the Mother of Jesus.08 But if Jesus Christ
is true God, then Mary is the Mother of God in a proper and true
sense.
The Fathers. The traditional teaching on the divine maternity of
the Virgin is divided into three periods. During the first three cen­
turies, the name Mother of God or Theotokos does not appear in the
writings of the Fathers, although Mary’s divine maternity was stated
in equivalent expressions. The Fathers of this epoch, writing against
the Gnostics, stressed that the Word of God really took flesh from
Mary. Thus, St. Ignatius asserts that Christ was conceived by Man
in her womb, according to the decree of God, from the seed of David,

surely, but by the Holy Ghost.70
Aristedes says that the Christians trace their origin to Jesus Christ,
our Lord. It is believed that He is the Son of the Most High, who in
the Holy Spirit descended from heaven for the salvation of men and
was bom of the Holy Virgin without corruption.71
According to St. Justin Martyr, Christ is the Son of God and was
made man through the Virgin, according to the will of the Father.”
St. Hippolytus says that the Word descended from heaven to the Vir­
gin Mary so that, incarnate in her and made man in all but sin, He
would save Adam, who had perished.78 St. Irenaeus says that the Son
of God was born of the Virgin,7’ and Tcrtullian says that the Virgin
gave birth to Emmanuel, God with us.7® In another passage he says
that not being bom of a Virgin, He would have had God for His
Father without a mother, so being born of the Virgin He could have a
woman as His mother without a man for His father.70

MARY,

MOTHER OF COD

The Fathers of the fourth century frequently used the title Theoto­
kos, Mother of God, and other synonyms, in reference to the Blessed
Mother. While it is probable that Origen used this name before any
other,77 we certainly find it in St. Alexander of Alexandria, who states
explicitly that Christ took true flesh "from Mary, the Mother of
God."78 Eusebius of Ccsarea, in his Vita Constantini, makes frequent
reference to Mary as Theotokos when he says that St. Helen erected
beautiful monuments in Bethlehem to the Mother of God. St. Atha­
nasius says that the Word took flesh of the Virgin Mary, Mother of
God, and became man for us.70 St. Ephrcm prays to Mary as Mother
of God, Queen of the world, and hope of those who despair. St.
Gregory Nazianzen says: "If anyone does not believe that Mary is
the Mother of God, he is far from God.” 80 St. Ambrose asks: “What
is more noble than the Mother of God?” 81
In the fifth century, when Nestorius openly denied the divine ma­
ternity of the Virgin, St. Cyril defended the Catholic dogma, saying
that the expression Mother of God was perfectly familiar to the an­
cient Fathers, and the Council of Ephesus solemnly condemned the
impious teaching of Nestorius and defined the truth that the Blessed
Virgin Mary is really and truly the Mother of God.
Common belief of the faithful. Long before the Council of Ephe­
sus, the faithful regarded the Blessed Virgin as the true Mother of
God. This is evident, first of all, from the testimony of the ecclesiasti­
cal writers and even from that of the heretics. Thus, John of Antioch
tried earnestly to dissuade Nestorius from attacking the title Theoto­
kos, which no ecclesiastical writer had rejected and which many used
explicitly. Alexander of Hierapolis, a bitter enemy of St. Cyril and a
fervent partisan of Nestorius, admitted that the name Theotokos had
already been used by the faithful for some time and that "she is im­
prudently called Mother of God by the orthodox.”82 Theodoret at­
tests: “The most ancient heralds of the orthodox faith taught the
faithful to name and believe the Mother of the Lord Theotokos, ac­
cording to the apostolic tradition.” 83 The Emperor Constantine, in
his prayer to all the saints, referred to by Eusebius of Cesarea, calls
Mary the maiden Mother of God. Finally, Julian the Apostate, as St.
Cyril attests, reproached the Christians for calling Mary the Mother
of God.84 Since the title Theotokos is of such notable antiquity, it is
not surprising that the people of Constantinople caused a commotion
51

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

when Anastasius, a Nestorian priest, attacked the title of Mother of
God in a sermon or that the faithful, on hearing the decision of the
Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, accompanied them to their lodgings with lighted torches.
The churches built before the Council of Ephesus in honor of the
Mother of God, and called by this title, are also proof of this truth,
As for the Oriental Church, it is said that Bishop Theonas (282-300)
built a large church in Alexandria, which was enlarged and conse­
crated to the Mother of God by his successor, Alexander III (373380). Moreover, Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, attests that a
church was built to the Mother of God in that city by Theophilus
Alexandrinus (384-412). In Palestine, the Church of the Nativity,
called by St. Jerome the Church of the Grotto of the Savior, which
lasted until the time of Constantine, was also a shrine in honor of
the miraculous conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary, Mother of
God. Lastly, in Asia Minor, the Council of Ephesus, which solemnly
defined the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin, was celebrated
(431 ) in the Church of St. Mary, which was consecrated to the Virgin

under the title of Mother of God.
In the Western Church, the tradition is held in high esteem which
attributes to St. Peter the building of a church or chapel for the cult
of the Blessed Mary, Mother of God.8S Moreover, in 1900 the follow­
ing inscription was discovered under the ruins of St. Mary Liberator
in the Roman Forum: ‘‘To the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
Grisar believes that the church was built at the beginning of the
fourth century.88
Theological Argument. 1 ) The Holy Virgin is truly the Mother of
Christ. Therefore, she is the Mother of God, since Christ is truly God.
A woman is the mother of the one whom she has conceived and
brought forth. But if the Virgin conceived and gave birth to God, she
is truly His Mother. Now Christ, by reason of the hypostatic union,
is a divine Person subsistent in a divine and a human nature. If, then,
all that belongs to both natures can be attributed to this divine Per­
son, it is clear that to the divine Person, and therefore to God can
be attributed everything that belongs to Christ in His human nature.
Now, according to His human nature, Christ was conceived and bom
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But, as St. Thomas says: “conception and
birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in regard to the na­
52

MARY,

MOTHER

OF COD

ture in which it is conceived and born. Since, therefore, the human
nature was assumed by the divine Person in the very beginning of
conception, it follows that it can be said truly that God was conceived
and born of the Virgin." 8T
2) Generation or birth refers to the person; it is never said that the
human nature is bom, but that a man is bom. Neither is it said that
a woman is the mother of a nature, but of a person. The reason for
this is that generation or birth bespeaks a relation to being; hence,
birth is ordered to existence. But being pertains properly to subsisting
things, while tire nature is the form by which something exists.88 But
the only person conceived and born of the Virgin Mary was the Word
of God in a human nature.
3) The Blessed Virgin was truly the Mother of the terminus of her
conception. The terminus of this conception is the Person of the Son
of God, subsisting in human nature. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is
truly the Mother of God.
4) It could be denied that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother
of God if the divine Word had not assumed humanity in a hypostatic
union, or if He had assumed it after His birth or after conception but
before His nativity. Tire first supposition is the Nestorian heresy; the
second destroys the divine maternity because then the maternity
would have had as its terminus a human person and not a divine
hypostasis subsisting in a human nature; the third also attacks the
divine maternity, which requires not only that the Blessed Virgin gave
birth to God, but that she conceived Him.8®
5) It docs not pertain to the function of the mother even in natu­
ral generation to constitute the hypostasis of the son nor to produce
physically the spiritual soul, but only to supply the material of the
body begotten by her. This the Blessed Virgin supplied to the Son of
God incarnate in her, as docs any other mother. On this point St.
Thomas states that in order to be a true mother, it is not necessary
that the son take from her body all the constituent elements of his
being, for man is composed of body and soul and is more a man in
soul than in body. He does not receive his soul from his mother, but
it is created immediately by God. Thus, as a woman is called the
mother of a man because he gets his body from her, so also the Blessed
Virgin must be called the Mother of God if His body was taken from
her And it can be called the body of God if it is assumed in the unity

53

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

of the person of the Son of God. Asserting then, that the human na­
ture was assumed by the Son of God in the unity of Person, we must
say that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.00
We must note carefully the following points. The two formulas,
Mary is the Mother of Christ and Mary is the Mother of Cod, coin­
cide exactly. Although the Ncstorians asserted that there were two
persons in Christ—one human and the other divine—and that there­
fore Mary could be called the Mother of Christ, but not the Mother
of God, in the Catholic sense both formulas arc equivalent, since there
arc not two persons in Christ, but the Person of Christ is the very
same as the divine Word, born of the Father from all eternity and of
the Virgin in time. Thus, St. Thomas says that the Blessed Virgin is
called the Mother of God, not because she is the Mother of the God­
head, but because she is the Mother, according to His humanity, of
the Person who has both a divine and human nature.01
Neither should it be said that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of
the deity'. This declaration, although true in a material sense, since
God and the deity are one and the same, secundum rem, is neverthe­
less false in the formal sense, because maternity and filiation refer
only to the supposit, and this should be expressed by a concrete and
not by an abstract term.
The Greek term Theotokos is not entirely equal to the Latin word
Deipara, because to give birth or to produce include conception as
well as childbirth; and the word parere means only to give birth. Had
Mary given birth to the Word of God, but conceived a human nature,
which after childbirth was assumed by the Word, then etymologically
she should be called Deipara but not Theotokos. However, to give
birth, in the ordinary sense, supposes conception of the person to
whom birth is given, and in this respect the expressions can be called
the same. The same can be said of other words used by the Church,
such as Dei Genitrix and Mater Dei.
From what has been said, we see how profoundly dogmatic is the
title Theotokos, because this one word contains a full profession of
the Catholic faith in the principal dogmas which refer to the incarna­
tion of the Word. Tire name Theotokos actually includes: the pro­
fession of Christ’s human nature, because the Blessed Virgin, by her
generative action, could not impart anything but human nature to her
54

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

Son; the profession of the divine nature of Christ, since if Christ were
not God, Mary could not be called the Mother of God; the profession
of the hypostatic union and personal unity of Christ the God-man,
since otherwise Christ could not be the Son of the Eternal Father and
of a woman; and the profession of the two distinct natures of Christ
in the unity of the Person, because if Christ, together with His divine
nature, had not assumed human nature, He could not have claimed
origin from Mary by a true generation.

Mary became the Mother of God at the moment that she
pronounced the words: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done
unto me according to thy word."
This is the common opinion of the Fathers, concerning which
Gregory the Great says that as soon as the angel announced it and the
Holy Spirit came down, the Word was made flesh in the virginal
womb.02 St. Augustine says that with the words: “Behold the hand­
maid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word,” the
angel left, and immediately the Blessed Virgin became the Mother of
God.03 And St. John Damascene says that as soon as the Blessed Vir­
gin had given her consent, the Holy Ghost came upon her, cleansing
her and giving her abundant strength to conceive the Word of God.04
The angel was certainly sent to the Virgin to obtain her consent,
for God did not wish to take human flesh from Mary against her will
nor to keep her ignorant of the mystery. Mary did not consent until
after her conversation with the angel. Then she said: "Behold the
handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy word.”
Then followed the incarnation of the Word.
thesis:

Mary is more perfectly a mother in relation to Christ than
is any other mother in relation to her child.
The reason is that Christ was formed of the substance of the Vir­
gin only, for she alone supplied the material from which His body
was to be formed. It was not the same as in natural generation, in
which the children are formed by both the father and the mother.
Also, because the natural powers of the Blessed Virgin operated more
perfectly in the formation and organization of the body of Christ, as
subordinated to the active power of the Holy Ghost.
thesis:

55

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY
MARY. MOTHER OF COD

CHRIST’S CONCEPTION

Two things are to be considered here: the principle in the concep­
tion of Christ, and the manner and order of His conception. The
principle in human generation is said to be twofold: passive and ac­
tive. The passive principle provides the material, and pertains to the
mother; the active principle transforms, fertilizes, and determines the
material provided by the mother, and this pertains to the father.

THE ACTIVE PRINCIPLE IN CHRIST’S CONCEPTION
thesis:

The conception of the body of Christ is rightly attributed

to the Holy Ghost.
Previous Observations. It is certain that the entire Trinity effected
the conception of Christ’s body. The Eleventh Council of Toledo
states that it must be believed that the entire Trinity acted in the
conception of the Son of God because the works of the Blessed Trin­
ity arc inseparable. The Son alone took the form of a servant in the
unity of His Person, that is, in respect to that which is proper to the
Son and not common to the Trinity.86 Since essence and power of
the Blessed Trinity are indivisible, so also the works ad extra are in­
divisible. But Christ’s conception is a work ad extra. Therefore, it is a
work of the entire Trinity.
It is true, however, that the conception of Christ, which was in­
deed common to the whole Trinity, can in some way be attributed to
each of the Persons: to the Father is attributed authority in regard to
the Son who assumed human nature; to the Son, the actual assump­
tion of human nature; and to the Holy Ghost, the formation of the
body assumed by the Son.ee Our question is whether the conception
of Christ’s body is to be especially attributed or appropriated to the
Holy Ghost.
Symbols of Faith. “I believe ... in Jesus Christ, His only Son our
Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, bom of the Virgin
Mary."87 “Was made flesh by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin
Mary, and became man." 88
Sacred Scripture. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the

56

power of the Most High shall overshadow thee." ” “That which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” 100
The Fathers. St. Ignatius Martyr says: "Our Lord Jesus Christ was
conceived by Mary as the fruit of her womb, according to the decree
of God, from the seed of David, but of the Holy Ghost.” 101
Theological Argument. St. Thomas gives three reasons for Christ’s
conception by the Holy Ghost:
First, because it is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, considered
on the part of God. The Holy Ghost is the love of the Father and
Son. . . . Now, that the Son of God assumed flesh from the Virgin’s
womb was due to the exceeding love of God; whence it is said (John
3:16): "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son.”
Secondly, it is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, on the part
of the nature assumed. We are thus given to understand that human
nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of the Person,
not by reason of its merits, but through grace alone, which is attrib­
uted to the Holy Ghost, according to I Cor. 12:4: “There are di­
versities of graces, but the same Spirit." . . . Thirdly, because it is
befitting the term of the Incarnation, for the term of the Incarnation
was that the man conceived should be the Holy One and the Son of
God. But both of these arc attributed to the Holy Ghost, for by Him
men are made sons of God, according to Gal. 4:6: “Because you are
sons, Cod hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying:
Abba, Father.” And He is the Spirit of sanctification, according to
Rom. 1:4. Therefore, as other men are sanctified spiritually by the
Holy Ghost, to become adopted sons of God, Christ was conceived
in sanctity by the Holy Ghost to be the natural Son of God.102

The Holy Ghost supplied supernaturally for the coopera­
tion of man in the conception of Christ.
St. Thomas says: “Since God’s power is infinite and all causes derive
from it their power of producing an effect, it is evident that any effect
that is produced by any cause can, in the same species and nature, be
produced by God without the aid of that cause. Wherefore, just as
the natural power in human seed produces a real man, having the
human species and nature, so too the divine power which endowed
the seed with that power can produce the effects of that power, with­
out its assistance, by forming a real man, possessing the human species
and nature.”108

thesis:

57

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
MARY,

It is important to observe that although Christ was conceived by
the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called the Son of the I loly Ghost, be­
cause what is said of anything according to its perfect reason of being
cannot be said of it according to its imperfect reason of being. But
Christ is the Son of God in the perfect sense of sonship, by eternal
generation, but He was not born of the Holy Ghost in that likeness
of species and nature which is required for perfect filiation. There­
fore, although in His human nature He was created and sanctified by
the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called the Son of the Holy Ghost or
of the entire Trinity.104 The Eleventh Council of Toledo expressly
defined that we must not believe that the Holy Ghost is the natural
Father of the Son nor that the Son had two fathers.10’1

THE PASSIVE PRINCIPLE IN CHRIST’S CONCEPTION
As Mary is truly the Mother of Christ and at the same time a vir­
gin, it is clear that in the conception of Christ everything needed for
true maternity had to be present and anything that would even slightly
lessen the perfect integrity of Mary had to be excluded. Using St.
Thomas as our guide, we shall investigate this matter as discreetly

and reverently as possible.
The body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood
of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Previous Observations. The ancient philosophers were accustomed
to refer to blood as the element which mothers contribute in the con­
ception of the offspring. According to modern physiology, several
things can be understood with regard to the blood, but out of rever­
ence we will omit them here and refer to the remote matter as blood,
as St. Thomas does.10®
Errors. Peter Galatinus and other ancients say that Christ’s body
was formed from a particle of the body of Adam, which was expressly
destined for that purpose, free from all concupiscence and transmit­
ted from generation to generation down to the Blessed Virgin. Others,
mentioned by Cajetan, say that for Mary to be the Mother of God
it was sufficient that she conceive Christ in her mind, in her heart
or in her breast. Valentinus and the Anabaptists maintained that thé

thesis:

58

MOTHER OF COD

body of Christ had been transported from heaven, passing through
the Virgin as through a channel.
Sacred Scripture. "God sent His Son, made of a woman, made
under the law." ,0T We conclude from this passage that Christ re­
ceived flesh not only in Mary, but of Mary, as from a mother who
provides the material that other women provide at conception.
The Fathers. St. Bede says that He was conceived of her virginal
flesh by taking flesh, not from nothing but from the flesh of His
Mother.108 St. John Damascene. “The Son of God, from the Virgin’s
purest blood, united to Himself flesh animated with a rational
soul.",0’
Theological Argument. Christ’s conception, although miraculous
with regard to the active principle, was natural with regard to His
Mother, since He took from her a substance similar to that provided
by other mothers in the conception of their offspring. The material
which ether mothers give in generation is blood, which is prepared
for the purpose of generation. Therefore, we must reject the opinion
of those who say that Christ’s body was formed in some way from
Adam’s body, since, besides the reason given, this opinion has no
basis in Scripture or Tradition. Moreover, Christ would not in that
case have been the Son of David or of Abraham, nor would they be
true ancestors of His, but only transmitters of that bodily substance
of Adam. Nor would Christ have been the Son of the Virgin, because
His body would not have been formed of Mary’s substance, but of
that bodily substance of Adam which was found in the Virgin's body
at the time of Christ’s formation. Finally, Christ’s body was not re­
lated to Adam's nor His ancestors except through the medium of His
Mother. The Blessed Virgin Mary's body was not in that of her an­
cestors by reason of any determined matter, but in the same way that
all children are, because she was conceived by natural generation,
otherwise she would not have been subject to the debt of original sin.

THE MANNER AND ORDER OF CHRIST’S CONCEPTION

: Christ’s body was formed at the first instant of His con­
ception, animated by a rational soul, and assumed by the Word of
God.
thesis

59

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

The first part is certain; the second part is theologically certain; and
the third part is de fide.
First port. The formal reason of conception consists in the forma­
tion of the body from apt matter. In other men, the formative power
of the body proceeds from a finite principle, but in the formation of
Christ’s body, this formative power was supplied by the power of the
Holy Ghost, which being infinite, could and did complete the forma­
tion of the sacred body instantly.
Theologians do not agree in their opinions of whether the forma­
tion was that of an embryo or a more perfectly organized body at the
moment of conception. The ancient Scholastics, with St. Thomas,
following Aristotelian physiology’, and some moderns like Terrien and
Lepicicr, hold that the soul is not infused into the body until it has
attained its organic human form, but they maintain that Christs
body was miraculously and perfectly formed in the first moment of
His conception so that it could receive His soul immediately. Others
maintain that the embryo is animated by a rational soul at conception
so that from the beginning it is truly human; therefore, they are not
obliged to admit that Christ’s body was formed in the first moment
in such a state of perfection and organization. They affirm that
Christ’s body grew and developed in the Virgin’s womb by the same
natural development with which He grew and advanced after His
birth. Janssens takes a middle course and states that the initial forma­
tion of Christ’s body was greater than that of other men, but less
than that imagined by the Scholastics.
The second opinion, which seems more probable, is based on the
following arguments: No development of the body is necessary for
the hypostatic union which was verified in the first moment of Christ's
conception. Tire use of beatific and infused knowledge, with which
the soul of Christ was adorned, could have been there without the
perfect organization of the body, since both arc independent of the
senses. The perfect formation of Christ’s body from the first instant
of His conception makes it difficult to explain the period of gestation
for nine months in the womb of his mother without resorting to a
miracle. Lastly, it is more in conformity with the maternal office that
the Virgin supply what all women supply during the successive for­
mation of the body of the child during the nine months.
Second part. The Fathers. The Synodical Epistle of St. Sophronius,

60

MARY, MOTHER OE COD

accepted by the Third Council of Constantinople, says that He was
flesh and at the same time flesh of the Word of God, flesh animated
by rationality and at the same time animated rational flesh in the
Word of God. St. John Damascene repeats this: "At the same trme
that it was flesh, it was flesh of the Word of God, and simultaneously
animated flesh gifted with a rational and intellectual soul." 110
Theological Argument. Christ’s body, in the very instant of concep­
tion, was assumed by the Word. As St. Thomas says, the Word as­
sumed flesh through the medium of the soul and the soul through the
medium of the spirit.”1 The Word assumed His human nature from
the very beginning of His conception, and this nature could not exist
without a rational soul. From the very beginning of the Incarnation,
Christ possessed beatific and infused knowledge, the use of free will,
and all the virtues, but none of these could have existed without a
rational soul.
Third part. Magisterium of the Popes. “If anyone says or holds that
the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of
the holy Virgin and afterward God the Word and the soul were
united to it as if it already existed, let him be anathema." 112 In his
epistle Quia charitati, St. Gregory the Great, addressing the bishops
of Ireland (601), states that flesh was not conceived first in Mary’s
womb, with divinity coming into this flesh later, but that being con­
ceived of the Holy Spirit from the flesh of the Virgin and being
anointed by the Holy Spirit were one and the same thing.”3
Sacred Scripture. "Concerning His Son, who was made to Him of
the seed of David, according to the flesh." 114 “But when the fullness
of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made
under the law.” 115 This would be false had Christ's body not been
assumed in the first instant of conception by the Word, for if the
humanity of Christ had been a human person for even a moment
before union with the Word, He would have existed before the
hypostatic union and, therefore, would not be the Son of God. but
only a human person, conceived of a woman, of the line of David.
The Fathers. St. Gregory Nazianzen says that if anyone says that
Christ was conceived man, and that afterward God entered into Him.
he should be anathema, for this would not be the generation of
God."® St. Augustine states that we say: "The Word was made flesh."
because He was God at the time He became man.”’ St. John Dama
61

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

scene: "At the very instant that it was flesh, it was flesh of the Word
of God.” ”· St. Fulgcnce: ‘‘Hold steadfastly and doubt not for a
moment that Christ’s flesh was not conceived in the Virgin's womb
before being assumed by the Word, but that the Word of God was
conceived in taking flesh and that the very flesh of the Word was
conceived in the Incarnation.” lie
Theological Argument. "God took to Himself that which belongs
to man; and that which belongs to man did not pre-exist, as subsisting
in itself, before being assumed by the Word. If Christ's flesh had been
conceived before being assumed by the Word, it would have had at
some time a hypostasis other than that of the Word of God. Phis is
against the very nature of the Incarnation, which we hold to consist
in this, that the Word of God was united to human nature and all
its parts in the unity of hypostasis and it was not fitting that the Word
of God should, by assuming human nature, destroy a pre-existing
hypostasis of human nature or of any part thereof. Therefore, it is
contrary to faith to assert that Christ’s flesh was first conceived and

afterward assumed by the Word of God.” 120

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST

: In addition to His eternal generation from the Father, a
temporal birth must be attributed to Christ.
Creeds and Councils. The Apostles’ Creed states: "Who was con­
ceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” and the Athanasian Creed says: “God, begotten of the substance of the Father before
time, and He is man, bom of the substance of His Mother in time."
Both the Second Council of Constantinople and the Latcran Coun­
cil passed decrees of anathema condemning those who did not confess
the two nativities of the Word-God: one of the Father, incorruptible
and eternal, and the other of the Blessed Virgin Mary in time.
Sacred Scripture. “When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of
Juda, in the days of King Herod.” 121 "And therefore also the Holy
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” 122 "This
day is bom to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of
David.” 123
The Fathers. St. Leo the Great says that the Son of man came from
thesis

6z

MARY,

MOTHER OF GOD

heaven when the Son of God took flesh of the Virgin.’2* St. John
Damascene says: "We confess two nativities in Christ: one of the
Father, which is eternal; and one which occurred in these latter times
for our sake.” 125 Vigilius de Tapso says that according to the Catho­
lic faith and testimony of Scripture, Christ had two nativities: one,
of the Father, without time, the other of His Mother, without man.’2·
Theological Argument. Although birth is properly attributed to the
person as to its subject, nevertheless, the terminus of birth is the na­
ture or form which is transmitted by generation and by which the
subject is what he is. Therefore, the subject in which there are two
natures through generation, must have two births. In Christ there
are two natures received through generation: divine and human; the
eternal, of the Father; the temporal, of the Mother.
thesis: A real relation of motherhood with respect to Christ
should be admitted of the Blessed Virgin, and in Christ there is a
filial relation with respect to the Virgin-Mother of God.
It is certain that there is a real relationship in the Blessed Virgin
with regard to her Son, since in the generation and birth of Christ
she had the same influence that any mother has in the generation of
a child. It is also certain that the relation of maternity in the Blessed
Virgin is of the same species as the relationship of other mothers and,
therefore, Mary can be called Mother as the others are, for although
Christ’s conception on the part of the active principle was supernat­
ural, it was natural on the part of His Mother.
The controversy among theologians is concerned with the filial rela­
tion of Christ to His Mother. There are three opinions among the
theologians. Henry of Ghent and Alexander of Hales teach that the
relation of Christ to His Mother is a real, uncreated relation. Scotus,
Bicl, Suârcz, and Lorca maintain that this relation is a real, temporal
one, so that there are two filiations in Christ; one uncreated with
regard to the Father, and the other created with regard to the Mother.
St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Capreolus, and others assert that the
relation of Christ with respect to His Mother is a relation of reason
only.
The first opinion lacks probability. A real and uncreated relation
is substantial and subsistent in itself, and is found in Christ, not as
man, but as God. Also, Christ is the Son of the Virgin by human

63

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

generation, but the uncreated relation of filiation was in Christ by
reason of His eternal generation of the Father, and as subsistent in
His human nature, it was there by reason of the hypostatic union,
which is distinct from His human generation. Finally, where there
are two births, there should be diverse filiations. The generations of
Christ with respect to the Eternal Father and with respect to His
temporal Mother are diverse.
The second opinion admits of probability. So St. Thomas says that
if we consider the adequate causes of filiation, we must say that there
are two filiations with regard to the twofold nativity. But if we con­
sider the subject of filiation, which can only be the eternal supposit,
then only the eternal filiation in Christ is a real relation.127 Moreover,
any relation whose subject, fundament, and terminus are real, must
necessarily be real, and all these conditions are fulfilled in the tem­
poral filiation of Christ. As to the principal objection, that the rela­
tion of filiation affects the person and that there can be no temporal
relation in a divine and eternal Person, it can be said that the rela­
tion of filiation is in the humanity as in the subject of inhesion and
in the divine supposit as in the subject of denomination. Hence, the
relation of temporal filiation docs not conflict with the immutability
and divine independence any more than do the other temporal de­
nominations, for example, that God was bom, suffered, and died.
The third opinion is the most probable. St. Thomas says: "Since,
however, the subject of filiation is neither the nature nor part of the
nature, but the person or hypostasis alone, and since in Christ there
is no other hypostasis or person than the eternal, there can be no
other filiation in Christ but that which is in the eternal hypostasis.
A relation which is predicated of God in time docs not place any­
thing in the eternal God, according to the thing signified, but only
according to reason. Therefore, the filiation by which Christ is re­
ferred to His Mother cannot be a real relation but only a relation of
reason.”128 Again, we must exclude all mutability from the Person of
the Word, to whom nothing real can be added, and this would be
the case if there were a real, temporal relation of filiation in the Word.
Just as God is called Lord by reason of the relation implied in the
real relation of the subject to God, so Christ is really the Son of the
Virgin-Mother through the real relation of her maternity to Christ.12’
64

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

Dignity of the Divine Maternity
So great is the dignity of the divine maternity that, after Cod. noth­
ing greater can be imagined. The Fathers and Doctors of the West as
well as those of the East celebrate this dignity with the greatest praise
and declare that its complete comprehension is reserved to God alone,
who gave the world such a creature and who knew the sublime gifts
with which she was adorned. St. Ambrose asks: "What is more noble
than the Mother of God?” 130 St. Anselm says that nothing is equal
to Mary, nothing is greater than Mary but God alone;181 and his dis­
ciple and friend, Eadmcr,132 states that all that exists is either below
or above her—what is above is God; what is below is all that is not
God. St. Sophronius of Jerusalem praises the sublimity of the graces
that she alone received, and St. Bernardine of Siena says that such
was the perfection of the Virgin that its comprehension is reserved to
God alone, as is stated in Ecclesiasticus: "He created her in the Holy
Ghost, and saw her, and numbered her, and measured her.”188
According to Canisius, Luther said that the dignity contained in the
title of Mother of God is so great that no one can praise her for any­
thing higher, though there were as many languages as there are flowers
on the earth or stars in the heavens or sand in the sea. Calvin also
praised Mary's excellence as the one who was adorned and chosen the
Mother of His only-begotten Son.’34 It is, nevertheless lamentable that
modem Protestants refuse to subscribe to what their predecessors said
in praise of Mary.

EXCELLENCE OF THE DIVINE MATERNITY IN ITSELF

The excellence of the maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in itself
is contained in the following assertions:
i) The Blessed Virgin Mary, as Mother of Christ, has a real relation
of maternity with regard to the only-begotten Son of Cod. The Fa­
thers and Doctors highly extol this privilege. St. Bernard says that the
singular glory of the Virgin and her excellent prerogative is that she
merited to possess one and the same Son with God the Father.1”
St. Anselm asks us to consider that God begot His only Son, consub-

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

stantial and equal to Him, but that this Son wished also to be the
only Son of Mai}·, so that the one and the same Son would be the
Son of God and the Son of Mar)·.'30
The relation between Mary and her Son surpasses greatly the ordi­
nary' relation between mother and son. Other mothers give their sons
a part of the substance of their flesh and blood, while the other part
is supplied by the father; but the Blessed Virgin alone gave all the
substance to her Son. Under this aspect, no other is so much a mother
as Mary. Moreover, a child cannot choose his mother, nor can a
mother choose her son; but both of these choices existed in the divine
maternity. Tire Son, from all eternity, chose His Mother and decided
to adorn her with the richest abundance of gifts so that she might
be a worthy Mother; and Mary chose her Son when she gave her
free consent to the virginal conception. Finally, mothers do not know
the disposition and future life of their child nor is there any com­
munication between mother and son until much later. In Christ's
conception, on the contrary, the Blessed Virgin understood perfectly
the Son she had conceived, since she had given her consent to the
conception of her Son and Redeemer. Moreover, from the moment
of His human conception, the Son of God had full use of reason and
was full of grace and truth, so that there was a communication be­
tween the Mother and her Son which will last for all eternity.
2) The divine maternity pertains to the same order as the hypostatic
union. The Mother is not outside the order of her Son, since relative
terms are simultaneous in their nature and comprehension. Cajetan
expressed it by saying that the Virgin alone attained, by her natural
operation, to the borders of the deity, because she conceived, gave
birth and nourished God with her own milk.137
However, no efficient causality must be attributed to the Blessed
Virgin in regard to the hypostatic union, either as principal cause or
instrumental cause. Not by way of a principal efficient cause, for such
an action is proper to God, since no created and finite substance can
cause the nature of one genus to be transferred to the being of another
genus,138 and if a creature could communicate divine being to another
creature, that creature would be God, which is an evident contradiction.13’ Nor could a creature communicate divine being to another
by way of an instrumental cause, because in the hypostatic union of
66

MARY,

MOTHER OF GOD

the Word of God with humanity, the only thing attributed to the
Virgin is the cooperation necessary for her to become the Mother
of God, and for this her efficient influence on the hypostatic union
is not necessary, but only her concursus in the generative operation
of the humanity of Christ, as any mother docs in natural generation.
Consequently, if we sometimes find in the Fathers expressions
which seem to indicate the active concursus of the Blessed Virgin
in the hypostatic union, we must not interpret them in the strict
sense, but in a broad sense, because the Blessed Virgin provided the
material for the formation of the body of Christ, who was hypostatically united to the Word of God. Thus we must understand St. Ber­
nard when he says that Mary united the soul and body to the divine
Word.1·0
Nor does the maternity of the Blessed Virgin demand the hypo­
static union, for maternal generation is completed by the communi­
cation of the nature to a person, whether connatural or supernatural.
Aside from this, Müller says 141 that if in generation there be on the
part of the mother any requirement that a determined person should
be the subject of generation, it can be said that on the part of the
Virgin there were many exigencies that the subject of her generation
be the Son of God. First, she gave consent only to the virginal con­
ception, whose subject was to be the Son of God. Thus, when the
angel told her how the mystery of the Incarnation was to he accom­
plished, she answered: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done
unto me according to thy word,” and at that moment the Savior was
conceived. Secondly, the Blessed Virgin seems to have merited de
congruo to become the Mother of God. Thirdly, the conception was
supernatural, proceeding from the Holy Ghost as the active prin­
ciple, and hence it was most fitting that the subject of the conception
be God. Scripture states this clearly: “The Holy Spirit shall come
upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee;
and therefore, the Holy One to be born shall be called the Son of
God” (Luke 1:35). Fourthly, it can be said that by her concursus in
the conception, the Blessed Virgin (like all mothers, who are deter­
mined to the infusion of a particular soul) required that the fruit of
her conception be the Son of God, since the soul of Christ was first
united, by a priority of nature, with the Divine Word rather than with
67

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

His body. And so it can truly be affirmed that there were many cxigencies which required that the fruit of Mary's conception be the Son
of God.
3) The dignity of the divine maternity is truly infinite. St. Albert the
Great admits that her Son preceded her in all her privileges, but that
this does not diminish the honor of His Mother, but exalts her for
having engendered a Son who is not only equal, but infinitely better.
This makes the goodness of the Mother infinite, for since a tree is
known by its fruit, if the fruit is an infinite good, the tree, too, must
in a sense possess infinite goodness.Hz
Moreover, St. Thomas says that the humanity of Christ, from the
fact that it is united to the Godhead; created happiness, from the fact
that it is the fruition of God; and the Blessed Virgin, from the fact
that she is the Mother of God; all have a certain infinite dignity which
comes from the infinite good which is God. Therefore, there cannot
be anything better than these; just as there cannot be anything better
than God.148
Similarly, St. Peter Canisius says that the authority and dignity of
the infinite Son redounds to His Mother, so that she is the only one
who, with the Father, can say to the Son: “Thou art my Son; this day
have I begotten thee.”
Finally, any relation is specified by its term and its perfection is
determined by the term. But the terminus of the maternity of the
Blessed Virgin Mary is the God-man, and He is infinite.
4) The Blessed Virgin Mery, by reason of her divine maternity, pos­
sesses a real affinity with God as subsistent in the divinity. Consan
guinity signifies a blood relationship and is defined as the bond which
exists among those who arc descendants of the same root or stock
by carnal generation. In affinity, on the other hand, there is no shar­
ing of the same blood by the persons who are related; it is acquired
without relation to generation. Thus, a husband is related by affinity
to the relatives of his wife.
The affinity of Mary to God is not founded on a pious affection of
the mind, but exists in the real but spiritual order. The reason for
Mary’s consanguinity with Christ as God subsistent in humanity is
that the relationship of a mother and son is consanguinity in the first
degree, and the Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of Christ. More­
over, the Blessed Virgin is united to her Son by a closer bond than
68

MARY, MOTHER OF COD

are other mothers to their sons, because the Blessed Virgin alone,
without the assistance of man, furnished the material for Christ's
conception. Tire reason for Mary’s affinity with God, as subsistent
in the divinity, is that the hypostatic union is rightly called a spiritual
marriage in which the Eternal Word is considered as the spouse and
His assumed humanity as wife or bride. But Mary is related by con­
sanguinity to the humanity which the Word assumed. Therefore,
there exists an affinity between Mary and the divinity of the Word,
which is common to the Father and the Holy Ghost.
This affinity is described beautifully by Canisius when he states
that although, properly speaking, God does not possess relations of
consanguinity or affinity, for He is a simple spirit, nevertheless, Scrip­
ture attributes to Him not only consanguinity and affinity but, meta­
phorically, sons and heirs. Among these we must first enumerate the
human nature of Christ which, being assumed by a divine Person
and united to it intimately, can be said to possess an affinity to God.
We must then consider a certain kind of affinity in Man’, since what
became the flesh of God in Christ, was taken from Mary's substance,
for St. John Damascene states that from her purest blood was formed
the body of Christ.144
5) The Blessed Virgin is united by special relations to the whole
Trinity and to each of the three Persons. It is frequent among theo­
logians to call Mary the complement of the Trinity. The statement
is frequently attributed to Esychius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, but this
is unfounded. Comparing Noah’s ark with the Blessed Virgin, he says
that Mary is more excellent than Noah’s ark. The former was an
ark of animals, and she is the ark of life; that, of corruptible animals,
but she of incorruptible life; that carried Noah, but she carried Noah’s
Maker; that had two or three sections or mansions, but she has the
entire complement of the Trinity, for the Holy Spirit came to her as
a guest, the Father overshadowed her, and the Son took up His abode
in her womb.146
Esychius did not call Mary the complement of the Trinity; he only
asserted that, unlike the ark which carried only created beings, Mary
contained the entire Trinity. But it is one thing to contain the com­
plement of the Trinity, and another thing to be the complement of
the Trinity. From the fact that the Blessed Virgin holds in her womb
the divine Word, no one can rightly infer that she is the divine Word.

69

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

The expression, although common among theologians, is rejected bv
many, like Janssens, who says that he doubts that Mary is prudently
called a complement of the Trinity, and Müller, who believes that it
would be better to refrain from using this expression.
Undoubtedly, Mary can be called the complement of the Trinity,
not essentially and intrinsically, since God cannot acquire in time an
increase of intrinsic perfection, but accidentally and extrinsically, and
this for a double reason: Mary is the cause from which originate new
temporal relations of the divine Persons ad extra and she confers on
them a certain extrinsic glory.
Through the divine maternity’ of the Blessed Virgin, new relations
ad extra originate in the divine Persons which arc related with the
personal appropriations of each one, so far as through Mary's mater­
nity the Father has authority over the Son, who is co-etemal and
equal to Him in all things; the Son acquires a generation; and the
Holy Ghost acquires a fecundity in the conception of Christ the Lord,
which is attributed to the Holy Ghost by appropriation. Proceeding
from the Father in an identity of nature, the Son is equal to the
Father in divinity and therefore is not subject to His power and
authority. But in regard to His human nature, He is less than the
Father, obeys Him, and is subject to His authority. Thus, authority
is fittingly attributed to the Father. The divine Word, who proceeds
from the Father, cannot be manifested externally in His divine na­
ture as such, but He achieved this external manifestation through
a new generation, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, taking flesh
from her and then manifesting Himself visibly. Of the three divine
Persons, only the Holy Ghost is not productive within the Trinity.
The Father engenders the Word, and the Father and the Word
together spirate the Holy Ghost, but there is no further production
in the Trinity. But by Christ’s conception in the womb of the Blessed
Virgin, the Holy Spirit attained a certain fertility to produce ad extra
a divine Person, since Christ's conception is attributed and rightly
appropriated to Him as the active principle.
By her divine maternity, the Blessed Virgin seems to bestow a cer­
tain extrinsic glory on the Persons of the Trinity. A Virgin undefiled
she conceived and brought forth God, which is a vivid image of thé
divine processions in which one Person proceeds from another with­
out any loss of integrity.140 Secondly, she exemplifies the distinction
70

MARY,

MOTHER OF COD

of Persons in the Trinity; otherwise she could not rightly be called
the Mother of the Son, if the Son were not a Person distinct from
the Father. Finally, she manifests the attributes and perfections of
God, not only because the divine attributes of goodness, knowledge,
and power are shown in her, but because certain perfections, such
as holiness and purity, seem to be divine rather than human in her.
Therefore, after the three divine Persons, Mary is the most excellent.
St. John Damascene says that as she surpasses the cherubim and sera­
phim, and is next to God.
The Blessed Virgin is also related in a special way to each of the
divine Persons of the Trinity. She is related to the Father as an
adopted daughter. Adoptive filiation is bestowed on rational creatures
through sanctifying grace, which makes them participants in the
divine nature and gives them the right to eternal glory. The Blessed
Virgin occupies first place among the adopted children of God be­
cause her adoption imitates perfectly the natural filiation of God.
Christ is the natural Son of God and is, therefore, holy by nature
and not by adoption. So that the Mother might be like her Son,
she received a sanctity which, although above her nature, seemed
almost natural to her. For this reason she was given original grace at
the very moment of her creation. Moreover, in adopting other men,
the Father does not generate them as much as He re generates them;
and thus their production but slightly imitates the eternal generation
of the Son, who is begotten from all eternity and per se. But the
Father created the Virgin per se with original grace, and did not re­
generate her. Consequently, her filiation is a perfect imitation of the
divine filiation, because as the Eternal Father begot the Son from
all eternity and His filiation is eternal, so He adopted the Virgin
from the first moment of her existence, by the infusion of grace, an
adoption and holiness which the Virgin never lost. Again, the Virgin
concurred in the generation of the Son of God in human flesh, whom
the whole family of adopted children were to follow, "for whom He
foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image
of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many breth­
ren." U1 Consequently, it was fitting that this most excellent filial
adoption should shine forth in Mary so that she would better resem­
ble Christ, her Son, with whom she was to be the principle of adop­
tive filiation for others. Finally, as the hypostatic union in Christ is
71

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

a title which demands the plenitude of sanctifying grace, so the
divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin is a title which demands more
sanctifying grace than God gives to angels and men.
Whence it follows that the Blessed Virgin, by reason of her adop­
tive filiation, eminently surpasses all others, not only because she is
more perfectly and abundantly adorned with sanctifying grace and
therefore shares more perfectly in the divine filiation, but because,
while it is not due the rest of the just, it was due Mary by reason
of her divine maternity. For that reason the Fathers venerated het
as the firstborn and only-begotten daughter of the Father, for in the
divine predestination she is intimately united with Christ, His Son,
who is the firstborn of all creation. So unique is her title to adoptive
filiation that if, by supposition, the work of Christ did not tend to
bring all men to filial adoption, Mary, by reason of her maternity,
would possess sufficient claim to be, with her Son, a consort in the

divine nature through supernatural grace.
It must be noted that although adoptive filiation is related to the en­
tire Trinity, the filiation of the Blessed Virgin is appropriated to the
Father, but not excluding the Son. For this reason the Church invokes
Christ as ‘Offspring of the Virgin and Maker of the Mother, 14 and
Dante calls Mary "Virgin Mother, daughter of thy Son. 140
Moreover, the Blessed Virgin is related to the Father in a special
way in the generation of the Son, not because generation on the part
of the Father was the same as generation on the part of the Virgin,
nor because the Blessed Virgin had any influence on the eternal gen­
eration of the Son, but so far as the eternal and the temporal genera­
tion had the same terminus, the same Son, begotten by the Father
from all eternity and by the Virgin in time. Moreover, when the Vir­
gin conceived the Son in time, the Father was also generating Him,
for since the act of generation is eternal in the Father, and eternity
embraces all time, it can be said that the Father was generating the
Son with regard to His divine nature at the same moment in which
the Virgin conceived Him with regard to His human nature.150
Because the Virgin is associated with the Father in the generation
of the Word, she is sometimes called the spouse of the Father, al­
though Tanquerey advises that in preaching it is not fitting to treat
of these titles of spouse of the Father and of the Holy Spirit in great
detail.

MARY,

MOTHER OF COD

The Blessed Virgin is related to the Son as Mother in a unique
manner, as has already been explained. She is also related to Him as
spouse. Although the expression "spouse of the Word,” as Campana
says, is rarely used in our times, it is equally befitting Mary. If the
just soul who loves can be called spouse, much more so can the Blessed
Virgin be called the spouse of Christ. Moreover, in the early Church
it was the custom to call virgins spouses of Christ, as is seen in the
rite of the consecration of virgins, in which Christ is called the
Spouse and Son of perpetual virginity. Therefore, says St. Anthony,
this title rightly belongs to Mary, the Virgin of virgins. Lastly, the
Incarnation is like a spiritual marriage which the Word contracts not
only with the human nature He assumed, but with all humanity. And
since marriage is preceded by tire espousals, which are the mutual
promise of a future marriage, it was fitting that humanity accept the
mystical nuptials with the Son of God. And Mary, representing the
whole human race, accepted these nuptials when she answered
the angel who announced the mystery of the Incarnation: "Behold
the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy
word.”
The Blessed Virgin is also related to her Son, Christ, as lady or
mistress. St. Thomas says: "Although the nature is not properly said
to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly said
to be ruling or serving in this or that nature." 151 Thus, men are en­
tirely equal in their rights and duties with regard to their specific
nature, but not according to their particular conditions; for example,
the innate rights and obligations of father and son are the same by
reason of their specific natures, but by reason of particular paternal
or filial conditions they are different. The father has paternal domin­
ion and authority in regard to the children, and the duty to care for
them, nourish them, and educate them. The children owe him love,
respect, and other offices of piety, as well as obedience. And even
when the children reach maturity, they still owe the debt of piety,
respect, and gratitude.
Mary had no maternal authority over Christ with regard to His
divine nature, for it is repugnant that Christ, subsisting in the divine
nature and supreme Lord of all, should be subject to any creature.
Even more, in this respect it cannot be said that Christ is subject
to the Eternal Father, for being consubstantial and equal to the
73

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MAR

Father, and possessing the very same being and divine essence, nu­
merically one, He could not have even the shadow of subjection.
Marj· had maternal dominion and power over her Son only in regard
to His human nature. Thus, St. Ildephonse, extolling the wonders
which God worked in Mary, says that "God became the Son of a
Mother whom He Himself had fashioned; and He, the Ruler, in being
bom, subjected Himself to the servant whom I Ic had created. Thus
the servant held the Lord in subjection and the Lord held the servant
under His authority.”152 St. Bernardine of Siena says that the proposi­
tion, "Everything is subject to the authority of the Virgin, even God
Himself," is true. For this reason Gerson says that we could give her
no better name than Mother of God because through it she has au­
thority over the Lord and over all things that arc subject to Him.
Christ’s obedience and subjection are inferred from the maternal
authority of His Mother. Thus, St. Luke says that He was subject to
them.
Pope Leo XIII declares: “In Joseph, fathers of families have the
most beautiful model of fatherly attention and providence; in the
most holy Virgin Mother of God, the most extraordinary pattern
of love, modesty, perfect submission, and fidelity; in Jesus, who as
Son of the household was subject to them, a divine Exemplar of obedi­

ence to admire, worship, and imitate.” 153
Most theologians admit this subjection and the discussion centers
around the basis of Mary’s maternal right and the filial subjection of
Christ. Cornelius a Lapide and Toledo, among others, derive this
right and office not from the generation and birth, but from His will,
which freely consented to be subject to His parents. Elevated above
all creatures by the hypostatic union, Christ could not acknowledge
anyone as superior, to whom He would have to be subject. But it
would seem more true to say that Mary’s maternal authority and the
corresponding subjection and obedience of Christ took its founda­
tion in a natural right; that is, from that of generation and birth.
True motherhood bases its natural power over the son on the very
fact that he receives human nature from his mother and depends on
her for his bodily formation. Under this aspect the mother is superior
to the son. The son also, by reason of this debt of nature, has an
obligation to obey her who engendered him. This authority over the
son, which is a natural accompaniment to the maternal dignity, can74

MARY,

MOTHER OF GOD

not reasonably be denied Mary with respect to her Son, because the
order of grace docs not destroy nature, but perfects it. Christ came,
not to revoke the natural law, but to fulfill it.
Nor can it be said that Christ as man, by reason of His hypostatic
union, was exempt from maternal authority, as He was exempt for
that reason from all dominion and power of kings, emperors, and
priests. Christ, the King of kings and the Highpriest of priests, could
not be subject to any inferior king or priest, but by reason of His
corporal generation He remained truly subject to His Mother because
He received from her His human nature. But Mary’s maternal au­
thority and Christ’s filial subjection were in relation to domestic
matters and corporal life alone; they did not pertain to His divine
mission. For that reason, when He was found in the Temple by His
parents, the Child Jesus said to them (Luke 2:49): "How is it that
you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s
business?” 154 Christ does not deny Mary's maternal authority in re­
gard to other things, for it is inferred by the words which followed:
"And He was subject to them,” but He places the divine will before
obedience to His Mother, as He says through the mouth of St. John
(8:29) : "I do always the things that are pleasing to Him." ,M
Mary’s authority over Christ and His filial subjection to her mater­
nal authority lasted until Christ reached the perfect age of manhood
and began His public life. Then, as all sons do when they become
old enough to look out for themselves, Christ, having reached man­
hood, also withdrew from the maternal authority. Hence, from the
beginning of Jesus’ public life, Mary seems to have withdrawn herself
so that He could work publicly as the Son of God, and thus be be­
lieved by men. Mary was not, however, altogether absent from her
Son’s public life, as Debout explains.15·
Finally, Mary most faithfully fulfilled all her maternal obligations
as a pious and prudent Mother, feeding and taking care of her Son.
At the same time Christ, as the most pious of all sons, returned
the obligation of filial love, piety, respect, reverence, care, gratitude,
not only while He lived, but also when dying, entrusting her from
the Cross to His beloved disciple: “When Jesus, therefore, saw His
Mother and the disciple standing by, whom He loved, He said to His
Mother, 'Woman behold thy son.’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Be­
hold thv Mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his

75

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

home."18T St. Ambrose and St. Augustine comment beautifully on
this example of Christ's filial piety.
Maty was also related to the Holy Spirit in a special way, as temple,
sanctuary, abode, and tabernacle. By reason of the plenitude of grace
with which she was imbued in so eminent a manner, she is the temple
of the Blessed Trinity, and the indwelling of the three divine Persons
in the sanctified soul, as a work of sanctification and charity, is ap­
propriated to the Holy Ghost. So, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus calls
Mary the immaculate temple into which the Holy Spirit entered; St.
Jerome calls her a sanctuary of the Holy Ghost; and St. Albert the
Great calls her the abode of the power of the Most High. Pope Leo
XIII reminds us of the reason for calling Mary the Immaculate
Spouse:188 it was chiefly because Christ’s body was conceived in
Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, in which conception
Mary gave the substance of her flesh and the Holy Spirit supplied for
the power of man in a supernatural and sublime way. But the forma­
tion of Christ’s body, although it is the work of the whole Trinity (as
are the other operations ad extra), is appropriated to the Holy Spirit
and for that reason Mary can be called His spouse. This title of Spouse
of the Holy Spirit is very frequent among the moderns but was seldom
used by the ancients, perhaps so that it might not be interpreted that
the Holy Spirit is the Father of Christ. The Church carefully avoided
calling the Holy Spirit Father, and the Council of Ί oledo expressly
forbade this denomination.
From what has been said, it can be concluded that there is in Mary,
by reason of her divine maternity, the highest union with God and
an intimate familiarity with the divine Persons, for which reason she
was praised by the angel with the words: “The Lord is with thee."
St. Bonaventure praises this singularity of Mary as the daughter,
mother and spouse of the Lord.15·

THE DIVINE MATERNITY COMPARED WITH OTHER GIFTS

The divine maternity, considered precisely and isolately,
is more excellent than sanctifying grace or the grace of adoption.
Suârez asserts that the divine maternity, considered precisely and
isolately, is inferior to the dignity of the adoptive sonship which is

thesis:

76

MARY, MOTHER OF COD

obtained through sanctifying grace, but if it is considered as including
all the gifts and privileges which by their proper nature are due to it
according to the order of divine wisdom, it is greater than the dignity
of adoptive sonship.100
Vega is of the same opinion, for he says that the divine maternity,
taken proximately and absolutely, is not better than grace; but if it is
taken fundamentally and remotely, so far as it requires an immensity
of graces, it is more noble and excellent than grace.101
Ancient as well as modem theologians commonly teach that the di­
vine maternity, even considered precisely and isolately, is more ex­
cellent in dignity than habitual grace. Tire Fathers say that the Blessed
Virgin, by reason of her divine maternity, surpasses all pure creatures.
St. Epiphanius says that except for God, she is superior to all crea­
tures. St. John Damascene says that there is an infinite distance
between the Mother of God and the servants of God. St. Anselm
states that merely to say that the Virgin is the Mother of God, sur­
passes in sublimity all that can be said and thought, apart from God.
St. Albert the Great says more clearly that there is a substantial
union between the mother and the son, but between the father and
an adoptive son, the participation is accidental. Therefore, it is greater
to be the Mother of God by nature than a son of God by adoption.
Moreover, between being the son of God by nature and being
Cod, and being the son of God by adoption and not being God, is
being the Mother of God by nature and not being God; therefore,
immediately after God, is the Mother of God.102
Theological Argument. 1 ) A perfection is greater the more it ap­
proaches God. The divine maternity is closer to God than is sanctify­
ing grace, because while sanctifying grace belongs to the supernatural
accidental order, the divine maternity enters in a certain way into the
hypostatic order, which is the very God-man or God substantially
communicated to the human nature of Christ, which was taken from
the substance of the Mother and with which Mary has a relationship.
2) Again, the measure of greater perfection lies in the greater and
more intimate union with God. The divine maternity is more inti­
mately united to God than is sanctifying grace, for the maternal union
with God resulting from the communication of her very substance
to the Son of God and her union with the divine hypostasis, is pro­
ductive of consanguinity with God as subsistent in human nature
77

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and of affinity with the same divinity. On the contrary, habitual grace
is a union with God by an accidental form only, which does not touch
God in His divine and personal being, but only in His intelligible
being, as the object of supernatural love and affection. Although
sanctifying grace is a physical and formal participation in the divine
nature, it docs not bespeak a subjective and entitative relation in God
(since that which is subjectively and entitatively created is acciden­
tal), but an objective relation, because as a fundamental principle it
ordains the creature to the attainment of the divine object, God Him­
self, through the intellect and will.
;) According to the axiom, propter quod unumquodque tale et
illud magis, if sanctifying grace and the other privileges were bestowed
on the Blessed Virgin Mary in such abundance precisely because she
was to be the Mother of God, it must follow that the divine mater­
nity is much more excellent than sanctifying grace.
4) Nor does the divine motherhood suffer diminution by Christ’s
answer to the woman who, according to St. Luke, praised Him by
saying: “Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the breasts that
nursed Thee." To which Jesus answered: "Rather, blessed arc they
who hear the word of God and keep it.” 108 It is evident from the con­
text and from the humble disposition of that woman who was igno­
rant of the divine filiation of Christ, that the divine Master did not
intend to compare the divine maternity with sanctifying grace. 'Ilie
extremes of the comparison are, on the one hand, the divine mater­
nity taken in the generic sense, purely corporal and common to all
mothers, and on the other hand, faith and good works. Hence it is
sufficiently clear that Christ was placing the spiritual maternity, pro­
duced by the word of God received in faith, above the purely carnal
maternity, produced by blood and birth.
5) Nor docs Christ deny that the Blessed Virgin should be ac­
claimed blessed because of her divine maternity; indeed, she must be
considered much more blessed than the others who hear the word
of God and keep it, for she not only conceived the divine Word in
her womb and nourished Him at her breast, but she received the
word of God in her mind, nourished it in her heart, and produced
abundant fruit. Hence Venerable Bede says that the Savior beauti­
fully confirmed the woman’s assertion, by saying that not only is she
blessed who merited to conceive the Word of God corporally, but

78

MARY, MOTHER OF COD

also all those whose ears arc opened to faith, who conceive this same
Word spiritually, and give Him birth and nourish Him with the per­
formance of good works both in their own hearts and in those of their
neighbors. The Mother of God is certainly blessed for having been
made a collaborator of the Word who was to become flesh in time,
but she is much more blessed for being the eternal keeper of Him
who was always to be loved.1®4
Moreover, making use of the occasion given by the woman in speak­
ing of the special blessedness of His Mother, He discussed the blessed­
ness common to all, showing the road to take in order to follow it,
which is to hear the word of God and keep it. St. Peter Canisius says
that the Lord added a general axiom which could serve as profitable
to all His hearers and gave the rule necessary to know and observe,
in order to live well and happily, so that no one would think that
Mary was the only one who would be blessed on heaven and earth.
Although a comparison is established between the maternity of
God and grace, nothing can be concluded as opposed to that dignity,
for even though the divine maternity is more exalted and more noble
than grace, it is not because of this that Mary was immediately and
formally blessed. Nevertheless, as Barradas says, iMary is blessed pre
cisely because she is the Mother of God, because to that title are
joined obedience to the divine commands, fullest grace, an admirable
aggregate of all the virtues, and the greatest glory. This is confirmed
by the words of the Blessed Virgin herself (Luke 1:48): “Behold, all
generations shall call me blessed.” Gerson (Super Magnificat), sums
up these reasons as follows: because she believed, because she was full
of grace, because the fruit of her womb was blessed, because the Al­
mighty had accomplished great things in her, because she is the
Mother of the Lord, and because she preserved her virginity. Cornelius
a Lapide adds that the chief source of all the rest is the fact that she
was chosen to be the Mother of the Word Incarnate.1*3
thesis : The divine maternity is more excellent than the beatific
vision.
Gabriel Bicl believes that being blessed in heaven is better than
being the corporal Mother of God, because it seems that the Lord
gave preference to spiritual maternity, which is fulfilled by submission
to the will of God, as St. Matthew says (12:50): “For whoever docs

79

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the will of My Father in heaven, he is My brother and sister and
mother.”
The Fathers believe as in the preceding thesis and St. Thomas says:
"The union of the Incarnation, since it is effected in the personal
being, transcends the union of the beatified mind with God, which
is consummated by the act of the soul in fruition.” ieo But the union
effected by the divine maternity pertains proximately to the order
of the hypostatic union.
Theological Argument, i ) Sanctifying grace, which is eternal life
begun, and the beatific vision, which is eternal life consummated,
both pertain to the same order, since the beatific vision is the final
evolution of sanctifying grace. For that reason grace is called the seed
of eternal life (John 3:9) and a fountain of water springing up unto
life everlasting (John 4:14)· But the maternity of God is superior to
sanctifying grace.
2) In the hypostatic union, the divine Person of the Word is united
to the human nature substantially or according to His personal being;
in the beatific vision the divine essence is united to the created intel­
lect as an intelligible species or form which makes the intellect sec
God as He is in Himself. Although the intimate union of God with
the intellect of the blessed results in the intellect being intelligibly
deified and made similar to God with regard to being one in act of
intellection, nevertheless, the blessed does not become God but is
only deiform. From which it is inferred that just as the substantial
union in the Person of the Word of God exceeds the purely intelligi­
ble union with the divine essence, so the maternity of God propor­
tionately exceeds the beatific vision because it bespeaks an intimate
union with her Son according to a certain identity of substance. There­
fore, between the intelligible union of the beatific vision and the sub­
stantial hypostatic union is the union of the Virgin with God as His
Mother.
thesis: The divine maternity surpasses the dignity of the priest­
hood of the New Law.
There arc those who hold that the divine maternity is inferior in
dignity to the priesthood, because while Mary gave birth to the hu
man nature of Christ only once, priests give Christ sacramental being

80

MARY.

MOTHER OF GOD

every time they consecrate; but the opposite opinion is the one more
preferred.
The Blessed Virgin Mary gave Christ His human nature, and priests
offer the same Christ sacramentally. The sacramental state does not
add anything intrinsic to the humanity of Christ, because the change
by which Christ is present in the Sacrament of the altar, involves no
change in the body of Christ but only in the substance of the bread,
which is changed into His body. Hence, the Catechism of the Coun­
cil of Trent advises pastors to teach that this transformation is effected
in such a way that the whole substance of the bread is changed by
the power of God into the whole substance of the body of Christ and
the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of His
blood, without any change in our Lord. He is neither begotten nor
changed nor increased.1®7
The Blessed Virgin Mary, by her own natural power, acted in the
conception of Christ as a principal cause, as do other mothers in the
generation of their children, but with the Holy Spirit furnishing
supernaturally the act of man. In consecrating, priests act as second­
ary, ministerial and instrumental causes, by the power received from
Christ, the principal Priest.
Christ is the chief Priest, who was immolated on the Cross as the
immaculate Victim for the salvation of men. But the Blessed Virgin
cooperated in a special way with the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ,
not only by preparing the Victim, nurturing Him and being present
near the altar of the Cross, but by serving at the priestly consecration
of Christ, which was effected at the moment of His incarnation in
her purest womb. De la Taille states that Christ’s ordination took
place at the Incarnation, inasmuch as Christ’s humanity was conse­
crated with the divinity of the Word by the triune God. Thus the
God-man was constituted as our Mediator, who properly sanctifies
the offering of our reparation and sanctifies those cleansed by the
sacrifice. Such a priestly ordination or pontifical consecration came
about when the Virgin consented by the words: "Behold the hand­
maid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." She
herself furnished the subject for anointing when she conceived, and
offered herself as the temple of the consecration in her womb. Be­
sides, in holy orders, as in baptism, there is a certain participation in

81

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

priestly power innate in Christ; the priesthood of the Church over
flows as from a fountain in the Virgin from whom it took its origin,1”
thesis: The dignity of the divine maternity is superior to the
apostolate.
Pope Innocent III says that although the Virgin is superior to all
the apostles, the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted to the
apostles and not to her. The principal charge of the apostles was to
continue the mission of Christ on earth, preaching His doctrine and
applying to men the fruits of redemption. In both of these respects,
the Virgin is superior to the apostles. Thus St. Albert the Great argues
that the characteristic of the apostles is that they arc the light of the
world, but the Blessed Virgin illumined the world to the highest
degree and therefore she also exercises the ministry of preaching to a
higher degree.109 Besides, all preachers preach with created word; but
she with the uncreated Word. Therefore, she preached more excel­

lently than all men.170
St. Thomas of Villanova explains it by saying that the heavenly
Teacher, who was to return to the Father from whom He came, left
the schools and chair to Mary, not to lead His sheep like Peter, but
to teach His disciples with a heavenly wisdom which she had learned
from the beginning. Because of the brilliancy of her mind and her
assiduity in the school of Christ, she was wiser and more learned than
all the apostles. She directed this school for twelve years, as the teacher
of the apostles and disciples of Christ and of all the churches. For
this reason we say that she is the only one who has destroyed all the
heresies in the Church of God.171

THE DIVINE MATERNITY IN RELATION TO MARY’S GIFTS
OF GRACE AND GLORY

The divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin is the basis and
greatest reason for all the graces and privileges bestowed upon her.
In this thesis we are not speaking of the physical basis from which
the other privileges and graces of the Blessed Virgin flow as a natural
consequence and with which she has a natural connection, but of the
moral basis, which bespeaks only a relation of proportion,’ fittingness

thesis:

82

MARY,

MOTHER OF GOD

and convenience. Although the physical basis is antecedent to its
effect by a priority of time or of nature, this priority does not apply
to the moral basis and final cause, which in reality do not precede the
effect, excepting in intention.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius IX establishes the reasons
for all Mary’s prerogatives on her election as the Mother of God:

From the beginning, and before time began, the Eternal Father chose
and prepared for His only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son
of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed full­
ness of time, He would be born into this world. God so loved her
above all creatures that truly in her was the Father well pleased with
singular delight. Wherefore, far above all the angels and all the saints,
so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly
gifts poured from the treasury of His divinity that this Mother, ever
absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that
fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one
cannot even imagine anything greater and, outside of God, no mind
can succeed in fully comprehending.172
In accordance with this, Pope Leo XIII said: "God chose her from
all eternity to be the Mother of the Incarnate Word, and for that
reason so eminently distinguished her among all His most beautiful
works in the triple order of nature, grace, and glory, that the Church
justly applies to her these words: ‘1 came out of the mouth of the
Most High, the firstborn before all creatures.’ ”173
Pope Pius XI speaks in a similar way when he says: "From this
dogma of the divine maternity, as from a hidden spring of refreshing
water, flow the singular grace of Mary and, after God, her great dig­
nity.” 174
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church. St. Ambrose says that
neither could Mary be less than what was befitting the Mother of
God. St. Augustine states: “Of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the honor
of Christ, when we treat of sin, I do not wish that she should be in­
volved. For we know that a greater grace was accorded her wholly to
conquer sin, by the very fact that she merited to conceive and bear
Him of whom we certainly know that He had no sin.” 173
St. Bernard says that the Creator of men, in order to become man,
had to be born of man and had to choose and fashion such a mother
as was fitting and pleasing to Him. St. Anselm writes: “It is fitting

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MAR

that the Virgin should be resplendent with a purity such that none
could be conceived more perfect save only God’s.” 17« St. Bernardine
of Siena, St. Albert the Great, and Nicholas of Cusa all speak of
Mary's predestination as the Mother of God and of the gifts bestowed
upon her so that she might become worthy to clothe the Son of God
with human nature.
Theological Argument, i) St. Thomas says that the more one
approaches a principle of any kind, the more one participates in the
effect flowing from that principle. The Blessed Virgin, by reason of
her divine maternity, was nearest to Christ, the fountain of all graces,
as has been proved before. Therefore, she must have received from
Him a greater fullness of grace than anyone else.177
2) St. Thomas also says that God so prepares and endows those
whom He chooses for some particular office, that they arc rendered
capable of fulfilling it. On developing this point, St. Bernardine of
Siena says: "Whenever the divine favor chooses someone for a special
grace or an exalted position, it endows the person thus chosen with
all the gifts necessary for him and for his task.” 178 We sec this in St.
John, the Precursor of our Lord, in the apostles and in noted saints
such as St. Stephen, who was called full of grace, that is, an amount
sufficient for him to be a fitting minister of God and a witness con
formable to his election. Therefore, as there is no office more excellent
nor greater among creatures than the divine maternity, it surpasses
those gifts and privileges which, next to her Son, adorn her more than
any other creature.
3) The reason and measure of the gifts conferred by God on créa
tures are in proportion to God’s love for the creature and the creature’s
love of God. God’s love of things differs from ours, since in loving
things, God makes them good. Our wills, instead, suppose their good­
ness, and thus we are moved to love them. The more one loves God,
the greater arc the benefits He imparts from the abundance of His
divine goodness.
On the other hand, the more the fire of love is enkindled, by which
one loves God in all things, above all things, and with all the strength
of his soul, the better disposed he becomes for the benefits of God,
who does not look to how much one does but with how much love
one does what he docs. St. Vincent Ferrer expresses this very well
when he says that the merit of grace in this world and the reward
84

MARY,

MOTHER

OF COD

of glory in the next arise more from love in the heart and fervor of
soul than in a multiplicity of goods. The divine maternity is, in re­
spect to Mary's other prerogatives, proportionate to what the hypo­
static union in Christ is with respect to the graces and gifts with
which His humanity was adorned. Therefore, as the hypostatic union
is the principle from which the humanity of Christ reaped so many
gifts of grace and glory, the divine maternity is the principle from
which arc derived all of the gifts of grace and glory and the other
privileges with which Mary was exalted above all other creatures. St.
John says that as the Eternal Father is, so also is the Son.1” It should
be the same with the Mother with regard to grace and virtues of the
Son, so that although she would not equal His infinite dignity, she
would show a great sublimity through the abundance of gifts. Hence
St. John Damascene says that it was fitting for the Mother of God
to have those things from her Son and to be loved much by all crea­
tures.180 And so we may conclude with Petau (De Incarn., XIV), that
all that is worthy of praise in Mary and all the graces and glory with
which she is endowed are referred to her divine maternity as to their
fountain and origin.
thesis: Whether the divine maternity, to the exclusion of habitual
grace, formally sanctified the Blessed Virgin.
Most theologians assert that the divine maternity fundamentally
and remotely sanctified Mary so far as it connaturally exacted the
abundance of grace which such a mother required. The problem is
whether the divine maternity, prescinding from habitual grace, for­
mally sanctified Mary, by the analogous reason that the humanity of
Christ was sanctified formally through the hypostatic union.
Ripalda, Vega and Sedlmayr assert that the divine maternity, even
when considered separate from habitual grace, sanctified Mary inas­
much as her maternity alone eminently communicated all the formal
effects proper to sanctifying grace.
Müller and Lercher, distinguishing between moral and ontological
sanctification, are of the opinion that the divine maternity is a form
of ontological sanctification and at the same time the root and prin­
ciple of moral sanctity, and that Mary was sanctified by this dignity
as Mother of God, even excluding habitual grace, as the humanity
of Christ was sanctified by the Word, but with this difference, that

8$

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN

MAR

Christ is substantially holy through the hypostatic union and Mary
is accidentally sanctified through her divine maternity.
Many other theologians, such as Contenson, Rhodes, Raynaud,
Morgott, Pesch, Van-Noort and I lugon, deny that Mary was actually
and formally sanctified by her divine maternity, prescinding from
habitual grace, since formal sanctity is a supernatural, physical, in­
herent form received into the soul intrinsically, but the divine mater
nity is not a form intrinsically inherent to the soul of Mary. Moreover,
in what pertains to the power of sanctification, her maternity is dis­
tinguished from the hypostatic union in which the humanity of
Christ, substantially united to the divine Word, cannot be alien to
the holiness of the Word; and the Virgin’s maternity, which is based
on the generation of the Word with regard to His human nature,
bespeaks a real relation to God the Son. Now, the Blessed Virgin
could not be sanctified formally in the terminus of her relationship,
that is, in the Person of her Son, because Mary, even as Mother of
God, remains a person distinct from the Son of God and from the

other divine Persons.
thesis:

Privileges which should be attributed to Mar)’ because of

her divine maternity.
To Mary must be attributed all those privileges which are befitting
the Mother of God and the cooperator in redemption. St. Anselm says
that it was fitting that the Virgin should be resplendent with a purity
than which one could not imagine any greater outside of God. St.
Laurence Justinian says that all honor, dignity, merit, grace, and glory
are found in Mary.
All the gifts and privileges of grace and holiness which were be
stowed on the saints can likewise be attributed to Mary. St. Bernard
and St. Thomas of Villanova emphasize this point, and the latter
compares Mary's gifts to those of others famous for the same, such
as the patience of Job, the gentleness of Moses, the faith of Abraham,
the chastity of Joseph, the humility of David, the wisdom of Solomon,
the zeal of Elias, the purity of virgins, the fortitude of martyrs, the
devotion of confessors, the wisdom of the doctors, the hermit’s detach­
ment from the world, as well as the gifts of wisdom, knowledge,
understanding, piety, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, and all
the graces gratis datae of which the Apostle speaks in I Corinthians.181
86

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

From this generality and accumulation of prerogatives, we exclude
those graces which we sometimes find in the saints but cannot per­
tain to Mary, because they are not compatible with her status as a
wayfarer or with the perfection of her innocence and sanctity, with
her sex or with her cooperation in the work of redemption. Thus,
Mary was not in possession of the beatific vision; the virtue of penance
in its proper and formal sense does not apply to her; the priesthood
in its proper sense cannot be attributed to her, although she had what
was equivalent to the priesthood. Nor was Mary exempt from pain
and death, because, associated as she was with the redemptive mission
of Christ, “she suffered with her suffering and dying Son, and almost
died with Him.” 182
With regard to the special favors with which, it is said, some of the
saints were favored in certain circumstances—those who were fed by
angels with material bread or comforted with the Eucharistic Bread
—there is no reason for these things being attributed to Mary, al­
though, as Terrien says, had she needed the help of angels, she could
have had them as servants immediately.
Lastly, we must avoid all superfluity in attributing perfections to
Mary, for example, preaching exaggerated praises in her honor. It
would be superfluous if such praise lacked serious and solid founda­
tion either in Sacred Scripture, Tradition, or theological reasoning.
The explanation of John of Segovia is pertinent to this proposition
when he says that a man building a wall perspires much until he
succeeds in laying the stone exactly where it should be placed. After
setting it in the exact place, he doesn’t dare touch it, lest it would
move from its proper place. Also, an artist painting a picture works
hard until he perfects the face; but after giving it the finishing touches,
whereby the perfection of the face reveals the artist’s true genius,
were an amateur artist to add a line, it would be completely spoiled.
And so it is with the cumulus of Mary’s graces and perfections. All
her being and authority, all her riches, consist precisely in the fact
that she is the Mother of God. This is the foundation and origin of
all of her heroic virtues. Hence, after having said that she is the
Mother of God, nothing else can be added, for it would be like mov­
ing the stone from its proper place. And it is precisely for this reason
that the Evangelists showed themselves so moderate in her praises;
for after calling her the Mother of God, they believed that nothing

87

THE BI. ESSED VIRGIN

MARY

more could be said in honoring her. So, if some preacher would wish
to add something to Mary’s excellence, he would certainly distort the
picture of Mary, just as would the amateur painter.
John of Segovia goes on to explain that some preachers feel that
they are paying Maty great honor when they say much about her and
they are satisfied as long as they say a great deal. He advises them to
preach on one or the other excellence, in order to reveal the honor
and greatness of the Mother of God, and also to cite what the saints
have to say concerning her. It would be better to do that than to con­
fuse the excellent picture of the Virgin, for the minds of those listen­
ing are moved and influenced more if fewer things arc said than if
many things are said which haven’t even a tinge of truth. He cautions
zealous preachers, in using particular titles while referring to Mary,
to use them in conformity with the sense and intent of Sacred Scrip­
ture and with regard to the mind and interpretation of the saints. This
advice is considered sufficient for employing Mary’s praises prodently.18*

88

CHAPTER THREE

Gary's freedom from Sin
*

It is evident from what was said previously that the divine
maternity of the Blessed Virgin is the principle and highest source of
all the gifts and privileges bestowed upon her. From this unique privi­
lege begin, as from their center, the perfections and prerogatives by
which the Virgin is superior to all the saints and creatures. These per­
fections with which the Virgin was so enriched are of three kinds:
some pertaining to her soul, others pertaining to her body and still
others pertaining to her body and soul.
We must presuppose that Mary was endowed by God with the
most noble soul. St. Epiphanius says that excepting only God, she was
superior to all in nature; St. John Damascene states that both in the
excellence of her nature as in the perfection of grace, God made His
Mother as great as was befitting His most glorious majesty. St. Bcr
nardine of Busti says that the spouse of God was the most noble crea­
ture in regard to soul and body; more noble than anyone in the world,
except her own Son.
While admitting that all rational souls are substantially the same
in perfection, the Virgin excels all men in accidental perfection, be­
cause accidental perfection of soul depends to a great extent on the
diversity of the organism and on individual temperament. Mary had
the most perfectly organized body and the greatest harmony in tem­
perament and passions. Hence St. Thomas says: “It is evident that the
better the disposition of a body, the better the soul allotted to it.” 1
In conformity with her perfection of soul, Mary’s mind and will
were most perfect in their respective operations, concerning which
Contenson says that the perfection of Mary's soul was unique, in such
a way, that she could perform the most perfect operations easily—
proper to the Mother of God. Hence she had a keen and sagacious
mind, a deep and firm judgment, a tenacious and quick memory, a

89

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

continuous, unweary contemplation, an indefcctibility, and an ex­
quisite prudence. She was always strong of will, just, inclined toward
all virtue, and free from all sin. Her imagination, always calm and
gentle, was neither obscured by passion, hindered by sleep, distracted
by wanderings, nor darkened by error or deceit. Lastly, her passions
were under the control of reason and never hindered her attention of
mind which was fixed on God; nor did they impede the burning love
in her heart, nor the sweetest experience of heavenly things.2
All of this, as we shall see in the following pages, depends to a great
extent on her immaculate conception, by which her soul remained
free of all darkness of intellect, of all evil inclination of will, and of
all disorder of imagination.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception
Previous Observations. Before all else, it is necessary to establish
that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were raised by God to a super­
natural order and confirmed in holiness and justice by the infusion of
sanctifying grace. Together with sanctifying grace they were adorned,
as befitted their state, with the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy
Spirit, which flow from sanctifying grace. They were endowed with
the gift of integrity or freedom from concupiscence, by which their
senses and passions remained totally subject to reason; with the gift of
immortality, which removed the necessity of dying; and with the
exemption from all suffering and misery, to which we are now subject.
Finally, they possessed a great facility for learning and a singular
knowledge, free from error, together with perfect rectitude of will and
they were exempt even from venial sin.
These are the main prerogatives, some truly supernatural, such as
sanctifying grace, the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, and
others preternatural, such as integrity, immortality, and so forth, with
which our first parents were established in that unique and happy
state called the state of original justice.
But the gifts of original justice observed an order and union among
themselves. Theologians generally give primacy among the gifts of
original justice to sanctifying grace as the root and foundation of all
90

mary's freedom from sin

the other gifts; the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit are
united intrinsically with it; while the gifts of integrity, immortality,
and so forth, are united accidentally, by the extrinsic ordination of
God, because sanctifying grace, as Mazzella says, which exists in the
substance of the soul as in its subject, as compared to infused habits
per se, which reside in the faculties of the soul as in their immediate
subject, is like the essence in respect to properties, for which reason
it is called the root and foundation of the other gifts. But if it is com­
pared to the preternatural gifts, such as freedom from concupiscence,
immortality, and so forth, it is also their root, for according to St.
Augustine, as Suârcz says, and even more so according to the facts
narrated in Scripture, the integrity and rectitude of nature were given
on the condition that as long as the first rectitude toward God lasted,
the natural inferior justice would also be maintained; but if the for­
mer were destroyed, so would the latter be lost.8
It must be presumed that God instituted the supernatural order, not
only for our first parents, but for the whole human race which was to
descend from them. For that reason He confirmed them in original
grace, not merely as a personal gift, but as an hereditary treasure; and
He decreed that that grace would be an obligatory state for all men
descending from Adam, as members of his family. This transmission
and conservation of original grace was on condition that Adam would
obey the divine precept not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:3). Had this been complied with, original
grace would have been transmitted to all of Adam's descendants
along with human nature.
It must likewise be remembered that by the instigation of Satan,
Adam and Eve broke the divine command and thus were deprived of
sanctifying grace, the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, in­
tegrity, and immortality. As a consequence, their intellects were dark­
ened and their wills weakened, for the harmony which existed between
body and soul disappeared, as did the ability to avoid evil and to do
good.
Note also that Adam’s sin was not only personal, but original, so
that it could really be called a sin of nature, because original justice
was not given to him as to a singular person, but as to the principle
and head of humanity. Therefore, as original grace was to be trans­
mitted according to its divine institution to human nature, by genera­

9*

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

tion through Adam, so the privation of this grace is now transmitted
through Adam’s sin, by human generation, constituting all as sinners,
children of wrath, enemies of God, subjects of death, and other sor­
rows of life.
It is fitting, finally, to remember that although the Church always
defends the existence of original sin and its transmission to all of
Adam's descendants, she has not defined in what the formal reason
of the sin consists. Nevertheless, she places the privation of sanctify­
ing grace among the essential effects of this sin, as Lc Bachelet asserts,
while referring to the acts of the Council of Trent.4 In the Vatican
Council a plan was proposed to anathematize the heretical doctrine of
those who would dare to say that original sin is not really and properly
a sin in the descendants of Adam, because the descendants themselves
had not sinned by their actual consent; and also those who deny that
the privation of sanctifying grace belongs to the essence of original
sin, grace which Adam lost for himself and for his descendants by
sinning freely. It is the opinion of St. Thomas and of most theolo­
gians that original sin consists formally in the privation of sanctifying
grace, caused by Adam’s sin, by which he voluntarily deprived himself
and his children of holiness and justice.
From what has been said, we conclude that it is a universal law
that all of Adam’s descendants, by way of natural generation, are sub­
ject to original sin, and as the Blessed Virgin is among those who
descended from Adam in this way, the question arises whether Mary'
contracted original sin or whether an exception to this universal law
was made for the Mother of God, so that from the first moment of
her conception she was exempt from the stain of original sin.
For a better understanding of this question we may consider the
words with which Pope Pius IX, solemnly defined the dogma of the
immaculate conception of Mary: “That the doctrine which holds that
the most Blessed Virgin Mary', in the first instant of her conception,
by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view
of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was pre­
served free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by
God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faith­
ful.’’ 6
Conception is twofold: active on the part of the parents, and pas­
sive on the part of the offspring. The first is the parental act of gen-

9*

mary’s freedom from sin

cration. Immunity by the Blessed Virgin Mary cannot be admitted
with reference to this active conception, because although her con­
ception was holy, she was capable materially of propagating original
sin.
Passive conception is the effect of active conception and is divided
into inchoate and perfect conception. Inchoate conception, as under­
stood by the ancients, comprises the whole process of formation, the
development and organization of the material, until it is sufficiently
disposed to receive a rational soul.
Perfect passive conception occurs when the rational soul is created
and infused into the body. As we are not now treating of inchoate
passive conception but of perfect passive conception, when it is said
of Mary that she was preserved immune of all stain of original sin
from the first moment of her conception, we mean the very moment
in which she began to exist as a human being, that is, as a substance
composed of body and soul. So, we must believe that God, at one
and the same moment, created Mary, infused her soul into her body,
and sanctified her soul; although by a priority of nature, the creation
of her soul was first, then its infusion into her body, and both the
creation and infusion preceded her sanctification, because by nature,
existence comes before adornment with grace. Therefore, the question
as to when the rational soul begins to animate the body can still be
freely argued, since the question is concerned with first instant of
animation, whenever it occurs.
Mary obtained this privilege of her purest conception in view of the
merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race; therefore, she
cannot be excluded from those who needed the merits of Christ and
were redeemed by Him. In order to understand this, we distinguish
two kinds of redemption; reparative, by which one is freed from the
sin into which he fell, and preservative, which prevents the redeemed
beforehand from the sin into which he would otherwise have fallen.
When the Bull states that Mary was preserved from all stain of
original sin, it is easily understood that her redemption, made in view
of the merits of Christ, was not reparative for sin already existing, as
in the other children of Adam, but preservative of imminent sin which
should have been contracted by the natural generation of Adam and
which in reality she would have contracted had she not been pre­
served in view of Christ’s merits.
9?

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

The Bull Ineffabilis states that Mary was preserved from all stain
of original sin. This formula, considered in itself, can indicate some­
thing more than simply being exempt from original sin, because con­
cupiscence is also a stain of that sin, or the result of it. But although
it is certain that Mary was also free from concupiscence, it cannot be
asserted that the Pope wished to define it, since the formula "all stain
of original sin" means "all stain which is original sin.” This is what
was defined by the Pope, and nothing else.
As preservation from original sin is attained through sanctifying
grace, to maintain that Mary was free from original sin from the first
moment of her conception is the same as saying that in that very
moment she was adorned with sanctifying grace. And as grace removes
the stain of sin, Mary’s preservation from the stain of original sin in
the first instant of her conception, is called her immaculate concep­
tion.
Finally, we must consider the fact that the object of the papal defi­
nition is not only the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but
that this doctrine has been divinely revealed. Thus is excluded the
opinion of those who would like to admit the truth of the Immaculate
Conception, but only as a theological conclusion. For although this
dogma is formally contained in revelation, it does not follow that it
must have been proposed in Scripture or in apostolic preaching ex­
plicitly. In fact, if one did not admit that the doctrine of which we
treat was only implicitly revealed and in the same way preached by
the Church for many centuries, the history of this dogma would be
completely inexplicable.
Errors. We will disregard for the time being those who contradicted
or doubted the Immaculate Conception prior to the Bull Ineffabilis
and mention those who were hostile to the dogmatic definition. Cer­
tain bishops in Holland, imbued with a Jansenist spirit (Van Sautcm,
Van Buul, and Heikamp), were among these. In Germany, at the
Council of Bonn, convoked in September, 1874, to re-establish the
union of churches, Dollinger proposed that the new Roman doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception be rejected as being contrary to tradi­
tion from the first thirteen centuries, according to which tradition
Christ alone was conceived without sin. The English Protestants
Wilberforce and Liddons, rejected Mary’s immaculate conception
as a new dogma and Pusey maintained that the papal definition was a
94

mary's freedom from sin

new cause for disagreement between the Roman and Greek Church,
and even between the ancient and modem Roman Church.
Many Gteco-Russians, such as Lebedev, deviating from ancient
Byzantine tradition, maintained that Mary was conceived in original
sin and was subject to concupiscence, but that she was sanctified at
the moment of the Incarnation and also in her conception through
the faith of her parents and by a certain extrinsic benevolence of God,
which neither removed original sin nor put any grace into her soul.
They said, finally, that Mary was totally cleansed from original sin
only at the foot of the Cross. This opinion had a great influence in the
Russian Church and was the reason why the Holy Synod directed that
the question of the Immaculate Conception be inscribed among the
theses of polemic theology.0 As a result, in the answer of the schis­
matic church to Pope Leo XIII, Antimus VII accused the Catholic
Church of bringing forth a new dogma which was contradicted for­
cibly by great theologians of the papacy and ignored by the ancients.
More recently, S. Bulgakov, professor at the Russian Academy of Paris,
denied Mary’s immaculate conception as opposed to the principles of
Russian theology on grace, original sin, the creation of the soul, and
its redemption by Christ.’ Finally, Rosmini falsely explains Mary’s
immaculate conception by tracing her origin from an incorrupt parti­
cle of the seed of Adam, forgotten perhaps by the devil and transmit
ted from generation to generation, to attain its complete development
in the Blessed Virgin.
thesis: From the first moment of her conception, Mary was pre
served from all stain of original sin.
Magisterium of the Popes. In the famous Bull Ineffabilis Deus,
Pope Pius IX solemnly defined the dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception of the Blessed Virgin with these words:

For the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and
adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the
Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by
the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the blessed Apostles Peter
and Paul, and by Our own: We declare, pronounce, and define that
the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the
first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted
by almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of
95

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a
doctrine rescaled by God and therefore to be believed firmly and con­
stantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God
forbidl—to think otherwise than as has been defined by Us, let him
know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that
he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has defected from the
unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he in­
curs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in
words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks
in his heart.
Among the other popes who previously energetically and devoutly
defended Mary’s immaculate conception, was Pope Sixtus IV, who
condemned as heretics those who believed and even dared to preach
that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin.8
The Council of Trent confirmed the constitutions of Pope Sixtus
IV, and at the end of Session V added: “This holy Council declares,
however, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, which
deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy
memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those
constitutions, which it renews.” B
Pope Alexander VII says: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin
Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful
based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation
and in the first instant of her soul's infusion into the body, was, by a
special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus
Christ, her Son and Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from
all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever
solemnized and celebrated the feast of the Conception.” 10
Sacred Scripture: The Old Testament. After Adam ate of the for­
bidden fruit in the garden of paradise, breaking God’s law, the Lord
spoke to the serpent (Gen. 3:15) : “I will put enmities between thee
and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; and thou shalt wait for
her heel.” This text has been called the Proto-evangelium, as it con­
tains the promise of a future Redeemer. Rejecting all mythical and
allegorical interpretation, we must retain from this text a literal his­
torical sense because Scripture attests tire historical temper of the
narration: "From tire woman came the beginning of sin, and by her

96

Mary’s freedom

from sin

we all die" (Ecclus. 25:33); an^· "The serPent seduced Eve by his
guile” (II Cor. 11:3)· We add here the answer of the Biblical Com­
mission of June 30, 1909, which declares that one cannot doubt the
literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis when they
treat of narrations which touch on the fundamentals of the Chris­
tian religion, which are, among other things, the original happiness
of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality;
the precept imposed by God on man to test his obedience; the
transgression of the divine command by the instigation of the devil
in the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the primi­
tive state of innocence, and the promise of the future Redeemer."
Catholic exegetes give two interpretations to the texts of Genesis
(3:15). Cornelius a Lapide, and among the moderns, Corluy, Hummelauer and Mangenot, hold that in the Proto-evangelium, in the
literal and direct sense, the woman refers to Eve; of thy seed and her
seed signifies the children of Eve, or the human race, either in its
totality or only in the just who have to fight courageously against the
serpent and his seed and, through the grace of Christ, to triumph
over the devil and his followers. Since all the just are carnal descend­
ants of Eve, by the victory of her good descendants she is opposed as
an enemy of the devil and his followers. By the serpent is meant a
material serpent, but as an instrument of the devil concealed in it;
by the seed or lineage of the serpent is meant, not only all the devils,
but also evil men who, following Satan, become his voluntary disci­
ples. Now, as Eve was a type of Mary, just as Adam, in some sense,
was a type of Christ, it follows that the verse of Genesis (3:15) must
be understood typically and spiritually of Christ and of Mary. Cam­
pana is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence for this inter­
pretation.
The second interpretation, very prevalent among exegetes and the­
ologians, points out that in Genesis (3:15) the serpent means the
devil, who was used as an instrument to speak to Eve. By the seed of
the serpent is understood not only the army of angels that Satan
dragged down with him in his fall, but also sinners and even sin
itself, which was caused by the devil through the medium of a ser­
pent. Finally, by the seed of the woman is meant Christ, the Re­
deemer of the human race, and His Blessed Mother, who are at
enmity with the devil and who triumphed over him.
97

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Now by the seipcnt is understood the devil who, hidden in Eve
seduced her, and this is shown in three ways: God speaks to the ser­
pent who tempted Eve; but as it is absurd to suppose that a mere
natural serpent could deceive her, he had to be a spiritual substance,
and evil: so it is the devil. In the Book of Wisdom (2:24) we read:
“But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world”; in the
Apocalypse (12:9): “And that great dragon was cast down, the an­
cient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray
the whole world”; and in another chapter of the same book (20:2):
"And he laid hold on the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil
and Satan.”
Punishment supposes sin, and sin is proper to rational beings. The
serpent, being an animal, could neither sin nor be punished for sin;
so the punishment is fulminated against the devil, who used the ser­
pent as a visible instrument.12
As the devil is the serpent to whom God speaks, it is clear that the
seed of the serpent is the seed of the devil. Now seed, among the
Hebrews, means descendants or children; but as the devil begot no
children, his seed would have to be someone else, that is, sinners, who
are begotten by the devil and made his children through sin. rhe
father from whom you are is the devil, and the desires of your father
it is your will to do” (John 8:44). It can also be said that the seed of
the devil is sin itself, which entered the world through his seduction.
Many sins originate in concupiscence and concupiscence proceeds
from the devil, since his deceit caused original sin. Billot13 says that
only by reason of sin is man the seed of the devil; and when the sin
is erased, man is immediately set aside from wicked seed.
By the seed of the woman is meant Christ, the Redeemer of the
human race, who, having no part in the devil and possessing complete
victory over him, was to destroy his work of sin. The seed of the
woman is not the aggregation of all future men, since although the
word seed is taken collectively in Scripture most of the time, it un­
doubtedly refers to one person (Gen. 4:25; Kings 1:11). On the con­
trary, if it is understood of Christ, it follows that He is rightly called
the seed of woman and not of man, for He was to be born of a VirginMother, without the agency of man, but only by the operation of the
Holy Spirit. We find it in Isaias (7:14): “Behold a virgin shall con­
98

mary’s freedom from sin

ceive, and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel";
Galatians (4:4): "God sent His Son, bom of a woman"; Genesis
(3:15) promises a victory in which the head of the serpent would
be crushed and the human race, which had fallen through this sin,
would be restored. This victory was to be won by Christ.
It is logical to infer that the woman designated in the verse of
Genesis (3:15) is not Eve, but the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is called
the woman by antonomasia. It is not Eve because, far from holding a
particular enmity with the devil, she was converted as his servant in
sin. Nor is it the whole female sex, because it treats of a woman who,
together with her seed, Christ, holds a unique enmity against the
devil. The woman, therefore, is the Mother of Christ, since it speaks
of a woman whose seed would conquer the devil, having the most
triumphant victories over him. And so St. Ephrem praises Mary as the
one who crushed the head of the dragon and flung it into hell.
What is mean by the enmity placed by God between the serpent
and the woman and between her seed and his seed? These enmities
pertain to the moral order and suppose a state of combat, discord, op­
position and aversion, in which there is no partnership between the
woman and the devil or between the offspring of either, since partner­
ship with the devil came about by sin, as found in the First Epistle
of St. John (3:8) : “He who commits sin is of the devil." From this
it is easy to deduce the meaning of the words, “she shall crush thy
head and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel,” for enmities placed by
God are to crush the head of the serpent, that is, the devil, for he is
the cause of original sin, the head and principle of all sins.
Nor is there any difficulty in reading ipsum or ipse, as in the
Hebrew text and in some ancient versions, or ipsa, as in the Latin
Vulgate, which is preserved in the critical edition, edited by the com­
mand of Pope Pius XI in the year 1926. The woman cannot crush the
head of the serpent by her own power, but only by that of Christ her
Son. Hence, if one reads ipsa, the meaning will be: the woman,
through her offspring, that is, her Son, will crush the head of the
infernal serpent. And if one reads ipse vel ipsum, it is Christ who,
with His Mother, will crush the head of the serpent. Cornelius a
Lapide proposes the two as antagonists: the woman and her descend­
ants and the serpent with its. Consequently, the woman and her de-

99

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

sccndants arc to crush the head of the serpent. And so Mary is
intimately and indissolubly united with her Son in the work of human
redemption.
After these explanations, it can be argued in this way: The enmity
that was to exist between Mary and her offspring and the devil and
his is announced in Genesis 3:15. Therefore, Mary had to be free
from original sin because enmity supposes war, aversion and opposi­
tion, rather than friendship with the devil in sin. But if Mary had been
stained by original sin for even a moment, she would have been an
associate of the devil’s at least temporarily or, as St. Augustine says,
of his family or offspring. The enmity of Mary against the devil and
his offspring is the same as that of Christ, as Pope Pius IX says in his
Bull. Therefore, if the enmity between Christ and the devil is absolute
and perpetual, that of the Virgin also had to be complete and per­
petual, which certainly would not be if her soul had been contam­
inated by original sin. The enmity supposes something unique and
proper to the woman prefigured. And on this assumption, nothing
could be thought singular and proper to such a woman, had she not
been free from all sin, including original sin. Freedom from actual sin
alone is not unique, but common to all those who die before they
reach the age of reason; liberation from original sin was granted to
some in their mother’s womb, as in the cases of St. John the Baptist,
Jeremias, and perhaps many others; and finally, all the just have be­
come tree from this sin after birth by remedium naturae (circumci­
sion) or by baptism, depending on the times. Hence, Mary’s privilege,
to be unique, would have to exist from the first moment of her con­
ception.
God placed an enmity between the woman and the devil and the
descendants of both, so that the woman, through her Son (ipsa per
ipsum), would crush the head of the devil and have complete victory
over him. But this could not have been, had Mary been subject to sin
for even an instant.
Finally, the divine will of restoring the human race is manifested in
Genesis 3:15 in a way similar to the way in which its destruction oc­
curred. Therefore Janssens says that as Eve cooperated in the destruc­
tion of her race, although it was through Adam’s sin that it was lost
by the same token, although it was the Son of the woman who was
to crush the head of the serpent, nevertheless, the woman is not
100

mary’s freedom from sin

separate from Him, but is with Him in this undertaking. So Christ
and Mary were to repair what Adam and Eve lost by their deception
by the devil. This could not be done if she had not been free from all
stain of sin; so it was necessary that this co-redemptress be truly
redeemed.
It is said of the Proto-evangclium in the Bull Ineffabilis: "These
ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning
of the world God announced His merciful remedies prepared for the
regeneration of mankind—words by which He crushed the audacity
of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race,
saying, 'I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between
thy seed and her seed'—taught that by this divine prophecy the merci­
ful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, was clearly foretold; that His most blessed Mother, the Virgin
Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very
enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed.”
Moreover, many passages in the Old Testament are applied to
Mary’s immaculate conception, principally, the words of the Canticle
(4:7) : “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,”
which Richard of St. Victor explains by saying that she who possesses
all grace is all beautiful, for there was no sin in her, and which Ger­
son also emphasizes by saying that Mary was all beautiful and free
from the noxious tyrant, original sin.
The New Testament. In the Gospel of St. Luke ( x .-28) the angel
greets Mary in this way: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
thee. Blessed art thou among women”; to which Elizabeth added:
"Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
The words used by the angel cannot be understood as the grace of the
divine maternity, since they were spoken before Mary conceived the
Word in her womb, but they showed the grace which was Mary's be­
fore Christ’s conception; grace given to her so that she might be a
worthy habitation for the Son of God. This grace cannot be a mere
favor or extrinsic benevolence on the part of God, as the Protestants
think, whose doctrine is that justification is worked by an extrinsic
favor of God, without the inherent form of grace, and therefore they
translate “full of grace” as beautiful, gracious, loved, or highly favored,
but it concerns a fullness of grace gratum facientis, which not only
signifies extrinsic love but also an intrinsic and supernatural love which

101

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

is bestowed on man through the goodness of God, making him pleas­
ing and acceptable in His sight. Thus, we read in Psalm 83:12: "The
Lord grants grace and glory”; in the Epistle to the Ephesians (4:7):
“But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of
Christ's bestowal"; in the Epistle to Timothy (4:14) : “Do not neglect
the grace that is in thee”; and in St. Luke (1:30): “For thou hast
found grace with God.”
The angelic salutation contains these three eulogies chiefly: Mary
is greeted as full of grace, she is intimately united to the Lord, and
she is blessed among women. None of these three things arc con­
nected with original sin, and therefore it must be excluded from Mary.
To Mary is attributed a plenitude of grace without limitation or im­
perfection. If then, Mary were to be in need of grace for even a
moment, she could not be called full of grace. Mary is called full of
grace, not with an absolute fullness, which St. John attributes to
Christ in his Gospel (1:14): “And the Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us. And we saw His glory—glory as of the Only-begotten
of the Father—full of grace and of truth,” but with a singular relative
plenitude, as befits the dignity of the Mother of God. By being free
from original sin from the first moment of her conception, Mary
could best be worthy of her dignity as the Mother of God. The Vir­
gin whom the angel salutes is the same woman promised by God in
the Proto-evangclium who, being at enmity with the devil, was to
crush the head of the serpent. Therefore, the fullness of grace predi­
cated of Mary, had to be such that she could retain her perpetual
enmity’ against the devil. “The Lord is with thee,” shows that Maty
was closely united to God from the first instant of her creation, be­
cause the angel did not say “will be” or “was with thee,” but simply,
“the Lord is with thee.” These words would not have been true had
Mary been conceived in sin. The words “blessed art thou” place
Mary above all women. This comparison to others is made in order
to show the singular blessing of Mary’s divine maternity. Mary is
acclaimed blessed, not only with the blessing of fecundity of such a
sublime Son, but also with the blessing opposed to the common
curse of original sin, since original sin is the fountain and origin of all
evil which befalls the human race.
This sense of the salutation is explained in the Bull Ineffabilis:
“This singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, shows that
the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with
102

mary’s freedom from sin

all gifts of the Holy Ghost. To them Mary is an almost infinite
treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that
she was never subject to the curse and is, with her Son, the only par­
taker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Eliza­
beth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: ‘Blessed art thou among
women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb’ ” (Luke 142).
The Fathers, Doctors and Theologians. There are three epochs in
the tradition concerning the Immaculate Conception.
a) During the first four centuries this doctrine is implicitly con­
tained in the notion of Mary as the new Eve, in the general doctrine
of her absolute purity, holiness and divine maternity. As there was
no controversy concerning the doctrine of original sin at that time,
the Fathers did not have to assert the Immaculate Conception either
directly or explicitly.
The comparison of Mary with Eve. The Apostle (I Cor. 15:45)
presents Christ as the new Adam. “For just as by the disobedience of
the one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedi­
ence of the one the many will be constituted just” (Rom. 5:19); “for
since by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection of the
dead” (I Cor. 15:21 ). The Fathers completed the Pauline parallelism
between Adam and Christ by making Eve the antithesis of the Blessed
Virgin Mary. And so, the place occupied by Eve in the downfall of
the human race is occupied by Mary at the side of Christ in the work
of redemption.
The first to call Mary explicitly the new Eve is St. Justin, who says:

He became man, being bom of the Virgin, so that the disobedience
caused by the serpent might be brought to an end in the same way
that it was started. For Eve, till then an incorrupt virgin, conceived
the word spoken by the serpent, and gave birth to disobedience and
death; but the Virgin Mary, being filled with faith and joy (when the
angel brought the good news to her, telling her that the Spirit of the
Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would
overshadow her, and that therefore the Holy One that was to be bom
of her was the Son of God), answered, "Be it done to me according
to thy word.”14

St. Irenaeus writes:
Eve was disobedient while she was still a virgin. She. having Adam
as her husband, but herself still a virgin ... was disobedient, and
103

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

so brought death upon herself and upon the whole human race. Simi­
larly, Mary, bearing the predestined man, yet being still a virgin, was
obedient, and so became the cause of salvation both for herself and for
the whole human race. . . . Eve was seduced by the angel's speech
and fled from God, disobeying His word. To Mary the good news was
announced by the angel, and she bore God within her, obeying His
word. Though the one disobeyed God, the other was drawn to obey
Him, and thus the Virgin Mary became the virgin Eve’s advocate. And
just as the human race was bound down to death by a virgin, so it was
released by a virgin, and a virgin's disobedience was counterbalanced
by a virgin’s obedience.16

And Tertullian maintains:
God won back His image and likeness, which the devil had seized,
by an action that rivalled the devil's. The word which established death
found its way into Eve, while she was still a virgin. Similarly, the Word
of God which established and built up life entered also into a virgin.
And this was done so that what the female sex had sent to destruction,
should be brought back to salvation by the same sex. Eve believed the
serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. The fault which the one committed
by her belief, the other by her belief blotted out.16

St. Ephrem made use of this comparison, saying: "Those two in­
nocent ones, those two simple women, Mary and Eve, had been in­
deed created quite equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our
death, the other of our life.” 17
St. Epiphanius: “So far as the body is concerned, Eve was certainly
the mother of every man on earth, but from Mary the life itself was
bom in the world, so that she could bear living things and become
their mother. And so, curiously she is called ‘Mother of the living.’
. . . But there is another marvel about these two, which must be
considered: Eve became the cause of man’s death . . . but Mary the
cause of his life" (Huer., 78).
It must be noted that the parallelism described by the Fathers be­
tween Eve and Mary has a double relationship of similarity and
opposition; of similarity, because Eve left the hands of God innocent
and immaculate, and so Mary, compared to Eve in innocence and
purity, did not suffer contagion of any sin; of opposition, because the
disobedient Eve who introduced original sin into the world is opposed
to Mary who, associated with Christ in the redemption, brought sal­
104

mary’s

freedom

from sin

vation to the world. Now, this opposition of Mary’s with Eve with
regard to the fall and her partnership with her Son in the work of
reparation show that although Mary was born of the sinful race, she
was placed outside of the order of the first fall, and was therefore
conceived immaculate. It is not strange that Cardinal Newman, a
remarkable defender of the Marian prerogatives, believed that solely
through Patristic antiquity he could refute all the accusations against
the development of the doctrine on the Blessed Virgin. And he did
not hesitate to assert that the Immaculate Conception is taught im­
plicitly in the doctrine on Mary as the new Eve.18
The perfect purity and holiness of Mary. The Holy Fathers cele­
brate this with the highest praises. St. Hippolytus compares Mary to
an indestructible ark: “The ark which was made of indestructible
timber, was the Redeemer Himself. The ark symbolized His tent
(body), which was impervious to decay and engendered no sinful
corruption. . . . The Lord was sinless because, according to His
humanity, He was fashioned from indestructible wood, that is, out of
the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, lined within and without with the
purest gold of the Logos." ” St. Gregory Thaumaturge says that the
Word, finding a virgin holy in soul and body, took flesh from her, as
befitted his purpose (In Nativ. Christi).
The priests and deacons of Achaia, who wrote an epistle concern­
ing the martyrdom of St. Andrew, are quoted as a most ancient testi­
mony in support of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The
epistle states: "Because the first man (Adam) was created of undefiled
earth (that is, earth which had not yet been cursed), ... it was
necessary that out of an immaculate Virgin there should be bom the
perfect man, the Son of God." Some hold this epistle as genuine and
others hold it as false, but whatever the supposition, it is a monument
of venerable antiquity since the original Greek text goes back to the
third century.
St. Ephrem, who in maintaining the innocence and purity of Mary
is not inferior to any of the Greek or Latin Fathers, addresses her divine
Son: "Really and truly, Thou and Thy Mother are alone entirely beau­
tiful. Neither in Thee nor in Thy Mother is there any stain” (Carmina
nisibena). And in another passage he calls her an immaculate, un­
stained, incorrupt, all-pure and stainless Virgin, Spouse of Cod and
our Lady, who conceived and gave birth to the Cod-man, thus recon-

105

■

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

citing man with the Word of God (Ad Ss. Dei Genitr.). As a sinner
St. Ambrose beseeches Christ to receive him, the fallen flesh of
Adam, not through Sara, but through Mary, who is an incorrupt
virgin, a virgin through grace, cleansed from all stain of sin (Ennar.
in Ps. 118).
As seen in these expressions of the Fathers, Mary is called incor­
rupt, holy in body and soul, immaculate, fair, sinless, inviolate, chaste,
and free from all taint of sin. These arc praises which, taken in a more
obvious sense, exclude all sin in Mary; and not only actual sin, but
also original sin. Therefore, they implicitly contain the doctrine of
her immaculate conception.
The divine maternity. The Fathers teach that Mary attained to such
a degree of sanctity and purity that she merited to become the Mother
of God. Tirus, St. Ambrose says that with reason she alone is called
full of grace, for she alone gained the grace no one else had merited
—that of being filled with the Author of grace (Exp. in Luc., 3). St.
Jerome presents Mary as a model, whose purity was such that she
merited being the Mother of the Lord (Ep. 22 ad Eustochium); a
purity which is worthy of such great honor that it carries with it free­
dom from all stain.
b) The second epoch of tradition concerning the Immaculate Con­
ception extends from the fifth to the fifteenth century. The Eastern
and Western Churches did not agree in explaining and defending
Mary’s privilege.
The Greek Fathers speak of the immaculate conception of the
Virgin more clearly and explicitly, even celebrating her remarkable
sanctity and freedom from all sin with greater praises. The Nestorian
heresy, which openly denied the divine maternity of the Blessed Vir­
gin and diminished her singular prerogatives, spread throughout the
Orient in the fifth century. Courageously opposing this heresy was
St. Cyril of Alexandria, who refuted Nestorius and victoriously de­
fended Mary’s divine maternity. Following in his footsteps were many
other Fathers and writers who were eager to defend and clarify the
excellence of the divine maternity. And so it happened that in con­
formity with the order of divine providence, the accursed efforts of
Nestorius afforded the Fathers an occasion of explaining Mary’s
eminent prerogatives more fully.
In the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria (In Cone. Ephes.)
106

mary’s freedom from sin

speaks thus: "Whoever heard of an architect who built himself a
temple and yielded up the first possession of it to his greatest enemy?”
Thcodotus of Ancyra, a friend of St. Cyril’s says: "Instead of the
virgin Eve, who was unto us the instrument of death, God, for the
purpose of giving life, chose a virgin most pleasing to Himself and full
of grace, who, included in woman’s sex, was free from woman’s sin,
a virgin innocent, without taint, holy in soul and body, as a lily bud­
ding in the midst of thorns.’’20 In his oration (In Mariam Deiparam),
Chrysippus of Jerusalem addresses himself to the Blessed Virgin, tell­
ing her that in all truth she is full of grace, for the King is with His
servant, the most beautiful among women. She is hailed as the foun­
tain of light which illumines all men, aurora of the sun which knows
no setting, abode of life, garden of the Father and pasture of all fra­
grance of the Holy Spirit. Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, stated
that Mary was formed from clean clay; and later, that Mary, the
sphere of the new and heavenly creation, in which the sun of justice
never sets, drove from all souls the darkness of sin (Or. 6, In S. Dei
Genitrix).
In the sixth century Theophanes and Anastasius Sinaita both refer
to Mary’s purity; the latter saying that the Mother of God carried
with her the complete and intact image of her Son.
In the seventh century, Sophronius of Jerusalem speaks of Mary’s
excellence as surpassing all creatures in purity. He acclaims her full
of grace, for upon no one else was such a fullness of grace bestowed.
No one else was adorned with sanctity as was she. In the Synodical
Epistle to Sergius, approved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, So­
phronius calls Mary holy, pure in soul and body, and completely free
from all contagion. St. Andrew of Crete and St. John, Archbishop of
Thessalonica, are high in their praises of the immaculate Mother who
found grace with God and is worthy of praise.
In the eighth century St. Germanus of Constantinople, addressing
himself to Mary, calls her full of grace, holier than the saints, more
excellent than the heavens, more glorious than the cherubim, more
honorable than the seraphim and more worthy than all creatures.
He calls her palace of God, piously fashioned, most pure, most
worthy of all praise, treasure dedicated to God, who excels all crea­
tures; undivided earth, unploughed field, blossomed vine, inexhausti­
ble fountain, virgin and mother who knows not man. hidden treasure

107

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

of innocence, and splendor of all sanctity, lie continues his praises
referring to her as the new propitiatory (In Praesent. Deiparae).
Several orations by St. John Damascene refer to Mary as the garden
of paradise in which the ancient serpent gains no entrance. It is here
from the virginal earth that the only-begotten Son, consubstantial
with the Father, was made man; here that God sent the cherubim
to keep her safe from the snares of the seductive serpent.21 In a homily
on the nativity of the Blessed Virgin, he explains that nature yielded
to grace when St. Anne received her fruit after having been sterile.
St. Euthymius, patriarch of Constantinople, doubting nothing con­
cerning the most pure conception of the Virgin, affirms the miracu­
lous purification of her parents. John the Geometer’s hymn to Mary
follows this same theme.
Nicetas David says that Mary made flow through the whole earth
a river of fragrance, and that we honor her, not only because she was
bom according to the flesh of a sterile mother, but mostly because she
was bom through supernatural grace with regard to her soul (In diem
natalem S. Mariae).
Tire Byzantine schism, which Photius began, was completed by
Michael Cerularius in the year 1054, but the Oriental Church did not
abandon the ancient faith in the immaculate conception of the
Blessed Virgin, and the schismatic writers transmitted it with all
clarity. There are many examples of this faith. Wc will mention some
who, regardless of the schism, show the continuity of this tradition.
Besides Michael Pscllo, a contemporary and friend of Gcrularius,
Mauropas, James the Monk, Michael Glykas, and others who openly
declared their belief in Mary’s immaculate conception, remarkable
testimonies of the Marian privilege arc given by Theophylactus, Arch­
bishop of Bulgaria (In Praesent. B. Mariae), maintaining that Mary
was sanctified in the maternal womb. Commenting on Luke 1:28,
he says that because God told Eve that she would bear her children
in sorrow, Mary’s sorrow was turned into joy when the angel said:
“Hail, full of grace.” And because Eve was accursed, Mary was called
blessed (Enerr. in Lucam). Nicholas Cabasilas, who excelled among
the theologians of his time, says of Mary that because nature could
not contribute anything to her generation, it was fitting that God
Himself, whom Joachim and Anne invoked, should accomplish the
work, should create her, so to speak, blessed as the first man. He also
108

mary’s freedom from sin

says that the Virgin is truly immaculate and was bom just as are all
others on earth, of the same race that had ignored her state. And
she alone of all men who ever existed, rose above all evil to give back
to God the beauty He first gave us (Serm. in Nativ. Deipar.).
Manuel II Paleologus, a most learned emperor, writes that at the
very moment that Mary was conceived, He who had chosen her to be
His future Mother filled her with His grace. Finally, George Escolarius, the last and the most notable of the schismatic theologians
of the Byzantine epoch, calls Mary the Mother of God by will and
by nature. He praises her as most pure in soul and body, most pleas­
ing of flowers, the root and principle of those predestined to salvation
(Or. in fest, ingressus B.V. Mariae in templum).
During the fifth century and following, the exposition of the doc­
trine of the Immaculate Conception in the Western Church followed
a slower course, but in the East, as we have said, the Nestorian heresy
gave the Fathers and writers an opportunity to work with more fervent
zeal in defense of the Blessed Virgin. In the West, on the contrary,
the Pelagian heresy greatly delayed and even hindered progress in the
belief in the Immaculate Conception.
The fundamental assertion of the Pelagian heresy is that the first
man, Adam, was created by God just as man is bom today, without
any gift or grace of sanctity and justice, without elevation to the
supernatural order. It follows that there is no original sin which is
transmitted to all of Adam’s descendants. It was natural that in op­
position to this doctrine the Fathers would strive to demonstrate the
existence of original sin and its transmission to all men. However,
they did not deny the privilege of Mary's exemption, so they probably
didn’t bother to study its basis, and at times they clearly affirmed it.
In this same century, St. Augustine, who gallantly opposed Pelagianism and defended the dogma of the propagation of original sin,
though he does not assert the immaculate conception of the Virgin
in express words, nevertheless asserts that some singular privilege with
regard to sin must be conceded to Mary. "Of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, for the honor of Christ, when we treat of sin, I do not wish
that she should be involved. For we know that a greater grace was
accorded her wholly to conquer sin, by the very fact that she merited
to conceive and bear Him of whom we certainly know that He had
no sin.” 22
109

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Although these words of St. Augustine could be limited to the
immunity of Mary with regards to actual sin alone, for even that
would be a special privilege, nevertheless, in the opinion of this holy
Doctor, it must be understood as exemption from original sin. St.
Augustine points out clearly that the immunity from actual sin pre­
supposes exemption from original sin.88 Hence, as St. Augustine denies
actual sin in Mary, he consequently denies original sin, as its cause.
Julian threw rude invectives against St. Augustine, for he accused
him of being more of an enemy of Mary’s through this doctrine on
the universality of original sin. As far as Julian was concerned, Augus­
tine was a greater heretic than Jovinian. He says to Augustine: "He
(Jovinian) makes Mary’s virginity come to an end owing to the con­
dition of parturition; you deliver Mary herself to the devil, owing to
the condition of birth.” To which St. Augustine replied: "We do
not deliver Mary to the devil owing to the condition of birth, because
this condition is broken by the grace of being bom again.”24 These
words of St. Augustine must be understood as preservative grace, by
which Mary, who should by right have been conceived in original
sin, was preserved pure and holy by the grace of God. If Augustines
opinion did not have this meaning, the Blessed Virgin would really
have been assigned to the devil through the condition of birth, but
this is exactly what Augustine is speaking against.
Nor is this opposed to what St. Augustine points out in another
passage, that Christ alone, by reason of His conception, was exempt
from original sin: "He alone was bom without sin, whom His virgin
mother conceived without the embrace of a husband, not by the con­
cupiscence of the flesh, but by the submission of her mind”;25 or the
passage that says that Mary’s flesh was that of sin, for although Christ’s
body was conceived of the flesh of a woman who was herself conceived
carnally, He was not conceived in that way.2® Christ’s flesh, not
originating from carnal commingling, since it was formed by the power
of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin, was exempt from sin,
through the exigence of His conception; but the Blessed Virgin, bom
of Joachim and Ann by carnal commingling, would contract the debt
of sin by virtue of sexual generation, and thus her carnal flesh, and
the soul united to it, would have had to contract sin.
Some of the Fathers after St. Augustine, anxious to defend the uni-

mary’s freedom from sin

venal propagation of original sin and its connection with human gen­
eration, make no mention of the privilege of Mary’s conception, but
there are some who were opposed to so high a privilege. Among
others, St. Leo says that Jesus Christ alone, among the sons of men,
was born innocent, because He alone was conceived without the stain
of carnal concupiscence. 27 Le Bachelet comments on St. Augustine’s
texts and shows how all sexual generation is subject to the law of
concupiscence; and that although Mary was conceived by Joachim
and Anne by carnal generation and was remotely subject to the debt
of original sin, she was preserved from original sin by a unique privi­
lege. He also refers to the controversy which arose at that time in re­
gard to Mary’s privilege.28 However, testimony in favor of Mary's
privilege is not lacking among the Fathers and writers at this time.
St. Peter Chrysologus says that the dignity of this Virgin was an­
nounced by name, because Mary, in the Hebrew tongue, is Lady in
Latin. She was blessed, for she was the only one among men worthy
of hearing the words: “Thou hast found grace," a plenitude of grace
(Scrm. 140 and 142).
Among others giving testimony of Mary’s privilege at this time are
the poets St. Maximus of Turin, Prudentius, and Sedulius. Sedulius
sings:
And, as the tender rose blooms amid sharp thorns,
Having nothing harmful, conceals its mother with its honor,
So likewise Mary, coming from the stem of Eve,
As the new virgin, might expiate the misdeed of the ancient virgin.2’

In the sixth century St. Fulgentius said that the seduced woman
deceived the first man and an inviolate Virgin conceived the second.
Venantius Fortunatus is representative of the poets of this century in
singing Mary’s praises.
The author of the twelve sermons on Mary, included among the
doubtful works of St. Ildephonse, says that Mary is that blessed soul
through whom the Author of life entered the world, through whom
the malediction of the first parents was destroyed, and the blessing
of heaven extended throughout the world (De Assumpt. S. Mariae).
In another passage (In Nativ. S. Dei Genitrix), he conveys the truth
of Mary’s distinct birth of sterile parents, which is not the usual thing,

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and of hcr freedom from all stain of carnal sin in soul and body. The
deacon Paul, most acceptable to the Emperor Charlemagne, praises
the work of divine mercy which repaired the fall of man .

As 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 Savior having compassion 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.80
Paschasius Radbcrtus deduced from Mary’s freedom from original
sin that her parturition was accomplished without corruption and
without pain (Liber de partu Virgin.). St. Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres,
says that in the first place, we must say that the soul and body which
God the Father chose as the habitation for His Wisdom, should be
free from all malice and all stain (De Nativ. B.M. Virg.). St. Peter
Damian says that although the Virgin’s flesh was taken from Adam s,
she contracted no stain, and this wc also read in the hymn for the

feast of the Annunciation (nd Nocturnum).
In explaining Psalm 150, St. Bruno states that the Lord gazed upon
the earth from heaven on coming into the womb of the Virgin from
His regal abode. Therefore, she is that incorrupt earth which the
Lord freely blessed from all contagion of sin, through whom we
comprehend the way and the life and receive the promised truth.
Yves of Chartres tells of Mary’s sanctification and her immunity
from all stain of sin both original and actual (De Nativ. Domini).
Rupert of Deutz draws a parallel between Eve who was seduced, and
Mary who crushed the head of the seducer (In Gen. 3:19). And
really, it is not enough that sin committed or contracted is erased
in the presence of so great a love, which he mentions as the reason
why she had no sin, but the force of this love had to prefer that sin
be neither committed nor contracted. In another passage he says of
the Virgin that she is as beautiful as the moon, for the moon shines
and illumines things, not by its own light, but by the reflected light
of the sun. Thus, she docs not possess light of herself, but shines
through divine grace, through a fullness of grace (In Cant., 6). Peter

mary’s freedom

from sin

Paschasius and Raymond Jorudain indicate by their explanations that
Mary could not have contracted the stain of sin.
Controversy of the Scholastics Concerning the Immaculate Con­
ception. The tradition of the Eastern Church and the Western
Church was not in agreement concerning Mary’s immaculate con­
ception. Among the Scholastics of the Latin Church in the twelfth
century there arose a heated controversy without which the truth
would not have been studied to such an extent. After St. Augustine
and some of the other Fathers, who though recognizing or at least
not denying this privilege of Mary, uttered phrases apparently op­
posed to the privilege, St. Anselm of Canterbury, regarded as the
Father of Scholastic theology, opened the way for controversy on this
subject. Although he expressed the principle of Mary’s supereminent
holiness by saying that it was fitting that the Virgin should be re­
splendent with a purity that could be surpassed by none but God's,81
he did not have a clear understanding of the privilege of the Immacu­
late Conception. He stated explicitly that Mary was to be included
among those who were cleansed of sin antecedent to the birth of
Christ.82
Peter Lombard's false opinion on original sin caused the controversy
to become even more confused. He held that original sin was nothing
more than concupiscence, which is not an act, but a vice, and that it
is transmitted to children by the flesh itself which, conceived in un­
ruly concupiscence, is stained and corrupted. Because of that corrup­
tion of the flesh, when the soul is infused it contracts the malice and
corruption of sin by contact with the flesh, just as an unclean vessel
changes wine into vinegar. This vice or corruption of the flesh cannot
be called sin if it is only considered as regards the flesh (though it
is the root and cause of original sin) because the flesh separated from
the soul is irrational, and no irrational substance can be the subject
of sin. The rational soul is not infused into the flesh at the very
moment of conception; it is first animated by the vegetative soul,
later by the sensitive soul, and finally, from forty to eighty days later,
God creates and infuses the rational soul into the body.88
Since the theologians at that time followed the teaching of Peter
Lombard, they inquired whether Mary’s flesh was stained by the con­
cupiscence of her parents or sanctified before its union with the ra-

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

tional soul, for it seemed to them that the question of the Immaculate
Conception depended on this previous sanctification of the flesh. Four
great theologians of the Franciscan and Dominican schools, who did
not seem to favor this Marian privilege, deserve to be considered:
Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert and St. Thomas
Aquinas.
Alexander of Hales, starting from the principle from which the
Immaculate Conception logically follows, namely, that all the good
that could be given her was given to her, treats only of the sanctifica­
tion of the flesh. In the first place, he asks whether the Blessed Virgin
was sanctified in her parents before her conception, and he answers
negatively, because although her parents could be saints, nevertheless,
generation is according to nature, which is corrupt; therefore, it is
necessary that the one conceived should contract (original) sin in
generation, and for this reason the Blessed Virgin could not be sancti­
fied in her parents; even more, it was necessary that in her generation
she should contract sin from her parents.
In the second place, he asks whether she could have been sanctified
in the conception itself, and he answers negatively because conception
has nothing to do with the will of those who beget, but has to do with
nature, which is actually corrupt. Although the union could have
been meritorious, conception could never be meritorious, and for this
reason no one could be sanctified in it.
Thirdly, he asks whether she could have been sanctified after con­
ception and before the infusion of the soul, and he also answers nega­
tively, because the body is ordained to glory only through union with
the soul, to which grace is ordained, but the body can never be sancti­
fied before the infusion of the soul.
Fourthly, he asks whether anyone could be sanctified in the womb
after the infusion of the soul. He answers affirmatively, and says that
Mary was sanctified in her mother’s womb in a way similar to John
the Baptist and Jeremias. He says that what was bestowed on any
other could not be denied so excellent a Virgin.34 We see from this
that Alexander of Hales did not even propose the question of whether
Mary’s soul, independently of her flesh, received grace at the very
instant she was created and united to her body. However, in his way
of speaking he denies the Immaculate Conception, and that is the
way in which his own disciples understood the question.
*4

mary’s freedom from sin

St. Bonaventure’s doctrine is similar, although it comes closer to
the question because he treats of Mary’s body and soul separately. In
the first place, he asks whether Mary’s flesh was sanctified before
animation, and he answers in the negative, not because God could
not sanctify her flesh before animating it, but because sanctification
is a gratuitous gift which has the soul as its subject and not the body.
Therefore, if her flesh had been sanctified it would have been effected
by the grace existing in her soul or in the souls of her parents. But
it could not have been accomplished by the grace existing in her soul
because that would involve a contradiction, since her soul would not
yet have been created. Neither could it be admitted that this was
accomplished through the grace bestowed on her parents, first, be­
cause sanctification cannot be transmitted from parent to offspring;
secondly, because even supposing that it were possible that sanctifica­
tion could be transmitted from parent to offspring, this could never
happen by means of a lustful union, because then two opposing things
would be in the same subject at the same time; thirdly, because if we
judge that there was sanctification and that, by divine power, there
was no sensuality, it can be said that this is the exclusive prerogative
of the Blessed Virgin, who alone conceived without sin and give birth
without pain. Hence, this privilege could not be bestowed on her
parents, but was reserved to her alone. Therefore, it must be conceded
that her flesh was not sanctified before animation.
In the second place, he asks whether the soul of the Blessed Virgin
was sanctified before contracting original sin, and he answers that to
understand this question it must be remembered that some have said
that in the soul of the Blessed Virgin, sanctifying grace came before
the stain of original sin because it was fitting that the soul of the
Virgin be sanctified in a most sublime manner over the rest of the
saints, not only in an abundance of holiness but also in priority of
time. Therefore, grace was infused at the moment of her creation, and
in that same moment her soul was infused into her body. Besides,
the effect of the sanctity of grace on the body prevailed over the effect
of sin in the soul, and for that reason she did not contract the guilt
of sin.
This opinion seems to rest on several congruencies: principally for
the honor of Christ, who should be bom of a most pure Mother; by
the singular prerogative of the Virgin, who should surpass the rest

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

of the saints in dignit)' of sanctification; and for the sake of a better
order, since there should be a person midway between Him who was
immune from original sin in body and soul and those who contracted
original sin under both aspects. Thus, St. Anselm says that the Blessed
Virgin was freed from original sin through grace which depended
upon and had its origin in the faith and in Christ as Head, but al­
though that grace prevented the contagion of the soul, it did not
prevent contagion of the flesh. With regard to this stain of the flesh,
the penalty of sin remained in the Blessed Virgin, since sanctifying
grace is not opposed to punishment, but to sin. Mary was subject to
punishment but freed by Christ from original sin in a way different
from the rest. The others were raised up after their fall; Mary was
sustained in the very act of falling.
Others argue that the Virgin’s sanctification followed immediately
on her contraction of original sin. Thus the Apostle says that all have
sinned and need the glory of God. This manner of speaking is more
common, reasonable and certain, according to St. Bonaventure. It is
more common because it is held by most theologians that she had orig­
inal sin, because of the penalties which she suffered and which could
not have been suffered for the redemption of others nor could they
have been voluntarily accepted, since they were contracted. It is more
reasonable, because being precedes grace in priority of time or of nature,
for St. Augustine says that first one must be born and then reborn.
Hence, as being comes before being good, the soul must first be united
to the body and then infused with God’s grace. Now if Mary’s flesh
was affected, the contagion would have to spread to her soul. It is
therefore necessary to maintain that the contagion of sin was previous
to the sanctification of her soul. It is, moreover, the most certain, as
it is more in keeping with faith, piety and the authority of the saints,
for when the saints generally treat of this subject, they exclude only
Christ from that universality by which it is said that all have sinned
in Adam. It agrees with piety and faith because if we arc to honor
the Mother with such great reverence and devotion, so much more
should we reverence the Son through whom she receives her honor
and glory. And therefore, “it concerns the eminent dignity of Christ
that He should be the Redeemer and Savior of all, and that He
opened to all the gate (of life) and that He alone died for all. We
must certainly not withdraw the Blessed Virgin Mary from the gen116

mary’s freedom

from sin

eral application (of this law) lest by augmenting the glory of the
Mother we diminish the glory of the Son and thereby provoke the
Mother, whose wish it is that her Son should be exalted above herself,
the Creator above the creature.” 35 Adhering, therefore, to this opin­
ion that the honor of Jesus Christ is not opposed to the honoring of
His Mother, we may assert, in accordance with common opinion,
that the Virgin’s sanctification was effected after contracting original
sin.
In the third place, St. Bonaventure asks whether the Blessed Virgin
was sanctified before her birth, and he answers that it must be asserted
that the Church holds as unquestionable that the Blessed Virgin was
sanctified in the womb, from the fact that it celebrates her nativity,
which it would not have done if she had not been sanctified. And
if one desires to know on what day and in what hour this happened,
it must be answered that it is not known, although it is believed pos­
sible that the infusion of grace followed the infusion of the soul
(Ibid.).
From all this, it follows that one can hardly doubt the mind of St.
Bonaventure with regard to Mary’s conception, since he openly de­
clares himself in favor of the common opinion of the time: that her
sanctification followed her contraction of original sin. However, the
merit of the Seraphic Doctor on this question is great, for he clearly
and piously expresses the reasons in favor of the Immaculate Con­
ception, and in justice it can be said that he set Scotus on the way
of truth in the matter.
Following in the footsteps of Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaven­
ture were the Franciscan theologians who at that time were inter­
preting the Master of the Sentences in Paris. John of la Rochelle,
proposing the question of whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified
before or after her conception, in it or after it and before the infusion
of her soul,38 answers in a way similar to Alexander of Hales. Richard
Middlevale, limiting himself to the question of whether Mary’s body
was sanctified before being animated, answers negatively of the body
and soul, for he says that by its union with the body, Mary’s soul
contracted original sin.37
St. Albert the Great openly confesses the eminent purity of tire
Blessed Virgin above every other creature. He states the fundamental
principle which St. Anselm formulated: "It was fitting that the Vir“7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

gin's purity should be such that none could be conceived more per
feet save only God's” and adds that therefore this purity is none
other than freedom from original sin, the extinction of concupiscence,
and the summit of gratuitous perfections. St. Albert says that Mary
reached the height of this purity in four steps: in the first, she was
sanctified in her mother’s womb; in the second, by the exercise of the
virtues; in the third, by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon her; and
in the fourth, by the conception of her Son.39
Therefore, although the principle of Mary’s great purity includes
her preservation from original sin and not only her purification, even
accomplished as quickly as possible in the maternal womb, St. Albert
did not sec her total exemption from original sin. Recalling the op
position between Mary and Eve as accepted by the early Fathers,
he points out that Mary, in opposition to Eve, did not suffer the
triple punishment which follows sin: that of pain, sin and ignorance.
But the absence of the triple punishment of sin, in the mind of St.
Albert, does not extend to exemption from original sin, from which
it is seen that St. Albert held for the relation between seminal con­
ception and original sin. Lastly, commenting on the Master of the
Sentences, St. Albert asserts on faith that after contracting original
sin, the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before birth in her mother's
womb after contracting sin, but that no one knows the day or the
hour, as it was not revealed, though it is more probable that grace
was given immediately after animation rather than after a longer pe­
riod of time.39
St. Thomas, like other theologians of the thirteenth century, ad­
mitted the principles which logically inferred Mary’s immaculate
conception, for in answering the argument by which is concluded that
God could not have created anything better than the Blessed Virgin
because, according to St. Anselm, it was fitting that the Virgin be
resplendent with a purity such that none could be conceived more
perfect save only God's, he says that it is possible to find some crea­
ture purer than all the rest, namely, one not contaminated by any
taint of sin, and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was
immune from original and actual sin. He teaches the same thing
in another place when he says that the increase of purity and the in­
crease of charity differ, since the first constituted a recession of its
contrary; and as the Virgin was cleansed from all sin, she attained
118

mary's freedom from sin

the summit of purity, although always below God, in whom there is
no potency; potency is a characteristic of creatures, while God is

Pure Act.40
St. Thomas also points out that the lofty purity of Mary was re­
quired by her divine maternity :

But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she
had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the
child, according to Prov. 17:6: “The glory of children are their
fathers”: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame
would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular
affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is
written (II Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?"
Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God,
who is the divine Wisdom, dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in
her womb. And it is written ( Wisd. 1 :q) : “Wisdom will not enter into
a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin com­
mitted no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written
(Cant. 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is
not a spot in thee." 41

Now the supreme purity of Mary, as befitting the dignity of the
Mother of God and as predicated by St. Thomas, must carry with it
the exemption from all stain of original and actual sin, as St. Robert
Bcllarmine points out.4-’ But a doubt arises as to whether St. Thomas
meant that the exemption from every stain of sin should be extended
to the first instant of Mary’s conception. Theologians are divided
into four different opinions on this question.
Tire first group assert that St. Thomas explicitly denied Mary’s im­
maculate conception. Tin’s opinion is defended by Giles, the master
of theology of the University of Salamanca, Peter of Tarantaise, Peter
of Palude, John of Naples, John of Pouilly, Gerard of Abbeville,
Capreolus, the Ferrariense, Cajetan, and other commentators up to
the sixteenth century. Later, Medina, Catharinus, Estius, and in our
own times Janssens, Lepicicr, Campana, Le Bachelet, Pesch, Sanda
and others interpret St. Thomas in this same sense. In favor of this
opinion, they cite the following passages in St. Thomas.
In the first place, those in which he refers to the universal law of
the transmission of original sin and the necessity of redemption for

119

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

all. Thus, St. Thomas says: ‘ According to the Catholic Faith wcmust
firmly believe that with the exception of Christ alone, all men de­
scended from Adam contract original sin; otherwise all would not
need redemption which is through Christ, which is erroneous."4’
In the Quaestiones quodlibetales (6, q. 5, a.7) he asks whether it is
lawful to celebrate the conception of our Lady. In an objection he
says that it seems lawful to celebrate the conception of our Lady, for
if it were not, it would be because she was conceived in original sin.
But it seems that she was not conceived in this sin because she was
created to be the abode of God in a special way; therefore, she had
to be specially prepared for this by immunity from original sin.
He answers by saying that everyone descended from Adam con­
tracts original sin as is explained by St. Augustine in his commentary
on Genesis. The Blessed Virgin was born through the commingling
of sexes, just like other human beings, and therefore she was con­
ceived in original sin and was included in the generality of those of
whom the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): "Because all have sinned.
From this universality, Christ alone is excepted, who was not in Adam
with regard to seminal power. But if this exemption were attributed
to anyone else, he would not need redemption. Hence, we cannot
attribute to the Mother anything that pertains to the honor of her
Son, the Savior of all men, as the Apostle says in the First Epistle
to Timothy (2:6).
Nevertheless, although the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original
sin, it is believed that she was sanctified in the maternal womb before
birth. For this reason there exist in the Church many different cus­
toms in the celebration of her conception. The Roman Church and
many others, considering that the Virgin was conceived in sin, do
not celebrate her feast. Others, taking into consideration her sancti­
fication in the womb, but ignoring the time, celebrate her conception,
since it is believed that she was sanctified immediately after her con­
ception and the infusion of her soul. For that reason, the feast does
not have to be referred to her conception as such, but rather to her
sanctification. And for the same reason, this conception does not have
to be celebrated as if it had taken place without original sin. He then
states that original sin would not be an obstacle to Mary’s having been
prepared more specially than the rest, since in sanctification she re­
ceived most abundant gifts of grace, not only to be cleansed from
120

mary’s freedom from sin

original sin, but that she might be free from all mortal and venial
sins all her life, as St. Anselm says.44
The time of Mary's sanctification, which St. Thomas discusses in
his Commentaries on the Sentences, is likewise treated in the Summa
theologiae, where he asks whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified
before animation.48

The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as hav­
ing taken place before animation for two reasons: first, because the
sanctification of which we arc speaking is nothing but the cleansing
from original sin. . . . Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace,
the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before
the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.
Secondly, because since the rational creature alone can be the sub­
ject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring con­
ceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed
Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never
have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have
needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is
written (Matt. 1:2): "He shall save His people from their sins.” And
this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the Savior of all
men, as He is called (I Tim. 4:10).

To the second objection he answers:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original
sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His
being the universal Savior of all. Consequently, after Christ, who, as
the universal Savior of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the
Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract
original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very conception,
according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be bom of thee,
shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed
contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from
the womb.
And in answer to the fourth objection, he says:

Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed
from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was
conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man
and woman; for Augustine says: (De Nup. et Concup. 1): “All flesh
born of carnal intercourse is sinful." *·
121

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Lastly, in the Exposition of the Angelic Salutation, St. Thomas
says that Christ surpassed the Blessed Virgin in excellence by having
been conceived and bom without original sin, but that the Virgin was
conceived, though not born, in that sin.
Notwithstanding, shortly aftenvards, establishing the excellency
of the Blessed Virgin over the angels in the plenitude of grace and
in divine intimacy, he adds that in the third place she surpasses the
angels in purity, because not only was she pure in herself, but she also
obtained purity for others. She was most pure with regard to sin,
because she incurred neither original nor mortal nor venial sin. And
the same is true with regard to punishment. As it seems strange that
St. Thomas would contradict himself in the Exposition, theologians
doubt the authenticity of one of the texts. However, after examining
many manuscripts, J. Rossi defends the authenticity of the texts.
The second group is made up of those who maintain that St.
Thomas taught Mary’s immaculate conception. That is the way Vega,
Nieremberg, Tirso Gonzâlez, Velâzquez, Frasscn, Hurter, Mazella,
Palmieri, Morgott, Paquet, Hugon, and in our times, Friethoff, inter­
pret him. They cite the following texts in favor of the Immaculate
Conception:
In the Commentaries on the Sentences, the Angelic Doctor says
that the Blessed Virgin was immune from original and actual sin.4’
In his commentaries on the psalms he says that Mary was not dark­
ened by any sin (In Fs. XIV) and in her there was no sin (In Ps.
XVIII). Finally, in the Exposition of the Angelic Salutation, he
writes that she was most pure with regard to sin because she did not
incur cither original, mortal, or venial sin; and this was true as regards
punishment (loc. cit.). Nor do these texts in which it is said that the
Blessed Virgin was cleansed, purged, sanctified, etc., present a diffi­
culty, since these expressions state a relationship to holiness and not
necessarily to sin, as St. Thomas himself explains while speaking of
the justification of the soul of Christ.
Nor are the other texts which stated that the Marian exemption
from original sin diminishes the dignity of Christ the Redeemer op­
posed to the Immaculate Conception. Hurter says that it is sufficient
to have thought that the Blessed Virgin was not preserved in her
material conception before her animation in order to explain these
things. Nor is there difficulty in tire texts in which Mary's sanctifica­
122

mart’s freedom from sin

tion before animation is denied and it is concluded that sanctification
was accomplished after animation, because the meaning of the adverb
after is not decided by St. Thomas. Therefore, according to his mind,
this after might imply posteriority of nature only, and need not ex­
clude simultaneity in time, since this is the answer to the question.
Thus this doctrine, as Friethoff says, neither contradicts nor neces­
sarily favors the dogma. It can favor it and contradict it, according
to the determination of the indeterminate after; but leaving it unde­
termined, it neither favors nor opposes, but maintains perfect silence
concerning the dogma, on which he proposes no question.
To the third and fourth group belong those who think, like Salazar
and Malou, that St. 'Diomas hesitated; and those, like Dorn Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmcs, who arc undecided about the question of
the Immaculate Conception, and maintain the impossibility of prov­
ing that he did oppose the doctrine.
Perhaps it would be better to reserve judgment on this subject.
Castagnoli wisely says that much light is being shed on the story of
the controversy by present studies, but that the discussion is not
yet closed; particularly the discussion on the interpretation of St.
Thomas.*8
Among the defenders of the privilege of the Immaculate Concep­
tion was John Duns Scotus, who distinguished himself extraordinarily.
Preceding him were Henry of Ghent, noted professor of the University
of Paris, Raymond Lull in Spain, and William of Ware in Oxford,
whose influence was felt more or less by the Subtle Doctor. Henry of
Ghent modified much of the doctrine of the Seraphic Doctor and the
Angelic Doctor. Discussing the question as to whether the Blessed
Virgin’s conception is to be celebrated by reason of her conception,
he says that the conception of the Virgin is to be celebrated, but
only by reason of the sanctification which she received either in her
very conception or by reason of the sanctification she would receive
immediately. Afterwards, observing that original sin and sanctifying
grace are opposites, so that it is impossible for them to exist together
in the same subject, he admits that the Blessed Virgin was in original
sin only in passing and for an instant, and in sanctifying grace forever
after. That instant, in the mind of Henry, was that of sin with respect
to her conception, and also that of grace with respect to sanctification.
This same instant is the end of the past and the beginning of the
ia3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

future. Since it was the terminus of natural conception and of the
formation of the body, it is referred to the sin contracted then. As
the beginning of the future, in which grace was given by the Sancti­
fier, it is referred to grace.
Henry of Ghent proves his point that the Blessed Virgin was in
original sin for only an instant by using the same argumentation
(Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit: It could have happened, it was fitting, there­
fore it did happen) by which the Scotist School, in the beginning of
the fourteenth century, demonstrated that Mary was conceived with­
out original sin.
Balic synthesizes the text of the Solemn Doctor this way: Sacred
Scripture says nothing on this subject and the holy doctors have
spoken very little about it. We must therefore proceed with caution,
much more so in treating of such an important matter. For the same
reason, the subject must be submitted to authority for examination,
since it has no value without it. It is not necessary to prove that God
had the greatest love for the Virgin, so that He gave His Mother
such holiness and purity that none better can be found in creatures.
But a better indication of this great love would be to sanctify and
free her from sin as soon as possible, rather than delay it for any time.
Since, according to the doctrine of St. Anselm, it was fitting that He
adorn her with a purity such that none greater could be conceived
under God, so also it was fitting to provide her with such purity as
quickly as possible. And thus Henry concludes that if she could be
sanctified and cleansed in such a way that she would be in original
sin only for an instant, that can be piously believed.
It was fitting, therefore, that the Virgin remain in sin only for an
instant, but in reality was it possible? Henry of Ghent answers affirma­
tively, and he proves this possibility in many ways, saying that what
is possible by virtue of nature is much more possible by divine power.
Nature can make a thing remain in a certain actual disposition for
only an instant. In the order of nature contrary things can actually
be in a subject at one time, as in the accession to an accidental form
and the recession of the same. Also, by divine power, the soul of the
Blessed Virgin could for an instant be in a determined disposition,
that is, in the stain of original sin, so that for an instant she had origi­
nal sin for the first and last time. In order to confirm this proof,
Henry of Ghent cites the testimony of St. Augustine and afterwards

124

mart's freedom from sin

explains and solves three difficulties. It could have happened and it
was fitting, but did it actually happen? The Solemn Doctor, holding
the opinion that we cannot be totally certain of things which depend
exclusively on the divine will and are not revealed, answers the ques­
tion almost with the same words that Duns Scotus used: “I do not
know; God knows.”
Raymond Lull frequently praises the Blessed Virgin as conceived
without sin, free from all evil, and full of all good.4· William Ware,
teacher of the Subtle Doctor, in his Commentaries on the Sentences,
after explaining the contrary opinion, answers that he accepts the
opinion which asserts that she did not contract original sin.
John Duns Scotus is the herald and glorious proponent of Mary’s
immaculate conception. Nevertheless, he holds a prominent place,
not as the inventor of new arguments to prove the truth, but as one
who stated the question accurately and harmonized the two truths
of the immaculate conception of the Virgin and her redemption
through the merits of Christ. In writing on the Sentences, he pro­
poses the question simply: Whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived
in original sin. His first citations are against Mary’s immaculate con­
ception from the testimony of Holy Scripture and Tradition. "In
Adam all have sinned” (Rom. 5), because all were in him by way of
seminal origin; thus it was with the Blessed Virgin. Also, St. John
Damascene (c. 10 and 48) says that the Holy Spirit cleansed her; the
cleansing refers to none other than sin; therefore she had sin though
not actual sin. And St. Augustine, De fide ad Petrum, holds that all
men conceived by carnal union of man and woman are bom with
original sin. St. John says: "Behold the Lamb of God.” He alone is
innocent, because He was not bom of carnal union. And Pope Leo,
in his sermon on the nativity of our Lord, says that as He found no
one free from sin, He came to free all.
On the contrary, St. Augustine (De natura et gratia) says: “In the
matter of sin, in no way do I wish to speak of Mary"; and St. Anselm
(De conceptu virginali) writes: "It is fitting that the Virgin should
be resplendent with a purity such that none could be conceived more
perfect save only God’s."
Later Scotus presents reasons against the Immaculate Conception
taken from the two arguments already mentioned, one of which is the
excellence of her Son, since He, as universal Redeemer, opens the

>25

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

door to all. However, if the Blessed Virgin had not contracted original
sin, no Redeemer would have been necessary for her, nor would He
have opened the door, because it was not closed to her, for it is closed
only to original sin. The other consists in those things which appear
in the Blessed Virgin. She was conceived according to general law;
therefore her body was propagated and formed of corrupt seed; and
thus she possessed the same contagion as all do in being conceived;
and once her body was tainted, her soul would be tainted. She had
the same punishments common to human nature, such as thirst,
hunger, and similar things, which are inflicted upon us by original
sin, and which in reality she did not take on voluntarily, because
she was not our redeemer, otherwise her Son would not have been
the universal Redeemer. These punishments were inflicted by God
and not unjustly; therefore they were inflicted for sin, and she was
likewise not innocent.
But Scotus refutes all these reasons victoriously and he maintains
that it was precisely for the honor of her Son as Redeemer, Reconciler,
and Mediator that she did not contract original sin. He who is the
most perfect Mediator must have a most perfect act of mediation
in regard to the person through whom He exercises His mediatorial
office. Now Christ is a most perfect mediator and He had no more
exalted relation to any person than to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This
could not be, had He not merited her preservation from original
sin.en He goes on to demonstrate this point in three ways: first, by
comparison to God, with whom He reconciles her; second, by com­
parison to sin, from which He frees her; and third, by comparison to
the person who is reconciled. The following statements summarize
his doctrine:
First, Scotus demonstrates that the Immaculate Conception is not
opposed to the universality of original sin nor to the universality of
redemption by Christ. Rather, the glory of Christ the Redeemer is
increased beyond measure if it is conceded that He redeemed His
Mother in so perfect a way that, in view of this redemption, she never
contracted original sin.
Secondly, Scotus distinguishes perfectly between the contraction
of original sin and the debt of contracting it. Using the distinction
between the priority of nature and the priority of time, he states that
the infusion of the soul into the flesh which transmits original sin

126

mary's freedom from sin

took place in Mary by a priority of nature but not of time and that
she was immaculate from the first moment of her existence.
Thirdly, he establishes the distinction between liberative redemp­
tion (redemption from original sin already contracted) and preserva­
tive redemption, whereby, through the merits of Christ, the Blessed
Virgin was preserved from the contraction of original sin.
Fourthly, Scotus succeeded in nullifying the main arguments of the
contrary opinion and in establishing clearly that nothing could be
deduced from the dogmas of faith which would be contrary to Mary’s
immaculate conception.
The entire Franciscan School accepted the doctrine of Scotus.
Among the most valiant defenders of the Immaculate Conception
were the immediate followers of Scotus, such as Peter Aureolus and
Francis Mayron, who wrote copiously in defense of the famous syllo­
gism: Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit, that is, it was becoming that the
Mother of the Redeemer should be free from the power of sin and
Satan from the first moment of her existence; it was in God's power
to give her this privilege; therefore, He gave it.
All of the theologians of the Company of Jesus followed this doc­
trine, and among the Thomists were Catharinus, John of St. Thomas,
and Natalis Alexander and many other learned men from different
schools. According to Medina, all the universities supported this opin­
ion, principally the University of Paris, mother and teacher of all the
rest.
c) The third epoch of tradition extends from the fifteenth century
to our own time. In this era the Eastern theologians are generally op­
posed to Mary’s immaculate conception. It is strange that the Byzan­
tine writers, so zealous for their traditions, should close their ears to
the opinions of their ancient Fathers and theologians. Thus, among
others, were John Nathanael, Metrophanes Kritopulus and Sevastes
Kymenites, who assembled the principal arguments which were to be
developed later by the Orthodox writers, Sophronius Likhudes and
Leveded, to combat the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Nicephoms Callistus who preceded them in the fourteenth century,
was the first who, with some hesitation, expressly denied the Virgin's
immaculate conception. But in reality the causes which were most
influential in stirring up the Eastern writers against the Marian privi­
lege were, aside from Protestant theology, whose influence was con-

127

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

siderablc and overwhelming in Russia in the eighteenth century, the
ignorance of the Byzantine writers of this era concerning their ancient
patristic literature and the access of the Orientals to the Western
universities, where they often heard doctrines opposed to the Im­
maculate Conception. Jugic gives an account of this in the Diction­
naire de Théologie Catholique.
In this same era the theologians and writers of the Western Church
openly proclaimed Mary's great privilege. St. Vincent Ferrer proposed
a splendid testimony when he noted six degrees of sanctification. The
sixth degree, superior to all the others, is the sanctification of the Vir­
gin Mary, for in the very hour and on the very day in which her body
and soul were created, she was already rational and capable of sancti­
fication and was immediately sanctified.61
Gerson, or the author of a sermon which is attributed to him, says
that it is not strange that the Lord should begin His work of redemp­
tion through Mary so that she through whom He prepared the salva­
tion of all should have the first fruit for herself. He states that she
was a virgin not only in body, but also in soul, and he quotes St.
Ambrose, who says that she was not raised, but preserved from the
fall; she would not be a virgin in soul once she was stained by sin.62
St. Laurence Justinian attests Mary’s freedom from the corruption
of the flesh from the moment of her conception. In his De casto connubio Verbi et animae he says that all, even the holiest, are not free
from the punishment of original sin; therefore all who are born of
that race, except the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and His Mother, are
under the law.
In his sermon on the Immaculate Conception St. Bernardine of
Siena states that Mary was created in the perfection of grace, and
Nicholas of Cusa, the most eminent theologian and philosopher of
his time, presents a very clear testimony that the immaculate Virgin
was created in original justice, even surpassing that of Eve.
Finally, from the middle of the sixteenth century the doctrine
of Mary's immaculate conception was growing in universality and
strength, so that St. Peter Canisius could write of his own time: “Very
few now hold the contrary opinion, and these are ashamed to speak
their mind openly and consider it dangerous to profess their belief
in public. If they dare to speak out, they would meet with public
contradiction and give offense to the people; to such a degree has the
128

mary’s freedom from sin

opinion adverse to the Immaculate Conception been weakened, ex­
ploded, and as it were, cast out." M
The Liturgy. The celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Con­
ception in the Eastern and Western Churches was begun very early,
so that, as Sanda says, it may justly be considered that this feast was
the popular vehicle of tradition concerning Mary’s immaculate con­
ception.
With reference to the Eastern Church, Anthony Gravois says that
the antiquity of the feast proves the unanimous agreement of all East­
ern churches and all Greek churches, Catholic as well as heretical
and schismatic. Though differing much in their liturgies, they agree
unanimously on this. “If you were to ask the Syrians, the Armenians,
the Maronites, the Chaldeans, the Coptics, the Melkites, and the
Albanians, who observe the Greek Rite, as well as those who inhabit
Moscow, Lithuania, Poland, Venice and Sicily, whether the feast of
the Immaculate Conception is celebrated in their countries and their
churches, they would all answer: Yes; with the greatest devotion." M
In the East all the churches celebrate the feast of the Immaculate
Conception on December g, as a feast of the active conception of St.
Anne and the passive conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the
Typikon is a ritual which has been corrected and edited many times
and it seems doubtful whether the feast of the Immaculate Concep­
tion was even introduced into its first edition.
That the feast was celebrated in the Greek Church in the seventh
century is evident from the canons and inscriptions of St. Andrew
of Crete, which bear the inscription, the ninth of December, concep­
tion of St. Anne, the grandmother of God.
In the eighth century, John of Eubea enumerates the feast of the
Conception as the first among the ten great solemnities. In the ninth
century, George of Nicodemia says that the feast of Mary’s concep­
tion is celebrated not as the most recent, but as the principal one in
order and in truth. In the tenth century, the emperor Basil II decreed
the feast by civil law; and in the twelfth century, Manuel Commenus
placed it above the other solemnities in dignity.
The object of this feast was to celebrate the active miraculous con­
ception of the Blessed Virgin by her sterile parents Joachim and Anne,
bestowed on them by God through their supplication. For this reason
the feast was called the feast of the conception of St. Anne. But this

1:9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

active conception had from its beginning, as its principal object, the
cult of the passive conception of Mary; that in which Mary became
the worthy habitation of God. Thus, St. John Damascene speaks of
Mar}' as the most holy daughter of Joachim and Anne, who was
snatched from the snares of the infernal powers and in the bride­
chamber was guarded without stain in order to be the spouse and
natural Mother of God.08
St. Euthymius, patriarch of Constantinople, mentions the reasons
for the great solemnity of the feast of our Blessed Mother and em­
phasizes the fact that as Adam, the author of the human race fell
and was banished, so now his pure daughter, bom according to the
promise, of sterile flesh, announces the signs of reparation.80
With respect to the Western Church, it is said that St. Ildcphonse,
Archbishop of Toledo, was the first to establish this feast, in Spain
in the seventh century. Some doubt the authenticity of the documents
on which this is based; others believe that they celebrated not the
conception of the Blessed Virgin, but the conception of the Word
of God, or the maternity of the Virgin, which was commemorated
on December 18 during the reign of the Visigoths. Concerning this
feast, Vincent of Beauvais says that if the Blessed Virgin had not
been sanctified in her mother’s womb, her nativity would not have
been celebrated, but since it is now being venerated by the authority
of the Church, it is evident that she was free from original sin.07
In the ninth century the feast of the Immaculate Conception was
already observed in Sicily and in Naples, where it had no doubt been
transplanted from the East, since a part of southern Italy was under
its empire. And thus, in the ancient marble calendar of the Neapolitan
Church is read this inscription for December 9: The conception of the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
In Ireland the feast was celebrated as early as the ninth century or
at least at the beginning of the tenth, as recorded from the Tamlactense martyrology, where for May 7 we read: Finding of the Cross
of Christ; Conception of the Virgin Mary; Ambrose; etc. Again, in
a calendar composed in verse, after the death of King Alfred, this
festivity was assigned for the sixth of the nones of May. The calendar
of the monk Oengui announces May 3 as the feast of the Immaculate
Conception: Foil mar Maire uage (Great Feast of the Virgin Mary).
Toward the middle of the eleventh century the feast was celebrated
130

mary’s freedom from sin

in England, as is evident from the calendar of the Abbeys of Oldminstcr and Ncwminster, in the earldom of Winton, in which De­
cember 8 is inscribed as the Conception of Holy Mary, Mother of
God; also from the martyrology of St. Augustine of Canterbury, in
which we read: "Moreover, on this very day of the Conception of
the Blessed Virgin Mary”; from the Pontifical of the primate Church
of Canterbury where, under the title, "Blessings on the day of the
conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,” are found
prayers suitable to the occasion; and finally, we prove its celebration
by the Pontifical of the cathedral of Essex. Later, with the rule of the
Normans and the abolition of the Anglo-Saxon calendar, the feast of
Mary’s conception fell into disuse in England, but it was re-established
and spread in the twelfth century through Abbot Anselm of Edmundsbury, a cousin of St. Anselm of Canterbury.
The feast also spread through other countries of the West, to Ger­
many, France, Flanders, and Spain, where it was already celebrated
in the Monastery of the Benedictines of Navarre, in the middle of the
eleventh century.
But suddenly there arose the most severe opposition against this
feast on the part of two noted theologians: John Belethi of Paris,
who wished it abolished, for he believed that it would be better to
forbid it, since she was conceived in sin; but especially by St. Bernard,
who, although very devoted to Mary, reprimanded the canons of
Lyons for having introduced this feast into the cathedral church with­
out the authorization of the Holy See. In his letter he warned the
canons against the absurdity of celebrating a false honor of Mary.
While he raised no objection to the feast of our Lady’s nativity, he
did protest against celebrating her immaculate conception.
No doubt, the Mother of God was holy even before she was bom, and
the Church is by no means mistaken in keeping holy the day of her
birth. . . . But she could not be holy before she existed, as she did
not exist before she was conceived. Or did sanctity perhaps commingle
with her conception so that she was sanctified and conceived at one
and the same time? ... Or will someone perhaps say that Mary was
not conceived of a man but of the Holy Ghost? But this is something
hitherto unheard of.
Hence, if Mary could not be sanctified before her conception, since
she was not yet in existence, nor in the act of conception itself, on

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

account of the sin involved therein, it follows that she was sanctified in
the womb after conception, which, since she was cleansed from sin,
made her nativity holy, not her conception.
The glorious (Virgin) would choose to be without that honor by
which one seems either to honor sin or to introduce a false sanctity.
Assuredly she would find no pleasure against the custom of the Church
—in a presumptuous novelty, mother of temerity, sister of supersti­
tion, daughter of lightmindedness.
I had already been warned that this error was held by some, but I
kept silence to spare the fervor that comes from a simple heart full of
love for the Virgin. But now, discovering the superstition among the
learned, in a noble and famous Church of which I am in a special
sense the son, I know not if 1 can continue silent without doing you
yourselves grave injury.
Though it has been given to some men—though very few—to be
bom in holiness, yet it has not been given to them to be conceived in
holiness, in order that the prerogative of a holy conception should be
reserved to one alone—to Him who was to sanctify all others and who,
alone coming without sin, was to accomplish our purification from sin.
Thus, only the Lord Jesus has been conceived of the Holy Ghost,
because only He was holy before His conception. Apart from Him,
that is true of all sons of Adam which one of them humbly and truth­
fully confessed of himself: "In iniquity I was conceived, in sin my
mother conceived me.” 08

Some deny the authenticity of this letter of St. Bernard’s and at­
tribute it to Nicholas of Clairvaux, secretary of the Mellifluous Doc­
tor, but without reason, for Theophilus Raynaud states that although
not all of St. Bernard’s letters can be attributed to him, this one
especially savors of Bernard and cannot be attributed to anyone else.
Mabillôn asserts that all of the manuscripts verify the authenticity
of this letter. But even presuming its authenticity, theologians do
not agree on St. Bernard's intention. Some, like Perrone, Mazzella,
Paquet, and Lepicier, say that St. Bernard does not here deny the
sanctity of passive adequate conception, but only of active and passive
inchoate conception, as is evident from the reasons given by St. Ber­
nard.
Others, like Vâzquez, Mabillôn, Benedict XIV, Malou and Jans­
sens, think that St. Bernard speaks not only of her active and passive
inchoate conception, but also of her passive adequate conception, for
132

mary’s freedom from sin

the following reasons: i) St. Bernard does not recognize any differ­
ence between the Virgin and Jcremias and John the Baptist, excepting
that the Virgin received more grace than they did; 2) according to St.
Bernard, the sanctification of the Virgin followed her conception,
because she could not have been sanctified before her conception
since she did not yet exist, in her very conception, on account of the
sin involved; 3) nor St. Bernard believes that it was reserved to Christ
alone to be sanctified at conception.
What is truly noble in St. Bernard is his submission and fidelity to
the Holy See. Pope Benedict XIV writes that the principal intention
of St. Bernard was that the canons consult the authority of the
Church, seeing that they had introduced this feast into the cathedral
church of Lyons without its consent. It was to the Apostolic See that
Bernard submitted his letter and waited for its answer.
St. Bernard’s letter caused numerous protests, among them Peter
Comestor, who, after distinguishing between conception by the ones
conceiving and conception of the one conceived, says that perhaps
Mary was conceived in sin on the part of her parents, but that she was
most holy. Nicholas of St. Alban’s in England also protested greatly
when he said that Mary’s soul was pierced through with a sword
twice: once in the Passion of her Son, and again in the contradiction
of her conception.
Meanwhile, the feast continued and spread more from day to day,
for although it was suppressed by Bishop Mauritius in Paris, shortly
afterwards it spread throughout most of France, and it was also cele­
brated in England, Germany, Spain, Sicily and other kingdoms. In
the fourteenth century it was already celebrated in Rome. Pope Sixtus
IV, in the year 1476, in his constitution Cum prae excelsa, approved
it and enriched it with indulgences. St. Pius V, in the year 1569, in­
cluded it in the Roman Breviary; Pope Clement VIII, in the year
1598, raised it to the rank of a double major; Pope Clement XI, in the
year 1708, extended it to the entire Church; Pope Pius IX raised it to
the rank of a double of the second class with an octave; and finally
Pope Leo XIII raised it to a feast of the first class.
Hence the Bull Ineffabilis Deus states:

Our Predecessors, indeed, by virtue of their Apostolic authority, gloried
in instituting the feast of the Conception in the Roman Church.
They did so to enhance its importance and dignity by a suitable Office

»33

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

and Mass, whereby the prerogative of the Virgin, her exemption from
the hereditary taint, was most distinctly affirmed. As to the cult already
instituted, they spared no effort to promote and to extend it. . . .
Besides, it afforded the greatest joy to Our Predecessors to ordain that
the feast of the Conception should be celebrated in every church with
the very same honor as the feast of the Nativity; that it should be
celebrated with an octave by the whole Church; that it should be as
reverently and generally observed as a holyclay of obligation; and that a
Pontifical Capella should be held in our Liberian pontifical basilica,
on the day dedicated to the Conception of the Virgin.
Finally, in their desire to impress this doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception of the Mother of God upon the hearts of the faithful, and
to intensify the people's piety and enthusiasm for the cult and the
veneration of the Virgin conceived without the stain of original sin,
they delighted to grant, with the greatest pleasure, permission to
proclaim the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin in the Litany of
Loreto, and in the Preface of the Mass, so that the rule of prayer
might thus serve to illustrate the rule of belief.
Wherefore, We Ourselves, following the procedure of Our Predeces­
sors, have not only approved and accepted what had already been
established, but bearing in mind, moreover, the decree of Sixtus IV,
have confirmed by Our authority, a proper Office in honor of the Im­
maculate Conception, and have with exceeding joy extended its use to
the universal Church.
Now inasmuch as whatever pertains to sacred worship is intimately
connected with its object and cannot have either consistency or dura­
bility if this object is vague or uncertain, Our Predecessors, the Roman
Pontiffs, therefore, while directing all their efforts toward an increase
of the devotion to the Conception, made it their aim not only to
emphasize the object with the utmost zeal, but also to enunciate the
exact doctrine.
Definitely and clearly they taught that the feast was held in honor
of the Conception of the Virgin. They denounced, as false and abso­
lutely foreign to the mind of the Church, the opinion of those who
held and affirmed that it was not the Conception of the Virgin but her
Sanctification that was honored by the Church. They never thought
that greater leniency should be extended toward those who, attempting
to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin,
devised a distinction between the first and second instant of Con­
ception and inferred that the Conception which the Church celebrates
was not that of the first instant of Conception but the second.

‘34

mary’s freedom from sin

As a matter of fact. Our Predecessors held it was their duty to up­
hold and defend with all their power not only the feast of the Con­
ception of the Blessed Virgin but also to assert that the true object
of this cult was her Conception considered in its first instant.
Hence the words of one of Our Predecessors, Alexander VII, who
authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Con­
cerning the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed
is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the
first instant of its creation and in the first instant of her soul's infusion
into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God. in view
of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and Redeemer of the human
race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense
have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the
Conception.”

The Common Belief of the Faithful. All the Christian people
quickly professed and defended the immaculate conception of the
Virgin Mother of God. Tire clergy, religious institutes, universities,
military orders, kingdoms, cities, and even the most ignorant of the
faithful took great pride in defending and venerating the immaculate
conception of the Virgin Mary.
St. Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury in the twelfth cen­
tury, invoked Mary as a temple of the Creator, sacred vessel of the
Holy Spirit and a spotless mirror of the majesty of God. St. Peter
Paschasius in the thirteenth century, expressed his faith in the im­
maculate conception of the Virgin Mary by saying that if the Virgin
Mary had the stain of original sin, it would have to be said that at
some time she was under the wrath of God, which cannot be said or
believed.
St. Thomas of Villanova, Archbishop of Valencia in the sixteenth
century, discusses the Immaculate Conception at great length, using
Mary’s assumption as a proof of her immaculate conception (In­
Concept. B.M. Virginis). In this same century, St. Charles Borromeo,
Archbishop of Milan, placing the sanctification of the Blessed Vir­
gin above that of St. John the Baptist, says that John was sanctified
in the womb of his mother in the sixth month of his conception, but
Mary received the fullness of grace in the first instant of her concep­
tion (Hom. 72).
St. Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva in the seventeenth century,
says that as God had to prepare for Himself a Mother according to
>35

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

His heart. He willed that her redemption would be applied as a pre­
servative remedy, so that the sin which is transmitted from generation
to generation would not reach her (Treatise on the Love of God).
St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church in the
eighteenth century, affirms in his work, The Glories of Mary, many
reasons of congruence in favor of the immaculate conception of the
Virgin Mother of God, after having discussed this privilege in his
treatise on moral theology.51' And that was also the feeling of bishops
throughout the world at the time Pope Pius IX wrote his encyclical
Vbi Primum, in which he asked the bishops to inform the Apostolic
See as soon as possible concerning the devotion of the clergy and
people with regard to the immaculate conception of the Blessed Vir­
gin and what was their mind concerning a solemn definition.
The various religious orders likewise held that Mary was conceived
immaculate. With respect to the Augustinians, Giles of the Presenta­
tion asserts that all the theologians of his Order who were at first great
defenders of Giles the Roman and Gregory of Rimini, who denied
the immunity of the Virgin Mother of God, were now adhering to the
pious opinion and in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the doc­
trine was defended in all the universities of Italy, France, Spain and

Portugal.
Such also was the opinion of the Carthusian Order. Denis the
Carthusian stated that the feast of Mary should not be celebrated
under the title of sanctification but of conception, as the whole
Church now celebrates it and with it, his whole Order (In III Sent.,
dist. 3, q. 1). This was decreed in the General Chapter of 1470.
The Carmelite Order, in a General Chapter held in France in 1306,
decided to celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception. St.
Teresa of Avila always showed her devotion to the Immaculate
Mother. Telling of the conversion of a certain person in one of the
chapters of her autobiography, she says that the Blessed Virgin helped
that person because of such a devotion to her conception and feast.
Baptist of Mantua, Prior General of the Order in the fifteenth cen­
tury, wrote Latin poems on the immunity of the Virgin from all sin.
As regards the Order of Preachers, its founder, St. Dominic, clearly
showed his belief in Mary’s immaculate conception when he stated
that as Adam was formed from virgin earth, so it was fitting that the
second Adam, Christ, should also be bom of that earth, that is, of a

136

mary’s FREEDOM FROM SIN

Virgin not accursed.00 It is a constant tradition that St. Dominic con­
firmed this doctrine with miracles; for example, when he was defend­
ing the doctrine in Toulouse and the book in which the doctrine was
contained was thrown into the fire but remained intact. Never did
the Dominican family withdraw completely from the path outlined
by its founder, for even when some of his sons were inclined toward
the opposite opinion, the Order never wanted for remarkable men
who would most vigorously defend Mary's immaculate conception.
In the fourteenth century John Tauler demonstrated that the
blindness of men is none other than ignorance of Mary’s inestimable
beauty, goodness and amiability. William Pepin, Ambrose Catharinus, Thomas Campanella, Robert Holchot, St. Vincent Ferrer, St
Louis Bertrand, the Venerable Louis of Granada, Laurence Gutiérrez,
John of St. Thomas, and many other famous sons of the Order de­
fended the immunity of Mary.
In the manual of the Order of Preachers, edited in Seville in 1524,
we read, as testified by Velâzquez, that because the Order of Preach­
ers was accustomed to adhering to the doctrine of the saints, it main­
tained, until that time, that the Virgin was conceived in original sin,
but that this matter is useless and disgraceful, especially when the
whole Church, whose authority surpasses the opinion of any particu­
lar author, asserts that she was preserved.
As regards the Franciscan Order, the faith of St. Francis in Mary's
immaculate conception is sufficiently known. He used to invoke this
mystery in blessing his friars when they went outside the monastery.
All the sons of this Order, almost from the beginning, fought ardently
on behalf of the Immaculate Conception. It was often called the
opinion of the Minorites and was preserved by all as a heavenly in­
heritance. Besides William of Ware and Scotus, many other sons of
St. Francis, illustrious in knowledge and holiness, such as Aureolus,
Francis of Mayron, John of Bassolis, William of Rubion, Tartareto,
Liqueto, Gabriel Biel, St. Peter of Alcântara, St. Paschal Babylon and
St. Joseph of Cupertino shone in the defense of this singular privilege
of Mary. At the General Chapter held in Pisa in 1263 and presided
over by St. Bonaventure, the feast of the Immaculate Conception was
established as a feast for the whole Order. At the General Chapter of
Segovia, held in 1621, the whole Seraphic Order bound itself by oath
to defend and teach Mary’s immaculate conception. Later, at the

»37

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

General Chapter of Toledo, held in the year 1645, the Franciscan
Order chose Mary as its Patroness, in the mystery of the Immaculate
Conception.
The piety and devotion of the Society of Jesus toward the con­
ception of Mary has also been remarkable. St. Ignatius was the strong­
est defender of the Immaculate Conception both in word and writing,
according to the evidence of a codex of his which is preserved in
Rome, in which, after describing the singular enlightenment which
he received during those forty days in which he studied a way of estab­
lishing poverty in the houses of the Society, he demonstrated his love
for Mary’s purest conception. Imitating him in his piety toward the
most Blessed Virgin were James Ldincz, second Genera) of the So­
ciety, and Alphonse Salmerôn, whose authority was so great in the
Council of Trent, St. Peter Canisius, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. John
Berchmans, who bound himself by a vow written with his own blood
to defend the Immaculate Conception, Alphonsus Rodriguez, the
Venerable Louis de la Puente, Toledo, Sudrcz, Morales, Salazar,
Martin del Rio, Nierembcrg, Ribadcncira and many others too nu­
merous to mention. As the Society had so many defenders of this
doctrine, Vazquez could rightly say that the Jesuits always and every­
where professed the doctrine.
Other orders also venerated and defended Mary’s immaculate con­
ception: the Cistercians, Premonstratensians, Minims, Trinitarians,
Mcrcedarians, and the Servants of Mary, whose Superior General in
1344, the Blessed Matthew of Castro, when blessing his brothers,
always asked the Immaculate Conception to be their salvation and
protection; and the Religious of the Immaculate Conception of Mary,
founded by Beatrice de Silva in Toledo in the year 1481 and ap­
proved by Pope Innocent VIII and Pope Julius II. Their rule states
among other things, that the Sisters, on being received for profession
should say: “I Sister N., out of love for and in the service of God and
of the immaculate conception of His Mother, make profession and
promise God, etc."
Tire famous universities also gloried in defending the mystery of
the Immaculate Conception. In the year 1340 the Universities of
Paris, Oxford and Cambridge made a vow to defend the immaculate
conception of the Virgin, which fact is attested by John Bacon. In
1384 the University of Paris energetically defended Mary’s immacu­

*38

mary’s freedom from sin

late conception against an anonymous Dominican, and in 1387 against
John Montesôn, O.P. In the year 1496 the faculty of Paris obliged
all of its doctors to swear that they would always defend the Im­
maculate Conception.
The Universities of Cologne and Mentz followed that of Paris in
the years 1499 and 1500; that of Vienna in the year 1501; that of
Bologna and Toledo in 1507; that of Naples and Palermo in 1618;
that of Cracow, Douai, Coimbra and Evora in 1602.
In Spain, which was always devoted to this privilege of the Blessed
Virgin, the University of Valencia bound itself by oath in 1530 to
defend the sinless conception of Mary. In 1617 the University of
Granada vowed to defend the Immaculate Conception, even to the
shedding of blood. Similar vows and oaths were made at the Univer­
sities of Alcali, Santiago de Compostela, Toledo, Saragossa, and Bar­
celona in 1617, and at Salamanca and Valladolid, in 1618. Finally, in
the year 1664, by royal decree of Philip IV, it was commanded that
in the Universities of Salamanca, Alcala or Valladolid, no one would
be admitted to academic degrees or incorporated as a member of the
same if they did not affirm and swear to defend this faith in the im­
maculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1779 this decree
was extended to all Spanish universities.
The Cathedral churches took the same oath. That of Barcelona,
with the Archbishop of Tarragona and the rest of the bishops of that
Principality, in 1618; that of Santiago de Compostela, in 1619; that
of Valladolid, in 1634, and many others.
The same generous oath was taken by the Military Orders. The
Order of Calatrava took its vow and oath in the Monastery of St.
Martin in Madrid on December 23, 1652. In the same year, on De­
cember 30, the Order of Santiago took the oath in the chapel of the
royal palace of Madrid, together with Philip IV, grand Master of the
Order. The same oath and vow was taken by the men of the Order of
Alcdntara and Montesa; that of Aldntara, in the monastery of St.
Bernard on February 2, 1653.
Emperors and kings showed an equal devotion to Mary’s immacu­
late conception. John I of Aragon, in the year 1391, decreed that the
feast of the Immaculate Conception be celebrated in his chapel in
Barcelona every year, and in the year 1394 he promulgated a consti­
tution in which, after citing the principal reasons which confirm this
B9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

mary’s freedom

from sin

privilege of the Immaculate Conception, lie imposed perpetual silence
in his kingdom on the contrary opinion; and to those who conveyed
any doubt concerning Mary’s immunity in their sermons and disputa­
tions, he threatened with exile and confiscation of property.
Isabel, the Catholic Queen of Castile and Leôn, professed much
love for this mystery, and Pope Innocent VIII praised her in his Bull,
Inter munera, in the year 1489, in which, yielding to her requests, he
approved the Order of the Immaculate Conception. In 1492 Isabel
and Ferdinand made a solemn vow that if they could wrest the city
of Granada from the Moors, they would build a church there in honor
of the most holy conception of the Mother of God. These same
Catholic rulers established a confraternity in Toledo under the title
of the Immaculate Conception, which Pope Adrian VI approved in
his Bull, Romanus Pontifex, and the Emperor Charles approved anew.
Philip III sent Antonio of Trejo, Bishop of Carthagcna, to Rome
in 1618 and the Duke of Albuquerque in 1619 to promote the cause
of the immunity of Mary. As long as his reign lasted, he kept sending
legates to Rome who insistently petitioned the definition of this mys­
tery. It is said of him that if he thought it necessary, he would go to
Rome himself, prostrate himself at the feet of the Holy Father, and
implore him to make his supreme judgment in favor of the original
justice of the Virgin. These words made him worthy of the praise­
worthy words of Pope Gregory XV, who proclaimed his zeal as a
Catholic King to be most pleasing to the Vicar of Christ.
The Kings of Spain, Philip IV, in the year 1621, Charles II, in
1675, and Philip V, in 1714-1732, sent legations and letters to the
Roman Pontiffs urging the dogmatic definition of the immaculate
conception of the Mother of God. In 1760 Charles III, acceding to
the requests of all of his kingdoms, chose the Virgin, under that title
as the universal patroness of all the kingdoms of Spain and of the
Indies under Spanish rule. Tin's patronage was judged worthy to be
approved and confirmed by the apostolic authority of Pope Clement
XIII in his Bull Quantum ornamenti.
Other kings and emperors have also distinguished themselves by
their devotion to the Immaculate Lady, particularly Ferdinand II
and his son Ferdinand III of Austria. Ferdinand II was registered in
all the Congregations of the Mother of Cod in Hungary, Bohemia,
and other provinces; he ordered a picture of the Blessed Virgin put

on all the flags of his armies, proclaiming her Commander-in-chief;
and in the year 1634, when he founded the Fraternity of the Blessed
Virgin Mary in the house of the Company of Jesus in Vienna, his
wife and children became members.
Ferdinand III, in the years 1647-1649, chose the Virgin Mother
of God in the mystery of her Immaculate Conception as patroness of
Austria and he decreed that in the University of Vienna all its doc­
tors had to take an oath to defend the immunity of the Virgin Mother

140

*4»

of Cod.
In the year 1646 King John of Portugal took an oath to defend
Mary’s preservation from sin, even to the shedding of his blood if
necessary; in 1656 he chose the Immaculate Virgin as special patroness
of his kingdom.
Sigismund, King of Poland, Leopold, Archduke of the Tyrol, Ernest
of Bavaria and other princes similarly petitioned Pope Urban VIII
that this pious opinion of the freedom of Mary from original sin be
declared a dogma of faith.
The kingdom of Valencia in 1440, 1474 and 1624 gave singular
proof of its devotion to the Conception; the Cortés of Catalonia, held
in the years 1454-1458, decreed that those who insulted Mary's con­
ception would be exiled. The Cortés of the kingdoms of Spain in the
time of Philip IV, in 1621, and in the reign of Charles III, in 1760,
bound themselves by oath to defend this mystery. Moved by a similar
love of piety toward the Immaculate Conception, whole cities took
the oath: Palencia in 1615, Seville and Granada in 1617, Valladolid,
Salamanca and Barcelona in 1618, Saragossa in 1619, Madrid and
Segovia in 1621, Avila in 1662, Valencia and Palermo in 1624, Geneva
in 1625, Majorca and Portugal in 1629, Burgos and Toledo in 1653,
and many others.
The faithful believed very fervently in Mary’s immaculate concep­
tion, even during the times when learned men incited subtle contro­
versies concerning this privilege. Benedict Justinian states that if
anyone disagreed and spoke against the truth of Mary’s conception,
they would cause serious disturbances, rebukes and scandals, such
was the belief of the faithful. The faithful would not have been dis­
turbed like this if faith in the Immaculate Conception had not been
deeply rooted in their hearts.
Theological Argument. God could preserve the Blessed Virgin

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mai}· from original sin. It was fitting that Mary be exempt from all
stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception. There­
fore, Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
God could preserve Mary from original sin. There is no contra­
diction on God's part, because although God, as Morales says, be­
stowed original justice upon Adam, with the stipulation that all of
his posterity would be deprived of it if he disobeyed the command,
nevertheless, with a foreknowledge of Adam’s sin, God could will
that the sin be not transmitted to the Virgin and could prevent it
through the grace which would be infused at the very moment of
her conception. For God does not deprive Himself of the right and
liberty of exercising His mercy upon whomever He pleases and when­
ever He pleases. It is the same as if a king were to make a law under
penalty of death; not that he would absolutely wish that all its of­
fenders suffer the punishment of death, for he who made the law
could dispense from it, or abolish it, as St. Augustine says in Book I,
De Regimine Principum.
Nor would the Immaculate Conception injure the holiness of
Christ, for He is holy both by reason of His conception by the Holy
Spirit and by reason of His divinity, which could not admit sin in
His assumed nature. The Virgin, however, neither through her con­
ception nor her person, was immune from sin, but only through a
singular privilege. Nor was Christ’s power as Sanctifier lessened, since
the Virgin possessed this privilege in view of the merits of Christ,
which not only did not diminish the efficacy of His passion, but
exalted His glory as Redeemer by granting His Mother the privilege
of being redeemed in so excellent a way.
Nor is there any contradiction on the part of the Virgin Mary', since
there is nothing against her soul being filled with grace in the first
moment of her conception. This is what happened in the creation of
the angels and in the animation of our first parents, and it is certain
that the soul of Christ was sanctified in the first moment of His
incarnation.
It was fitting that the Blessed Virgin be preserved from original
sin, and this for two reasons: her divine maternity and her coopera­
tion in the work of redemption.
By her divine maternity. Mary, by reason of her divine maternity,
acquired new and excellent relations with the Eternal Father, with

>42

mary’s freedom from sin

whom she was united through her Son; from which it follows that
between Mary and the heavenly Father there is a certain parental
unity as a legal partnership. The relationship also extends to the Holy
Spirit, by whose power she conceived Christ the Savior, being rightly
called the associate of the Father in the generation of the Son, His
only-begotten daughter, the spouse, temple and sanctuary of the Holy
Spirit. Mary’s relationship with the Father and the Holy Ghost de­
mands that she be always holy and never stained by sin.
As regards the Son of God made man, a most noble Son had to
have a most noble Mother. Corresponding to the greatest nobility is
a nobility of origin, that is, an immaculate conception. The Word of
God made man was the superior Son of a superior Mother, and a
good son shows his love for his mother through the gifts he gives her.
Therefore the Word of God had to confer on His Mother the great­
est gifts of grace, among which is freedom from original sin. Mary’s
preservation from original sin was for the honor of Christ, as we read
in Ecclesiasticus (3:13) : “For the glory of a man is from the honor
of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son."
If Christ had taken flesh from a Mother tainted with sin, it would be
to Christ’s dishonor, since the Mother and the Son are in a certain
way the same flesh. It was fitting for the Son of God to fashion for
Himself a Mother free from all sin. The dignity of Christ, the Son
of God made man, not only affected the purity and holiness of His
Mother at the moment of His conception, but from the first moment
of her existence, for when the Virgin was conceived, the divine Person
who prepared and adorned her as His Mother had already existed
from all eternity. Finally, Christ, the Redeemer of the human race,
had to redeem His Mother in a more perfect way, and thus Scotus
says: “He who is a most perfect mediator must have a most perfect
act of mediation in regard to some person on whose behalf he exer­
cises his mediatorial office. Now Christ is the most perfect Mediator
. . . and He had no more exalted relation to any person than to the
Blessed Virgin Mary. . . . This could not be, had He not merited
her preservation from original sin." ei
Of the two ways of redeeming, one by raising the person up after
he has fallen, and the other by preventing him from falling, preserva­
tion is the more noble and perfect and shows the greatest power and
benevolence of the mediator. For this reason the Bull Ineffabilis Deus
*43

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

mart’s freedom from sin

MARY

says: “It was by all means fitting that so wonderful a mother should
be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so
absolutely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph
completely over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father dispose
to give His only-begotten Son—the Son whom, equal to the Father
and begotten by Him, the Father loves from His heart—and to give
this Son in such a way that He would be the one and the same com­
mon Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was
this venerable Mother whom the Son Himself chose to make His
Mother. And the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Son willed and
brought it about that of Mary should the Son be conceived and bom."
With regard to the Virgin Mother of God, God gives grace to each
person commensurate with the dignity and work for which he is des­
tined. The principal dignity of the Virgin was to be the Mother of
God, and He chose her for this honor from all eternity. It was fitting
that in creating her in time, she should be enriched with holiness be­
fitting the Mother of God; and it was also fitting that she be sanctified
from the first moment of her conception, since she had already been
chosen as the Mother of God. Salmcrôn gives a beautiful exposition
of this point, after which he concludes that the infinite dignity and
grace of the divine maternity is a companion and aid of the concep­
tion of the Mother of God (In Evang., t. Ill, tract. 30).
By the cooperation of the Mother of God in the work of redemp­
tion. The Blessed Virgin Mary was constituted as the second Eve,
for just as Eve, associated with Adam, caused our ruin, so Mary,
associated with Christ, was to cooperate in our redemption. This
cooperation with Christ in the work of redemption requires immunity
from original sin because her opposition to Eve and her cooperation
with her Son, the Redeemer, place her outside the order of the fall;
also because as Christ, who in His dignity as future Redeemer of the
human race was endowed with all holiness and freedom from the
yoke of sin, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews (7:26), it was likewise
fitting that the Blessed Virgin, cooperator with Christ in the redemp­
tion of the human race, be separated from sinners also and therefore
preserved free from original sin from the first instant of her con-

which she spoke at Lourdes in 1858: "1 am the Immaculate Con­
ception.”

Mary and the Debt of Original Sin

CCThcnBlessed Virgin herself concludes our argument with the words

: The Blessed Virgin did not have the proximate debt of
original sin but only the remote debt.
Previous Observation. From what has been said, it is clear that
Mary was exempt from the stain of original sin in view of the merits
of Christ. We must, however, distinguish original sin from the debt
of this sin, which is nothing other than the cause by virtue of which
each human being must naturally contract or inherit the stain of
original sin.
The debt of original sin is of two kinds: proximate and remote.
The proximate debt is the necessity of contracting original sin be­
cause of falling under the law of the transmission of sin, that is, under
the law by which Adam was constituted the moral head of his de­
scendants in regard to the transmission or the loss of grace. The re­
mote debt is tire necessity of contracting original sin by the fact of
natural descent from Adam, so that all those are included who de­
scend from him through camal generation, unless they have been
exempted from this law of the transmission by a special privilege. The
remote debt is derived from Adam as the physical head, and through
physical generation, to all his descendants. The proximate debt is
transmitted to men through Adam, not only as the physical head,
but also as the moral head, so far as the wills of all his descendants
were represented in his will.
It must be held as certain that Mary incurred some debt of original
sin because the Bull Ineffabilis expressly says that the Blessed Virgin
Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of Christ,
and it is clear that this anticipated application of Christ’s merits sup­
poses that there was in her some debt of original sin. Also, because
the Apostle (II Cor. 5:15) says expressly: "Christ died for all” and
Mar)', inspired by the Holy Ghost, says of herself: “And my spirit
hath rejoiced in God my Savior.” Cornelius a Lapide explains that

144

MS

thesis

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

she can say "my Savior” with all propriety because Jesus is her Son
and her Savior, both by having preserved her from all sin and filled
her with grace and by having made her mediatrix of the salvation of
all, that she might be Mother and cause of the salvation of as many
as will be saved (Comm, in Luc., c. i).
The Fathers confirm this truth, among whom St. Ambrose says
that it is not strange that the Lord, who was to redeem the world,
should begin the work through His Mother so that she through whom
the salvation of all was to come, might be the first to receive, in
pledge, the fruit of salvation (In Lucam). And St. Bernardine of
Siena asserts that Christ came to redeem the Virgin more than any
other creature, according to the Canticle of Canticles: "Thou hast
wounded my heart, my sister, my spouse, thou hast wounded my
heart” (Senn. De Concept. Virginis).
It is clear, as said previously, that the Virgin was preserved from
original sin through a special privilege. She was redeemed by Christ
by a more excellent redemption than were the rest of men, and there­
fore she received the greatest benfits from God bcause it is a greater
favor to be preserved from a wound than to be healed of a wound
already received.
Theologians argue whether Mary contracted the proximate or re­
mote debt of original sin. Suârez, Vâzqucz, Bellarminc, Valencia,
Palmieri, Pesch and Muncunill maintain that the virgin contracted
the proximate debt of original sin. Lezana, Salazar, Penalosa, Vega,
Sedlmayr, the Wirceburgcnses, Mazzclla, Stamm, and Campana
maintain that she contracted only the remote debt of original sin.
Theological Argument. Mary contracted some debt of original sin,
or she would not have been redeemed by Christ, but she did not con­
tract the proximate debt. To contract the proximate debt of original
sin, it is necessary that one be included in the law of hereditary trans­
mission by which Adam was constituted the moral head of his de­
scendants as regards the transmission of grace or of sin. Although
Mary was physically descended from Adam through seminal genera­
tion, Adam was not her moral head. He was moral head of his de­
scendants antecedent to the absolute prevision of original sin, but
Christ, to whom Mary is indissolubly united, was foreseen and de­
creed posterior to the prevision of Adam’s sin, since the existence of
Christ and of the Blessed Virgin was decreed only for the redemption
146

mary’s freedom from sin

of sinners, according to St. Andrew of Crete, who said that if the
Cross hadn't existed, Christ would not have existed on earth,
nor the Virgin, nor the second generation of Christ (Or. de Cruce).
But although Mary was subject, through seminal descent from Adam,
to the law imposed universally on all his descendants, the title of
Mother of God was a reason of greatest congruity that God, by a
special privilege, should exempt her from the law. Hence, this semi­
nal desccndancy carried with it the inclusion of Mary in the in­
heritance of sin only so far as Mary, in the order of predestination,
is the daughter of Adam before she is the Mother of Christ. She was
predestined so uniquely to the divine maternity that without this
predestination she would never have existed; and only by virtue of
this predestination was her existence decreed as being bom by natural
generation of /\dam, but already preserved from the law of sin
through the merits of the Redeemer, her Son, foreseen by God.
Campana treats this subject similarly when he explains that Mary
was subject to the remote debt of sin (op. cit., I, P. II, q. 2).

Mary’s Freedom from Concupiscence
The Blessed Virgin was completely immune to the fomes
of sin, both in actu primo and in actu secundo.
Previous Observations. The principal consequence of original sin
is the contagion of the fomes, and since, absolutely speaking, im­
munity from the fomes is not necessarily included in the immunity
from original sin, it is fitting that we treat of the question of Mary’s
immunity from concupiscence.
Concupiscence in its widest sense means the appetite for good in
general. Thus, we have good concupiscences, such as that of wisdom,
of which it is said: "Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to the
everlasting kingdom” (Wisd. 6:21). Concupiscence in the proper
sense is the sensitive appetite, which desires sensible objects which
are proposed proximately by the imagination and remotely by the
external senses. In this sense concupiscence can be considered as a
simple force which tends toward the sensible good or as a force
capable of acting against or outside of reason. As a simple power of
thesis:

*47

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

tending to the sensible good, concupiscence cannot be called evil·
'
as a force which inclines to the sensible good without the required
subordination to reason, concupiscence cannot be called a good, but
is an evil.
This evil of concupiscence must be called a physical evil, but touch­
ing on the moral; not that it is a formal sin, but because it inclines to
sin through the free consent which the will gives to sensible pleasure
excited in the mind by the inordinate movements of concupiscence.·1
The Apostle (Rom. 7:20-25) calls this concupiscence sin because it
originates in and leads to sin, as the Council of Trent (Sess. 5, can. 5)
points out: "This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls
sin, the holy Council declares the Catholic Church has never under­
stood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in
those bom again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin."
Concupiscence in this sense is called the fomes of sin, as the incite­
ment and occasion of sin. And although it is the consequence and
punishment of original sin, nevertheless, as the Council of Trent de­
clares, it remains after baptism, for us to wrestle with, and it cannot
injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully through the
grace of Jesus Christ; for he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be
crowned. Salmerôn puts it well when he says that although the fomes
or the concupiscence of the flesh cannot be completely destroyed in
this life, their impulses can be controlled with great merit on our part,
and thereby effect an increase in virtue, so that the very movements
which could have stained the soul, serve as virtues (In Evang., tr. 18).
The fomes of sin can be considered in actu primo and in actu se­
cundo. In the first sense it is the power of the sensitive appetite as in­
clined to produce inordinate movements. In the second sense it is the
active movement of the appetite toward a sensible object contrary to
reason, which precedes reason and attracts it to sin.
The fomes of sin in actu primo can be repressed or made void. It
is repressed when, without the disappearance of the power which in­
clines to inordinate movements, it is prevented from producing acts
contrary to reason. It is made void when the proximate potency does
not remain even in actu primo, disposed for the production of acts
contrary to right reason.
As regards Mary’s immunity from the fomes in actu primo, the
Bull Ineffabilis Deus says: “Wherefore, far above all the angels and
148

mary’s freedom

from sin

all the saints, so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance
of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of His divinity that this
Mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect,
would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than
which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater." This
would not have been so if the Virgin had been subject to the move­
ments of concupiscence.
The Fathers. St. Jerome says that all purity and simplicity, all
mercy and justice were realized in her and that she is called im­
maculate because she suffered no corruption (Serm. De Assumpt.
B.M. Virg.). St. John Damascene greets her as a "holy book, exempt
from all evil thoughts” (Hom. 2, In Nativ. V. Mariae). Richard of
St. Lawrence presents Mary to us with all her senses employed for
Christ, her Son (De laud. B. Mariae, Lib. 3).
Theological Argument. Mary was free from original sin. But in the
present order concupiscence is the result of original sin. Therefore,
Mary had to be free of concupiscence. It does not matter that death
and the other bodily miseries to which Mary was subjected are also the
consequence of original sin, for these sufferings, which do not incline
to sin, can be assumed by her without detriment to her dignity. Christ
assumed them, but He did not assume the fomes of sin.
The fomes in actu secundo is an act of the sensitive appetite, con­
trary to reason. This movement, in itself evil and culpable if not ex­
cused by ignorance or weakness, would not be in keeping with the
dignity due to the Mother of God; therefore, Mary could not have it.
Mary had a degree of purity and holiness becoming the dignity of
the Mother of God, and it is clear that sensuality would not be fitting
to her who was to bear in her virginal womb the Son of God.
Mary possessed absolute virginity of body and soul, which consists
in a bodily integrity free from every stain, from every unworthy move­
ment or suggestion, and a virginity of soul which consists in im­
munity from every sensual thought or inclination.
The fomes in actu primo is the inclination toward an object con­
trary to reason. It would be beneath the dignity of the Mother of
God to have this inclination to acts contrary to right reason. The
fomes of sin supposes more, in the sphere of evil, than the simple po­
tency to sin, because the latter signifies a power indifferent to good or
evil, but the fomes adds to the simple potency, the inclination to

*49

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

evil. It is therefore a potency to sin already inclined to evil. But Mary
had no potency to sin. Therefore, she could not have the fomes of
sin.
The more perfect the virtues are in a person, the weaker the force
of the fomes of sin becomes in him, because in acting upon the sense
appetite, the moral virtue lessens the inclination toward inordinate
acts and subjects it to reason. And this is in proportion to the per­
fection of the virtue possessed. In the Virgin Mother, grace and virtue
blossomed in a most perfect degree; therefore, she could not have had
an inclination to inordinate acts.
Mary was predestined by God to cooperate with Christ in the
work of redemption, and thus, in a certain way, to satisfy with Christ
for the sins of the human race. Now the fomes in actu primo are not
conducive to satisfaction, but incline to sin, which is the opposite of
satisfaction. And although the Apostle says (II Cor. 12:9) that
"strength is made perfect in weakness," St. Thomas writes: “The in­
firmity of the flesh, that pertains to the fomes, is indeed to holy men
an occasional cause of perfect virtue, but not the sine qua non of per­
fection; and it is quite enough to ascribe to the Blessed Virgin per­
fect virtue and abundant grace, nor is there any need to attribute to
her every occasional cause of perfection.” 09
Finally, by her exemption from the fomes, neither does the Virgin
lack the aureole of virginity obtained by the saints by their victories
over the flesh, against which their struggle is continuous, as the Apos­
tle says (Gal. 5:17): “For the flesh lusts against the spirit"; because a
victory may be won in two ways: with battle or without battle. The
Blessed Virgin had neither struggle nor conflict with the flesh, not
feeling its allurements. If at any time she had battled with temptation
of the devil, who did not even respect Christ, this battle would not
have been internal, or of the flesh, but external, by suggestion, to
which there was no excitation of the flesh, as St. Gregory- says of
Christ that all temptation of the devil is not from within but from
without (Hom. 16, In Evang.).
The fomes never existed in Mary.
St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and others were
of the opinion that the fomes of sin, in the first sanctification of Mary
in her mother's womb, were merely restrained through divine grace

thesis:

150

mary's freedom

from sin

and a special act of providence, and that in the second sanctification,
which took place at the time of Christ’s conception, it was completely
extinguished Although it appears in keeping with the dignity of the
Virgin Mother that the fomes should be extinguished in her in her
first sanctification, yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of
Christ, as St. Thomas says: "Just as before the immortality of the
flesh of Christ rising again, none obtained immortality of the flesh,
so it seems unfitting to say that before Christ appeared in sinless flesh,
His Virgin Mother’s or anyone else’s flesh should be without the
fomes, which is called the law of the flesh or of the members (Rom.
7:23, 25). Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification
in the womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence,
but that it remained fettered; not indeed by an act of her reason, as
in holy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first
moment of her existence in her mother’s womb, for this was the sin­
gular privilege of Christ, but by reason of the abundant grace be­
stowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by divine
providence, preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from
any inordinate movement.
“Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ’s flesh, in which
for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be
believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the
Child to the Mother."04
Suârez, Vâzquez, Valencia, Salazar, Mazzella and modem theo­
logians in general maintain that the fomes of sin was extinguished in
the first moment of conception. They refuted the objection that so
sublime a prerogative as an entire freedom from the fomes, would
exalt the Mother at the expense of her divine Son, for they main­
tained that it tends rather to enhance rather than diminish the glory
of Christ.
Vega, Sedlmayr, Hugon, Cholet and Jannota maintain that the
fomes was never checked in Mary, nor was it extinguished, because
she never had the fomes of sin.
Vega argues that as it is more in conformity with reason that Mary
be not conceived with any sin whatever, because she was to be the
Mother of God, so also must she have been totally exempt from the
fomes of sin from the very beginning; for if it was fitting that she be
free from sin, it was likewise fitting that she be free from all in­
*5*

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

clination to sin. And so, if the fomes never did exist, neither could it
be checked.
Hugon argues that if the Virgin was preserved from original sin in
virtue of the merits of Christ, she could not have possessed any of
the consequences of original sin. But the fomes of sin, in whatever
sense it is taken, is a consequence of original sin, and therefore this
could not be attributed to Mary, seeing that she was excluded through
her singular privilege.
Finally, Cholet believes that as the dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception has been defined, the distinction of St. Thomas, to save the
dignity of Christ, cannot be maintained.
Corollary. As Mary was preserved from original sin and from the
fomes of sin, she possessed original justice in its principal effects,
namely, sanctifying grace, the infused virtues and the gift of integrity
or immunity from concupiscence.®5 It is clear, nevertheless, that this
original justice of Mary’s was not with regard to all the effects of that
primitive state since, unlike Adam and Eve, she was subject to the
passibility of soul and body and to death.
From what has been said, we conclude that Mary can be consid­
ered, with Christ and through Christ, as a type of that perfect and
integral primitive nature in which God first constituted Adam and
Eve. Concerning this, Richard of St. Victor says that what was truly
excellent and singular in the Virgin over the rest of the saints was
that incorruptibility and corruptibility could be joined simultaneously
—corruptibility relative to suffering and incorruptibility relative
to sin—but that it served as her great future glory and as a lesson for
us in constancy in battle.

Mary’s Freedom from Actual Sin
The blessed Virgin was ever immune from all actual
sin, even venial sin.
Errors. The Protestants, such as Luther and Calvin, accuse Mary
of many sins: of the sin of negligence because she lost her Son in the
Temple; of excessive grief in looking for Him with anxiety and de­
spair; of impatience because she rebuked her Son with the words·

thesis:

*5»

FREEDOM FROM SIN

"Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold, in sorrow Thy father
and I have been seeking Thee” (Luke 2:48). They also accuse her of
the sin of vainglory at the wedding of Cana, when she asked her Son
to perform a miracle with the words: “They have no wine” (John
2:3), so that the rest could sec that her Son was superior to all. They
also charge her with ambition and imperiousness in her desire to
speak to her Son when He was preaching to the multitudes: “Thy
Mother and Thy brethren are standing outside, seeking Thee,” to
which Christ answered: “Who is My mother and who are My breth­
ren?" And stretching forth His hands toward His disciples. He said:
“Behold My mother and My brethren! For whoever does the will of
My Father in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matt.
12:47-50).*
Some of the Fathers, strange to say, also held this opinion. St. John
Chrysostom believes that Mary asked for the miracle at Cana through
vainglory and ostentation before the people that she was the Mother
of Christ (Hom. 21-24). St. Basil (Hom. ad Optimum Episc.) and
St. Cyril of Alexandria (In Joan., 12) believe that Mary wavered in
faith during the Passion and that this was predicted in the words,
“And thy own soul a sword shall pierce" (Luke 2:35). But these ex­
pressions of the Fathers have to be rejected completely, for they do
not agree with Catholic truth on this point; on the other hand, they
lack legitimate foundation. There is no discussion whatever on this
point today among Catholics. All, without exception, assert that
Mary was pure and immune from all stain of even the slightest sin.
Councils and Pontifical Documents. The Council of Trent de­
clared: “If anyone assert that man, after he is once justified, is able
to avoid throughout his lifetime all, even venial sin, except by a spe­
cial privilege, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin,
let him be anathema” (Sess. VI, c. 23). The Bull Ineffabilis Deus
states: “Above all the angels and saints, so wondrously did God en­
dow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the
treasury of His divinity, that His Mother, ever absolutely free of all
stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy
innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot imagine
anything greater.”
Sacred Scripture. Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between
thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed.” These perpetual

*53

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

and absolute enmities would not have existed had Mary not been en­
tirely immune from all sin.
Luke (1:28): “And when the angel had come to her, he said: 'Hail
full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.’ "
Now, mortal sin is not in the soul in the state of sanctifying grace,
And with regard to venial sin, St. Albert the Great says that where
there is venial sin, there is a defect of grace; but according to the
angel, Mary is full of grace.”
The words of the Canticle of Canticles of the Old Testament
(4:7) are applied to Mary: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there
is not a spot in thee.” Raymond Jourdain addresses her: "Thou art
all fair, O most glorious Virgin, not in part, but wholly; and no stain
of mortal, venial, or original sin is in thee.” Richard of St. Victor ex­
presses these same sentiments in his commentary on the Canticle of

Canticles.
The Fathers. St. Cyprian declares: “Being far exalted above
others, she partook of their nature but not of their sin." St. Augustine,
arguing with the Pelagians on original sin, excludes the Blessed Vir­
gin from all sin (De natura et gratia, c. 36). St. Bernard (Ep. 274)
says that such an abundance of graces descended upon her that she
was not only sanctified at birth, but was immune from all sin for the
rest of her life, which privilege is not given to any other woman, for
it was truly fitting that the Queen of Virgins, by a singular grace
should live without any sin.
To these testimonies we may add those of the Fathers already men­
tioned, who celebrate her singular purity and holiness with the great­
est praises, and with which praises it is not possible to reconcile the
stain of even the slightest sin.
Theological Argument. From the divine maternity: St. Thomas
says that God so prepares and endows those whom He chooses for
some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her
worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the
angel (Luke 1:30, 31). But she would not have been worthy to be the
Mother of God if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of
the parents reflects on the child; secondly, because of the singular
affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her; thirdly, be­
cause of the singular manner in which tire Son of God, who is Divine
*54

mary’s freedom from sin

Wisdom, dwelt in her. We must therefore confess simply that the
Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial;
so that what is written (Cant. 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O
my love, and there is no spot in thee." M
From the cooperation of the Virgin in the work of our redemption
Mary was chosen by God to cooperate with Christ for the redemption
of the human race; but there is nothing more contrary to this than
sin, which nullifies or weakens the value of satisfaction, according to
Ecclesiasticus (34:23): "The Most High approveth not the gifts of
the wicked.”
From the texts in Sacred Scripture: The texts which the Protestants
use do not mention anything against Mary's exemption from sin. On
the contrary, they say much in favor of it.
St. Luke (2:43) shows clearly that there was no negligence on
Mary’s part when she lost her Son, believing that He was with those
of another group. And, as Joseph and Mary knew the wisdom of Jesus
and His filiation, they did not have to worry about their Son getting
home safely. The Virgin was not overly sorrowful but simply worried,
as any mother would be on losing her son.
Nor was Mary’ impatient when she spoke to her Son in this way on
meeting Him: "Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold, in sorrow
Thy father and I have been seeking Thee” (Luke 2:48); words which
do not convey impatience, but only reveal the great love and sorrow
on the absence of the Son, and in a certain way the proper dignity and
authority of the Mother. Christ’s answer: "How is it that you sought
Me? Did you not know that 1 must be about My Father’s business?”—
was not an investigation, nor was it an expression of surprise, because
it was very natural that His parents look anxiously for their lost Son;
nor was it a reprimand, because there was no fault; rather, it was a
lesson and, at the same time, a defense of His conduct. Jesus’ remain­
ing in Jerusalem, saying nothing to His parents, helps us understand
that, besides the duties pertaining to domestic and corporal life, in
which He obeyed His parents, He had other duties referring to His
divine mission, in which He was to obey only His heavenly Father.
As Lepicier shows, although Mary and Joseph knew very well, in a
general way, that Christ, the Savior of the world, was occupied with
His Father’s business, nevertheless, they did not understand in particu­
lar all the designs of the Father, that is. the time, place, and manner
‘55

THE

BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

in which His Son was to exercise His divine mission. For that reason
Christ has them understand that those days had been pointed out by
the Father to make His first manifestation to the world, but He left
them uncertain concerning the inauguration of His public mission.
"And they did not understand the word that He spoke to them." But
in this conduct of Christ’s, the dignity of His Mother is not dimin­
ished, nor is the filial subjection of the Son, for "He went down to
Nazareth and was subject to them.” 06
The words, "They have no wine” (John 2:3), which Mary spoke at
the wedding in Cana, do not indicate any kind of vainglory. By them,
Mary' demonstrated two things: first, her great compassion and
prompt spirit in attending to the needs of the couple, for St. Bernard
says that Mary felt sorry for them, seeing their embarrassment; and
secondly, her faith in the power of her Son and her trust in His suppli­
cation (Semi. In Doni. 1 post oct. Epiph.). Christ's answer. "What
wouldst thou have Me do, woman? My hour has not yet come” (John
2:4), is neither a reprimand nor a rebuke. It referred only to the fact
that it had nothing to do with His messianic work and with the mira­
cles with which He was to confirm the work; but it was the will of
God, which would be fulfilled when God willed it.
Far from feeling offended by Jesus’ words, Mary told the servants
to do whatever He would tell them, and He worked a private miracle
to honor His Mother; a miracle which, to all appearances, lie did not
wish to perform, at least publicly, for His hour had not yet arrived.
Neither was Mary ambitious nor vexatious when she was near her
relatives and tried to speak to Jesus, who was preaching (Matt.
12:47). She was not ambitious, for St. Peter Canisius says that her
humility was most profound; nor did she intend to interrupt her Son’s
preaching with her own particular needs.
Christ’s words, "Who is My mother and who are My brethren?”
(Matt. 12:48), do not show any disrespect toward His Mother. Just as
on another occasion He had said: "Did you not know that I must be
about My Father's business?” (Luke 2:49), He shows that He could
not stop His preaching to talk to His relatives. And this helps us to
understand that in the Messianic kingdom, spiritual parentage is of
more value than blood parentage.
St. Augustine says that when Jesus stretched forth His hand toward
His disciples and said, "Behold My mother and My brethren I For
156

mary’s freedom from sin

whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My
brother and sister and mother” (Matt. 12:49-50), He included His
Mother, as she fulfilled the will of the Father (Ep. Ad Laetam.).
Finally, the Blessed Virgin can be blamed for neither infidelity nor
vacillation during the Passion of our Lord, since she remained under
the Cross, while the apostles fled.

Mary was immune from even the slightest moral imperfec­
tion.
Moral imperfection is the free transgression or omission of a divine
counsel. According to Gobat it is an act or omission concerning some­
thing that is not commanded or forbidden but is in some way con­
trary to a divine inspiration, command of a superior or right reason,
but in a matter that does not bind under sin.70 There has been in our
times a great controversy over moral imperfections: whether there
exist imperfections which, although deliberate, cannot be said to be
sins, not even venial sins; or whether, on the contrary, deliberate moral
imperfections are always imputed as sin. Garrigou-Lagrange, Schel­
ling, Creussen, etc. exclude moral imperfections from sin; Hugueny,
Priimmer, Ramwcz and others, say that they are always sinful. Never­
theless, we must absolutely reject all thought that Mary had moral
imperfections, whether they always imply sin or not.
The reason for this is that it is evident from what has been said that
the Mother of God was exempt from original sin and every other sin,
even the slightest. Also, Mary’s entire life shone in perfection. As St.
Jerome says, in the same manner as no one is good as compared to
God, so, as compared with the Mother of God, there is no one found
with her perfections; for it is evident that she excelled all in virtue
(Serm. Ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumpt. B.V. Mariae). St.
Bernard (In signum magnum) tells us that Mary always corresponded
to the divine inspirations and graces bestowed upon her. Moreover,
St. Bernardine states that Mary chose only what divine wisdom
showed her, because she always corresponded with divine graces and
inspirations. St. Thomas gives as a reason that the spiritual man is not
only instructed by the Holy Spirit on what he is to do, but his mind is
moved by this same Spirit so that he is not inclined to act according
to his own will, but by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit (In
Ep. ad Rom., c. 8, lect. 3). It is evident that it was more fitting that
thesis:

>57

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mary live and move more than other creatures under the inspirations
of the Holy Ghost. In addition, there was nothing to hinder Mary’s
corresponding to grace because she did not have the fames at sin,
being entirely exempt from concupiscence.

Mary was impeccable from the first moment of her concep
tion.
We must carefully distinguish between actual sinlessness and im­
peccability. Sinlessncss refers to freedom from sin; impeccability
refers to the inability to sin. Impeccability can be consequent or
antecedent. Consequent impeccability is the impossibility of sinning
based on the infallible prevision that a man or angel will never sin;
antecedent impeccability is based on some title or principle of the
moral act which bespeaks an opposition to sin. Impeccability is ex­
trinsic or intrinsic. It is extrinsic when the inability to sin results from
some external assistance which preserves from sin. Intrinsic impecca­
bility originates from some internal element which rectifies the facul­

thesis:

ties so that they cannot sin.
It is not necessary to note that God is essentially and absolutely
impeccable, because God is subsistent holiness and the supreme prin­
ciple of all holiness. It is also certain that Christ as man is ante­
cedently and intrinsically impeccable as a result of the hypostatic

union, for He is absolutely and infinitely holy.
Neither is there any doubt that the blessed are intrinsically impec­
cable by reason of the beatific vision, according to the common opin­
ion of theologians. St. Thomas says: “For the rational creature is con­
firmed in righteousness through the beatitude given by the clear vision
of God; and when once it has seen God, it cannot but cleave to Him
who is the essence of goodness, wherefrom no one can turn away,
since nothing is desired or loved but under the aspect of good. I say
this according to the general law." 71 Suârez (De ult. fine hominis)
teaches the same thing and mentions St. Augustine’s treatise on Psalm
35, pointing out that all is loved under this aspect of the divine good.
Finally, we suppose that many of the just, while they lived on earth,
had consequent and extrinsic impeccability through an abundance of
graces and the assistance of God, as in the case of St. Joseph, who
never committed actual sin, the apostles, who after Pentecost Sunday
did not commit any deliberate mortal or venial sins, and the eminent
>;8

mary’s freedom from sin

saints such as St. Thomas Aquinas, after his victory in the matter of
chastity, and St. John the Baptist regarding sins of the tongue.
That the Blessed Virgin was impeccable is affirmed by St. Peter
Damian (Hom. In Nativ. B.M. Virginis) and St. Anselm (De Con­
cept. Virginis, c. 18). This poses the question as to the intrinsic or ex­
trinsic title by which Mary was impeccable. Undoubtedly, the Blessed
Virgin is not impeccable by any intrinsic principle, for the intrinsic
principle of indefectibility in good is threefold: the divine nature, the
divine Person united to human nature, or the light of glory, which is
the principle of the beatific vision. Mary was not impeccable in any of
these three ways. Her impeccability is not a divine attribute, nor is it
based on a personal union of divinity with humanity, nor can it be the
result of the beatific vision. We may add to this that the divine ma­
ternity is not a physical form which affects Mary’s soul intrinsically,
for her maternity is only a relation, and as such it refers to her Son
simply as a terminus, although in the moral estimation this dignity
redounds from the Son to the Mother. Yet the title which makes
Mary extrinsically impeccable is the divine maternity, for the dignity
of the Mother of God is opposed to sin, an opposition which is not
physical, but moral, and results from the moral indignity that would
ensue from uniting the exalted dignity of the Mother of God with
the ugliness of sin.’2
All these considerations show that the divine maternity is the funda­
mental reason for Mary’s impeccability. It cannot be said that Mary
was impeccable because she was immune from the fomes of sin, for
our first parents were also immune but they actually sinned. Neither
was her impeccability due to the removal of external incentives to sin,
because the evil angels had no such incentives and yet they sinned.
Moreover, Mary’s impeccability was further guaranteed by the special
assistance of divine providence, the constant care of the angels, her
continuous contemplation of God and divine things, her ardent love
of God, her plenitude of grace and virtue, so that she could not de­
part from God.73
From the testimony given, it follows that Mary’s impeccability is
not unlike that of the blessed in heaven, for they see God clearly and
therefore they cannot love a mutable good. St. Thomas says: “For
the rational creature is confirmed in righteousness through the beati­
tude given by the clear vision of God. ... I say this according to the

*59

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

mary’s freedom from sin

general law; for it may be otherwise in the case of special privilege
such as we believe was granted to the Virgin Mother of God."’4
Richard of St. Victor, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Alexander of
Hales, etc., as a consequence of their doctrine on the extinction of the
fomes in Mary after the conception of her Son, maintain that she re­
ceived the privilege of impeccability in the incarnation of the Word;
though de facto she had not sinned before that time. Thus, Richard
of St. Victor says that from her birth she never committed cither mor­
tal or venial sin. Before the conception of the Son of God, she was
protected from all sin by grace; after His conception she was con­
firmed, supported and strengthened by the power of the Most High
so that she could not possibly commit sin (In Cant. c. 26).
St. Thomas says: “In her sanctification she was delivered from origi­
nal sin. Afterward, in the conception of the Son of God, she was en­
tirely cleansed from the fomes; lastly, in her glorification she was
delivered from all affliction whatever. ... In her sanctification she
received grace inclining her to good; in the conception of the Son of
God she received consummate grace confirming her in good; and in her
glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her
in the enjoyment of all good.” 76 St. Bonaventure holds a similar
opinion (In 111, dist. 3, q. 3). Later theologians place Mary’s impecca­
bility before Christ’s conception. A few, like Durandus and Medina,
say that she was impeccable from her first sanctification in her moth­
er’s womb; others place it at the first moment of her conception, on
the basis of her divine maternity.
Mary was no more impeccable after the second sanctification, or
conception of Christ, through which she became the Mother of God,
than after the first, when in the first instant of her conception she was
enriched with a plenitude of grace, because although she was not as
yet the Mother of God, she had already been chosen as the Mother of
God by eternal and infallible pre ordination, and therefore she was
considered the Mother of God morally. Hence, from the first moment
of her conception she possessed a plenitude of grace, supernatural gifts,
and other helps and divine privileges which made her impeccable. It
can be said, nevertheless, that after the incarnation of the Word there
was a new reason to strengthen the truth of the impeccability of
Mary.7®
Corollary. It follows from what has been said that Mary possessed

160

the greatest purity after God. Since purity, as St. Thomas says, is con­
stituted by the recession of its contrary, it is possible to find some
creature purer than all the rest, if it is not contaminated by any taint
of sin, and such was the purity of Mary, who was immune from origi­
nal and actual sin and from all moral imperfections. St. Ephrem
praises her as undcfilcd, wholly pure, and Queen of all (Or. de laud.
Deip.). Therefore the words of the Canticle (6:3), “Thou art all
beautiful, 0 my love, sweet and comely as Jerusalem,” are applied to
her.

mart’s fullness of grace

CHAPTER FOUR

‘Mary's dullness of Qrace
*

Having examined Mary’s negative sanctity, we will now con­

sider her positive sanctity, which consists in the perfection of
grace bestowed upon her. Grace is divided into gratia gratum faciens
and gratia gratis data. The first is divided into habitual or sanctifying
grace and actual grace. Moreover, habitual grace can be considered
in itself or in its consequences, that is, in the virtues and gifts of the
Holy Ghost. All of these gifts and graces will be studied separately:
habitual grace in itself, the consequent infused virtues and gifts of
the Holy Spirit, actual grace and the graces gratis datae.

Habitual Grace
Previous Observations: Mary’s habitual grace may be considered
both in its beginning at her first sanctification, in its increase at her
second sanctification, or in its consummation at the end of her life. It
is evident from what has been said of the Immaculate Conception
that Mary was sanctified in the first moment of her passive concep­
tion, because the remission of original sin cannot be effected without
the infusion of sanctifying grace, and for that reason the Immaculate
Conception is not actually distinguished from the first sanctification
of the Mother of God. It can be called her original grace.
It is certain that in the first instant of her conception Mary, because
of the great dignity of the divine maternity for which she was des­
tined, received a remarkable plenitude of grace. It is fitting, never­
theless, to investigate what this plenitude was, both in the beginning
of her life and at the end of it.

Mary was enriched with the plenitude of grace in the first
instant of her conception.
thesis:

162

Ineffabilis Deus: From the beginning, and before time began, the
Eternal Father chose and prepared for His only-begotten Son a
Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from
whom, in the blessed fullness of time, He would be bom into this
world. Above all creatures did God so love her that truly in her was
the Father well pleased with singular delight. Wherefore, far above
all the angels and all the saints, so wondrously did Cod endow her
with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of
His divinity that this Mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin,
all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and
sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything
greater.”
Sacred Scripture: "I will put enmities between thee and the woman,
and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head” (Gen. 3:15).
Here Mary is clearly shown as associated with Christ in enmity
against the devil, whose definite end is the victory she will have over
him with Christ. But this association with Christ demands a most
singular sanctity on the part of Mary even from the beginning of her
life.
“And when the angel had come to her, he said, ‘Hail, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee’ ” (Luke 1:28). As being preserved from sin is
nothing other than possessing sanctifying grace from the beginning
of existence, and as Mary was preserved from original sin in a unique
manner, it follows that from the very beginning she was full of grace.
Moreover, the angel’s greeting is directed to Mary as the chosen
Mother of God, and therefore Mary would have to have a fullness of
singular grace. The angel told Mary: “The Lord is with thee," and
this certainly is because of her fullness of grace.
The Fathers and Theologians also praise Mary as full of grace. St.
Epiphanius says that she is “full of grace in every respect” (Haer., 58),
as do St. Anthony of Jerusalem, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, and
St. Peter Damian. Explaining the words, “The streams from the river
give joy to the city of God” (Ps. 45), St. Vincent Ferrer says that this
refers to Mary because the whole river of divine graces overflowed
upon her in her sanctification. In other saints, sanctification is infused
by a drop of grace; but in Mary the river overflows (Serm. 1, In
Nativ. Deiparae). St. Laurence Justinian says that since Mary had
been sanctified in her mother’s womb and freed from all contagion

i6j

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

of original sin, she manifested exteriorly the fullness of grace which
was in her soul. The Word certainly loved her while she was still
in her mother's womb and chose her for His Mother (De Ndtiv.
Virginis).
Theological Argument, i) The more closely one approaches a
principle of any kind, the more one participates in the effect flowing
from that principle. But the Blessed Virgin was nearest to Christ in
His humanity because He assumed His human nature from her.
2) God gives grace to each according to the purpose for which
He has chosen him. Hence it follows that Mary had to possess all
the graces corresponding to the work to which she was destined as
the chosen Mother of God. And she had these graces from the first
moment of her conception because she was already the one chosen
to be the Mother of God.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the plenitude of grace with
which Mary was endowed from the first moment of her conception
was in keeping with the divine maternity. Hence, although Mary was
full of grace, she could increase in it; and not only could she increase
it, but she did increase in grace during all her mortal life. St. Bernard

and Amadeus of Lausanne affirm it.
St. Thomas says that there was a threefold perfection of grace in
the Blessed Virgin. The first was dispositive, by which she was made
worthy to be the Mother of Christ, and this was the perfection of
her sanctification. The second perfection of grace in the Blessed Vir­
gin was through the presence of the Son of God incarnate in her
womb. The third is the perfection of the end which she has in glory.*

Mary's initial grace was greater than the grace of men
and angels.
Theologians hold as certain that Mary’s initial grace surpassed
that of men and angels in their first sanctification. It is also a com­
mon opinion that Mary’s initial grace was more abundant than the
final or consummated grace of angels and men considered separately.
However, they disagree on whether the grace given to the Blessed
Virgin in her first sanctification transcends the consummate grace
of all men and angels combined.
Suarez, Theophilus Raynaud, Lepicier, Terrien and others arc
either silent or deny such an excess of initial grace in Mary. Vega,

thesis:

mary’s fullness of grace

St. Laurence of Brindisi, Contenson, Morales, St. Alphonsus, Sedl­
mayr, Tanqucrey, Hugon, Sinibaldi and others place Mary’s initial
grace above the consummate sanctity of all men and angels com­
bined.
This opinion is the most satisfactory because, as St. Alphonsus says,
"When an opinion tends in any way to the honor of the most Blessed
Virgin, when it has some foundation and is not repugnant to faith
nor to the decrees of the Church nor to truth, the refusal to hold it
on the grounds that the reverse may be true, shows little devotion to
the Mother of God. I do not choose to be one of these.”2
The Bull Ineffabilis Deus states: "Wherefore, far above the angels
and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her. . .
God gives grace to each soul according to the purpose for which
He has chosen it; therefore Mary, at the first instant of her concep­
tion, received grace commensurate with the dignity of the divine
maternity for which she had been chosen by God from all eternity.
This dignity, we can say with St. Peter Damian, is that before which
all creatures are silent and tremble, and scarcely dare to gaze upon
the immensity of such great dignity.8 Mary’s first infusion of grace
made her immaculate, free from concupiscence, and immune from
even the slightest sin. No man or angel possessed such an abundance
of effects in their first sanctification.
thesis: Mary's initial grace was greater than the consummate
grace of the angels and saints considered separately.
By consummate grace is meant, not the grace of beatitude, but the
grace possessed at the end of life, closing man’s life as a wayfarer.
The truth of our thesis seems to be insinuated in the Bull Ineffabilis
Deus: “Wherefore, far above the angels and saints so wondrously
did God endow her. . .
The more closely one approaches a principle of any kind, the
more one participates in the effect flowing from that principle. From
the first instant of her conception, Mary was nearest to God, the
fountain of all graces, more than any angel or saint confirmed in
grace, because as the chosen Mother of God, from her first sancti­
fication she was destined to an intimate association with Him.
Again, the more perfect a form, the more perfect the disposition
it requires. Therefore, just as the maternity of God, for which Mary’s

165

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

first grace of sanctification was a disposition so that she might be
worthy, is the greatest dignity bestowed on a creature, so her initial
grace, as a disposition for so exalted a dignity, had to transcend the
grace that could be accumulated by any angel or any man at the end
of his state as a wayfarer.
As grace is the effect of divine love, to the greater love of God in a
creature corresponds proportionately a greater degree of grace. Now
the Blessed Virgin, in the first instant of her conception, was loved
by God more than any angel or saint, because she was loved as the
chosen Mother of God. For this reason she was more esteemed by
God than the most remarkable of the saints or the most ardent of
tire angels.
Mary's initial grace was greater than the final grace be­
stowed on all of the angels and saints considered even collectively.
“Wherefore, far above all the angels and saints, so wondrously did
God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts . . .” (In­

thesis:

effabilis Deus).
Mary’s initial grace, which is a disposition to the divine maternity,
should be proportionate to it. But the final grace of the angels and
saints is far from being proportionate to the divine maternity, which
is in the highest order and pertains in a certain way to the hypostatic
order.
The effect of grace is communicated more to those who are more
united to God. But Mary was the creature most united to God, as
Garau states, because God selected Mary to be His Mother, the Fa
ther chose her for His daughter, and the Holy Ghost chose her as
His spouse, and thus she had an affinity with the entire Trinity.
Hence, God made Mary the highest and greatest among the rest of
the creatures, and gave her an abundance of all good.
The greater love of God toward the creature produces a greater
degree of grace. But Mary, from the first moment of her creation, was
loved more than all angels and men combined, because God loved
her as His chosen Mother, and this privilege carries with it a greater
love than any other privilege by which all men and angels confirmed
in grace can be honored.
Contenson describes the excellence of Mary’s initial grace by say­
ing that it was such that one could believe that her initial grace had
166

mary’s fullness of crace

begun where the graces of all the others end; so that her primitive
degree of grace was greater, more perfect and more intense than the
grace of all the angels and men from the beginning to the end of
the world. He says that if all the graces of all the just were weighed
in the balance with those of Mary, the scale would incline in her
direction.
Finally, if it is asked whether the Blessed Virgin was disposed by a
proper movement of free will to receive grace in the first instant of
her conception, the answer can be yes, because it was fitting that be­
cause of the great dignity of her divine maternity she should be sanc­
tified in the most noble way possible. The most noble manner of
sanctification is through the use of free will, which accepts grace,
rather than through that attained without the consent of the will.
Therefore, the justification of adults is nobler than that of children.
Besides, no one is sanctified without consent of the will, except
per accidens, that is, when there is no use of reason, because the per­
fect manner of establishing divine friendship demands consent on the
part of God and on the part of man. Mary, however, had the use of
reason from the very beginning, as will be explained later.

T h e s r s : Mary increased in grace during the whole of her mortal
life.
Peter the Venerable (Ep. 7), dwelling on the words of the angel
Gabriel, "Hail, full of grace,” believed that the grace of the Blessed
Virgin increased until the Incarnation, at which time it reached such
a fullness that it could not be increased any further.
Other theologians seem to be of this same opinion, among whom
is Scotus.4 However, nothing can be inferred from his words against
the increase of grace in Mary from the time of Christ’s conception.
The Doctors commonly teach that in the conception of Christ,
Mary attained an inestimable increase in grace and even those who
denied the privilege of the Immaculate Conception confessed that
the grace bestowed on Mary in the incarnation of the Word was suf­
ficient to extinguish the fomes of sin and to confirm her in good.
Thus, St. Thomas says: “In the conception of the Son of Cod she
received consummate grace, confirming her in good.’’® St. Albert
the Great says:0 “We believe, without prejudice to a better opinion,
that in the conception of Christ the Blessed Virgin received as much
167

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

charity as was possible for a pure creature to receive in the state of
wayfarer,” which must be taken in the sense that Mary received «
much grace as was necessary for her to be the worthy Mother of God
It is a dogma of faith that in wayfarers sanctifying grace is capable
of increase, according to the Council of Trent (Scss. VI, c. 32), and
it is obvious that during her whole life, Mary was a wayfarer.
On the other hand, Mary’s initial grace could increase indefinitely,
since it was not infinite or absolute as was Christ’s grace, which is
commensurate with the hypostatic union, making Him, from the
beginning of the Incarnation, a perfect comprchcnsor.
Mary attained an abundance of grace in Christ’s concep­
tion, but continued to grow in grace, both before and after the In­
carnation.
First Part. St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Jerome, Richard
of St. Laurence and St. Peter Canisius all testify to Mary's plenitude

thesis:

of grace through her intimate relation with Christ.
The theological reason is that the nearer one approaches a princi­
ple of any kind, the more one participates in the effect flowing from
that principle, and Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity be­
cause He received His human nature from Her.
Second Part. The grace may be increased as long as one is in the
state of a wayfarer. Now Mary was a wayfarer even after Christ’s in­
carnation, for unlike Christ, who was truly a comprehensor from the
first instant of His conception, Mary did not enter into the state of
a comprehensor until after her death.
Dominic Soto states that Mary was certainly as full of grace in
Christ’s conception as was fitting for the Mother of God. However,
her grace was not such that it could not afterwards be increased by
meritorious acts.7
Mary grew in grace ex opere operantis or in a meritorious
manner throughout her life.
The opinion of some was that Mary could not merit grace from
the time of the incarnation of her Son to her death. Among those cited
by Suârez are Richard and Alexander of Hales.
1) The good works of the just can merit de condigno an increase
of grace, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. 32). Now

thesis:

168

I

mart’s fullness of grace

Mary performed meritorious acts throughout her life, for as soon as
she began to exist she began to merit. Actually, from the first instant
of her conception until her death, she was a wayfarer, enriched with
the greatest amount of sanctifying grace, and her acts were free, most
virtuous, and directed only to God by an infinite love. St. Bernardine
of Siena says that she never chose to do anything except what was
shown her by the wisdom of God and she always loved God as much
as she believed she should love Him.8 St. Peter Canisius expresses
these same sentiments in his work on Mary.
2) Sanctifying grace grows ex opere operantis in proportion to the
fervor of the meritorious acts. Now Mary's meritorious acts, besides
the great value they received through her great privilege as the
Mother of God, were enobled by the greatest habitual grace and were
most intense in proportion to the actual graces which were bestowed
on her so abundantly by God, for there was nothing in her to hinder
or delay a perfect correspondence to grace, for she was free from all
incitement to sin and all disorder in the faculties.
Mary merited grace through each and every one of the
actions of her life.
Previous Observations. Some acts are human acts; others are acts
of man. Human acts are those which proceed from a deliberate will;
acts of man are those which are performed by the faculties in them­
selves and independent of the free determination of the will.
In man there are many actions which do not proceed from reason
and will, but from properties of the body (to fall down), the vegeta­
tive powers (nutrition and growth), or movements of the sensitive
powers, because the bodily and vegetative functions are not directly
subject to reason, although they may be subject indirectly, and the
sensitive powers are subject to the will only in an imperfect way.
The question here concerns Mary's human actions, and not the
purely natural actions of body and soul, for although the latter are
acts of man, they are not human actions nor do they proceed from
free will; therefore they are not of themselves worthy of either praise
or merit.
St. Albert the Great says that where reason cannot en in discern­
ing and the will cannot choose evil, the best and the ultimate is al­
ways chosen. Now these two perfections existed in Mary; therefore,
thesis:

169

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

she did everything in the best manner and consequently merited grace
through each one of her acts.®
There was nothing in any of Mary’s human actions to prevent het
from meriting an increase of grace, since all her actions were free and
virtuous, without any mixture of inordinate affection; and they were
all adorned with the greatest sanctifying grace. Besides, although
Mary performed many objectively indifferent acts, there were none
that were not extremely virtuous by reason of their end. Lastly, Mary
ordered all her acts to God through a most ardent love. St. Peter
Damian says of this that she emitted the fragrance of her good works
everywhere and reached the sublime by a continual intention of her
heart.10
thesis:

Mary merited continuously and grew in grace during her

whole life.
Mary’s continuity in meriting can be understood cither in her time
of wakefulness or in her time of sleep. That she merited continuously
during her time of wakefulness must be admitted with certainty, be­
cause all her acts of mind and will, considered both essentially and
by participation, were deliberate. Besides, there were no movements
whatever of the inferior powers against right reason. On the other
hand, she could not desist from every exterior or interior act because,
as Suârez says, this is almost impossible to human nature and would
in fact result in slothfulness.11
Mary received infused knowledge from the very beginning of her
conception; but infused knowledge is independent of phantasms,
therefore it is not necessary to admit that there was any discontin­
uance whatever in Mary’s acts of this knowledge, nor any digression
of mind, interference from indeliberate thoughts or bodily weariness
caused by the use of this knowledge. All these things arise in us from
the natural communication between the intellect and the imagina­
tion and other sensitive powers necessarily bound to our material
bodies. Terrien is in favor of this explanation, and he adds that the
complaint of the saints was their inability to think of God and to
love Him without interruption.,2
That Mary’s meriting was interrupted by sleep is maintained by
Gerson and Lepicier, who thought that Mary could not perform free
acts during sleep and therefore could not merit. Nevertheless the

170

mary’s fullness of grace

majority of the theologians affirm that she did merit in sleep; for ex­
ample, St. Bernardine of Siena, Denis the Carthusian, St. Peter
Canisius, St. Francis de Sales, Contenson, Suârez, Vega, Terrien,
Hugon and others.
Tire affirmative opinion seems more probable. St. Ambrose (De
Virgin., Lib. II) stresses this point when he says that even while she
slept, her heart still kept vigil. St. Bernardine of Siena maintains that
the sleep which prevents the action of reason and free will, and con­
sequently the act of meriting, did not happen to Mary. Rather, her
soul was directed to God by a free and meritorious act. Hence, during
sleep she contemplated more perfectly than during her waking hours.
Rupert of Deutz brings out this point when alluding to Jacob’s tri­
umph over the angel, as does Denis the Carthusian.13
This testimony shows that because Mary had been given infused
knowledge from the first moment of her conception (knowledge which
is independent of the operation of the senses and of phantasms),
nothing hindered her in sleep from a continuous contemplation and
love of heavenly things. Although we admit, says Suârez, that on some
occasions this merit would be interrupted by sleep and by bodily
weakness, nevertheless those interruptions were so short that her merit
could be called continuous. It is believed that Mary required little
sleep and devoted a great part of that time to watching and prayer by
which she mortified her body.
Mary possessed an increase of grace ex opere operato.
Grace ex opere operato signifies all grace bestowed by the will of
God, independent of the merits of the subject receiving it. This can
happen in two ways: through the sacraments or independent of the
sacraments. We must therefore consider the sacraments of the Old
and of the New Law and also some instances and occasions in Mary’s
life in which the goodness of God toward His Mother was to be
shown in a special way.
With regard to the sacraments of the Old Law. In the Old Law,
besides the circumcision of males, there was the remedium naturae,
which was applied to women in order to take away original sin. Grace
was conferred, not properly ex opere operato, but quasi ex opere op­
erato; that is, independent of all merit of the recipient. Therefore,
such a remedy was applied to Mary, as to all other girls, shortly after

thesis:

17»

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

birth, because her parents did not know of the privilege of her im
maculate conception. Hence, they followed the tradition of their
ancestors. It must therefore be affirmed that Mary received this sac­
rament, not to be cleansed from original sin, but to adhere to the
visible church of that time and to increase in sanctifying grace. Not
could her sanctification from the first moment of her conception be
denied because this remedy was applied to her, for John the Baptist
was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, although he was
already free from original sin, having been sanctified in his mother's
womb.
With regard to the sacraments of the New Law. Mary received
baptism, which produced many effects in her. When baptism is con­
ferred on a person already justified, it gives an increase of grace; and
thus Mary increased in grace, although already full of grace from the
first moment of her conception. Moreover, it is proper to baptism,
through the imprint of the character, to incorporate a person in
Christ and His visible Church and to make him capable of receiving
the other sacraments. Since Mary received baptism, she was marked
with the baptismal character as the firstborn of the faithful and the
most noble member of the Church; and through it, she was rendered
apt for receiving the other sacraments. Finally, by receiving baptism,
Mar)' followed in the footsteps of Christ, who was baptized by John.
Thus she gives the faithful an example of perfect observance of the
law, just as, at another time, she submitted to the rite of purifica­
tion, faithfully fulfilling the law, although it was not necessary that
she do so.
But when and by whom was Mary baptized? Although it is certain
that baptism was not necessary before Christ’s death, nevertheless
the apostles were ordained priests and received the Holy Eucharist
before Christ’s passion. According to the general rule (from which
it is not evident that Christ would dispense His apostles) no one is
capable of receiving the other sacraments unless he is first baptized,
hence it must be thought that the apostles were baptized before
Christ’s death, and Mary before them all, for she always preceded
them in matters of virtue and sanctity.
If they were baptized before the Passion, says Maldonado, they
were undoubtedly baptized by Christ, since He baptized before His
172

mary's fullness of grace

passion, and baptized in the Holy Spirit. John’s statement that Christ
did not baptize can be interpreted in the sense that He did not
usually baptize, although at some time He might have baptized a
few.14 Suarez agrees with Euthymius Zagabenus that it is pious and
probable that Christ baptized Peter and His Virgin Mother, and that
Peter baptized the other apostles. It seems reasonable, as it is fitting,
considering Mary’s singular honor, to be baptized by her Son Him­
self.15
Mary also received confirmation, not the sensible sign or rite used
nowadays in the Church, but the effects of the sacrament: the grace
and fortitude of the Holy Ghost for professing the faith. Mary re­
ceived this effect on Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended
upon her and upon the apostles in the form of tongues of fire. "All
these with one mind continued steadfastly in prayer, with the women
and Mary, the mother of Jesus” (Acts 1:14). On that day, the apostles
received the effects of confirmation, that is, the plenitude of the Holy
Spirit, as Pope Eugene IV explains: "The effect of this sacrament
is that in it the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen the grace of faith,
as it was given to the apostles on Pentecost.” 18 Therefore, it was
reasonable that Mary receive the effects of confirmation, since it was
fitting that she be filled with a greater perfection of grace than the
apostles and disciples.
Canisius says that Mary also received the Holy Eucharist fre­
quently and even daily. Frequent and even daily communion was in
use among the faithful of the primitive Church, of whom we read
(Acts 2:46) ; "And continuing daily with one accord in the temple,
and breaking bread in their houses”; and although it was not sanc­
tioned by apostolic precept, as Vâzquez says; nevertheless, it can­
not be denied that frequent and daily communion, always so longed
for by the Church, was in use among the first Christians. St. Ignatius
Martyr attests to this custom: “Meet more frequently to celebrate
God's Eucharist and to offer praise." 17 St. Justin Martyr and St.
Cyprian also refer to the practice and St. Jerome states that it was the
custom in Rome for the faithful to receive Christ’s body frequently.
In another passage he answers the question as to whether the Eu­
charist is to be received daily, by stating that it was observed in Rome
and in Spain.18 If, then, frequent and even daily reception of the

*7Î

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Eucharist was the custom among the faithful of the early Church it
is reasonable to believe that Mary also received the Holy Eucharist
daily.
Actually, Mary’s love for Christ led her to receive Holy Commun­
ion daily, that she might harbor within her breast the body of the
Son she had borne in her womb. And thus she offered her Son, hidden
in the Eucharistic species, a most chaste daily abode, for Christ did
not enter into any heart with more pleasure than into His Mother's,
since no one was purer, holier or more inflamed with love. As Christ’s
absence would be felt when He left this world in human form, He
instituted this Sacrament so that He might console the faithful, and
especially His Mother who, receiving Him frequently in the Eucharist,
would be better able to bear the absence of her Loved One. Mary had
occasion to communicate daily because she could easily receive the
Eucharist from the hands of St. John, her constant companion, or

from the hands of another apostle.
Mary never received the sacrament of penance because she had
neither proximate nor remote matter, without which there is no sac­
rament. She could not confess sins she never committed.
There is a disagreement among theologians whether she received
extreme unction. St. Albert the Great, St. Peter Canisius, Suarez,
Vega and Sedlmayr arc of the opinion that Mary was anointed be­
fore dying, for although she did not have even the vestige of sin, she
was capable of receiving tire fortifying grace conferred in this sacra­
ment. Besides, although she was not subject to sickness, the weakness
of bodily energies is sufficient for this sacrament. From which it is
inferred that Mary received that sacrament for its fruit, for new in­
creases in grace, and for the edification to the faithful, thus giving
them an example of humility and of Christian living. It is probable,
says St. Albert the Great, that the Blessed Virgin humbly received
that sacrament instituted for sinners, so that she could leave this
life with the humility she possessed all during her life; and thus,
lowering herself in her last moments to become similar to sinners,
the Lord might raise her above the choirs of angels.10
Of the contrary opinion arc Peter of Palude, Gabriel Biel, Vazquez,
Lepicier, Paquet, Campana and Hugon, who believe that Man- did
not and could not have received extreme unction. This opinion seems
to be the one preferred, for the following reasons:
»74

mary's fullness of grace

1 ) The subject of the sacrament is a sick person in danger of death,
but Mary never suffered bodily sickness.
2) Tire form of the sacrament of extreme unction, "May the Lord
pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed . . .” supposes that
the person receiving the sacrament contracted sin, which cannot be
said of Mary.
3) The proper effect of extreme unction is the cleansing of the
remains of sin and the forgiveness of sin if there be any, but Mary
had neither sin nor the remains of sin.
4) Lastly, extreme unction strengthens the sick person at the end
of life against the snares of the devil and gives a special help in en­
during the agonies of death. But Mary did not need to be strengthened
to overcome the cunning of the devil, for the devil was always kept
far from her; nor did she have to be consoled in her agony, because
her passing, rather than a death, was a peaceful flight in the ecstasy
of the beatific vision.
Mary did not receive the sacrament of holy orders, for this sacra­
ment is conferred only upon men. Whence Pope Innocent III says that
although the Blessed Virgin was more worthy and more excellent
than all of the apostles, nevertheless, God entrusted the keys of the
kingdom of heaven to them and not to her.20 But although Mary did
not receive the sacrament of holy orders and was not invested with
the sacerdotal character, nevertheless, because she brought Christ
the Priest into the world and because with her consent Christ’s
priestly ordination was effected, since she offered Him for us as the
Victim for our salvation, not only on the altar of her heart but also
united to Him and with Him on the altar of the Cross, we must
acknowledge that she possessed in an equivalent and most excellent
manner whatever is proper to the priestly power.21
Mary did not contract matrimony as a sacrament of the New Law,
but she was legitimately married to St. Joseph under the Old Law,
prout in officium naturae. Nor did Mary and Joseph’s marriage be­
come a sacrament after she was baptized, because it is commonly
believed that Joseph died before Christ instituted baptism and raised
marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.
Corollary. From what has been said, it seems clear that although
Mary did not receive all the sacraments of the New Law, neverthe­
less, as St. Albert the Great savs, whatever graces are granted by the
*75

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

sacraments of the Church, the Blessed Virgin Jacked absolutely none
of them in the plenitude she possessed; she attained all of them
through the sacraments, the equivalent of the sacraments or in some
more exalted manner.22
thesis: Instances in which Mary was given a singular increase in
grace besides the dignity of her own merit.
As has already been said, in the conception of Christ, Mary re­
ceived an abundance of grace through her new, intimate and ad­
mirable union with Christ, the source of grace, by which she then
became a mother physically and actually. This grace was not re­
stricted only to the time of the Incarnation nor to the nine months
during which she carried her divine Son in her womb, but could be
extended to the whole period of Christ’s infancy, during which time
Mary enjoyed a daily familiarity with Him, though it cannot be
determined to what degree, proportion or continuity. St. Augustine,
St. Peter Canisius and Denis the Carthusian attest to this.
There were other times during which Mary received an abundance
of graces; namely, when the principal mysteries of Christ took place,
such as the Resurrection, Ascension, and on Pentecost, when it was
manifest that Mary, together with the apostles, though she, more
abundantly than they, received the graces of the Holy Ghost, and
especially at the foot of the Cross, where, St. Bernard says, she was
truly a martyr, suffering a pain more cruel than death.23
Sudrez states that these increases in grace must be understood, not
as if there were no free cooperation on Mary’s part, but so far as they
surpassed the disposition she possessed, because God can give an in­
crease of grace by special privilege without any good works or sac­
raments.24

thesis : Mary’s final grace was almost unlimited, surpassing that of
all the angels and blessed combined.
First Part. Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius IX, in the Bull
Ineffabilis Deus, clearly says: "Far above all the angels and all the
saints, so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all
heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of His divinity, that this
Mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect,
would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than

176

mary's fullness of grace

which, under God, one cannot imagine anything greater.'' These
words demonstrate sufficiently the abundance of grace accumulated
in Mary.
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Peter Chrysologus, St. John Dam­
ascene, St. Peter Damian, Richard of St. Lawrence, Denis the
Carthusian, St. Thomas of Villanova and St. Bonaventure teach this
same doctrine. For example, Denis the Carthusian says that after the
sanctity of Christ it is impossible to conceive of any sanctity greater
than that of Mary.28
Theological Argument. Mary’s initial grace was greater, as we have
said, than the consummate grace of each individual saint or angel,
and even of all the saints and angels taken collectively. This grace
increased continuously during the whole course of her mortal life
by her most perfect and fervent meritorious acts, never interrupted
cither in her waking hours or in sleep. It was increased through her
reception of the sacraments, principally through the Sacrament of
Holy Eucharist, which no one desired or received more worthily than
she, and by the overflowing generosity of Christ, her Son, at definite
times in which He was pleased to manifest His great love for His
Mother. This idea of Mary’s increase in grace is explained by Scho­
lastic theologians and especially by Suarez.2*
Second Part. Proved by the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, already quoted.
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrem says: “Mother of God,
my Lady, higher beyond compare than the cherubim and seraphim.” 2T
St. Germanus and St. Peter Damian make similar protestations.23
Theological Argument. Mary’s consummate grace surpasses her
initial grace beyond comparison. But her initial grace was greater than
the final grace of all the angels and saints together.
God, says Suarez, gives grace to each one according to his state and
ministry. Now all this intensity and fullness of grace is befitting the
Mother of God because her dignity is of the highest order, so that
even if that grace extended to the infinite, it would never surpass that
which is proportionate to her dignity, because the dignity of the
Mother of God is greater than the gifts and dignities of all the saints.
Therefore, a grace which surpasses that of the rest befits this dignity.2*
Corollary. From what has been said, we infer that Mary’s grace,
although full from the first instant of her conception, increased con­
tinually during her mortal life, and that it attained, at the end of

*77

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

her life, an immense accumulation which God alone is capable of
measuring. Also, we see that this plenitude is different from the
plenitude of grace in Christ, since the fullness of Christ’s grace is
absolute, attaining the summit with regard to its essence and with
regard to its power, which extends to all the effects of grace.
Mary’s fullness of grace, then, is not absolute, but proportionate to
her unique dignity as the Mother of God, by which she was exalted
above all creatures. With this respective fullness of grace, saints are
also called full of grace, for they receive a plenitude of grace con­
sistent with their state or with the ministry to which God has pre­
destined them. Thus, it is said of St. Stephen that he was “full of
grace and power” (Acts 6:8) because he had enough grace to make
him a fit minister and witness of God, according to his election.
Therefore Christ, His Mother, and the saints are called full of
grace in a different way. Maldonado makes this comparison: The
fountain, river and brook are filled with water. However, the water
in the fountain is much purer than that of the river, and that of the
river is purer than that of the brook. Christ is full of grace as the
fountain from which grace flows, and this fullness proceeds from
Christ to all men as from the head to the members. The Mother of
Christ is as full as the river nearest the fountain, which, although
it holds less water than the fountain, nevertheless, runs through a full
river-bed. Stephen is full of grace as is tire brook.80
It may be well to recall St. Bernard’s exposition with regard to
Mary's singular holiness, when he said that in her holy soul the life
of grace began with her Immaculate Conception and ended with her
Assumption and coronation of glory. It was, as St. Thomas says (Illa,
q. 27), a triumph of grace in the beginning and in the end; and in
the interval, a constant sanctification.

Theological and Moral Virtues
Previous Observations. Some virtues arc natural, others, super­
natural, according to the twofold order and end of human acts.
Natural virtues can be acquired by their proper acts; supernatural
virtues are infused by God. Natural virtues are divided into intel-

178

mary’s fullness of grace

lectual virtues and moral virtues. Some moral virtues are principal or
cardinal virtues; others are secondary or accessory.
Cardinal virtues are so called from cardine, meaning hinge, and
are those on which our whole moral life revolves. They are four,
prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. Prudence is the most
important of all because it is the virtue which regulates and gives
rectitude to the others. For this reason it is said that prudence is to
the moral virtues what the eye is to the body, salt to meals, and the
sun to the world.
The secondary or accessory virtues are those which proceed from
the cardinal virtues and are referred to them. This comes about in
three ways: some are integral parts, without which the exercise of
the virtue would not be perfect and integral; others are as subjective
parts, by which the cardinal virtue is divided into genus and species;
others, are potential parts, not having all the power of the principal
virtue, but ordained to certain secondary acts or matter.’*
Of the supernatural virtues, some are called so only by reason of
the cause (ex parte causae) and are infused virtues per accidens;
others are supernatural simpliciter, infused virtues per se, which by
reason of their intrinsic supematuralness can never be found in man
except by divine infusion. Virtues which are absolutely supernatural
are divided into theological and moral; the former have God as their
immediate and direct object, the latter treat of the means which lead
to this end.
Although the infused and acquired moral virtues refer to the same
material and have the same names, the infused moral virtues are
ordained to the good as modified by the divine law, while the ac­
quired virtues regard good as regulated by human reason. Thus, tem­
perance, regulated by reason alone, moderates eating, so that bodily
health will not be impaired nor the exercise of reason be hindered.
But according to divine law, man is also required to chastise his body
and bring it under subjection by self-denial in eating and drinking,
after the example of Christ and the saints.
We treat here of Mary’s virtues: her natural virtues and principally
her supernatural and infused virtues, theological as well as moral.
Also, we consider her secondary or accessory virtues by which she
shone resplendent in a special way.
With regard to the supernatural or infused virtues per se, it is cer-

»79

THE BLESSER VIRGIN MARY

tain that they are infused together with sanctifying grace, from which
they are derived as properties, so that the more perfect the grace, the
more perfect the virtues proceeding from it. And, as Mary’s grace was
most perfect, we must say that the infused virtues blossomed in het.
not according to the common measure, but in the greatest degree
and with a certain special eminence. For this reason St. Bernard calls
her a field of holy aromatic flowers planted by the heavenly gardener,
blossoming delightfully with the precious flowers of all of the vir­
tues.82
Mary possessed theological faith.
Sacred Scripture. Elizabeth said to Mary: "And blessed is she who
has believed, because the things promised her by the Lord shall be
accomplished,” 83 on which Knabenbauer (Comm, in Evang. see.
Lucam) comments: “Mary’s faith was this, that she believed all that
the angel announced was to be accomplished in her; that she, a virgin,
would conceive by divine power . . . that her Son would be great,

thesis:

the Son of the Most High.”
The Fathers. St. Ireneus: "The evil done by Eve's incredulity was
remedied by Mary’s faith.”84 St. Ambrose, commenting on the words
of St. Luke, forcefully elucidates Mary’s faith. St. Augustine says.
“More blessed, then, was Mary in receiving the faith of Christ than
in conceiving the flesh of Christ.” 88
Theological Argument. Faith pertains to divine things that we do
not see, and Mary did not sec the divine essence in this life, at least
not permanently.
Mary was not justified without the consent of her free will to
grace, and this consent to grace requires an act of faith.
Mary possessed perfect faith, both objectively and sub­
jectively.
Errors. Luther asserted that Mary’s faith was surpassed by the faith
of the centurion, of whom Christ said (Matt. 8:io): “I have not
found such great faith in Israel.” Erasmus supposed that Mary did not
adore her Son following His birth, because it is not certain that she
recognized Him as God at that time; and Theophylactus claimed that
Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth to verify what the angel had said

thesis:

180

mary’s fullness of grace

about Elizabeth's fertility, thereby acquiring greater certainty con­
cerning the mystery announced by the angel.
First Part. The perfection of faith on the part of the material ob­
ject results in the greater explication of faith, so far as more things
are believed explicitly. Thus, the faith of the theologian who expressly
understands more divine truths is greater than that of an ignorant
man who hardly understands the Creed. Mary understood explicitly
more revealed truths and understood them more profoundly than any
other creature, both because she was inspired by God in a singular
way and because she was closely associated with the work of redemp­
tion; also because, during so many years of domestic service to Christ,
she breathed in and meditated on His words solicitously, as St. Luke
affirms (2:50) : “His mother kept all these things in her heart.”
Second Part. Doctors of the Church. St. Bernard praises Mary’s
faith: “Mary is called the one clothed with the sun, because she pene­
trated the deepest abyss of the divine wisdom, more than can be be­
lieved, so that, so far as the condition of a creature permits, without
personal union with God, she seems immersed in that inaccessible
light.” M
St. Albert the Great: “Mary, then, exercised perfect faith, for even
when the disciples doubted, she did not doubt.” aT
Theological Argument. Since the act of faith proceeds from the
intellect and will, a man's faith may be described as being greater on
the part of the intellect because of its greater certitude and firmness,
and on the part of his will because of his greater promptitude, devo­
tion or confidence.3” But Mary’s faith excelled in both ways: at the
Annunciation, when she believed a wondrous thing that exceeded any­
thing God had ever done; at the birth of Christ, whom she reverently
adored as God, lying in the manger; at the prophecy of Simeon, to
which she acquiesced with tranquil firmness when he praised Christ
publicly and prophesied the sword of sorrow for her; during the cruel
hours of her Son’s passion, when the apostles fled but she could not
be separated from the Cross; and finally, in the other events of Christ's
life. With good reason did St. Alphonsus Liguori attest that her faith
was greater than that of all men and angels.
There is no force to the objection which Luther proposes concern­
ing the centurion, because when Christ stated, "I have not found such
181

THE BLESSER VIRGIN MARY

tain that they are infused together with sanctifying grace, from which
they are derived as properties, so that the more perfect the grace, the
more perfect the virtues proceeding from it. And, as Mary’s grace was
most perfect, we must say that the infused virtues blossomed in het.
not according to the common measure, but in the greatest degree
and with a certain special eminence. For this reason St. Bernard calls
her a field of holy aromatic flowers planted by the heavenly gardener,
blossoming delightfully with the precious flowers of all of the vir­
tues.82
Mary possessed theological faith.
Sacred Scripture. Elizabeth said to Mary: "And blessed is she who
has believed, because the things promised her by the Lord shall be
accomplished,” 83 on which Knabenbauer (Comm, in Evang. see.
Lucam) comments: “Mary’s faith was this, that she believed all that
the angel announced was to be accomplished in her; that she, a virgin,
would conceive by divine power . . . that her Son would be great,

thesis:

the Son of the Most High.”
The Fathers. St. Ireneus: "The evil done by Eve's incredulity was
remedied by Mary’s faith.”84 St. Ambrose, commenting on the words
of St. Luke, forcefully elucidates Mary’s faith. St. Augustine says.
“More blessed, then, was Mary in receiving the faith of Christ than
in conceiving the flesh of Christ.” 88
Theological Argument. Faith pertains to divine things that we do
not see, and Mary did not sec the divine essence in this life, at least
not permanently.
Mary was not justified without the consent of her free will to
grace, and this consent to grace requires an act of faith.
Mary possessed perfect faith, both objectively and sub­
jectively.
Errors. Luther asserted that Mary’s faith was surpassed by the faith
of the centurion, of whom Christ said (Matt. 8:io): “I have not
found such great faith in Israel.” Erasmus supposed that Mary did not
adore her Son following His birth, because it is not certain that she
recognized Him as God at that time; and Theophylactus claimed that
Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth to verify what the angel had said

thesis:

180

mary’s fullness of grace

about Elizabeth's fertility, thereby acquiring greater certainty con­
cerning the mystery announced by the angel.
First Part. The perfection of faith on the part of the material ob­
ject results in the greater explication of faith, so far as more things
are believed explicitly. Thus, the faith of the theologian who expressly
understands more divine truths is greater than that of an ignorant
man who hardly understands the Creed. Mary understood explicitly
more revealed truths and understood them more profoundly than any
other creature, both because she was inspired by God in a singular
way and because she was closely associated with the work of redemp­
tion; also because, during so many years of domestic service to Christ,
she breathed in and meditated on His words solicitously, as St. Luke
affirms (2:50) : “His mother kept all these things in her heart.”
Second Part. Doctors of the Church. St. Bernard praises Mary’s
faith: “Mary is called the one clothed with the sun, because she pene­
trated the deepest abyss of the divine wisdom, more than can be be­
lieved, so that, so far as the condition of a creature permits, without
personal union with God, she seems immersed in that inaccessible
light.” M
St. Albert the Great: “Mary, then, exercised perfect faith, for even
when the disciples doubted, she did not doubt.” aT
Theological Argument. Since the act of faith proceeds from the
intellect and will, a man's faith may be described as being greater on
the part of the intellect because of its greater certitude and firmness,
and on the part of his will because of his greater promptitude, devo­
tion or confidence.3” But Mary’s faith excelled in both ways: at the
Annunciation, when she believed a wondrous thing that exceeded any­
thing God had ever done; at the birth of Christ, whom she reverently
adored as God, lying in the manger; at the prophecy of Simeon, to
which she acquiesced with tranquil firmness when he praised Christ
publicly and prophesied the sword of sorrow for her; during the cruel
hours of her Son’s passion, when the apostles fled but she could not
be separated from the Cross; and finally, in the other events of Christ's
life. With good reason did St. Alphonsus Liguori attest that her faith
was greater than that of all men and angels.
There is no force to the objection which Luther proposes concern­
ing the centurion, because when Christ stated, "I have not found such
181

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

they would not be as strong and constant as they had thought they
would be in the face of such great danger. What happened to the
apostles, making them leave Jesus alone, fleeing through fear, hap
pened also to the faithful, who, seeing Jesus handcuffed, became

'

somewhat uncertain in their faith in Him; not making them incrcdulous, but enough to make them waver in their faith.
On the contrary, Mary did not waver in her faith, nor was she
scandalized. She was most faithful, constant and inviolable; and be­
ing stronger than the apostles, she remained at the foot of the Cross.
In this sense, we can understand the words falsely attributed to St.
Bernard (De lamentatione Virg. Mariae), that Mary alone had faith,
being sure that He would rise again, and for this reason, each candle
is extinguished during the Divine Office on the three days of Holy
Week, but one candle alone is left lighted, to signify Marys fitm

faith.
Corollary. From what has been said, it follows that Mary may, with
all propriety, be called the Mother of believers, for she was the first
to believe in the Evangelical law, and because her faith was the most
perfect, most intense, and most firm of all. For that reason Rupert of
Deutz calls her the teacher of religion and faith; Raymond Jourdain,
teacher of the apostles; Richard of St. Laurence, mother of knowl­
edge, that is, of revealed faith, and she is also called, in the Litany of
Loreto, “Virgin most faithful.”

Mary possessed the theological virtue of hope.
Previous Observations. Theological hope is a divinely infused virtue
by which we hope to obtain the beatific vision with divine help.
Hope rests primarily on the omnipotence and piety of God, which
bestows grace; secondarily it rests on our merits, because God has
promised us eternal beatitude on the condition of our cooperation.
On God’s part, hope possesses certainty, according to Ecclus. 2:11:
“No one hath hoped in the Lord, and hath been confounded." But
on our part, the fact that we may not cooperate with God’s grace,
carries with it fear and uncertainty, to which the Apostle refers (Phil.
2:12): "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
Finally, since the essential element of hope is that it leans on and
is sustained in God, from whom it derives its certainty, and it is only
accidental that it resides in an unstable subject, it is clear that hope

thesis:

184

.
j
,

|
|

MARY S FULLNESS OF GRACE

docs not disappear even if the subject has a certainty of attaining
beatitude. Thus, souls detained in purgatory, although they be certain
of salvation, retain hope because they do not yet enjoy beatitude, but
hope for it as an absent good which they will surely attain after their
present suffering.
First Part. In the natural order, hope follows faith, because once
the attainment of beatitude, although arduous, is revealed by faith
as possible of attainment with divine assistance, the will is put into
action by the virtue of hope in order to obtain it. Therefore, as Mary
possessed theological faith, she also possessed the virtue of hope.
Theological hope is the desire for God not yet possessed, but will
be possessed with the assistance of grace. Therefore, hope is not
found in the soul that has attained full divine fruition, and Mary did
not possess this fruition permanently during her mortal life.
Second Part. Hope, on our part, carries with it fear and uncertainty,
because it is associated with a defective condition. But Mary’s hope
was absolutely certain, joyful and never touched by the slightest agita­
tion or distrust. As Denis the Carthusian says, since hope proceeds
from grace, and Mary’s grace was of an incomparably high degree, so
also was her hope incomparably perfect.*2
Corollary. Since Mary possessed the virtue of hope in a most ex­
cellent manner and, moreover, since she is also our hope, as our pro­
tectress in the work of salvation, the words of Ecclesiasticus (24:24)
can well be applied to her: “I am the mother of fair love, and of fear,
and of knowledge, and of holy hope.” Thus, St. Augustine calls her
the only hope of sinners, and St. Germanus of Constantinople calls
her the hope of our salvation.*8 In the antiphon Salve Regina, we in­
voke Mary: "Hail, . . . our hope.”

Mary possessed a most perfect supernatural charity.
The greater the grace, the more perfect the charity; and Mary was
full of grace from the first moment of her existence.
Charity signifies man’s friendship with God, and friendship flows
from a mutual love founded on some likeness and a communication
of good. But all this abounds to a high degree in Mary’s supernatural
charity. This is because God’s love for Mary could hardly be expressed,
for He most freely and graciously provided her with all the blessings
of His power, grace, and gentleness, and sanctified her from the first
thesis:

.8;

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MAR

moment of her conception. He gave Himself as her Son, and thus
provided her with the greatest dignity possible to a pure creature; that
is, the dignity of the divine maternity. I le never ceased bestowing
supernatural benefits on her until she was crowned by a glorious
assumption into heaven. On her part, Mary was enraptured by an
intense love of God who was the bestowcr of her many favors. St.
Albert says that Mary had received more than the rest of men, and
she had the obligation of loving more, and she did, to that degree."
Hence, we conclude Mary’s greatest conformity to God because of
her fullness of sanctifying grace, her acts of virtue, and the perfection
of her life. Therefore St. John Damascene rightly calls Mary the
friend of God, all beautiful and without stain (De Assumpt. B. Virg.).
According to St. Thomas, the perfection of charity can be under­
stood in two ways:
First, with regard to the object loved, secondly, with regard to the
person who loves. With regard to the object loved, charity is perfect
if the object be loved as much as it is lovable. ... On the part of
the person who loves, charity is perfect when he loves as much as he
can. This happens in three ways: First, so that a man’s whole heart
is always actually borne toward God; this is the perfection of the
charity of heaven, and is not possible in this life, wherein, by reason of
the weakness of human life, it is impossible to think always of God,
and to be moved by love toward Him. Secondly, so that man makes
an earnest endeavor to give his time to God and divine things, while
scorning other things except so far as the needs of the present life
demand. This is the perfection of charity that is possible to a way­
farer; but it is not common to all who have charity. Thirdly, so that a
man gives his whole heart to God habitually, that is, by neither think­
ing nor desiring anything contrary to the love of God; and this perfec­
tion is common to all who have charity.45

God’s goodness is infinite and He is infinitely lovable. Therefore,
no creature can love Him infinitely, since all created power is finite.
Now Mary’s charity, although it was not objectively most perfect nor
proportionate to the perfection of the God who was loved, was sub­
jectively perfect to the greatest degree in three ways. By a special
privilege, as St. Thomas says, Mary was actually borne toward God, as
are the blessed in heaven, not by a facial vision, which is not possible
in this life, but by a clarity of contemplation, through her continuous
progress and heavenly inspirations and through the activity and in186

mary’s fullness of crack

tcmal ardor of her spirit, so that she loved God more than the
blessed in heaven. She abandoned herself to God in divine things with
more perfection than any other saint, as she was free from all inordi­
nate passion, totally preserved from all distraction, and incomparably
full of grace and divine gifts. Finally, her whole heart was given to
God, so that she did not think or desire anything contrary to the di­
vine will, since she was perfectly submissive and conformed to His
will, as St. Bernardine of Siena affirms (Serm. 51).
Not only was Mary attracted by this greatest love with regard to the
triune God, but her immense charity extended to her Son in His hu­
manity, and to other men, her neighbors, as is stated in the First
Epistle of St. John (4:21): “And this commandment we have from
Him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.”
Although Mary loved her Son more because He was God than be­
cause He was man, nevertheless, she loved Him fervently in His
human nature, both with a supernatural love of charity and with a
natural maternal love. Since it is proper to charity to elevate all human
love, both loves of Mary were so united that her natural love was per­
fect, and continually animated by the supernatural love of charity.
Hence it follows that there was in Mary an admirable harmony be­
tween her maternal love and the theological virtue of charity, so that
whereas we must keep our natural love within bounds so that it will
not separate us from God, such precaution was not necessary in
Mary’s maternal love because, loving her Son so ardently, she likewise
loved God, and this love did not separate her from God, but united
her more and more to Him.48
She also knew from experience that her Son was her extraordinary
benefactor, from whom had come immense gifts of body and soul,
and chiefly her divine maternity, through which she was raised above
all creatures. These gifts and prerogatives were certainly a great incen­
tive for her love. Finally, the maternal love of a son, especially an
only son, is very fervent and intense, concerning which, David, weep­
ing over Jonathan, says (II Kings 1:26): “As the mother loveth her
only son, so did I love thee.” On the other hand, this love is fuller
and greater if the son does everything in accordance with his parents’
will, and it is certain that Jesus was comformable to the will of His
mother in all things.
Similarly, maternal love is more fervent as the affective poxver of
the mother is greater, and no one is ignorant of the fact that Mary

187

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

was especially disposed to love. Thus, St. Bernardine of Busti sayj
(Mariale, Seim. 2 ) that she loved Him with a natural love as a mother
loves her son, with the love of friendship as a creature loves het
Creator, and with a supernatural love as preserved and redeemed. So
great was her love of her Son that she was entirely transformed by
love.
Finally, Denis the Carthusian beautifully extols Mary’s love of het
neighbor, whereby she desired for them present grace and future glory.
In view of the fact that she understood that through the incarnation,
passion and death of her Son, the whole world would obtain salvation
and that she realized that in a sense she had become the Mother of
God for the sake of sinners, and hence she was consumed with zeal
for the salvation of souls.47

Mary’s charity in this life was more intense than the char­
ity of the blessed in heaven.
Although charity as a habit and as an act is the same species in
this life and in the next, as St. Paul says in I Cor. 13:8, nevertheless,
the charity of the blessed, by reason of the extrinsic perfection proper
to that state, surpasses the charity of the wayfarer.
According to Mazzella (De virtutibus infusis) theologians dispute
whether in one and the same subject the charity of beatitude intrin­
sically or intensively surpasses the charily of this life. Nevertheless, in
different subjects, both the habit and act of charity can be more in­
tense in wayfarers than in the blessed. The reason for the first part is
that many of the blessed in heaven do not have a more intense charity
than that infused in them through baptism, while there arc many
wayfarers who, through the sacraments and other meritorious works,
increase the charity received in baptism. The reason for the second
part is that activity of the blessed must always be in accordance with
tire habit, but in a wayfarer it may be equal to the habit or even more
intense than the habit because of actual grace. Nevertheless, be this
question as it may, we must hold as certain that the charity of the
Blessed Virgin in this life was more intense than the charity of the
blessed, both because of the intensity of her habit of charity through
which she performed acts which surpassed tire charity of the just, and
because her helps of grace were so great that they produced in her
will a kind of moral necessity.

thesis:

188

mary’s fullness of grace

Mary was adorned with a singular prudence.
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church. St. Ephrem, St. Ildephonsus, Raymond Jourdain and St. Bernard, praise Mary as the first in
prudence, disciplined in thought, hearing, smell, taste, laughter,
speech, touch and all other actions.4*
Theological Argument. It is proper to the prudent man to do every­
thing in conformity to right reason and faith, so that he does nothing
except what is right and praiseworthy. This befits Mary, whose every
action was performed in accordance with right reason and faith. St.
Albert the Great says that since Mary possessed perfection in action
and contemplation, there was no possibility of her making a mistake,
and therefore she possessed the cardinal virtue of prudence in a more
excellent degree than any other wayfarer.49
Prudence implies a remembrance of the past, an interpretation of
things present, and a foresight of things future. Now Mary understood
present things, that is, she deliberated before acting, on what was to
be done, and how. When greeted by the angel who announced the
mystery of the Incarnation, she deliberated on what matter of saluta­
tion that could be. St. Peter Chrysologus tells us that she deliberated
because reflection is characteristic of a mature mind.30 Moreover, in­
structed by the angel that she had been chosen as the Mother of God,
Mary inquires how this is to be accomplished. To inquire in this way
does not only imply the imperfection of mistrust, but should be con­
sidered praiseworthy and attributed to prudence, since Mary had
taken a vow of perpetual virginity.’1
Mary possessed a memory for things past because she continually
meditated on the prophecies concerning her, on the graces bestowed
upon her, and on the remarkable utterances and actions of her Son,
as St. Luke says (2:19): “But Mary kept in mind all these things,
pondering them in her heart." She worked with foresight, not only
caring for her Son and avoiding foreseen dangers, but also providing
for Him materially, nursing Him, dressing Him and feeding Him, so
that at the proper time He would offer Himself on the altar of the
Cross, thereby fulfilling the work of redemption.
thesis:

thes rs : Mary possessed justice in a higher degree than all other
creatures.
Previous Observations. We are not considering justice in its im­
proper sense, as moral perfection and sanctity, for it is clear that in

.3,

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

this sense it befits Mary, but in the proper sense, that is, as a special
virtue which consists in giving to each one his due. Justice in the
proper sense may be general (legal) or particular (referring to the
common good ordained by law or to the private good of every man).
With regard to general or legal justice. Legal justice resides author­
itatively in a ruler, so far as he commands for the common good, and
administratively in his subjects, so far as they act in subjection to
the law. Now Mary fulfilled the law to the highest degree, as is clearly
seen in the fact of her having observed the legal precepts of the cir­
cumcision of Jesus and of her own purification, although her Son
was not subject to circumcision and she was not subject to purifica­
tion. St. Luke testifies to this (2:21-22) : "And when eight days were
fulfilled for His circumcision, His name was called Jesus. ... And
when the days of the purification were fulfilled according to the law
of Moses, they took Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the
Lord.” Neither wished to disregard the ancient ceremonies.82
With regard to particular justice. There arc two integral parts: to
refrain from evil which harms one’s neighbor, and to do the good
which is due them. Mary fulfilled both of these parts in an extraor­
dinary way, for as she was destined from all eternity to become the
dispenser of all good, no evil can be found in her dispensing it, espe­
cially supernatural goods. And thus St. Ambrose says that she was
used to doing no evil to anyone, loving all, respecting her elders, not
envying her equals, not boasting, following reason, and loving virtue.81
: Mary possessed the virtue of religion.
Mary gave proof of the virtue of religion when, at the age of three,
she offered herself to God in the Temple, and lived there, dedicated
to divine worship, until her espousals with St. Joseph; by going from
Nazareth to Jerusalem every year, with the difficulties inherent in
such a long trip, as St. Luke says (2:41 ) : “And His parents were wont
to go every year to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover," although
women were not obliged by law to go (Exod. 34:23; Deut. 16:16).
Religion is a virtue which inclines men to give to God due worship
and reverence. It is to God alone that the cult of latria (adoration) is
due, by which the creature confesses the infinite excellence of God
and his absolute dependence on Him. Mary most excellently paid to
God the homage of latreutic cult.®*

thesis

190

I

mary's fullness of grace

Mary did not possess the virtue of penance.
With regard to the virtue of penance, theologians dispute whether
it existed, and how the acts and habits of this virtue operated in Mary.
The solution of this question depends principally on the determina­
tion of the formal object of the virtue of penance, that is, whether
penance treats formally of sin committed by the penitent and, there­
fore, always presupposes sin in the subject or at least the capacity to
sin; or whether the formal object of this virtue is more extended and
is ordained to expiating sin in general, whether it was committed by
the penitent or by another; or whether it tends not only to repair
divine justice transgressed by sin, but also to safeguard it even if it is
neither violated nor can be violated.
Frassen, following the Subtle Doctor, points out that penance, so
far as it signifies sorrow of soul and detestation of sin committed, with
the intention of sinning no more, can exist only in a sinner, but so
far as it inclines the will to vindicate sin in general, whether com­
mitted by the penitent or by another, can be conceded, not only in the
angels and in innocent Adam, but also in Mary and in Christ. Al­
though Christ’s and Mary’s wills are impeccable, and consequently
cannot perform the act of detesting sin in themselves, nevertheless,
they could perform a conditioned act.65
Suarez, Tanner, and others, for whom the formal object of penance
is the safeguarding of divine justice through a peculiar debt of jus­
tice, point out that the virtue of penance, besides implying a vindica­
tion and compensation of divine justice wounded by sin, can exercise
many other acts, such as the simple love of divine justice and the de­
sire to preserve it intact, the detestation of another’s sin, and so forth.
Consequently, they hold that the virtue of penance can be attributed
not only to Mary, but to Christ.56
Lugo's opinion does not differ much from this. He affirms that the
formal object of penance consists in a certain moral equality, which
he explains in the sense of being at peace with God, of God’s being
appeased. He believes that many acts, as well as the infused habit, of
penance befitted Adam in his state of innocence, and befitted the
blessed, and even Mary and Christ (De Poenit., d. 5).
Theologians commonly affirm that the formal object of penance is
divine justice wounded through sin and reparable by the acts of the
penitent, so far as he detests his sin and intends to repair the injury
thesis:

191

■

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

donc to God in order to re-establish the equality of justice violated
through sin.
As regards the virtue of penance in Mary, some, like Vega and
Sedlmayr, maintain that Mary had not only the habit of penance,
but many internal and external, elicited, and commanded acts, and
she could deplore sin as an offence against God. They say that she
could even detest it conditionally, that is, to be so disposed that she
would really be sorry for sinning if she were capable of committing
sin. Thus, the habit of penance is admitted in Adam in the state of
innocence, and also in little children, who although not capable of
sin in infancy or of performing penances, nevertheless receive the
habit of this virtue at baptism, together with grace and the other in­
fused virtues.
Others, like Lepicicr and De San, teach that Mary possessed the
virtue of penance, not in act, but only in habit. Finally, others, among
whom we mention Vâzquez, deny both the act and the habit of pen­
ance in Mary, and this opinion seems to be preferred to the others.
With regard to the act of penance, because its principal act is con­
trition, that is, sorrow and detestation of sin committed, by which the
sinner wishes to blot out the injury done to God and to compensate
for it. This, the Blessed Virgin was never capable of, for she never
committed actual sin nor could she commit it.
With regard to the habit, because habit is a disposition to act, but
the habit of penance in Mary could neither absolutely nor condition­
ally pass over to the act of detestation for sin. Not absolutely, because
the formal object of penance is detestation and vindication of one's
own sin; not conditionally, because the conditional act does not suffice
for the possession of a virtue.
Mary possessed the virtue of obedience in a singular way.
It is proved in the words of St. Luke (1:38): "Behold the hand­
maid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.” St.
Thomas says that obedience, like any other virtue, demands that the
will be prompt toward its proper object. The proper object of obedi­
ence is a tacit or express command of the superior.57 Now Mary chose
only what divine wisdom pointed out to her, as St. Bernardine of
Siena (Serm. 51) points out. Thus, her obedience to the law and to the
divine will was complete. She obeyed her parents and was reverent

thesis:

192

mart’s fullness of grace

and submissive to them; she obeyed St. Joseph in all that pertained
to the necessities of life, the government of the home and the jour­
neys they had to undertake. Thus, during Herod’s cruel persecution,
the messenger came to Joseph to tell him to go to Egypt. However,
in the proper sense, it cannot be said that Mary obeyed Joseph, be­
cause Joseph could not command her, especially after the incarnation
of the Word, though she always conformed her will to that of her
spouse, since she was not really obeying Joseph, but God.
Mary gave remarkable evidence of gratitude.
Fortitude is a virtue which inclines one to remember a kindness
received and to return thanks for it.
Mary was always mindful of the divine favors with which God had
raised her above all creatures and in return for them she gave thanks
to God, confessing publicly that she had received them through His
liberality. Thus, when Elizabeth greeted her with: "And how have I
deserved that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” she burst
forth in a canticle of praise (Luke 1:46-49): "My soul magnifies the
Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because He has re­
garded the lowliness of His handmaid; for behold, henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed; because He who is mighty has done
great things for me, and holy is His name.” Hence, Mary humbly re­
ferred all her praises to God.
Venerable Bede, commenting on the words, “My soul magnifies
the Lord,” says that it was fitting that just as by the pride of our first
mother, death entered the world, so might life be restored through
Mary's humility.
thesis:

Mary excelled in fortitude.
Fortitude is a virtue which strengthens the will to face danger and
to endure difficult things. To the first act, which is to face danger, are
annexed two qualities: magnanimity or confidence, which regards the
preparation of the mind to undertake hardships, and magnificence,
which regards the accomplishment of the deed, and consists in carry­
ing out what one has confidently begun. Likewise, for the other act of
this virtue of fortitude, which is to endure hardships, the following
two qualities are also required: patience, so that the mind will not be
crushed by sorrow by reason of the stress of impending evil, and perthesis:

»93

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

severance, so that there will be a fixed and continued persistence in
well-considered purpose. Mary’s fortitude was singularly resplendent
both in enduring the difficulties of life and in painful undertakings
particularly in courageously enduring the passion and death of Christ
Actually, magnanimity or confidence is the prompt undertaking of
arduous and difficult things. Both were manifested in Mary to the
highest degree because of her spiritual martyrdom.118 Mary’s prompt­
ness in undertaking difficult things is seen in her conformity to the
divine decree of the passion and death of Christ, knowing perfectly
that the death of her Son and her compassion would redound to
great honor for God, to the exaltation of Christ, and to the salvation
and liberation of man from the wicked slavery of the devil. Hence,
St. Matilda contemplates Mary during the time of the Passion as
overflowing with great joy, although she suffered vehemently. Mag­
nificence is the happy termination of things done well, and Mary
acted magnificently during Christ’s passion.
Enduring misfortunes and sorrows with composure is proper to pa­
tience. Hence, although the Blessed Virgin saw Christ treated cruelly
—wounded, blasphemed, and nailed to the cross—she did not give
way to impatience, anger or aversion for His persecutors, but she

pitied them in their wickedness and prayed for them.
Perseverance is the constancy of the soul which does not waver in its
resolutions. Mary possessed great constancy, remaining firm at the
foot of the Cross, nailed to it with Christ, suffering with Him, and
dying with Him through her compassion and deep sorrow, until she
received His sacred body from the Cross into her arms, during which
time she contemplated, not so much the lividness of His wounds as
the salvation of the world.6®

The Blessed Virgin was singularly resplendent with the
virtue of temperance.
Temperance is the virtue which moderates the concupiscible ap­
petite in things which seduce it, such as the pleasures of touch and
taste. But the Blessed Virgin excelled with regard to these two acts of
temperance, since she was resplendent in a purity which surpasses that
of the angels. Moreover, Mary, who was accustomed to spiritual de­
lights and was fed with the bread of life and knowledge and with the
water of salutary wisdom, was never inordinately attached to food or

thesis:

*94

mary’s fullness of cracf.

drink. She fasted and abstained, never allowing herself any excess.
Both St. Ambrose and St. Albert the Great attest that this virtue in
Mary was more noble in her than in any wayfarer.·0
Temperance consists of two integral parts, shamefacedness and
honesty. Now honesty is said to be related to a state of honor, but
honor refers to virtue, and since Mary was most virtuous, so she was
also most honest. Nevertheless, it is also asserted that honesty pertains
especially to temperance, for just as the vices and pleasures of touch
and taste contain in themselves the greatest dishonesty, torpor and
brutality, so honesty consists principally in the virtue and acts of
temperance. Moreover, in the proper sense of the word, shamefaced­
ness is not a virtue, but a disposition to virtue, since it keeps one from
sin, as a fear of doing something disgraceful. Now Mary, knowing that
she was confirmed in grace, was not in any way subject to movements
of shame, although if shamefacedness is understood in the broad
sense, as a holy modesty, this may in all truth be attributed to her.
thesis: Among the virtues annexed to temperance, Mary pos­
sessed chastity, purity, modesty, meekness, clemency and humility.
It is hardly necessary to mention that chastity and purity are sub­
jective parts or species of temperance, and that the other virtues enu­
merated are potential parts of the same, so far as they follow the mode
of temperance in other matters: “Now it belongs to temperance to
moderate pleasures of touch. . . . Wherefore any virtue that is
effective of moderation in some matter or other, and restrains the
appetite in its impulse toward something, may be reckoned a part of
temperance, as a virtue annexed thereto." ·’
That Mary incomparably surpassed all creatures in the virtue of
chastity will be explained more fully later.
Purity takes its name from pudor (shame), and shame is the reac­
tion produced in the soul at the sight or thought of base things.
Purity may be understood in the strict sense and in the broad sense. In
the strict sense it is the virtue which moderates the pleasures which
accompany and dispose, as previous acts, to consummated carnal sin.
In a broad sense it is a part of chastity or modesty.
We must deny that Mary possessed modesty taken in the strict
sense because her most eminent purity made her incapable of being
stained by anything dishonest. But if purity or shame is taken in its

*95

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

broad sense, as a part of chastity and modesty, it must be admitted in
Mary.·*
Continence in the strict sense is a firm purpose of the soul by which
one restrains himself from movements of concupiscence. In this sense
Mar}- did not possess continence, for she never suffered the inordinate
movements of concupiscence because she lacked the fomes and all
incitement to sin. Continency is generally taken in the broad sense as
chastity, and so it is clear that in this sense it befitted Mary in a most
excellent manner.
Modesty is twofold: one pertains to customs; the other, to exterior
adornment. The first moderates exterior movements of the body such
as looks, gestures, manners, speech, voice, etc. The second moderates
exterior adornment. As regards modesty of deportment, St. Ambrose
states that Mary's gestures, posture, gait and manner of speaking were
a reflection of her uprightness and probity of soul.®3 All of her move­
ments were inviolably subject to reason and will, and were obedient to
them. Mary moderated her deportment, her steps, and all the external
movements of her body with quiet composure. And thus Vega says
that all these things were in Mary full of majesty, and weighed as in a

delicate balance.®4
As regards modesty of adornment, St. Albert the Great quotes the
teaching of St. Paul (I Tim. 2:9-10) and St. Peter (I Pct. 3:3) and
then states that Mary avoided the excesses of vanity and luxury in
her dress but at the same lime did not go to the opposite extreme of
carelessness or abject misery.®5
Meekness is a virtue which has as its object the moderation of anger.
Mary’s meekness is praised by St. Bernard, St. Albert the Great, and
Denis the Carthusian in their various works on Mary. Meekness is a
virtue which especially pertains to the nobility of women, as are
tenderness and suavity, for women are naturally inclined to piety and
sweetness. And since Mary surpassed all women in virtue, she is also
the most meek of all. By the same token she is worthy of being called
the most sweet Virgin.
Mary’s great clemency or mercy is demonstrated, since clemency is
a virtue by which one is merciful toward his neighbor. This virtue is
exercised in three ways: by a ready and voluntary pardon of injuries,
by a pious compassion for another’s evil, and by a generous alleviation
of another’s need. Mary’s mercy was exercised in all three ways. Her

196

mary’s fullness of grace

forgiveness of injuries can be clearly seen in Christ’s passion, for, as
Denis the Carthusian says, not only was she not angry at the impious
men who crucified her Son, but she pitied them, thus resembling her
patient Son in charity and meekness, for she also understood the mys­
tery of human redemption.8'’ Her pious compassion for another’s evil
is vouched for by St. Bonaventure, who exclaims: "And so, O Mary,
thou art so full of mercy, so attentive in relieving the wretched, that
it seems that thou hast no other desire, no other anxiety,"87 as also by
Richard of St. Laurence. Her generous alleviation of another's want
or need is shown by the testimony of St. Germanus of Constanti­
nople, Raymond Jourdain and St. Bernard: "Ah, truly, O great Lady,
does the immensity of thy mercy fill the whole earth.”88
With regard to Mary’s humility, we must first note that humility is
a virtue which inclines one to declare his lowliness by actions or other
signs. Therefore, humility restrains the inordinate appetite for one’s
own excellence through a true and regulated depreciation of self. The
foundation of humility is in the intellect, by which one recognizes
one's miser)' and the fact that all that he possesses, both in the natural
and supernatural order, has been given him by God, but all that is evil
in him, his defects and sins, he possesses of himself. And since our
judgment should always be in conformity with truth, humility has
its foundation in truth and is the declaration of truth. Nevertheless,
humility properly resides in the will, which, by the recognition of
one's lowliness, discsteems and belittles self and does not desire to be
praised, but to be ignored and regarded as nothing, desiring at the
same time to refer all to the honor of God, from whom all is received.
There are two kinds of humility: that of the saints, which anses
from the contemplation of the divine sublimity and the recognition
of one’s own littleness, and that of sinners, which proceeds from a
consideration of one’s own sins. But since Mary was completely de­
void of all sin, it is clear that she did not possess this second type of
humility, but that which proceeds from the contemplation of the
divine sublimity and the recognition of one's own littleness, in such
a way that man sees that of himself he is nothing and can do noth­
ing, and that he depends on God for all his natural and supernatural
benefits.
That this humility existed in Mary in a unique way can be shown
from Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. When Mary was informed by
>97

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the angel that she had been chosen as the Mother of God, she did not
become proud because of this honor, but answered most humbly.
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy
word” (Luke 1:38). Later, having become the Mother of God, she
went to St. Elizabeth (v. 39) in order to help her cousin, who was
pregnant, old and weak. In this service, Mary’s humility is worthy of
the most exalted praise, for knowing that she had become the Mother
of the Lord, she was not unwilling to serve the mother of the Pre­
cursor. Finally, when Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, recog­
nized Mary’s dignity, and praised her among all women (v. 42), mar­
velling that so great a Mother would condescend to serve her, asked
(v. 43): “And how have I deserved that the Mother of my Lord
should come to me?” Mary attributed no great honor to herself, but
all was turned in praise of God, who through His goodness had re­
garded the lowliness of His handmaid, raising her to such a great
dignity, and bestowing on her so many great favors. (Luke 1:468.):
“My soul magnifies the Lord . . . because He has regarded the lowli­
ness of His handmaid” (Luke 1:468.). This was not spoken as a
vain testimony of her humility, because it is not humility for one to
call oneself humble, but because by those words this virtue was put
into practice. As Cajetan observes, it is an act of profound humility to
esteem oneself as the least; and this becomes Mary’s deep humility.
The Fathers say the same concerning Mary’s humility. St. Ambrose
remarks that she called herself His handmaid and did not claim any
merit for the sublime promise made to her.®9 St. Bernard says that
after having been raised to the august dignity of the Mother of God,
Mary proclaims herself “handmaid of the Lord” and does not forget
her humility.70
It pertains to humility to be mindful of one’s lowliness and depend­
ence on God. Although Mary was raised to such an excellent dignity
as Mother of God and enriched more and more with divine gifts, she
most freely recognized her nothingness, that is, what she was of herself
and what she would be if God were to abandon her. She knew full
well that her being, power, ability to produce, and all of her privileges
came from God, and that she depended constantly on the divine
goodness. So St. Bernardine of Siena says that the Blessed Virgin
always had the majesty of God and her own nothingness present to
her mind.71

198

mary's fullness of crack

: Mary also possessed the natural moral virtues.
As has already been stated, there is a difference between the infused
moral virtues and the acquired moral virtues. Although both have
the same matter and the same names, they differ specifically. The
former tend to the good according to a divine norm; the latter tend to
the good regulated by human reason. The acquired virtues can be
attained in two ways: either through one’s own acts (and then they
are called per se acquisitae) or through infusion by God (and then
they are called per accidens infusae). Hence, the question is whether
Mary possessed acquired moral virtues from the beginning by divine
infusion.
First Part. Mary had to possess all of the moral perfections which
ennoble and adorn human nature and were compatible with her
dignity as Mother of God. But the naturally attainable moral virtues
are perfections which elevate and adorn human nature as proper and
immediate principles by which the faculties are naturally and readily
inclined to perform honest acts and do not in themselves imply any
imperfection that would be unbefitting the Mother of God. For al­
though these virtues are capable of restraining the evil movements of
the soul, it is not of their essence to moderate them and restrain them
de facto, but only to dispose the faculties of the soul to perform honest
acts of virtue according to the dictates of reason, and in a connatural
and facile manner.
Although all of Mary’s desires were subordinate to right reason,
nevertheless, it was fitting that this conformity and subordination
proceed from a more proximate and connatural cause. The habits of
the moral virtues are the proximate and connatural causes which
cannot be adequately supplied by the infused habits, because the
infused virtue elevates and disposes the faculty to good acts within
the order of grace, while the natural virtue disposes for morally good
acts within the order of nature. Now Marv not only performed acts
with the greatest perfection within the order of grace, but also per­
formed perfectly, morally good acts within the order of nature. Al­
though she always carried out acts with a supernatural intention, it
cannot be denied that she often performed morally good acts which
proceeded from her naturally acquired virtues, for which she had a
supernatural intention, so that her moral acts were proximately and
immediately produced by these virtues, and mediately imperated bv
thesis

>99

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

chant}’, and thereby ordained to a supernatural end, as the end of
the agent but not of the act itself.
Second Part. Not only Christ, from the first moment of His incar.
nation, but also Adam, in the first moment of his life, received the
moral virtues by divine infusion. Therefore, there is no reason to deny
this privilege to Mary.
On the other hand, Mary could not from the beginning possess
these naturally acquired virtues by her own acts because she could
not then exercise those virtues, as she lacked the species or knowledge
of so many sensible objects and things. Nor did she acquire the vir­
tues successively by her own acts, because thus she would be wanting
in much for a long time and would also have been in an imperfect
state for some years.
Finally, it is more meritorious and more perfect to possess all of
the moral virtues infused per accidens from the first moment of con­
ception than to acquire them by one’s own acts in the course of the
years, since it is more meritorious and more perfect to have them al­
ways than to lack them for any period of time. For the temporary
lack of these virtues would be less in accord with the dignity of Mary
than the gradual acquisition of these virtues by her own acts.
Corollary. From what has been said, we can infer that Mary pos­
sessed all of the virtues, not only for the glory and splendor with
befitted such a Mother, but also as a model of instruction, that she
might teach us these virtues and make them more human. St. Anselm
(De excellentia Virginis) quotes St. Paul when proposing Mary as a
worthy example: "Be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (I Cor.
11:1). In some ways, he says, the examples given by Mary are more
sweet and human than those given by Christ. "God placed Mary
first in the observance of the law and of evangelical perfection so
that she would teach us, not by word but by example, . . . teaching
perfectly because she taught by practicing them.” 72

Gifts of the Holy Ghost
The gifts of the Holy Ghost are certain supernatural perfections by
which man is disposed to obey divine inspiration promptly. This
divine inspiration is a special impulse and movement of the Holy
200

mart's fullness of grace

Spirit; not a general supernatural invitation to do some good or avoid
some evil, but a special directive movement to perform what God
moves the soul to do here and now. There are seven gifts enumerated
by Isaias (10:2-3) : understanding, wisdom, knowledge, counsel, forti­
tude, piety and fear of the Lord. Of these, the first four pertain to
the perfection of the intellect, and the other three to the perfection
of the will.
John of St. Thomas states that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are
habits, and not merely acts or dispositions given transitorily; for
those gifts arc infused so that man may work supematurally with a
certain connaturality to divine things and with a certain experience
of them, as moved by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But man
cannot accustom himself to divine things and spiritualize himself
if he is neither disposed nor feels so inclined in a permanent habitual
manner. Therefore, the gifts of the Holy Spirit require a habitual dis­
position in order to operate.73
The gifts of the Holy Ghost are formally distinct from the virtues,
acquired as well as infused. The acquired virtues perceive their ob­
ject as capable of being directed by the rules of acquired knowledge
and prudence. The infused virtues perceive their object as directed by
the rules of infused knowledge and prudence, that is, in the light
of faith and grace, but always in a human mode, in conformity with
reason, which contemplates, deliberates and takes counsel. But the
gifts of tire Holy Ghost perceive their object as attainable in a higher
manner, that is, by an interior inclination and special inspiration of
the Holy Ghost outside the laws of speculation and the rules of pru­
dence.
From this distinct regulation follows a distinct morality and a dis­
tinct specification of the virtues and gifts. In a very different manner,
actually, we are led to the divine and supernatural end when regu­
lated by standards of direction formed by our own study and work,
even treating of acts of infused virtue, and when guided by the Holy
Ghost, as the ship is guided in one way by the strength of those row­
ing or in another way by the wind driving the sails, although it is
brought to the same goal across the waves. Hence, presupposing the
formal distinction between the virtues and gifts, we see that the
gifts are either directed and moved to extraordinary works by reason
of the matter, which does not occur frequently in the faithful, or to
201

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the ordinal)· matter of the virtues, but in an extraordinary way ot
without previous and prudent study.
Mary possessed the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
It is certain that Mary possessed the gifts of the Holy Ghost in a
most excellent way, since the gifts follow grace and charity propor­
tionately. The more perfect a soul is in grace and divine charity, the
more abundantly does it possess the gifts of the Holy Ghost. And so
it was with Mary, who surpassed all creatures in grace and charity.
The gifts of the Holy Ghost are certain perfections of the faculties
of the soul, by which these faculties become more capable of being
moved by the Holy Ghost, irrespective of human means. This hap­
pened to Mary, who was moved by the Holy Ghost in a most perfect
manner.
Although Mary was filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost from
the first moment of her conception, she received a great increase of
them with the coming of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. After Christ’s
ascension, the apostles, in conformity with the commands of our
Lord (“He charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait
for the promise of the Father, ‘of which you have heard,’ said He,
“by My mouth’ ... ; but you shall receive power when the Holy
Spirit comes upon you” [Acts 1:4-8]), entered the Cenacle and were
persevering with one mind in prayer with the women and with Mary,
the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (v. 13-14) in order to pre­
pare themselves to receive the Holy Ghost. Finally, when the Holy
Spirit came, He filled each one as abundantly as each was capable,
worthy and devoutly prepared. Hence, as Mary was the one most
worthy, most capable, and the best disposed among them, she re­
ceived the greatest amount of divine gifts given that day by the Holy
Spirit. But it is fitting to treat particularly of the gifts of the Holy
Spirit with which Mary was filled most abundantly as compared to
all the others.

thesis:

The gift of understanding
The gift of understanding is a supernatural habit by which the
mind becomes capable of receiving and comprehending the truths of
faith by the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is distinguished
from the natural intellectual virtues, which examine the truths of tire
202

mary’s fullness of grace

natural order by their own power, and from theological faith, which
assents to the truths revealed by God without proof, investigation or
intrinsic understanding of the object. The gift of understanding, un­
der the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, perfects and sharpens the in­
tellect to perceive and penetrate the truth, not in any manner, but
with a certain connaturality and affective experience of divine things.
John of St. Thomas says that this manner of understanding and know­
ing divine things by an experimental affection of them tends of itself
to an experimental proof, and this is its unique and specific formality:
to perfect and illumine the understanding, so that by a certain con­
naturality and experience of spiritual things it will understand, com­
prehend and discern them. This connaturality is not had except
through love. "But he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with
Him,” as we read in I Corinthians (6:17).
There are two ways of understanding and passing judgment on
something: one by investigation and study; the other by experience.
Hence we can possess an understanding and judgment of spiritual
and supernatural things by study and speculation concerning them,
by the clear and precise illumination of truth, or by a certain love
and experience of divine things, as Dionysius says that Hierotheus
not only learned about but experienced divine things (De nom. div.,
C.2).
Similarly, the gift of understanding is distinguished from the gifts
of wisdom and knowledge, by which the mind acquires the aptitude
for judging, under the instigation of the Holy Ghost, of the truths
of faith through the highest causes, inferior causes, or through effects.
However, the difference does not consist in the fact that the gift of
understanding is ordained to penetrate the truths and the gifts of
wisdom and knowledge are ordained to judge, because the gift of
understanding not only perceives supernatural truths, but also judges
concerning them, although in a different manner than do the gifts
of wisdom and knowledge. There are two kinds of judgment: one is
resolutive or analytic, by which we judge things through their causes
or effects, analyzing them and reasoning; the other is simple or dis­
crete, by which we judge that one thing is not another, making certain
comparisons and considerations with the intellect or by a simple
impression as that obtained through the senses to distinguish colors,
sounds, etc.
203

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Now the gifts of wisdom and knowledge judge spiritual and super­
natural things in a resolutive or analytic way; wisdom, by its supreme
considerations, through intimate union with God; knowledge, through
inferior causes or effects, studying creatures. Although the gift of un­
derstanding, as is exercised in this life, cannot attain to a perfect
understanding of the mysteries and is therefore compatible with
faith, nevertheless it inundates with divine light the preambles of
faith, the credibility of supernatural truths, their meaning, fittingness
and order. From which it follows that the faithful arc more confirmed
in faith, see more clearly the connection between truths, and com­
prehend its perfect harmony by docile experience.
That Mary possessed the gift of understanding in a splendid man­
ner is evident from the fact that she most clearly comprehended,
pro loco et tempore, the things pertaining to faith to an extent pos­
sible for a wayfarer, and she understood by abundant experience, for
example, that she a virgin conceived God, that God became man,
that God is one in essence and three in person, that the Son of God
is God and man in the unity of one person. She also understood the
supreme dignity of her divine maternity and the eminence of her
graces, the excellent economy of human redemption, and the part
she had, by the divine decree, in that laborious work. She perceived
all with a loving spirit proper to the Mother of God and co-operator
in the redemption.

The gift of wisdom
The gift of wisdom is a habit by which man judges divine things
according to supreme causes by a certain connaturality with the love
of charity. Hence it seems evident that the gift of wisdom implies
right judgment of divine things. In judging them resolutively or
analytically, as was said before, man is moved by the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost according to a certain connaturality, taste and fond­
ness for the same, so that by this affective knowledge he judges divine
things in a higher way than permitted by the obscurity of faith. It
is proper to love to transform the beloved into the lover by a singular
union, from which judgment easily originates by reason of the con­
naturality which love establishes, because the one who loves pays
more attention to and considers more the things he loves, and there­
fore they satisfy him more easily, as St. Augustine explains: "The
204

mary's fullness of crace

greater our fervor in loving God, the greater is our certainty and clear­
ness in seeing Him." 74 Love does this, not merely by causing the in­
tellect to consider with greater attention that which is loved, as the
will commands the eye to look more closely, without sharpening
one’s vision, but by giving greater light so far as it unites the object
loved more intimately to the lover. ‘‘Taste and see." Thus, through
love the beloved is known in yet another way.
The gift of wisdom is therefore distinct from mere philosophical
wisdom, which proceeds from natural reasoning and study; from sa­
cred theology, which deduces its conclusions from the principles of
faith; and from the virtue of faith, which assents to the authority of
the one speaking, without inquiring or reasoning through the causes
of things. The gift of wisdom, instead, judges through lofty causes.
On the other hand, faith may be found in the sinner devoid of grace,
but the gift of wisdom is found only in the just, as we read (Wisd.
1:4): ‘‘For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell
in a body subject to sins.”
That Mary possessed the gift of wisdom in a high degree is stated
beautifully by Denis the Carthusian, who says that through the gift
of wisdom her mind understood and contemplated God with an in­
terior delight. She attained the third degree of wisdom, which is
proper to the perfect. As Mary was, after Christ, more holy than all
the saints, so also did she possess a greater degree of wisdom. Denis
applies the expression from Proverbs (11:2) to this consideration:
‘‘Where humility is, there also is wisdom." Since Mary was the hum­
blest and the purest of all creatures, she possessed wisdom to the
highest degree.7®
The gift of knowledge
The gift of knowledge is a supernatural habit by which the just, by
a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost, rightly judge the truths of
faith through inferior causes, according to an internal experience or
affective connaturality. Meunier explains that charity unites us to
God primarily in an affective way, but secondarily it makes us love
creatures for God; thus, as it gives us an experimental taste of God,
it gives us at the same time a taste and awareness of creatures in re­
lation to God. And through this awareness, through the gift of
knowledge, one forms a judgment of creatures in conformity with
205

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

their properties, pertaining to inferior and created causes, so that he
may either love them with moderation or recognize their imperfec­
tion and vanity.™
That Mary possessed the gift of knowledge in a most excellent way
is inferred from the fact that she continually rose above the consider­
ation of created things to God, with joy and fervor. She admired
with a subtle profound attention the order of the universe, the mag­
nitude, beauty and causality of celestial bodies; she considered the
nature, activity and eminence of angelic spirits. She was acquainted
with the work of the six days, the work of distinction and adornment,
and through her knowledge of all these things she appreciated the
dignity, perfection and excellence of the only-begotten God, conceived
and engendered by her. And thus she likewise understood the ineffable
grandeur of the divine dignity and benefits bestowed upon her from
above and dispensed by her to the whole human race.”

The gift of counsel
The gift of counsel is a supernatural habit by which, through the
Holy Ghost as counsellor, the mind judges particular tilings which
must be done in order to attain eternal life, according to a certain in­
terior experience and affective connaturality. Now, as wisdom and
affective knowledge arc attained through love and union with God,
by which the intellect is illumined to judge the divine and created ac­
cording to an experimental and internal taste of God or according
to a certain connaturality with God, by the gift of counsel man judges
the means, not in accord with natural or infused supernatural rules
of acquired or infused prudence, but according to the gifts of wisdom
and knowledge and with trust in God, who has the power to dispose
all means and overcome all difficulties. 18
The gift of counsel singularly shone in Mary. According to Denis
the Carthusian, the gift of counsel is not an act of the virtue of pru­
dence, but a habit by which the mind is directed by the Holy Ghost
in those instances in which human prudence does not suffice. The
Blessed Virgin was so filled with this gift that she was always directed
by the Holy Ghost. Tire gift of counsel was brilliantly demonstrated
at the marriage of Cana. Though her Son did not wish to perform
the miracle, she carefully instructed the servants, saying: "Do what­
ever He tells you" (John 2:5); on which Gardeil comments: "She
206

mary’s fullness of GRACK

ordered the servants to do all that her Son should bid, and the miracle
was performed. Her counsel had prevailed, because fundamentally
it was the counsel of a love inspired by the God of mercy.” ’·

The gift of fortitude
The gift of fortitude is a supernatural habit by which man, through
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is inclined to pursue good in the
face of difficulties. It is distinguished from the virtue of fortitude,
both acquired and infused, so far as the virtue operates according
to the common rule of natural and supernatural prudence. However,
the gift of fortitude operates through the divine inspiration of the
Holy Ghost, not weighing the forces and actions in conformity with
prudence, but working in conformity with the forces and power of
God, in a mode that is not human and is beyond the rules of even
infused prudence. Hence it follows that while acquired or infused
fortitude extends to the arduous and difficult according to the rules
of prudence and in conformity with the human capacity of the sub­
ject, and often fails because of the incapacity of the subject, the
gift of fortitude attends to these serious and difficult things, strength­
ening the weakness of the subject and driving out all fear through
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
That Mary possessed the gift of fortitude to a high degree is de­
duced from what has been said of the virtue of fortitude, which was
beautified, elevated and strengthened by the gift of fortitude, allow­
ing it to reach the summit of martyrdom of heart. It is proper to the
gift of fortitude, in virtue of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to
strengthen the weakness of the subject and to drive out all fear in
arduous and difficult things. Now Mary was never weak, but faced
difficult things courageously, for all her life, in spite of belonging to
the weaker sex and of living in the midst of a perverse people, she
always appeared strong, calm and constant, and without depression
in the face of persecutions of her Son and herself.80
The gift of piety
The gift of piety is a supernatural habit by which the just man,
moved in a special way by the Holy Ghost, honors God as his Father
and attends with love and filial veneration to all that pertains to Him.
It is distinguished from the acquired virtue of religion, which is of
207

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the natural order and honors God as the Creator and Author of na­
ture. It is also distinguished from the infused virtue of religion, which
honors God as Lord and Author of grace; not as He is in Himself
but for the benefits received from Him. The gift of piety considers
God as Father and formally as He is in Himself, by reason of His
paternal goodness, majesty and glory. All things pertaining to God
arc considered secondarily, while God is considered primarily. Thus,
it considers the just as children of God and partakers in divine nature;
it honors the saints, who are temples of the Holy Ghost, and the
relics of the saints; it extends to superiors, in whom resides the au­
thority of God, and to Sacred Scripture, which contains His word. It
employs, for God, fraternal mercy toward the miserable, and it per­
forms with the same sense of piety and fraternity all the works of
mercy and duties toward others.
Mary was remarkable in the gift of piety'. She knew that she was
the most beloved daughter of the Eternal Father, whose paternal
goodness she experienced unceasingly in all things. Now the clearer
the understanding possessed through the paternal goodness of God,
and the more prolonged the proof of it, the more ardent is piety.
Hence Mary says in her canticle (Luke i :46-48) : “My soul magnifies
the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, because He has
regarded the lowliness of His handmaid.” As if the motive and
reason of magnifying God and rejoicing in Him, says John of St.
Thomas, had been none other than the loftiness of God, who looked
down from His majesty upon the profound humility of her who was
His servant, rather than upon the sublime favors with which He
had exalted her, including the favor of her divine maternity.81
If the gift of piety is considered so far as it regards the things
pertaining to God, three acts may be enumerated: the first is to be
moved to works of mercy, looking upon the unfortunate as the images
of God; the second is to have reverence toward Sacred Scripture, not
contradicting it, whether one understands it or not; the third is to
honor the saints. St. Albert the Great (Mariale, q. 68) shows that
Mary practiced all three acts of piety in a more excellent manner
than anyone.

The gift of fear of the Lord
The gift of fear is a supernatural habit by which, through the in­
208

mary's fullness of grace

spiration of the Holy Ghost, the mind is moved to revere the majesty
of God and to avoid separation from Him. There are many kinds of
fear: mundane fear, when a man departs from God through fear
of temporal evil; servile fear, when man abandons sin through fear
of punishment; filial or reverential fear, when he flees from the evil
of sin, not because of punishment, but because it offends God, and
he fears separation from Him as children fear separation from their
father; and initial fear, which is imperfect filial fear. Of these fears,
neither human fear nor servile fear constitute the gift of fear. Not
human fear, because human fear is evil and sinful, since it fears to
lose the world and all things therein more than losing God. Not
servile fear, because although it is not evil, it could be found in a
sinner when he disposes himself for justification through attrition
which is dominated by the utilitarian fear of punishment. Therefore
the gift of fear is filial fear, which is not substantially different from
initial fear except as regards state and mode.·2
That Mary possessed the gift of fear is demonstrated through the
twofold object of fear: the primary object, which is the divine majesty
and greatness, and the secondary, which is the terrible evil of separa­
tion from God, caused by sin, and the evil of punishment due to sin.
Now the fear of God did not and could not exist in Mary so far as
it pertains to the evil of separation from God because of sin or to
the evil of punishment due to sin. It could exist only so far as it con­
siders the divine greatness as powerful in inflicting punishment, for
in this absolute way there always remains a reverential love, although
no evil is feared.83

Actual Grace
Grace makes us pleasing to God. As has been said, grace is habitual
or actual, depending on whether it is given as a permanent quality
in the manner of a habit or as a transient help. Sanctifying grace,
the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit pertain to the
order of habitual grace. Having already treated of sanctifying grace
and the virtues and gifts with which Mary was enriched, all that
remains to be considered is actual grace.
209

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mary needed actual grace to perform supernatural actions, since
she could not perform them without the actual supernatural influence of God, as is true of all of the just. But her actual grace never
failed to achieve its effect, which is not always true of us, who at
times hinder its operation by our rebellious wills. Although Mary's
will always remained perfectly free and she always had the basic power
to resist grace, nevertheless grace was never wasted in her because
she corresponded completely with all the divine inspirations and
graces bestowed upon her by God.84

Graces Gratis Datae
Grace gratis data is that which is ordained primarily, not for the
benefit of the one receiving it, but for the good and utility of others.
While grace gratum faciens, which makes us pleasing to God, regards
the sanctification and progress of the one receiving it and makes him
pleasing and acceptable to God in an inchoate or absolute manner,
grace gratis data is primarily ordained to the good of others, so that
the one receiving it may lead others to God and thus cooperate in
their salvation. Secondarily, however, the grace gratum faciens also
redounds to the benefit of others, as St. Matthew says ( 5:16) : “Even
so let your light shine before men, in order that they may see your
good works and give glory to your Father in heaven," and grace
gratis data likewise redounds sometimes to the benefit of him who
receives it, according to Daniel (12:3) : “But they that arc learned
shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that instruct
many to justice, as stars for all eternity.” Both types of grace are
gratuitous, but because grace gratis data is not given so that the
one receiving it may be pleasing to God, since at times it is given
even to sinners (the gift of prophecy was given to Balaam [Num. 23]
and to Caiphas [John 11:51]), but to make others pleasing to God,
the name gratis data or gratuitous grace is reserved for this type.
There are nine graces gratis datae enumerated by the Apostle (1
Cor. 12:7-11 ) : “Now the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every­
one for profit. To one through the Spirit is given the utterance of
wisdom; and to another the utterance of knowledge, according to
210

mary’s fullness of grace

the same Spirit; to another faith, in the same Spirit; to another the
gift of healing, in the one Spirit; to another the working of miracles;
to another prophecy; to another the distinguishing of spirits; to an­
other various kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues.
But all these things arc the work of one and the same Spirit, who
allots to everyone according as He will.”
How right is this enumeration by the Apostle is concluded from
the fact that the graces gratis datae are ordained to one man's co­
operation in the salvation of another. Now, there are three classes
of things by which a man can cooperate in the salvation and utility
of another, not by an interior movement, which is proper to God
alone, but exteriorly, by instruction and persuasion. The first class
comprises those tilings which are necessary so that the teacher of the
faith will have a full knowledge of divine things and can, therefore,
instruct others; and to this are ordained faith, the word of wisdom,
and the word of knowledge. To the second class pertain those things
which are necessary to confirm and prove what is taught; otherwise
his teaching would be ineffective; and because the doctrine of the
faith is not confirmed with arguments, but with signs or actions
proper to the power of God, that is, those which God alone can per­
form or those which God alone can understand, there are the gifts
of healing, of miracles, of prophecy and of the discerning of spirits.
To the third class belong those things necessary for the teacher of
faith to explain the doctrine in the way befitting those who listen,
and this is accomplished by the gift of tongues and the interpretation
of tongues.86
That Mary was endowed with all the graces gratis datae, is proved
as follows: i) whatever grace was bestowed to others in part, was
given to Mary entirely and in a perfect way, so that as the Mother of
God she would be adorned with the beauty of all the graces and gifts
bestowed upon the rest of the just; 2) those graces contributed greatly
to the salvation of those whom Mary endeavored to sanctify and save
eternally; 3) after Christ, Mary is the universal dispenser of these
graces in the Church and it was therefore fitting that she possess all
the gifts which were to be distributed to men.
: Mary possessed the charism of faith.
The faith treated here is not the theological virtue but a profound

thesis

211

Ύ

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

knowledge of the truths of faith. This can be explained in two ways:
so far as it pertains to the interior act of the mind, and then it carries
with it an excellence of understanding and an extraordinary certainty
in things concerning faith, or so far as it pertains to speech, as a spe­
cial gift of the Holy Spirit to explain the truths of faith in a manner
suited even to unlearned men newly converted to the faith.
This grace of faith flourished in Mary both with regard to the
interior act of the mind because her faith was most firm and perfect,
and with regard to vocal expression because it was fitting that she
be enriched with this gift. Hence she was called by Pope Leo XIII:
"The Mother of the Church, the Teacher and Queen of the apos­
tles.” ··
But if by the grace of faith is understood the confidence necessary
to work miracles, Mary also had that, according to St. Albert the
Great, commenting on St. Matthew: “If you have faith like a mustard
seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Remove from here’; and it will
remove. And nothing will be impossible to you” (Matt. 17:19)· But
when Mary said: “Be it done to me according to thy word” (Luke
1:38), the highest of the mountains was moved and was cast into
the sea, which is Mary. Therefore, her faith possessed the maximum

effect.”

Mary possessed the charisms of wisdom and knowledge.
Wisdom and knowledge are none other than the broader under­
standing and greater facility granted by the Holy Ghost to explain,
persuade and confirm matters of faith through superior or inferior
causes. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church were especially
adorned with these graces; for example, St. Athanasius, to combat
the Arian heresy; St. Cyril of Alexandria, to defend the mystery of
the Incarnation and Mary’s divine maternity; St. Augustine, to com­
bat the Pelagians; and St. Thomas Aquinas, in composing his Summa
theologica.
That Mary possessed the gifts of wisdom and knowledge is declared
by Denis the Carthusian, who maintains that she had greater wisdom
than all the apostles, prophets and patriarchs.88 But did Mary use her
wisdom and knowledge ministerially? St. Thomas maintains that al­
though she possessed those graces to a high degree, she did not use
them in teaching, because this ministry does not befit the female

thesis:

212

sex, according to the Apostle (I Tim. 2:12): "But I suffer not a
woman to teach"; but only in contemplating, according to Luke
(2:19): “But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her

heart.”99
Notwithstanding, we must understand these words of St. Thomas
in connection with his other statement: "Speech may be employed
in two ways: in one way, privately to one or a few, in familiar con­
versation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming
to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole
Church, and this is not permitted to women. . . . Hence women, if
they have the grace of wisdom or of knowledge, can administer it
by teaching privately but not publicly.”90 Hence, we must conclude
that Mary made use of the aforesaid gifts of wisdom and knowledge,
not publicly, but in private instructions to the apostles and to the
rest of the faithful, which teaching is held by Cajetan, Denis the
Carthusian and St. Peter Canisius.91
Mary possessed the charisms of healing and working mir­
acles.
The power of working miracles and the grace of healing can be
reduced to a single grace, because the two are ordained to the mani­
festation of the divine power through miraculous works. If done for
the benefit of bodily health conferred sensibly to others, they are the
grace of healing; if done to manifest the divine power for the benefit
of those who witness them, they are miraculous works. St. Thomas
says: “The use of miracles did not become her while she lived, be­
cause at that time the teaching of Christ was to be confirmed by
miracles, and therefore it was befitting that Christ alone, and His
disciples who were the bearers of His doctrine, should work miracles.
Hence of St. John the Baptist it is written (John 10:41) that he did
no sign, that is, in order that all might fix their attention on Christ.” 93
Nevertheless, the contrary opinion, held by St. Albert the Great, St.
Antoninus, Sudrez, Vega, Terrien, and Lepicier, seems more accept­
able. However, it is fitting to distinguish, with Suârez, the various
times and kinds of miracles or the different ways of working them.
It is neither certain nor probable that Mary had worked any
miracles before conceiving her Son; nor does that time seem the
most opportune to exercise this grace, because miracles were neither
thesis:

«3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

necessary in order to show the merits and holiness of the Virgin nor
to confirm doctrine. It is also probable that she did not work any
miracle, especially in public, from Christ’s conception until His as­
cension. That is perhaps what St. Thomas means when he uses the
example of John the Baptist. However, at times she did work miracles
by means of her Son, through her faith and impétration, such as the
miracle of the wedding at Cana, which was obtained through her
faith and petition as the Mother of the Son of God. Moreover, noth­
ing is known of any miracle performed secretly by Mary, especially
during Christ’s infancy, in Egypt, or on any other occasion.
After Christ’s ascension it can hardly be doubted that Mary per­
formed miracles and restored bodily health if necessity demanded it,
because there would be great good and benefit for the Church in her
being recognized and honored as the Mother of God, and this would
be a confirmation of faith in Christ’s manifestation as God and the
Son of God. Moreover, although it was not fitting that she preach
publicly, nor persuade others in this way, nevertheless, as miracles
do not necessarily have to be performed only by preachers of the faith,
but can be performed by the simple faithful if God desires, it can­
not be doubted that Mary’s intercession would never be rejected,
even if a miracle were required for obtaining the grace asked. It is
not likely that the faithful would not resort to her while she lived
or that this most glorious Virgin, who in the course of the centuries
showed herself so rich in mercy, would, before her assumption, close
her heart to the requests of the faithful. Nor is it likely that God
would have heeded her supplications less at that time.
Mary possessed the charism of prophecy.
It is certain that she possessed it, for in her Magnificat (Luke
1:48), moved by the prophetic spirit, she said: "Henceforth all gen­
erations shall call me blessed,” knowing certainly that she would
be magnificently celebrated and venerated with filial devotion by all
the faithful in every part of the earth down the centuries. Thus, St.
Bruno the Carthusian, Rupert, St. Albert the Great, and Knabenbauer explicitly teach that Mary had the gift of prophecy.®8
According to Denis the Carthusian, it was certainly most fitting
that Mary have the gift of prophecy, since she was constituted by
her Son as Mother and Mediatrix, Queen and Guardian, Protectress

thesis:

214

mary's fullness of grace

and Helper of the Church militant. Presupposing this, it was fitting
that many things concerning the Church's state, progress and future
events be revealed to her, so that through her knowledge of them
she might obtain good for the Church and pray unceasingly for the
salvation of the faithful, for an increase in the faithful, and for
the perseverance of those converted.94
Mary possessed the charism of discernment of spirits.
The discernment of spirits is a special gift of the Holy Spirit, either
to understand the thoughts and secrets of hearts, according to the
Apostle (I Cor. 14:24-25), or to judge from which spirit, good or
bad, interior thoughts and desires proceed, both in the one receiving
this gift or in others.
Mary possessed the gift of discernment of spirits in two ways. Pri­
marily, it was with regard to judging whether a good or evil spirit
gave rise to interior thoughts in herself as well as in others. As to
herself, it is certain that all during her life she had special help in
order to know with certainty that all her interior movements and af­
fections proceeded from the Holy Spirit. Also, she knew that she
could not have had a single thought inspired from without, which
did not proceed from a good spirit, and the same must be said of
thoughts from within, for she lacked the fomes and any disorder of
her interior faculties. Thus, although she could be tempted from
without, as was Christ, she could not be tempted from within, that
is, by an inordinate movement or affection.
As regards the discernment of spirits in others, we must believe that
in this also Mary possessed a unique grace, not only through the great
experience which was hers in spiritual things, according to I Cor.
2:15: "But the spiritual man judges all things,” but also through a
special gift of the Holy Spirit, especially necessary after Christ's as­
cension so that she, as the teacher of the apostles and the faithful,
might console and teach them in the absence of her Son.95
That the discernment of spirits in Mary attained the knowledge of
the secrets of others' hearts is explained by Terrien when he says that
Mary possessed discernment of spirits to the most eminent degree
after our Lord. She had it so that she could, more than once, sound
the secrets of hearts. It is true that the Gospel does not point out any
event from which we can easily infer it, but when we see not only
thesis:

315

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

directors of souls, such as St. Philip Neri, but also virgins charged with
leading other virgins to perfection, such as St. Mary Magdalen de
Pazzi, reading the most secret faults and thoughts, we cannot be pet.
suaded that the Mother of men, the co-operator of the Savior, would
not have obtained the same grace from her Son.®8

Mary received the charism of tongues.
Mary received this gift with the apostles on the day of Pentecost,
as St. Albert the Great says: “The Virgin was with them when there
appeared to them parted tongues of fire; therefore, she received the
gift of tongues with them.” 07 Moreover, although she was not to go
forth to preach the Gospel to different nations and peoples, never­
theless, in the beginning of the growing Church, this gift was fre­
quently given to the faithful, even to those who did not receive the
ministry of preaching and spreading the Gospel, as is evident in
Acts 19:6: “And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit
came upon them, and they began to speak in tongues and to proph­
esy." And so it was fitting, because so many of the faithful of many
nations had recourse to Mary through filial piety, that she should
know their languages in order to understand them and to make her­
self understood; to console, strengthen and instruct them completely
on matters of faith. Finally, Suârez judges it probable that even be­
fore Mary used this grace, if perhaps the necessity or occasion de­
manded it, for example, when Christ was adored by the Magi, Mary
understood their language. It is also probable that when she was in
Egypt, she understood and spoke the Egyptian language.®8

thesis:

Mary possessed the charism of interpretation of tongues.
The interpretation of tongues consists in a special gift or help to
understand the meaning of Sacred Scripture. This grace is wont to
be given for the good of others, but it contributes much to the per­
fection of the one receiving it, since it enlightens his understanding
and incites his will to good. Under either aspect, it is fitting to confer
this gift on Mary, so that she might understand and love God more
perfectly through a more profound understanding of the Scriptures,
and also teach others their true meaning, since from the beginning
she was a teacher of the faith and instructed the apostles who were
the preachers of the Gospel.

thesis:

216

mary's fullness of grace

Maty’s Knowledge
In this article we consider three things: first, the anticipated use
of reason in Mary, second, the eminent knowledge which adorned
her; and third, her immunity from all error and ignorance.

ANTICIPATED USE OF REASON
Mary possessed the use of reason from the beginning of
her conception and it lasted throughout her life.
Opinions: Besides Muratori, always ready to dispute Mary's privi­
leges, Gerson denied this prerogative of Mary, although he otherwise
gave her fervent veneration and admitted that God could have granted
it, but did not do so. It seems that St. Thomas holds the same doc­
trine: "She had not the use of reason from the very first moment of
her existence in her mother’s womb, for this was the singular privilege
of Christ.’’99 But Cajetan and Contenson interpret these words of
the Angelic Doctor as a continuous and permanent use of reason, and
maintain that she could have performed a transitory act of reason.
Lepicier does not depart much from this opinion, saying that Mary
had the use of reason at the moment of her immaculate conception,
but not after, until she reached the proper age. He also admitted that
the use of reason and free will could have been conceded at definite
times in her infancy and that through them she could have obtained
an increase of grace.100
More commonly, theologians admit in Mary the permanent use of
reason from the first moment of her conception. Among them are
St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori,
Stiiirez, Salazar, Vdzquez, Vega, Sedlmayr, Terrien, and others.
First Part. St. Bernardine of Siena asserts that even in her maternal
womb, Mary was wrapped in more perfect contemplation than any
other person ever was while awake, as we read in Scripture (Cant.
5:2) : “I sleep, and my heart watcheth.” 101
What was granted to another in grace or privilege, cannot reason­
ably be denied to Mary. Now St. John the Baptist was granted the use
of reason and will in his mother’s womb, as is evident in Luke (1:41):
thesis:

217

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

"The babe in her womb leapt"; because this leap of John was not the
natural movement which occurs in the last months of pregnancy. It
was a supernatural leap of joy (v. 44) : "For behold, the moment
that the sound of thy greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb
leapt for joy." But if John was so happy in the womb of his mother,
there must have been something which caused this joy, since the
will is not moved except through the knowledge of the intellect.
Hence it can be said that John rejoiced because through his full use
of reason and through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost he knew
that Christ and His Mother were present. The Fathers—such as St.
Irenaeus, Origen, St. Ambrose—usually interpret the leap of John
in this sense.
So it must be believed that this prerogative of the anticipated use
of reason was also conceded to the Blessed Virgin; for as Denis the
Carthusian explains, if the glorious John the Baptist, while still in
his mother's womb, had the miraculous use of reason whereby he
recognized Christ and rejoiced in His presence, how can we believe
that Mary, who surpassed even the most illustrious saints, did not

enjoy this privilege? 102
Considering the sublime excellence of the divine maternity, it was
fitting that Mary be sanctified in a most noble manner. Now the
mode of sanctification by the use of reason and free will is nobler
than that attained without the cooperation of reason and will, just
as the justification of adults is nobler than that of children. St.
Thomas says: “Now, sanctification is twofold: that of adults who are
sanctified in consideration of their own act, and that of infants who
are sanctified in consideration of, not their own act of faith, but
that of their parents or of the Church. The former sanctification is
more perfect than the latter, just as act is more perfect than habit;
and that which is by itself, than that which is by another.” 108
Second Part. The gifts of God are without retraction, so that they
are not lost except through sin, especially when they are given for the
utility, perfection and sanctification of those receiving them. Now
the use of reason given Mary in the moment of her conception is a
gift which leads to the highest merit and to a continual increase of
grace; and therefore to her greater holiness. If the permanent use of
reason were not admitted in Mary, many of the graces and virtues
granted her in her first sanctification would remain fruitless, since
218

mary’s fullness of grace

these graces could not operate and fructify except presupposing the
use of reason and free will. Nor is the reasoning of St. Thomas op­
posed to it, in which he affirms that Mary did not possess the use of
free will while still in her mother's womb because this is a special
privilege of Christ's, for he does not affirm the use of reason in the
same way in Mary and Christ. Christ had the use of reason by His
own right, because of the hypostatic union; Mary did not have it by
her own right, but through the gratuitous condescension of God and
in view of Christ’s merits. Moreover, in Christ the use of reason was
united with His beatific knowledge, to which is joined infused knowl­
edge; in Mary, reason was joined only with infused knowledge, and
only in a transitory way with beatific knowledge. The use of reason in
Christ was absolute as regards all things; in Mary it pertained only to
those things which referred to the knowledge of God and of Christ.
Nor can we omit, finally, that as Mary’s immaculate conception was
not entirely understood in St. Thomas’ time, it is not surprising that
the reasons for admitting the use of reason and free will in Mary were
not evident.
Estius, Lepicier and others maintain that Mary possessed the use
of reason through infused knowledge per accidens, which depended
on the use of the imagination. Suarez, Salazar, Sedlmayr, Terrien,
Hugon and others teach that Mary, from the beginning of her con­
ception, possessed the use of reason and free will in virtue of infused
knowledge per se. We will discuss this more fully later.

BEATIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Beatific knowledge is the immediate vision of God or the intuitive
knowledge of the divine essence. But because the vision of the divine
essence surpasses the natural powers of any created intellect, it is
necessary that there be added to this the supernatural assistance of the
light of glory (lumen gloriae), whether habitual or communicated at
least in a transitory way, without which the beatific act is impossible.

Mary possessed the beatific vision during her mortal life
in a transitory manner.
The permanent possession of the beatific vision constitutes the state
thesis:

ai9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

of teiminus, which did not occur in Mary as a wayfarer, since she possessed faith, which is the basis of justice and holiness in the wayfarer.
St. Bernard says that it must be believed that Christ frequently
raised His Mother to the mountain of myrrh and to the height of
incense, that He would hide her in the wine chamber, and that He
would reveal to her His divine glory.104 Likewise, St. Bernardine of
Siena, making a comparison between Paul and Mary, says that being
full of grace in contemplating God and all created things, she was
incomparably more than Paul raised to the third heaven, for if Paul
was a vessel of election, the Virgin, certainly, was a vessel of di­
vinity.108
Just as God works miraculously and supematurally in corporeal
things, so also has He supematurally, and outside the general order,
elevated the minds of some saints who lived in the flesh, though they
did not use the senses of the flesh, to the vision of His essence, as is
believed was the singular privilege -accorded to Moses, the teacher of
the Jews, and to Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles.100 But if the vision
of the divine essence was bestowed on Moses and on Paul in a transi­
tory way, there is no reason for denying this gift to Mary, as St. Ber­
nard says: “There is no reason to surmise that what was bestowed on
a few mortals was denied to a Virgin of such excellence.” 107 Denis
the Carthusian, in his work on Mary cited several times, speaks in a
similar vein.
Finally, Mary is the co-redemptrix in the work of human salvation.
Hence, as Christ possessed beatific knowledge in a most excellent
manner from the beginning of His incarnation, because of the fact
that men have ultimately to be brought by Him to beatitude, which
consists in the intuitive vision of God, and that what is in potency
is not placed in act except by something already in act, so also, be­
cause Mary is, with Christ and under Christ, the principle leading
men to glory, it is also fitting that she should see intuitively the es­
sence of God at some time in this life.
On what occasions was it granted to Mary to see transitorily the
divine essence? Theologians do not agree as to the times that Mary
was allowed to see the essence of God in a transitory way during her
mortal life. They usually point out five principal occasions: at the time
of her immaculate conception and at the conception of the Divine
220

mary’s fullness of grace

Word, at her nativity and at the birth of Christ, and at His glorious
resurrection.
That Mary in her immaculate conception and in the incarnation
of the Word enjoyed the clear vision of God, Salazar bases on the
fact that there were two most happy and worthy times during which
she was enriched by God with the richest and most abundant gifts,
namely, in her immaculate conception and at the incarnation of the
Divine Word. He omits that of her death, since this of itself united
her to the clear vision of God.108
No one expressly affirms that the vision of God was bestowed on
Mary in her nativity, but Salazar says that it is credible that the vision
of God was given her then, for it was fitting that she should at birth
be illumined with a splendid light and that she contemplate in God
the world and all the creatures over whom she had precedence.
That Mary had a transitory vision of the divine essence at the birth
of Christ is insinuated by St. Peter Damian in his sermon on the
Nativity and stated more clearly by St. Antoninus and Cassalius.
That the Blessed Virgin was granted the beatific vision at the resur­
rection of Christ is asserted by St. Thomas of Villanova, who says
that it was reasonable that she who had suffered so greatly in the
passion of her Son, should experience at least for some moments the
consolation of beatitude.108
Lastly, it is hardly necessary to remark that this doctrine of the
beatific vision granted to Mary transitorily in this life is not proposed
as certain, but as pious and probable, as Father Bernard demon­
strates.110

INFUSED KNOWLEDGE

Infused knowledge is knowledge which is not acquired by one’s
own effort but is produced by intelligible species impressed on the in­
tellect immediately by God. Infused knowledge is also called innate,
that is, connatural, but we must understand distinct things under
both names. Infused knowledge and innate knowledge agree in that
neither is acquired by work or industry, but they differ formally be­
cause innate knowledge accompanies nature as its property and is

221

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

produced at the same time and with the same action with which the
subject is produced in which it exists as its complement. But infused
knowledge is not formally a complement of nature, for it comes to
the subject by infusion from God.
Angelic knowledge is innate because by the ver}- action with which
God created the angelic nature, He imprinted intelligible species in
the angelic intellects. On the contrary, Adam’s knowledge was in­
fused, because it was neither postulated as his natural complement,
nor was it implied in the creation of his rational soul, but was given
him through a distinct action by which God, the Author of grace,
added other supernatural gifts to his gifts of nature.
Infused knowledge is twofold: per se and per accidens. The first is
knowledge which requires infusion in such a way that it cannot be
had except through infused species; and this knowledge is called abso­
lutely and simply infused. The other is knowledge which, although
it can be acquired by the human mind, de facto is not acquired, but
is infused by God, who thus forestalls human effort.
Infused knowledge per se is completely independent of the imagina­
tion and of phantasms, because it is obtained without abstraction from
phantasms and is exercised without conversion to them; but infused
knowledge per accidens, although obtained de facto by infused spe­
cies, cannot be exercised without conversion to representations of
the imagination.
Mary possessed per se infused knowledge.
Opinions. Lcpicier, Campana and Dourche teach that Mary did not
have permanent per se infused knowledge because it does not seem
to be in accordance with man’s state in this life, but that at times she
enjoyed a certain transitory illumination. Nevertheless, many theo
logians, such as Suârez, Salazar, Sedlmayr, Terrien and Garriguet,
affirm that Mary possessed per se infused knowledge from the be
ginning of her conception.
St. Anselm says that the virtue and power of God and all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge were in Mary.111
Similarly, Rupert of Deutz states that nothing was hidden from
Mary and she was enraptured with all its sweetness.112 This must be
understood with a certain moderation, so far as it refers to the pre
eminence of Mary’s infused knowledge over the angels and saints in

thesis:

222

mary's fullness of grace

the knowledge of God, divine mysteries, and all things referring to
salvation.
Not only was per se infused knowledge becoming to Mary, but it
was also necessary; nor was this knowledge in opposition to her state
of wayfarer. Actually, it was fitting to the honor due the Mother of
the Eternal Word and God of wisdom that from the first moment of
her conception she should have a pre eminent knowledge of divine
things.118
From the very beginning, Mary had the use of reason and was sanc­
tified in her mother’s womb. Neither of these things could be verified
without per se infused knowledge because acquired knowledge as
well as per accidens infused knowledge require the use of the senses
and the imagination, faculties which were not sufficiently developed
in Mary’s infancy to be able to provide such activity. Moreover, this
knowledge was necessary so that Mary, during her infancy, might
preserve the use of reason about divine things; that she might con­
tinue to merit during sleep; and that she might during her whole life
be engaged in the contemplation of the things of God without inter­
ruption, fatigue or distraction. All these things are easily explained
on the supposition of per se infused knowledge which is independent
of the use of the senses.
Finally, per se infused knowledge is not opposed to the state of a
wayfarer, to whom it is proper to be directed by faith, for it may be
obscure or even used in the service of faith.114 Now although per se
infused knowledge was not obscure in Mary’s intellect, but evident,
nevertheless it could co-exist with faith, because the act of faith and
the act of knowledge possess two means or motives, each of which suf­
fices to assent to the truth proposed.115
T h e s r s : Mary possessed per accidens infused knowledge.
St. Antoninus and St. Albert the Great, followed by Vega, believe
that Mary possessed per accidens infused knowledge of all or most of
the human sciences. But it seems more likely that Mary had infused
knowledge per accidens only of natural and moral things which aid in
a more perfect understanding of Scripture and the obligations and
moral actions of man. The reason is that the perfect understanding of
Sacred Scripture, in which Mary excelled to a most eminent degree,
required the knowledge of many things, such as history, geography.
223

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

cosmogony and astronomy, in which her intellect worked, like ours,
dependent upon the imagination and the senses. And it is not likely
that Mary could have acquired such knowledge little by little by her
own work and industry, but that she received it from God by infu­
sion, since she could not have easily acquired all of these sciences by
her own efforts nor would it be fitting that she occupy herself in
acquiring them and thus be distracted from the contemplation of
divine things.
Besides, the Blessed Virgin had received, from the first moment of
her conception, the natural moral virtues, which require the direction
of a principle proportionate to them or an intrinsically natural knowl­
edge infused per accidens. Finally, it would be a greater perfection in
Mary if during her infancy she possessed the special perfection of this
knowledge than to acquire it later by her own effort.
Among these sciences infused per accidens was the science of theol­
ogy, which is usually acquired by study, for this science leads to a more
perfect understanding of revealed things so far as the principles of
faith arc thereby understood more distinctly and the truths contained
therein are understood as genuine conclusions. Since Mary was a
teacher of the apostles, it was fitting that she possess the most perfect
understanding of the mysteries of our faith.110

Besides the infused habits of knowledge, Mary knew other
things through special transitory revelations.
It is certain that Mary had many and various revelations because
this favor and testimony of divine love and familiarity was bestowed
on almost all who excelled in special sanctity, but mostly on virgins
and on those who lived the contemplative life, as is evident in the
lives of the saints. Therefore, this favor must be conceded even more
to the Blessed Virgin.117
In particular, before conceiving her Son and while still living in the
Temple during her childhood, Mary had revelations and saw angels,
as is attested by Gregory of Nicodemia and Fulbert of Chartres.
In the conception of her Son, Mary received, through the angel
Gabriel, the remarkable revelation of the mystery of the Incarnation,
as stated in Luke 1:26-28.
Later, carrying her Son in her womb and holding personal and in­
timate converse with Him, she received excellent enlightenment, as
Bernardine of Busti states in his Mariale.

thesis:

224

mart’s fullness of crack

After the birth of her Son, Mary asked and learned many things
from Him who dwelt with her, according to pious belief.'*·
After the resurrection of Christ, among the revelations made to
Mary we must enumerate those in which Christ appeared to her be­
fore appearing to others in manifesting His glory. It is true that the
Evangelists do not mention this apparition, but as Rupert of Deutz
shows, it is the belief of the faithful that Mary was the first to see the
risen Christ.
It is also presumed as likely that during the forty days between
Christ’s resurrection and His ascension, the well-beloved Son would
visit His Mother and gladden her with His sweet presence.
Finally, that Christ after His ascension appeared to and taught His
Mother is believed by many, among whom was St. Laurence Justinian,
who says that she rejoiced not only in the sight of angels, but also in
the frequent vision and conversation with her Son, to which was
joined an incomparable plenitude of grace.1*·

ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE

A twofold acquired knowledge can be distinguished: one which
treats principally of the singulars perceived through the senses and is
based on the evident testimony of experience; the other which treats
mainly of universals acquired through intellectual abstraction and
is based on evidence by inference from evident principles. It is certain
that Mary possessed true experimental knowledge because it is clear
that she experienced hunger, pain and other things as we do, and
also her senses perceived the things presented through sight, hearing,
and the rest. But this question refers more especially to the other
acquired knowledge.
thesis: Mary acquired connatural knowledge by her own actions.
Mary possessed an agent intellect as well as a possible intellect. The
agent intellect is that whereby species are made actually intelligible,
abstracting them from the individual conditions of phantasms, so
that they can be received into the possible intellect and move it to
the act of intellection, from which acquired knowledge results.
Nor would it be difficult to see that Mary would understand later
through acquired knowledge many things which she knew previously

"5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

through infused knowledge per accidens, because she could under
stand experimentally the same things which she already knew intel­
lectually. Concerning this, St. Thomas remarks that a thing may be
experienced in two ways: from sensible objects, by which experience
is acquired the habit of knowledge, as happens with us, or by seeing
in things what is already known by infused knowledge, which is de­
lectable to the learned; and thus it was that Adam experienced nat­
ural things.120
Mary acquired knowledge by investigation and by learn­
ing.
There are two ways of acquiring knowledge: by investigation and
by learning. Of these, the principal mode is through investigation,
and the secondary mode is through study and instruction, for it is
more noble to instruct oneself than to be instructed by another.
Mary acquired her knowledge by her own talents, because she had
a superior mind which served her body and senses very well. Thus, she
learned perfectly and without difficulty the things which were fitting
that she know and could be learned through her senses, as St. Thomas

thesis:

teaches happened to Christ her Son.121
In addition, she also progressed in knowledge by assiduous reading
and meditation on Sacred Scripture and by contemplating the divine
mysteries, as Origen teaches.122
Finally, Mary’s external and internal experience supplied material
for knowledge, and through it she perceived many effects which were
unknown to others, for example, that she conceived without man,
that she gave birth without pain, and so forth.
Mary also received knowledge from another through learning, not
from other persons, but only from her Son. It was not reasonable that
she who was to be the teacher of the apostles and the faithful be in­
structed by men. Hence she was instructed by an angel concerning
the mystery of the Incarnation.12" However, Suârez states that Mary
learned nothing from men, if we consider matters of faith, but if it
was a matter of some event or of some text of Sacred Scripture, she
could have been taught by men.12* On the other hand, Mary’s inti­
mate association with Christ sufficed for her most thorough instruc­
tion. From this river of celestial teaching she imbibed copiously for
thirty years.12®
226

mary’s fullness of grace

TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM ALL ERROR AND IGNORANCE
Two kinds of ignorance are distinguished; negative ignorance and
privative ignorance. Purely negative ignorance is simple nescience or
lack of knowledge, for which reason we are said to be ignorant of
what we are not obliged to know. But privative ignorance is a lack
of knowledge of something one should know in his particular state.
Hence there is nescience in children, but privative ignorance in the
judge who is ignorant of the law.
Error is a false knowledge, or a knowledge positively out of con­
formity with the thing to be known. Error proceeds from ignorance
as from its cause, for St. Thomas says that men are not deceived
except in things which they do not know.12’ Nevertheless, error is
formally distinguished from ignorance because ignorance of itself
indicates a lack of knowledge and there can be no error if there is no
knowledge of the thing about which one errs.

: Mary was immune from all error and ignorance.
The question does not concern negative ignorance, since Mary
could possess and de facto did have pure nescience or lack of knowl­
edge about many things which did not pertain to her state. Thus, she
did not know immediately all the circumstances of the Incarnation,
that her cousin Elizabeth had conceived a son in her old age, and she
did not know many future tilings. Therefore, the question is one of
privative ignorance and of error or deception.
Errors. Erasmus, who was too frequently influenced by Luther, as­
serted that Mary was subject to ignorance and error. Therefore, Mary
did not know that Christ her Son was truly God and she did not adore
Him as a baby. Some even exaggerate Mary’s ignorance to the ex­
treme of saying that she and Joseph, by reason of their sensate con­
ception of the temporal kingdom of the Messias, had awaited Him as
the most powerful king of the world, with His armies prepared and
armed in order to re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
But the common opinion of theologians is that Mary was immune
from all error and privative ignorance, a judgment so certain that,
according to the opinion of Suârez, the contrary is offensive to pious
ears.127
thesis

227

THE BLESSED VIRGIN ΜΛΒΥ

FM Part. Maiy possessed all the gift, o( origina| iulfc
those pertaining to bodily passibility and mortality. Now i„ t],c „a,e
of original justice, there was immunity from all error.128 Therefore
Mai}’ was free from all error.
When exercising the act of understanding in reference to its proper
object, our intellect is always truthful, so that of itself, it cannot be
deceived. All deception originates from something inferior, that is,
from the imagination, the senses, passion, or from some other ex­
trinsic cause which distracts or hinders the intellect from judging
things in conformity to reason. But this disorder did not exist in the
state of innocence, for as long as the soul remained subject to God, the
lower faculties were subject to the higher, and there was no impedi­
ment to their activity. Neither was this disorder in Mary, who in this
respect enjoyed the privilege of that happy state.
Error in the present order is the result of sin, according to St.
Augustine: “To accept the false as true is not natural to man as he
was created, but is a punishment for his fault.” 128 This does not ap­
ply to Mary, who was immune from all sin.
Mary possessed such a disposition of soul that she had complete
dominion over her faculties and the most sublime prudence, without
inordinate movements of any kind. Hence, as regards the things she
knew, she did not judge them in any other way than as they were in
reality; and as regards the things she did not know, she withheld
judgment until the truth was evident; or, if she judged by signs and
conjectures, her judgment did not fall back on these, but on their
possibility or probability, depending on the strength of her signs and
conjectures. However, judging that something is possible or probable
is not to err.
Second Part. Mary’s freedom from ignorance was greater than that
of the angels and of Adam, says St. Bernardine of Busti.180 As there
was no privative ignorance in the angels and in Adam, much less was
it present in Mary.
It was fitting that Mary, by her exalted dignity as Mother of God
and her pre-eminent sanctity, not only be not lacking in knowledge
given her, but possess an abundance of it, as was becoming her state.
We cannot say that Mary possessed a false estimation of the things
which concerned her, as on the occasion of Jesus’ remaining in the
Temple (Luke 2:44), for Mary, believing that Jesus was going along
228

mary's fullness of grace

with the retinue, simply judged that this could have happened, and
under the circumstances it would be very likely. It was a probable
but well-founded judgment, sufficient to excuse Mary from all error
and ignorance.
Corollary. From what has been said, we can infer a pre-eminent
knowledge and an abundance of sacred doctrine in Mary; graces which
surpassed all the angels, apostles and theologians. This extensive
knowledge should not be understood as comprising a complete ac­
cumulation of all human sciences, because the knowledge of many
natural things is not related to the dignity of her being the Mother
of God or to her office as co-redemptrix in the work of redemption.
And so it is not unbecoming to affirm that, as regards definite knowl­
edge of nature and of the arts, her knowledge was below that of Adam
and Solomon, and even of that of noted teachers in those sciences.
But this is not true as regards supernatural sciences or as regards the
natural sciences which pertained to her pro temporis indole ac progressu.131

CHAPTER FIVE

Miry's Bodily .Attributes
*

Having

already explained

the perfections and prerogatives

which adorned Mary’s soul, we shall now consider those which
refer to her body. We shall discuss successively: Mary’s bodily per­
fection, her passibility, her mortality, and finally her death.

Mary’s Bodily Perfection
As the body is to the soul what matter is to form, we must discuss
the bodily perfection of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, as Lcpicier advises, not in an absolute way or a priori, but in relation to her
soul, following the criterion observed by the Angelic Doctor when he
stated that all that was perfect had to appear in the Blessed Virgin,
always in relation to her divine maternity.
Mary possessed a most perfectly constituted body.
This is so certain that Suârez1 says that to affirm the contrary, not
only opposes right reason and authority, but is temerarious. St. Antoni­
nus and Denis the Carthusian are also great exponents of Mary’s
bodily perfection.
1) Mary’s body was most worthily prepared to receive the Word
of God. Therefore it was fitting that her body be most perfectly
formed, so that the means might be adapted to the end and the ma­
terial fit for so great a work.
2) In forming the first man, God had Christ in mind; Christ who
was to trace His origin from Adam, according to the testimony of
Tertullian (De resurrect, carnis). Therefore, if God formed Adam’s
body with such care, since after so many generations He was to form
from Adam the body of the Word, with how much care, counsel,

thesis:

230

mary’s bodily attributes

foresight and love would He have fashioned Mary’s body, from whom,
not remotely, but proximately and immediately, was to be born the
Word of God.
3) A perfect soul should have a most perfectly constituted body.
Since Mary’s soul was adorned with the most excellent gifts of na­
ture, she needed a body exquisitely formed—absolute integrity of its
members, well proportioned, a most powerful vitality and efficiency
of senses and faculties—so that she might duly exercise the operations
of soul and body. It should also be borne in mind that a good natural
disposition and a good physical constitution greatly aid the faculties
of the soul.2
4) Finally, a particular resemblance between Christ and Mary
must be established, since children resemble their parents in perfec­
tion of body, proportion of parts, and facial features. 3 And since
Christ lacked an earthly father and totally resembled His Mother,
and was most remarkable in bodily perfection, so Mary, next to
Christ, was distinguished among all by her bodily perfection. To this
end, St. Thomas of Villanova,4 in order to demonstrate that this
resemblance between child and parents was substantiated more
completely in Christ than in others, says that other children, being
common to father and mother, take something from each. But Christ
had no earthly father, deriving His body from His mother alone. He
therefore resembled her in the features of countenance, manner and
bearing. His Mother alone imitated Him in all, and resembled Him in
grace and virtue, excepting, of course, that perfection which resulted
from the union of the divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus.
thesis: Mary never suffered bodily infirmity of any kind.
This is the common opinion of theologians. Among the natural
goods of the body, says Plato (De Leg., I), health takes the first place.
Therefore, as Mary received a better constituted body, she possessed,
by the same token, a most complete and perfect state of health.
Gerson (De Concept. Virginis) remarks that we must concede to
Mary complete health, harmony, and a balanced constitution.
Although Mary, possessing a most perfect temperament of body,
had the natural defects of body, in no way was she subject to personal
defects, such as illness; which in some men is caused by native imper­
fection or from their own fault, or in others because of an abuse of

23>

THF. BL ESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the passions or transmitted through inheritance. Neither native imperfection nor hereditary defect can be attributed to Man·; Contenson
observes that her body was produced miraculously of sterile parents
and that natural gifts granted miraculously are exquisite, because
God’s works are perfect.5 Neither can defects be attributed to her by
way of personal fault through abuse of the sense appetites, for there
was nothing inordinate in her manner of living which might have
diminished the admirable harmony of her body.
Though Mary was subject to the air and to other external agents
which cause illnesses in us, her bodily health was never endangered,
due to the strength and resistance of her perfect constitution and
because of her knowledge, by which she could foresee and avoid the
influence of these agents. Moreover, she had the special protection
of divine providence.
Although Mary suffered no sickness whatever, we cannot conclude
that she lacked the physical possibility' of growing old and even of
dying, for to her we can apply the words of St. Augustine referring to
Christ, when he teaches that Jesus Christ himself, since He assumed
the flesh of sinners, from the moment of His birth passed through the
different ages of life and would have died of old age had He not
shed His precious blood on the tree of the Cross.® The final words can
be changed with regard to the Blessed Virgin to read: had she not
died of divine love.

Mary suffered no spasms or swoons during the passion of
her Son.
Some theologians attributed spasms or swoons to Mary during
Christ’s passion. Thus, St. Bonaventure says that because of her most
severe sorrow and anguish, Mary fell half dead into the arms of Mary
Magdalen, and this opinion is shared by St. Lawrence Justinian and
Denis the Carthusian.’ St. Bernardine of Siena seems favorably in­
clined toward this opinion, echoing the legend that Mary fainted on
meeting Jesus as He carried His cross to Calvary. St. Bernardine says
that this should be believed piously rather than affirmed rashly. St.
Bridgit adheres to this same opinion.®
The source of this opinion seems to be the apocryphal book De
Lamentatione Virginis, at one time attributed to St. Bernard in
which we read: “Near the Cross was the Mother of Christ, almost

thesis:

232

mary’s bodily attributes

dead; she could not speak because she was transfixed with sorrow;
because of the vehemence of her sorrow and the intensity of her love,
she remained as if dead."
This doctrine of Mary’s swoon passed on to the liturgy. St. Helen
built a chapel, and on the main altar placed a stone on which the
Blessed Virgin was to have fallen in her swoon.® Moreover, Cajetan
remarks that in his time the feast of the swooning of the Blessed Vir­
gin was celebrated with an octave, and its devotees petitioned indul­
gences of the Sovereign Pontiff. Finally, various churches featured
pictures and statues of Mary in a lifeless faint in the arms of St. John
or Mary Magdalen. However, the most common opinion is that Mary
suffered no swoon whatever near the Cross nor in any other place
during Christ’s passion; and the contrary assertion is qualified by
Maldonado (In Joan, c. 19) as close to error, and by Medina (In
III, q. 27, a. 4) as rash, scandalous, and dangerous.
Sacred Scripture. We read in St. John (19:25): "Now there were
standing by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother and Mis Mother’s sister,
Mary of Clcophas, and Mary Magdalen." Mary stood near the Cross
which shows that she was on her feet, neither sitting nor prostrate on
the ground with grief. It should not be affirmed that the apostle used
the word “stood” to mean "remained," because he repeats this same
word in verse 26: “When Jesus, therefore, saw His Mother and the
disciple standing by, whom He loved.” For it is a custom of the Gos­
pel, when something important is nanated, to describe the posture
of the persons involved, as happens in St. John (4:6), and St. Luke
(18:11). On this point Gerson describes the Blessed Virgin Mary
at the foot of the Cross as standing, as says the Gospel, in front of the
Cross, not beside it, looking into the face of her crucified Son.*®
The Fathers. Although Mary was undoubtedly overwhelmed by the
most severe sorrow in her Son’s passion, she suffered no prostration,
spasm or swoon whatever. St. Anselm and St. Ambrose are of this
opinion. St. Ambrose says: “Whereas the apostles fled, Mary stood
courageously beneath the Cross and viewed with loving eyes the
wounds of her Son, through whom she knew would come the redemp­
tion of the world." 11
Pope Benedict XIV writes that when many persons requested in­
dulgences for the feast of the swooning of the Blessed Virgin, Cajetan,
a renowned theologian, was asked his opinion about it. After declaring
233

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

that there was no mention of it in the Gospel, he explained the differ­
ence between the type of spasm or weakness in which the sorrow is$0
intense that there is a loss of the use of reason and of the senses, and
another type of spasm in which one loses control of the body, so
that although the use of reason is not lost, one cannot remain stand­
ing. He then concluded that it is false to affirm that Mary suffered
any spasm or swooning because this would be opposed to the thesis
that Mary suffered no illness whatever, because it would be very un­
becoming to say that sorrow disturbed Mary’s perfection of grace by
suspending her reason, and because the title "Swooning of Mary,”
taken in its proper sense, would be opposed to the dignity of her body,
and taken in the ordinary sense would be opposed to her dignity of
soul.12
Theological Argument, i ) Mary had perfect control over all of her
actions and affections, and so she commanded the sensitive move­
ments of her body in such a way that there was nothing discordant
and unbecoming in her actions. But it would have been very unbe­
coming to allow herself to be so overwhelmed by sensitive sadness and
pain that she would be deprived of her bodily strength and use of
reason.
2) Moreover, if her superior reason had not been sufficient to con­
trol and preserve her lower nature from swooning, neither would di­
vine power fail her, for by increasing her strength and endurance and
moderating the affections of her soul, it would preserve her from a
suspension of her senses, a weakening of her reason, and an unbe­
coming collapse of her body.
3) As Mary was full of grace, those defects which hinder the full­
ness and perfection of grace cannot be admitted. A suffering which
causes fainting also incapacitates the use of reason, but because of
Mary’s mission in the completion of Christ’s sacrifice, that is inad­
missible in her, for at this time she was to consider the glory and
fruit of her Son’s passion and the salvation of the human race. This
would have been an impossibility had pain confused her reasoning.
4) On the other hand, it was much more pleasing to God that Mary
suffer with her Son and that she suffer more in her reason and intel­
lectual appetite, rather than in the sensitive appetite. The rational
part is more noble than the sensitive, more free, capable of merit, and
more pleasing of itself. Had Mary been deprived of the use of reason

234

mary’s bodily attributes

through sorrow, she could not in any way have felt pain with regard
to her rational appetite.
5) Though the pain, as Toledo says, was most severe, nevertheless,
she remained superior to it through her faith in Christ’s resurrection,
through her strength of soul and chiefly through her conformity to the
will of God. He therefore rejects such doctrine as would inflict in­
jury on the Blessed Virgin by presenting her as losing the integrity
of her senses and reason, although she suffered most intensely.”
6) Finally, neither the account of the temple constructed in Jeru­
salem by St. Helen nor the feast of the swooning of the Virgin nor
the pictures and statues representing Mary fainting have any value to
the contrary. The construction of the temple does not prove Mary's
swoon, but the temple was constructed in memory of her suffering.
Tire institution of the feast of the swooning of the Blessed Virgin
originated perhaps from the acts of the provincial council of Theodoric. Bishop of Cologne, in the year 1423, to honor Jesus and His
Blessed Mother and to repress the audacity of the Hussites, who sacri­
legiously burned all representations of Christ Crucified and His Sor­
rowful Mother. There is no mention of a swoon or spasm, but only
of her anguish and pain, although perhaps in some places where the
cult of our Lady’s sorrows had spread, the name might have been
changed to describe her great sorrow more vividly. With regard to
pictures and representations of Mary as lifeless or almost dead, John
of Carthagena attests that in his time the Master of the Sacred Palace
in Rome ordered the disappearance of pictures of this kind because
they diminished Mary’s magnanimity and fortitude. Likewise, those
preachers who spoke of the weeping and pain of Mary, as represented
by the painters, were seriously reprimanded by St. Peter Canisius, as
were the painters themselves.1*

Mary’s Passibility
Previous Observations. The concept of passibility depends upon the
concept of passion. In a broad sense, passion indicates a change in
the subject or the reception of a new form, including the form which
perfects without alteration or corruption. In the strict sense, it signi-

235

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

fies the reception of a form which causes an alteration, and is defined
as a movement or alteration which withdraws the patient from its
natural disposition and changes it into something worse, thus start­
ing the process of decomposition.
Understood in this way, passion applies only to corporeal things,
but since the alteration of bodies of the sensitive order can occur in
two ways, there is also a twofold passion, properly speaking: corporeal
and animal. Corporeal passion is one which arises from injury to the
members or irritation of organs. Animal passion is that which the
soul experiences with regard to movements or affections of the sensi­
tive appetite, which is always accompanied by some corporeal altera­
tion or organic disturbance. Hence two things are to be distinguished
in passion: one as the formal element, which is the movement or
affection of the sensitive appetite, and the other as the material ele­
ment, which is the organic alteration. Corporeal passion takes its ori­
gin from the injured body or any other bodily disturbance, and
through the body it makes itself felt in the soul. Animal passion
originates primarily in the soul, and from the soul redounds to the
body.
Besides corporeal and animal passions there are also spiritual pas­
sions, with regard to the movements of the will which spontaneously
follow the apprehension of good or of evil. These acts by their nature
do not of themselves involve corporeal alteration, and therefore they
are not called passions except in a wide sense; rather, they are fre­
quently called affections or movements of the will.
The passions of the sense appetite are closely associated with the
spiritual passions or affections of the will. In the first place, the pas­
sions of the sense appetite are generally caused by movements of the
will, as taught by St. Thomas and Suarez.16 On the other hand, the
affections existing in the will are often based on sensitive passions.
The object which pleases or displeases the sensitive appetite is judged
by the intellect as in some way advantageous or disadvantageous to
the subject; this judgment is then followed by movements of pursuit
or of aversion on the part of the will. Therefore, Mary’s passibility
is to be examined with regard to this threefold division of passion.

Mary was passible with a corporeal passion.
The Valentinians said that Mary had a heavenly body, which could

thesis:

236

mary’s

bodily

attributes

neither suffer nor die. Similarly, the Collyridians,1" as St. Ep.phanius
attests, attributed to Mary a celestial body to which, therefore, no
corporeal defects whatever could be attached. However, their opinions

must be rejected.
1) Mary possessed the defects common to the body, such as hunger,
thirst, fatigue, and other sufferings inherent in human nature, and it
is impossible that the human body be afflicted by any defects and that
the soul, which is substantially united to the body and in union with
it, should not suffer per accidens.
2) Moreover, it was fitting that Mary should possess defects natu­
ral to the body and should experience the passions resulting from
them. Since passibility is an ordinary condition of our nature, if
Mary had not been subject to any natural defect whatever, it would
seem that neither she nor her Son possessed real flesh. In order to
satisfy for the sins of the human race, Christ accepted corporeal de­
fects such as hunger, thirst, fatigue and other things similar to them,
which are the punishments for sin introduced into the world by
Adam. But Mary had to resemble Christ in these defects, for she con­
ceived Christ passible and mortal, who was one with her with regard
to flesh, and it would be absurd if from an impassible and immortal
person there should naturally proceed one who is passible and mortal.
Also, besides conceiving her passible and mortal Son, “she cooperated
with Him in the painful expiation offered by her Son for the sins of
the world.’’17 Finally, by bearing her corporeal defects and passions
with fortitude, Mary was an example of patience and fortitude for
us, and in suffering these hardships she increased each day the richest
treasure of her merits and her glory.
thesis: Mary was subject to the debt of suffering corporeal passion.
It may be well to note with St. Thomas that the cause of bodily
defects in human nature is twofold : one remote, which proceeds from
the material element of the human body and was suspended in orig­
inal justice; the other proximate, that is, original sin, which robbed
man of the justice of his primitive state, with which was connected
exemption from bodily defects.
According to Gerson 18 and Lepicier >· Mary was not subject to the
necessity of suffering corporeal passion, since only those who contract
original sin are so affected. And because Mary lacked original sin and

237

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

received human nature in the state of innocence, she was not subject
to the necessity of suffering by bodily passion. Thus it is that, abso­
lutely speaking, Mary in her state of innocence, just as Adam in his,
could have prevented all bodily suffering either through the use of
reason, whereby she could avoid what was harmful, or by divine provi­
dence, which could preserve her so that nothing of a harmful nature
could come upon her unawares.20
Since Mary did not incur the corporeal defects due to original sin,
it must be said that she herself, in conformity with divine favor, ac­
cepted them freely so that they would have the desired natural effect
in her. Hence, there resulted in Mary a certain necessity by supposi­
tion of subjecting herself to these defects. According to Lcpicicr, Mary
renounced her right to impassibility because of a certain necessity to
subject herself to the defects of human nature, as did Christ also. The
same opinion is held by Gerson. St. Thomas argues: "Flesh conceived
in sin is subject to pain, not merely on account of the necessity of its
natural principles, but from the necessity of the guilt of sin. Now this
necessity was not in Christ [nor in the Blessed Virgin] but only the
necessity of natural principles.” 21
The Angelic Doctor observes that Mary’s perfection of soul does
not preclude her passibility: "The inferior powers pertaining to the
sensitive appetite have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason,
but not the bodily powers nor those of the bodily humors nor those of
the vegetative soul, as is made plain in I Ethic. And hence perfection
of virtue, which is in accordance with right reason, does not exclude
the fomes of sin.” 22
Merkelbach, Cuervo, Aldama, and Balic maintain, and with better
foundation, that the Blessed Virgin was not exempt from the physical
necessity of suffering and death.23 The grace of the immaculate con­
ception is not a sufficient title to exempt her from bodily suffering
and defects because there is no necessary connection between grace
and impassibility. Such was the case, by the will of God, in the state
of original justice and such is the case in glory, but such does not
exist in the order of redemption in which Christ and His elect obtain
impassibility and immortality through His passible and mortal life.
And since the Blessed Virgin was not created in the state of original
justice but pertains to the order of redemption, she was in this life
subject to the conditions of that order, that is, to the conditions of
238

mart’s

bodily attributes

a passible and mortal nature through the merits of which she would
attain impassibility and immortality.
: Mary was passible by affections of the sensitive appetite.
This question can be discussed in general and in particular. In gen­
eral it is certain that Mary was endowed with a sensitive appetite,
since the sensitive appetite pertains to the integrity of human nature,
just as the senses pertain to the integrity of human nature. Moreover,
it is sufficiently clear that Mary not only possessed the powers of the
sensitive appetite, but also actual affections or sensible passions, be­
cause one is not given an active principle without the operations for
which it exists and because per se the passions are proper to human
nature with regard to the sensitive appetite and are not unbecoming
to Mary. Moreover, it was fitting that Mary experience these passions
in order to show that she truly possessed a human nature and had
affections as we have, in order to console men excited by passions,
giving them an example how to restrain themselves, and finally in
order that she might be fit to serve the purpose of Redemption by
bearing the greatest afflictions which were to torture her soul.
But if we treat of Mary’s passions in particular, we must observe
that the sensitive appetite can be concupiscible or irascible, of which
the first regards good or evil simply and the second regards good or
evil under the aspect of the arduous and difficult. There are eleven
basic passions of the sensitive appetite, of which six pertain to the
concupiscible appetite: love and hate, by which we are inclined to
good or fly from evil, abstracting its absence or presence; desire and
aversion, by which we are drawn to an absent good or flee from future
evil; and joy and sorrow, which pertain to present good or evil. The
other five belong to the irascible appetite: hope and despair, by which
we are moved toward a difficult good possible of attainment or with­
draw from a difficult good impossible of attainment; courage and fear.
which concern an imminent evil which is either conquerable, although
with difficulty, or unavoidable or hard to resist; anger, by which we feel
vehemently moved by any present or difficult evil, not to avoid it,
inasmuch as it is already present, but in order to compensate for
damage through revenge and punishment.
No one can doubt that Mary possessed sensitive love, for if she
had not love, neither would she have any passion, because as St.
thesis

2 39

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Thomas says: "There is no other passion of the soul that docs not
presuppose love of some kind." 24 Mary undoubtedly experienced this
type of love toward her Son, the apostles, her relatives and friends.
It is also certain that Mary possessed hate or simple dislike of evil,
because good and evil are opposites and whoever loves good hates the
evil opposed to it. Moreover, some things happened in Mary’s life
which in themselves were worthy of hate, i.e., the killing of the in­
nocents, the beheading of John the Baptist, the crucifixion and death
of Christ, and so forth.
There was also in Mary desire or attraction to the absent good, as
in her most ardent desire of seeing Christ when as a child of twelve
He was lost and later found in the Temple. She could also feel desires
for sensible goods she needed, such as food, drink and the like.
It is easy to understand that Mary possessed aversion and separa­
tion from evil, both because contraries have the same cause and thus
the desire for an absent good implies the avoiding of an absent evil,
and because such evils could be proposed to the imagination and
arouse this movement, e.g., the passion and death of her Son, es­
pecially after the prophecy of Simeon.
Neither did the Blessed Virgin lack joy in the sensible good present.
Acts of joy or sensible pleasure frequently originate from virtuous
objects; hence, the Blessed Virgin enjoyed the presence of her Son,
the fellowship of friends, the beauty of the heavens and the fields,
and so forth.
Mary also felt sensible pain and sorrow. Although sorrow as a concupiscible appetite is wont to be called indistinctly sorrow or pain,
nevertheless it differs sufficiently on the part of the thing signified.
"Now even as sensible pain is in the sensitive appetite, so also is sor­
row. But there is a difference of motive or object, for the object and
motive of pain is hurt perceived by the sense of touch, as when any­
one is wounded; but the object and motive of sorrow is anything hurt­
ful or evil interiorly, apprehended by the reason or the imagination,
as when anyone grieves over the loss of grace or money.” 25 Mary suf­
fered pain and sorrow because she was not exempt from corporeal
defects and hardships which produce sensible pain. Through her
imagination or her instinct she perceived interiorly many things as
truly injurious, which connatural perception gives rise to the passion
of sorrow.

240

mary’s bodily attributes

Mary suffered all of these passions more keenly than can be
imagined, not only because she had a most perfectly constituted body
and was exquisitely endowed with a delicate sensibility, but also be­
cause, through her soul, those faculties could understand effectively

the causes of her sorrows.
Mary could possess hope about some sensible good, arduous and
difficult of attainment; similarly, despair about a sensible good or
about an evil to be avoided, insuperable through natural forces; for
example, to preserve Christ’s life a little longer. She did not have
that despair which is a defection or a lessening of courage and implies
a moral defect, but a simple despair that the death of her Son could
not be avoided.
Mary possessed courage when she found herself in great danger,
and overcame it courageously, as when she went to visit her cousin
Elizabeth in the hill country and when she went to Egypt to free her
Son from the hands of those who pursued Him. Nor was Mary void
of holy anger, in imitation of Christ, in whom there was no defective
anger, but a zealous anger, directed by justice and regulated by mild­
ness.
Mary also suffered sensible fear when she thought interiorly of the
imminent evils which were to come, which naturally terrified her, such
as her Son’s anguish and torture, His ignominious death, and other
similar evils.
thesis: Mary possessed spiritual passions or affections of the will.
It is certain that Mary possessed spiritual passions. Because of the
connection of the spiritual and sensitive faculties in the soul there is
a mutual influence between them. What pleases or displeases the
sensitive appetite, the intellect esteems as good or evil in some way
for the subject, and this judgment causes in the will movements of
pursuit or aversion. But it is more a matter of treating of the spiritual
passion of pain and sorrow with which Mary was so heavily afflicted.
thesis: Mary suffered real pain and sorrow of soul.
Sacred Scripture. In St. Luke (2:30-35) it is related that Simeon,
inspired by the Holy Ghost, after taking Jesus into His arms, uttered
these words: "Because my eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou
hast prepared before the face of all peoples," and turning to His father

241

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and mother, he blessed them and told Mary, I lis true Mother, all
that her Son was to suffer and she with Him: "Behold, this Child is
destined for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel, and for a sign
that shall be contradicted, and thy own soul a sword shall pierce."
Now, the sword which was to pierce Mary’s soul, which Simeon fore­
told, was not the material sword about which Christ spoke to St. Peter
(Matt. 26:52): "For those who take the sword will perish by the
sword," for Mary was not to leave this world wounded by a sword or by
violent death. Neither did it mean the spiritual sword of the word of
God which the Apostle recommends to the soldiers of Christ (Eph.
6:17): “And take unto you . . . the sword of the spirit, that is, the
word of God.” Simeon had asserted nothing new or remarkable in
telling Mary that she was to be pierced by a sword, if this was to be
none other than the word of God, for the word of God was Mary s
daily food and her delights were in receiving it into her heart and
meditating on it. Neither can this sword refer to infidelity, weakness
or doubt of faith, since, as said before, she never weakened in faith,
but was most faithful, firm and steadfast as she stood at the foot of
the Cross—more steadfast than the apostles. But the sword of trial,
pain and sorrow wounds the soul, piercing and penetrating, for just
as the contradiction predicted by Simeon was carried out at the cruci­
fixion, so the sword of sorrow pierced Mary’s soul when, exhausted by
pain, she stood at the foot of the Cross, seeing the torments and death
of her Son.
The Fathers. Ephrem, Eadmcr, Bede, Bernard and others interpret
the words of Simeon in a sense of the keenest pain which penetrated
Mary’s soul, especially during the passion of Christ. Eadmer says:
“The most cruel tortures inflicted on the holy martyrs were trifling
or nothing in comparison with the martyrdom of Mary.” 20
Theological Argument. The reason for pain and spiritual sorrow
is the injurious and the evil, perceived by reason as united in some
way to the subject. Mary’s soul interiorly perceived many things as
injurious: 1) with regard to Christ, whom she loved with a pure
maternal love, because of the poverty, the contempt, the snares, and
the persecutions which attended Him during His whole life and cul­
minated in His most cruel passion and crucifixion; 2) with regard
to others, of whom she was constituted spiritual Mother, the cruelty
of Herod toward the children of Bethlehem, slain for Christ, the bc-

242

mary’s

bodily

attributes

trayal of Judas, the inconstancy of the disciples, the treachery of the
Pharisees who conspired to put her Son to death, the fierce cruelty
of the Jewish slayers, as well as the many sins of men who, rejecting
the price of redemption, abandon Christ and thereby lose their eternal
salvation; 3) with regard to herself, because of the grief of her soul
and pain of body.27
thesis: Mary had complete dominion over all her faculties and
actions, so that not even a single movement primo primi was in her
involuntarily.
Valencia believes it is not absurd to concede that there were in
Mary movements primo primi with regard to sensible objects not
opposed to reason, but it is a common opinion among theologians
that in Mary there were no movements primo primi which impede
reason, but that they were justly regulated by her.28
The Fathers. St. John Damascene says that Mary’s will was always
divinely governed and directed only to God; all her concupiscence was
inclined only to that which should be desired and loved, and her
anger was directed solely against sin.29 St. Bernardine of Siena agrees,
saying that although God had given His Mother a perfect constitu­
tion and had preserved her from all sin, nevertheless, all of those pas­
sions which arc material for the exercise of virtue and spring from
nature without sin remained in her, as in her Son. Therefore, she
possessed the passions of love, fear, hate, admiration and any others
which can exist without sin.80
Theological Argument. 1 ) From the first moment of her concep­
tion, Mary was preserved from original sin and the fomes peccati
and had original justice as regards its principal effects: sanctifying
grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the gift
of integrity or immunity from concupiscence. "It was granted to Mary',
because of the abundance of grace bestowed on her, that her natural
disposition was such that the lower appetites could never operate
without the command of reason; in this respect the grace of sanctifica­
tion in the Virgin had the value of original justice.” 81
2) Mary, associated with Christ in the work of redemption, pos­
sessed only the penalties and defects which could be ordained for the
purpose of redemption. Movements and affections which anticipate
reason and freedom do not belong to the work of reconciliation, both

M3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

because they lack freedom, and therefore lack merit, and also because
they could hinder reason from attaining the good befitting it.
3) Finally, those movements which precede or exceed reason arc
due to the unhappiness of fallen nature and often arc not produced
without some harm to virtue; but when they are subject to reason
they merit praise, because they serve as a powerful instrument of the
will for good. Therefore those movements could not have been ad­
mitted in Mary without redounding to her dishonor, so that it must
be said that in her all the movements of the faculties of her soul were
absolutely subordinate to the dominion of her reason and certainly
contributed to her merit and glory.
If it be asked how those passions and affections in Mary were sub­
ject to reason and will, wc may answer that this can be effected in
two ways: positively, so far as the will rules the sensitive appetite to
produce this by acts of love, sorrow, fear, etc.; or permissively, so far
as the will, without any imperation, would permit the faculties to

work or to suffer what is proper to them.
Vega believes that such movements and affections in the Blessed
Virgin always occurred by positive consent of the will, because she
always worked in the most perfect matter possible and tended toward
God with all the force of her love.32 But neither is it improper to
admit that those affections were sometimes permissively voluntary in
Mary, since this is also admitted in Christ, in whom each faculty, regu­
lated by divine power, permitted Him to execute what was proper,
without one impeding the other.
Corollaries. 1 ) From what has been said, it follows that the sensible
passions were in Mary in a very different way than in us. They often
become unlawful in us, but this was not true of Mary'. In us, our
passions often precede the judgment of reason; in Mary, all of her
sensible affections originated in conformity to the dominion of reason.
In us, passions, which at times exceed moderation, disturb our reason
and hinder it from pursuing the good; in Mary, the movements con­
natural with the flesh were contained in the sensitive appetite in such
a way, that they did not impede the exercise of reason. Thus in Mary,
as in Christ, the passions were not possessed as in a condition of
passion, but as pro-passions, since they do not anticipate the dominion
of reason nor surpass the boundary marked out by it.
2) There could be no interior struggle in Mary, since this cannot

244

occur except when the sensitive appetite and the will, not being regu­
lated by reason, adhere effectively to the object and remain thus,
although the deliberate will is opposed. Consequently, Mary never
had any interior temptation, that is, a struggle of the sensitive or
rational appetite against the dictates of right reason. Concerning
this, Gerson says that the soul of Mary, while a wayfarer, could suffer
external temptations, just as could the soul of Christ, but in no way
did they move her passionately in blind rebellion against the judgment
of reason.33
3) There was no opposition of wills in Mary, but only an admirable
conformity. There is in man a twofold will, one essential, and the
other by participation. The first is the inclination toward the good
known to the intellect; the other is the sensitive appetite, naturally
destined to obey reason. Although the will, absolutely speaking, is com­
monly understood as the essential or intellective will, nevertheless it
can also be understood as the sensitive appetite, which in this case is
called the will of sensuality or the will by participation. St. Thomas
says: ‘‘But it must be borne in mind that sensuality or the sensual
appetite, inasmuch as it naturally obeys reason, is said to be rational
by participation. And because the will is in the reason, it may equally
be said tliat the sensuality is a will by participation.”34
The will essentially so-called or the rational will is a faculty, but
with regard to the acts which it produces it is commonly distinguished
into the will per modum naturae and the will per modum rationis.
The will as nature is the principle of the appetites produced neces­
sarily, or of the movements which follow the consideration of the
object secundum se, so far as it is fitting or not. The will as reason is
the principle of the appetites produced prior to counsel or delibera­
tion or of the movements which follow reason immediately, which
considers all the circumstances of the object in their relationship to
the greater good of the end.38
In view of these previous remarks, it must be said that these wills
in Mary were not opposed to each other, but in accord. For although
the will as nature and the will of sensuality, of which it is proper to
hate what is hurtful to nature and evil in itself, naturally avoid pain
and sensible afflictions, they do not reject the motive by which the
will as reason accepted them freely. The will as reason willed the pain
for the salvation of the human race; but the will of sensuality and the
MS

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

will as nature could not extend themselves to will a tiling with regard
to another which was foreign to them, just as in the case of illness,
the will of sensuality and the will of reason of the patient reject
cauter}-, but nevertheless the rational will endures it in order to recover
health.
In Mai}' the will of reason, of nature and of sensuality were subject
to and conformed with the divine will. The divine will and what was
rational will in Mary willed the passion and death of her Son, as also
her pain and anguish. St. Antoninus says that such was Mary’s con­
formity to the divine will that if it were necessary she herself would
put her Son on the cross and would have offered Him up, for her
obedience was not less than Abraham’s.80 The will as nature and the
will of sensuality in Mai}·, even when adhering to their proper object
and avoiding pain, showed no disagreement with the divine will nor
with the rational will of Mary, which surely did not desire that her
natural and sensual will reject what should be chosen in regard to
human salvation.
4) Finally, neither pain, nor sorrow, nor fear weakened in any way
the tranquility and peace which inundated Mary from the first to the
last moment of her life, due to the complete dominion with which
she possessed her sensitive powers subject to and in conformity with
reason, her perfect conformity with the divine will, her continuous
contemplation and most ardent love of God and, finally, that gentle
sweetness with which her soul was at times filled with the transitory
but clear vision of God. Nevertheless, Mary’s sorrows were not dis­
sociated from the joy which she experienced in contemplating the
fruits of Christ's passion.87

Mary’s Mortality
Previous Observations. Immortality, as Palmieri says, is either the
necessary consequence of the natural principles of a being, and is thus
proper to spirits, or it is something gratuitously added to nature, and
tin's can occur in two ways: 1 ) so that the one receiving such a gift
cannot die; 2) so that the one receiving this gift need never die if he
fulfills the condition imposed, or may and must die if he does not
246

mart’s

BODILY

ATTRIBUTES

fulfill it.88 That this gift was bestowed by God on our first parents
in the state of innocence is declared by the Council of Milevium
(Denz. 101), the Council of Orange (Dcnz. 174-175), and the Coun­
cil of Trent (Denz. 788).
The immortality of our first parents did not originate from the
constitutive principles of their nature, as happened in the angels and
the human soul, which lack corruptible material, but it was a gratui
tous gift. However, this bodily immortality was not an inamissible
gift, as will be the case of the bodies of the blessed after the resurrec­
tion, but they could and had to lose it if they committed sin. Hence
St. Augustine says of Adam that he was mortal by reason of the con­
dition of his animal body and immortal through the favor of the
Creator.8® With reason was Baius’ proposition condemned, which
reads: "The immortality of the first man was not a favor of grace, but
a natural condition.” 40 Therefore, the immortality conceded our first
parents was a state midway between that immortality by which one
cannot die and that immortality in virtue of which one who should
die, by a special privilege, is able not to die. The first man, says St.
Thomas, in some way was mortal, since he could die, and in another
way he was also immortal, since he was able not to die.41 Our first
parents were mortal through the natural principles of the human body;
they were immortal through a gift of God and a special influx of
grace, which prevented the cause of death.
The causes of death may be internal or external, depending on
whether death is caused by external forces which can harm man or
internal causes such as disease, old age, and others. The external
causes could of themselves wound and harm our first parents, but
they were not permitted to do so. “Man’s body," says St. Thomas,
“in the state of innocence could be preserved from suffering injury
from a hard body, partly by the use of his reason, whereby he could
avoid what was harmful, and partly also by divine providence, so pre­
serving him that nothing of a harmful nature could come upon him
unawares.”42
The internal causes, which arc also precursors of approximate death,
were eliminated in Adam and Eve: sickness, by perfect bodily con­
stitution, harmony of the passions and suitable food which was
abundant in paradise; old age, that is, the slow wasting away of or­
gans, by the fruit of the tree of life which produced this effect, not

M7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

repairing, but preventing it. St. Augustine, describing the happiness
of the first man, says: “Man had food to appease his hunger, drink
to slake his thirst, and the tree of life to banish the dissolution of old
age."48

Mary was not subject to death in punishment for sin.
Vâzquez believed that Mary was subject to death through her de­
scent from Adam, who not only merited for himself and his de­
scendants spiritual death from original sin but also bodily death, a
punishment inflicted by God on all his descendants, even after the
sin was removed in them, including Mary, even though she was pre­
served from original sin.44
The sin to which death is due must be considered either in Mary
or in Adam. On neither account, however, did Mary contract the
punishment of death. Mary was completely and absolutely immune
from all sin, even the slightest. For this reason, Pope Pius V con­
demned the proposition of Baius which states: "Apart from Christ,
no one is bom without original sin; hence the Blessed Virgin died
because of the sin which she contracted from Adam, and all her
afflictions in this life, like those of other saints, arc the punishment
of original or actual sin.”48 Nor was she subject to death by reason
of the debt of sin, because the debt of sin is caused by the actual
commission of sin and not through contracting sin. Nor was it by
reason of Adam’s sin, as a punishment contracted by his descendants,
because Mary was conceived without sin, and therefore could not
be subject to the penalty of sin. Nevertheless, it can be said that Mary
was subject to death by reason of the sin of Adam in the sense that
if Adam had not sinned, death would not have entered the world.
Moreover, by dying she was able to pay the debt of the human race,
which debt would not have existed had there been no original sin. In
this sense the words of St. Augustine are to be understood: “Mary,
daughter of Adam, died because of sin, Adam died because of sin, and
the flesh of the Lord, taken from Mary, died in order to destroy sin.” 40
thesis:

thesis-.

Mary was subject to death with regard to the condition of
her nature.
The Fathers. St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene and St. John
of Thessalonica all admit that Mary was subject to the law of nature
and suffered death.41
248

mart’s

bodily

attributes

The Liturgy. "May the prayer of the Mother of God come to the
aid of Thy people, O Lord; and although we know that she passed
from this life to fulfill the conditions of our mortality, nevertheless,
may we experience her intercession for us in the glory of heaven.” 48
Theological Argument. This is deduced from the fact that human
nature is subject to death by its condition and constitution. St.
Thomas states: "Λ thing is said to be natural if it proceeds from the
principles of nature. Now the essential principles of nature are form
and matter. The form of man is his rational soul, which is of itself
immortal; wherefore death is not natural to man on the part of his
form. The matter of man is a body such as is composed of contraries,
of which corruptibility is a necessary consequence, and in this respect
death is natural to man.” 40
thesis: Mary did not receive the special grace of immortality.
Many ancient and modem theologians, while admitting that Mary
was subject to death according to the principles of human nature,
nevertheless teach that she was granted immortality similar to that
of man in the state of innocence. She was not obliged to suffer and
die. Some theologians then conclude that Mary did not die (Gallus,80
Roschini) 61 and others conclude that she chose not to use this privi­
lege but freely accepted death in order to be more conformable to
her Son (Galatinus,8® Vega, Baeza,M Sedlmayr, Jugie,84 Bover,88 Jans­
sens,58 Lcpicier).
The principal reason for maintaining that Mary received the grace
of immortality (whether she used it or not) was that she was con­
stituted in the state of original justice and that the immortality that
accompanies that state was not revoked in her. Tire deprivation of
immortality is a punishment for sin (Rom. 5:12), but if Mary was
immune from original sin, she could not incur the punishment.
Further, immortality is a privilege which belongs to that order of gifts
which were revoked from the whole human race and not restored
to fallen man even in the state of grace; e.g., integrity, freedom from
error and ignorance and immunity from corruption. /\nd since these
gifts were not revoked in Mary, neither was immortality. Nor is it a
contradiction to maintain that Mary freely submitted to death in
order to resemble her Son and that she died most peacefully instead
of dying in pain as He did. The one docs not oppose the other because
Mary suffered pain more bitter than death at the foot of the Cross,

240

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

so that Pope Benedict XV states that she suffered with her suffering
and dying Son and almost died with Him.” St. Albert the Great,
commenting on the words, "And thy own soul a sword shall pierce"
(Luke 2:35), says that since God does not judge the same case twice
and since Mary suffered and tasted the agony of death when the
sword of sorrow pierced her heart at the foot of the Cross, she was
not to be allowed such pain again.68
The theologians who hold the above opinion conclude that Mary
in part resembles and in part differs from Christ and the rest of men.
She resembles the rest of men in having a body mortal by nature;
that is, a corruptible body with regard to the principles of human
nature. She differs from the rest of men in that they, in the state of
wayfarers, recover grace but not immortality. Further, in heaven the
immortality bestowed upon men as a reward is different from the
immortality conferred on Mary, since theirs signifies that they will
not die again but hers is the immortality of one not subject to death,

though she could die if she wishes or if God so decrees.
Mary resembles Christ in that she possessed at one and the same
time, a mortal body with regard to her nature and immortality
through grace; but she differs from Christ because although she en­
joyed a transitory vision of God, she was a wayfarer. For this reason
the glory of her soul did not redound to her body, nor did it make
her body immortal. But Christ was at once a wayfarer and a blessed
and could have enjoyed immortality if He had not allowed His body
to suffer and die.
The immortality of grace and the necessity of dying are perfectly
associated in Christ and in Mary. This necessity is one of supposition,
which follows from the free will of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin,
to submit to death and other defects, according to the dispensation
of the divine will.59
St. Peter Canisius, Billuart, Campana, Merkelbach, Balic, Cuervo,
Aldama and others more rightly maintain, however, that the Blessed
Virgin did not possess the gift of immortality, either as included in
the original grace or as a special grace, and that she did not therefore
freely renounce the gift of immortality in order to resemble her Son
by dying. 1) In the first place, these theologians insist that there is
no necessary connection between immortality and the original grace
of Mary so that the one would imply the other. That connection did
250

mary’s

bodily attributes

exist by divine decree in the state of original justice in which Adam
and Eve were created, but it does not exist in the order of redemption
or in the state of fallen humanity in which immortality must be at­
tained by the merits of our passible and mortal nature. Therefore,
although Mary was prevented by grace from incurring the sin of
Adam, she was not constituted in the state of original justice but per­
tains to the order of redemption and is therefore subject to the
conditions of passibility and mortality which that order implies.
2) The grace which Mary received in the first instant of her con­
ception was not the grace of creation (gratia creationis) but the grace
of redemption (gratia redemptionis). But the grace of redemption
which is given to those regenerated by baptism does not carry im­
mortality with it. This would have to be a special gift by way of addi­
tion and there is no evidence or testimony to the fact that Mary
received such a gift or freely renounced it.
3) Moreover, death is a punishment for sin but it is also a natural
condition of man. As long as Adam remained in the state of original
justice, he was immortal, but when he sinned he lost original justice
and the privilege of immortality. Therefore his death and that of his
descendants, infected with his sin, is a punishment for sin. But if
Adam had been created without this special privilege of immortality
and had been left to his natural condition in this respect, he would
have died nevertheless, but then independently of any sin. And this
is the reason why the Blessed Virgin, immune from original sin by
her immaculate conception, but not granted the privilege of immor­
tality, was subject to death, not as a punishment for original sin,
which she never contracted, but because of her natural condition.

Mary’s Death
Death as the dissolution of the living being or the separation of
soul and body is one thing; the corruption of the grave or the return
of the body to dust is another. Although after death the human body,
by reason of its interior disorganization, is changed to dust, this cor­
ruption or return to dust is distinct from death, as Christ's death
shows. Christ did not undergo this corruption characteristic of others,
»5*

I

Τ Π E BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

as is stated: “For Thou wilt not leave My soul in the abode of the
dead, nor permit Thy holy one to see corruption” (Ps. 15:10).

Mary truly died.
Opinions. The first who seems to have doubted Mary’s death was
St. Epiphanius, who speaks thus: “Although I do not positively aver
it, I neither define that she remained immortal, nor can I state posi­
tively that she died. Sacred Scripture, exceeding the grasp of the hu­
man intellect, has left us uncertain so that no one would attribute to
this beautiful and singular vessel any ugliness proper to the flesh."00
It has been stated that already in the fourth century there existed
a certain tradition in Jerusalem that Mary did not die, but that she
ascended to heaven without dying. Jugie presents as witness of this
alleged tradition Timothy of Jerusalem, Hesychius, and Crisipus,
priests of that Church, but the proofs are far from conclusive.01
More recently theologians such as Guastalla, Virdia, Arnaldi and
Penachi02 deny the death of Mary. Jugie, although he docs not ex­
plicitly deny the death of Mary, weakens the arguments in its defense
by treating the matter as a historical rather than a theological ques­
tion. Since, as he maintains, there is no direct revelation of the death
of Mary and since the first six centuries of the Church did not teach
it with certainty, it is a purely historical question and not necessarily
related to any revealed doctrine. Yet Jugie does not attempt to decide
definitively whether Mary died or had the gift of immortality, since
there is no conclusive proof for cither side.03
Lastly, the death of Mary is clearly denied by Roschini and Gallus,
who defend her immortality by right and in fact. Roschini believes
that with the proclamation of the Assumption the number of de­
fenders of Mary’s bodily immortality will gradually increase, and he
sees in the Constitution Munificentissumus Deus a further precision
of the theological notion of the Assumption and a distinction drawn
between the question of Mary’s death and Mary’s assumption. He
concludes that the question of Mary’s death is still an open question
in theology.04
Contrary to the foregoing opinions, we must maintain that the
traditional, most common and morally unanimous opinion of theo­
logians is that the Blessed Virgin truly died. It is not, as Jugie main­
tains, a purely historical question, but one which is immediately
thesis:

»5»

mary’s bodily attributes

connected with the revealed truths concerning original sin and the
general economy of the redemption of the human race.'” Therefore
the question of the Virgin’s death is not a matter of opinion nor a
pious belief which can be disputed freely; it is a firm and consistent
teaching which should be venerated for its antiquity.
Billuart and Novato state that Mary’s death is certissima;M Lepicier and Janssens, while defending Mary’s immortality de jure, con­
sider her death theologice certissima;07 Mcrkelbach and Aldama
maintain that this teaching is totaliter certa;08 and the same is true
of the majority of theologians. This affirmation of Mary’s death is in
no way weakened by the proclamation of her assumption, according
to the testimony of Filograssi.08
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius XI, in his solemn allocution
on the occasion of a beatification ceremony in 1933, made specific
reference to the death of Mary and noted that there was in her, "not
the grace of creation but the grace of redemption, which did not con­
fer on her a true and proper immortality.” 70
Pope Pius XII, in defining the assumption of the Blessed Virgin,
prescinded from the question of her death in the formula of the
definition itself. But did he prescind from it in the expository part
of the Apostolic Constitution? Roschini and Gallus maintain that
not only is there no reference to Mary’s death in the Mass of the
Assumption or in the Constitution when the Pope speaks in his own
name, but even when he cites documents which do refer to Mary's
death, he docs not offer the teaching as his own but as that of an­
other.71
However, the majority of theologians maintain that Munificentis­
simus Deus affirms the death of the Blessed Virgin. In the first place,
many passages of the Apostolic Constitution refer to the preservation
of Mary’s body from corruption. Now it is certain that corruption
is a consequence of death, although absolutely speaking it should be
noted that "the exemption, as Gordillo says, can be effected either
by death and an immediate resurrection or by exemption from death
itself."72
Secondly, numerous passages in the Constitution refer explicitly
to the death of the Blessed Virgin. It states that she departed from
this life (ex hac vita decesisse) in the same way as her Son. L'Osservatore Romano translated the phrase, ex hac vita decesisse, as Maria

»53

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

sia morta, and although it is true that the Latin phrase does not
strictly require that translation, it is surely necessary to translate it
thus in accordance with the context, since it is stating that the faith­
ful, in spite of admitting without any difficulty the death of Mary,
found no difficulty in defending the incorruption of her body in the
tomb. On the other hand there would have been no need whatever
of suggesting a possible difficulty in this regard if Mary had never
died.
And if it be further objected against the above statement that Mary
did not die in the same manner as her Son, that is, of a violent death,
the answer is easy. If Christ left this world by a violent death and
Mary' left it without dying, but was carried by angels to heaven, then
in no sense could the Apostolic Constitution have stated that Mary
left this life the same way that Christ did.
Theologians dispute whether in the passage in question the Pope
was giving his own opinion or merely stating the belief of the faithful.
Bonnefoy, Cuervo and Qucra maintain that the Pope was affirming
in his own name that Mary truly died.73 Filograssi and Aldama, on
the other hand, believe that the Pope was merely referring to the
belief of the faithful.74 But in either case the Pope has by his state­
ments strengthened the defense of the belief in Mary's death. Later
in the same Apostolic Constitution, when the Holy Father is speak­
ing in his own name, he states that Mary’s body was preserved from
the corruption of the grave and that she conquered death in the same
way that her Son conquered it, although it must be admitted that
even here the Pope does not state explicitly that Mary died. However,
her Son conquered death by dying and therefore it would be difficult
to interpret the Pope’s meaning in any other way than that Mary
also died.
Lastly, the Apostolic Constitution cites numerous documents of
tradition, among them the Gregorian Sacramentary of the Roman
liturgy, a Meneus of tire Byzantine liturgy and many texts from the
Fathers and theologians, all of which refer to the Assumption and
admit the death of Mary without reservations. While they are cited
as proofs of the faith of tire Church in the Assumption, in the histori­
cal sense in which they are used they are also valuable corroboration
of the death, incorruption and resurrection of Mary.75
The Fathers. St. Ephrem states explicitly that Mary was a virgin

254

all her life and died a virgin.70 St. Augustine says: "Mary, daughter
of Adam, died because of sin." 77 The meaning to be attached to this
utterance has been explained previously. St. John Damascene points
out that as her Son did not refuse to die, neither did she.78
St. Andrew of Crete: "She who made heavenly the dust [of the
earth] laid aside the dust [of the earth]; she put aside the covering
which she received through generation and returned to the earth
what is of the earth.” 70
St. John of Thessalonica says that the all-glorious Virgin Mother
of God, after spending some time with the apostles until they, by
command of the Holy Spirit, had spread throughout the world to
preach the gospel, left the earth by a natural death.80 Michael Glycas
and Nicholas Cabasilas also testify to Mary’s death.81
St. Epiphanius does not deny the fact of Mary’s death, but only
affirms that there is nothing in Scripture to prove it. Baronius says of
St. Epiphanius that he was writing against the heretics who were
calumniating the most holy and immaculate Virgin with sins of the
flesh, and in his ardor he stated that Sacred Scripture does not even
say whether she died.82
The Liturgy. Mary’s death is affirmed in the old Mass of the As­
sumption: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity on which the holy
Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept
down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord in­
carnate from herself." 83
Theological Argument, i ) It was fitting that Mary, in order to con­
form herself to her Son, should undergo death, and thus through death
pass to glory, so that the Mother would not seem greater than the Son.
2) The truth of the Incarnation is better confirmed by Mary’s
death, for if is was fitting that Christ die to confirm faith in the In­
carnation, it was also fitting that Mary leave this life by dying with
regard to the law of the flesh; otherwise the suspicion might be admit­
ted that He was not truly a human being because He was bom of an
immortal woman.
3) Moreover, Mary was constituted by God as a co-operator with
Christ in the work of human redemption. But because the redemption
of the human race was realized through Christ’s death, it was fitting
that the Blessed Virgin be associated in death with the death of
Christ, since God willed that in the present economy of salvation the

a55

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

congruous satisfaction of Mai)·, united to the condign satisfaction of
Christ, should concur in the salvation of men."4
The Blessed Virgin died of an ecstasy of love, ardent long­
ing and intense contemplation of heavenly things.
Some authors, referring to the prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:35):
"And thy own soul a sword shall pierce,” attributed to Mary a martyr’s
death. St. Isidore makes mention of them, and is hesitant himself as
to whether the words imply the sword of real martyrdom.88
But Mary died neither as a martyr nor by any other violent death
because, as St. Ambrose says: "Neither docs the text of Holy Writ nor
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."88
God did not wish that Mary’s purest body be touched by scourges,
nor that the virginal flesh from which He himself had taken His
should be mistreated by impious hands. Hence Baronins states that
those who teach that the Blessed Virgin died a violent death arc not
heeded by the Catholic Church.87
Nor did Mary die of disease or old age, because no sickness afflicted
Mary and it is a constant tradition that she did not leave this life in
old age.88
St. Peter Damian,88 writing to the hermits who were not observing
a fast on the vigil of the Assumption, believes that Mary died of pain,
as did the Savior Himself. But this opinion is exclusively singular and
does not agree with what is frequently said of Mary, namely, that she
was conceived without sin, she conceived and gave birth without cor­
ruption, and she died without pain.
Theologians commonly assert that Mary died as a consequence of
her ardent love of God, her desire to be united to Him and the ecstasy
of the highest contemplation.
St. Jerome describes Mary’s love of God and her desire for heavenly
beatitude very beautifully in his Epistola ad Paulam et Eustochium de
Assumptione B.M.V. If, as he says, Mary’s soul burned so intensely
with divine love and with each moment became inflamed with new
celestial love and desires, we cannot wonder that, absorbed in them,
she would be more and more alienated from her body, and finally
would be loosed from it by death. Suârez says that it can happen that
thesis:

256

mart’s

bodily attributes

the mind is engaged in these acts so earnestly and intensely as to
abandon the body, so that gradually its powers relax and fail, and at
last thev arc so weakened that the soul can be no longer retained in
the body.80
The Abbot Gueric shows Mary weakened through love and saying:
"I languish more by the impatience of love than by the suffering of
pain; wounded more by love than overwhelmed by infirmity.” ”
St. Albert the Great explains that higher movements impede the
lower and nature inclines toward the flesh and the body, but charity
inclines from the body to Christ, as the Apostle says to the Philippians
(1:23) : “Indeed I am hard pressed from both sides, desiring to depart
and to be with Christ." Therefore, this inclination can be such that it
can separate the soul from the body and thus one dies of love. More­
over, whatever is capable of producing languor, if it is prolonged and
intensified, can produce death. But love can induce languor; therefore,
it can also produce death, according to the Canticle of Canticles
(2:5): “Because I languish with love.” Hence we may conclude that
The Blessed Virgin died of love and without pain.”
This death from love and contemplation of divine things is also
taught by Denis the Carthusian, Thomas of Villanova and, most beau­
tifully, by Bossuet.08
Although Mary, during her whole life, burned with ardent charity,
nevertheless, after the ascension of her Son, her love was so great that
it can be said that she reposed with her Son and lived in heaven rather
than on earth, as testified by St. Augustine and St. Thomas of Villa­
nova. In virtue of this divine love and the desire for heavenly things
with which she was consumed, Mary’s mind was in a continual rap­
ture and transported by God to the contemplation of divine truth by
imaginative visions, as in the case of St. Peter (Acts 10:10), and by
intelligible effects, as in the case of David (Ps. njra).04
Raptures and ecstasies of this kind are compatible with this mortal
life, because not only do they not destroy the union of body and soul,
but they do not exclude the conversion to imaginary species nor trans­
port the senses. St. Francis de Sales says: “So the most holy Mother,
having nothing in her which hindered the operation of the divine love
of her Son, was united to Him in an incomparable union, by gentle
ecstasies without trouble or travail, ecstasies in which the sensible
powers ceased not to perform their actions, without in any way dis-

>57

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

hirbing the union of the spirit, as again the perfect application of her
spirit did not much divert her senses.” es
With the arrival of that day so greatly longed for by Mary, the day
on which God was pleased to crown her vehement love and to take
her from this exile, the Virgin Mother of God, was carried off in a
most sublime ecstasy to the contemplation of the divine essence face
to face; now not transitorily as she had enjoyed it on occasions during
her mortal life, but for all eternity.
But the permanent vision of the divine essence demands a total
alienation and abstraction of the senses. The latter can occur in two
ways: i) all actual conversion or attention to phantasms and sensible
objects disappears from the soul; 2) the connatural disposition to the
aforesaid conversion disappears, which cannot happen except through
corporeal death. For a transitory vision of the divine essence the first
abstraction suffices, which does not involve death and is obtained
miraculously through divine power, as if the body, through the vio­
lence of a greater force, were raised above the state it ought to occupy
according to its nature.®· But the permanent vision of the divine es­
sence, through the light of glory (lumen gloriae), cannot be realized
unless there be entirely withdrawn from the soul its connatural dis­
position to understand through conversion to the phantasm. This can­
not be entirely withdrawn except by means of the separation of body
and soul; whence we conclude that this kind of divine vision carries
with it tire death of the body.®7
From what has been said, it seems clear that Mary’s death had the
character of a peaceful sleep. Tire great love of which Mary died was
in no way accompanied by agony, anxiety, languor, weakening of the
senses, or any physiological disturbances or violent movements of the
affective life. St. Francis de Sales expresses this perfectly in the follow­
ing words: ‘‘Generally speaking, the saints who died of love felt a
great variety of accidents and symptoms of love before it brought them
to death; many sudden movements, many assaults, many ecstasies,
many languors, many agonies; and it seemed that their love with many
renewed efforts brought forth their blessed death. This happened on
account of the weakness of their love, not yet absolutely perfect, which
could not continue its loving with an even fervor. But it was quite
otherwise with the most holy Virgin. . . . Thus the divine love grew
at each moment in the virginal heart of our glorious Lady, but by

258

mary’s

bodily attributes

sweet, peaceable and continuous growths, without any agitation, or
shock, or violence.” nR
With reason, St. John Damascene, in his homily on the Dormition,
calls her passing from this world not death, but a sleep, a pilgrimage.
Accordingly. Garriguet concludes that her death was like the close of
a beautiful night; it was a sweet and peaceful slumber, it was less the
end of life than the dawn of a better existence. The Church has used
a very charming word to describe it; she calls it the Dormition of the
Virgin.”
Mary died and was buried at Jerusalem.
Two places claim the honor of being the scene of the death and
burial of Mary: Ephesus and Jerusalem. Tillcmond, Serry and Natalis
Alexander give preference to Ephesus.100 They base their opinion on
the following arguments:
1) Tire Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, in a letter addressed to
the clergy and people of Constantinople, stated that Nestorius was
condemned in Ephesus, in which city John the apostle and Mary the
Mother of God arc. The word “are” (sunt) is not actually contained
in the original text, but the meaning is dear.
2) Already in the fourth century there was in Ephesus a large
church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and at that time it was not
yet the custom to dedicate a church to any saint unless the relics of
the saint were preserved there.
3) During the time of the Jewish War, in the year 66, or shortly
thereafter, St. John retired to Asia Minor and established his residence
in Ephesus, which was then the headquarters of that region. During
the time of Domitian's persecution he retired to the isle of Patmos.
Afterwards, during the reign of Nerva, he returned to Ephesus, and
died there during Trajan’s reign (98-117). But St. John, to whom
Christ commended His Mother while dying, never abandoned her and
brought her with him to Ephesus.101
4) Add to this the fact that in the year 1891 there was discovered
near Ephesus, by some priests of the mission of Smyrna, a house which
they named Panaghia-Kapouli (Portico of the Virgin), under the
mountain of Ala-Dagh, in which house it is believed the Virgin lived
and died. The structure and arrangement of the house correspond
perfectly to the description which Catherine Emmerich makes in the
thesis:

*59

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

life of the Blessed Virgin, composed by the poet Brcntano according
to Catherine’s revelations.102
St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. John of Thessalonica
Nicephorus Callixtus, Baronins and many others believe that Mary
died and was buried in Jerusalem.103 This opinion is based on the
following reasons:
i ) The churches of Asia Minor and those of the neighboring prov­
inces celebrated Easter on the day of the full moon, that is, the four­
teenth day of the month of Nisan, according to Jewish custom; but
the Western churches celebrated it on the Sunday after, as did the
rest of the Eastern churches. And because this question of the cele­
bration of Easter was not merely a controversy about the “day” but
about the “character” of the feast of the Easter and its connection
with the feast of the Jews, St. Victor, fearing that the faithful of Asia
would fall into Judaizing errors, was determined not to tolerate this
custom of the Asiatics. Therefore the Sovereign Pontiff advised the
bishops of Asia to hold a synod with Polycrates presiding. In order to
authenticate the custom of the churches of Asia, Polycrates inserted
in his letter to St. Victor the names of all those who honored the
churches of Asia and Ephesus, among them the name of St. John the
Apostle and that of the daughter of St. Philip the Apostle, who, in­
spired by the Holy Spirit, also lived and died in Ephesus.101 Now, if
the death and burial of the Blessed Virgin Mary had occurred there,
it is not likely that Polycrates would have been silent about something
that would have given such honor to the Church of Ephesus.
2) It is also concluded from the letter of Juvenal, Bishop of Jeru­
salem, to Pulcheria and to Marcian, although this letter is considered
as doubtful by many. Answering the solicitude of the emperors for
Mary’s body, he affirms that Mary died in Jerusalem and that her
empty tomb was located near Gethsemane.105
3) It can hardly be imagined that after the ascension of her Son
into heaven, Mary would leave Jerusalem and depart from those places
in Palestine which Christ had made sacred by His presence and by so
many mysteries and miracles. St. Peter Canisius says that she visited
those places very frequently.100
Answering the reasons for the opinion that Mary died and was
buried in Ephesus, we say that as regards the letter of the Council of
Ephesus, incomplete as it is, it is not necessary to understand the
260

mary’s

bodily

attributes

wotd “are” (sunt) because a variety of words could be supplied to fit
into the context.
As to the second argument, the custom of erecting churches exactly
where the tombs of the saints were located was not universal and
absolute, because in Rome, Constantinople and various other places
there were churches erected in honor of the Blessed Virgin. Moreover,
Sozomen 107 attests that a chapel was built in honor of St. Stephen
even before his body was found in Palestine.
It is also doubtful that the Blessed Virgin was in Ephesus with St.
John, for we would then have to say either that St. John moved to
Ephesus with Mary, but did not reside there, or that he took Mary
with him to Ephesus, established his see there, and governed the
churches of Asia. The first lacks all foundation; neither is it likely that
St. John would take her there only to abandon her later; and even if
Mary did go to Ephesus, we cannot definitely conclude that she died
there. The second is even less likely, since St. John did not go to
Ephesus until after St. Paul left the city, because St. Paul was the
first to preach to the people of Ephesus and he appointed Timothy
the first Bishop of Ephesus. Consequently, it must not be believed
that St. John established his see there before the year 66 a.d., by which
time Mary had already died; otherwise she would have then been
eighty-five years old, which opinion is not admitted by anyone.
In the Greek Menology we read that after our Lord’s ascension and
the death of Mary, John went to Ephesus to preach the gospel, and
that “Timothy was appointed the first Bishop of Ephesus during the
time of the Emperor Nero and before that of St. John the Theologian.
St. John came to Ephesus after the dormition of the Mother of
God." 108
Although it was true that St. John died at Ephesus and was buried
in the hill of Ajasoluk, where Emperor Constantine erected a large
basilica in his honor, which was later enlarged by Justinian, and al­
though there existed at Ephesus the Church of St. Mary, in which
the Council of Ephesus was held, there is no reason to conclude that
Mary died and was buried there. Panaghia Kaupoli is perhaps nothing
more than a reproduction of the house in which Mary lived at Jeru­
salem.'00 Moreover, the portico, the chapel and the bedroom in which
Mary is said to have died are pointed out, but nothing is said about
her tomb. Finally, the revelations of Catherine Emmerich, which are
261

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

contrary to the revelations of the Venerable Mary of Agreda on this
point, are hardly worthy of credence, for it is suspected that the poet
Brentano, wishing to color her revelations artistically, added to them
from his own creative mind and from archaeological and geographi­
cal sources.

Mary's age at death is not known for certain.
Among the various opinions on this subject, there arc two principal
ones. Cedrenus, Castro, St. Peter Canisius, Suarez and others main­
tain that Mary died when she was seventy-two years old.110 The reason
alleged by Canisius is that it was fitting that the Blessed Virgin live
some years after the ascension of her Son because the growing Church
was too weak to endure the cruel persecutions which were approach­
ing and needed the support, light and assistance of Mary, whose sweet
presence would give comfort in tribulation, enlightenment in teach­

thesis:

ing, and strength and courage in battle.
Others, such as Evodius, Callixtus, St. Antoninus and Baronius,
who cites the authority of Eusebius, Denis the Carthusian and many
others, attribute to Mary a shorter life.111 They believe that Mary left
this world when she was fifty-nine or sixty years of age, or sixty-three
at most.
With such a variety of opinions, it is best to conclude with the
words of Pope Benedict XIV: "In these controversies concerning the
year and place of the Blessed Virgin’s death, we follow no opinion
and are content to indicate and enumerate the arguments on which
they are based. We repeat only one thing, and it is that the Blessed
Virgin left this life, that her soul was separated from her body, and
that immediately or with a minimum of delay she enjoyed not only
the beatific vision, but was elevated to heaven and was exalted above
all the angelic choirs.” 112

The prodigies reported at the death of Mary are not cer­
tain.
Among the prodigies which are said to have occurred at the death
of Mary, these principal ones must be mentioned: i) that the day of
her death was announced to her by an angel; 2) that Christ was pres­
ent as she was dying, accompanied by legions of angelic choirs; 3)
that the apostles, who had been scattered throughout the world, gath-

thesis:

262

mary’s bodily

attributes

cred together in Jerusalem to be witnesses of Mary’s death and to
honor her remains by their presence; 4) that Mary’s body was placed
in the sepulchre by St. Peter and the rest of the apostles, and by other
men remarkable for their sanctity, such as Hierotheus, Timothy and
Dionysius the Areopagi tc.
That the day of Mary's death was announced to her by an angel is
affirmed, among others, by Simon Metaphrastes, Epiphanius and Cal­
lixtus.113 Denis the Carthusian agrees with this opinion, recalling that
the Rule of St. Bernard states that in Mary were all the charisms
which were bestowed separately to others. He then adds that if our
Lord predicted the day of their death to Peter and John and many of
the saints such as Cyprian, Antoninus, Martin and Benedict, why
would He not do likewise for Mary, as a sign of His love and by reason
of her holiness?1,4
That Christ attended Mary’s death with a multitude of angelic
choirs is taught by many ancient writers such as St. Gregory of Tours,
St. Epiphanius, St. John Damascene, Callixtus, St. Anselm and Ama­
deus of Lausanne.118
Also, many writers such as St. Gregory of Tours, John, Bishop of
Thessalonica, St. John Damascene, Simon Metaphrastes and Callixtus
affirm that the apostles, who were scattered throughout the world,
were assembled at Mary’s death.118 With regard to the way the apos­
tles came together in Jerusalem to be present at Mary’s death, Turriano117 believes that this could be explained by saying that Mary's
approaching death was announced to them by revelation and that
many of them were not too far away and could arrive in twelve, fif­
teen or twenty days. Nevertheless, although it is said that the apostles
arrived in Jerusalem through the air or on clouds, Castro believes that
by no means can it be denied that they were present at Mary’s death
since it is authorized by so many remarkable men who have handed it
down to us.118 However it happened, miraculously or otherwise, Cani­
sius maintains that it was a work of divine grace, in which Christ
showed in an excellent way His care and love for His Mother.11·
That Mary’s body was carried to the tomb by Peter, as Pope, and
by the rest of the apostles and other men illustrious for their sanctity,
is related by John of Thessalonica.120
These and other similar events concerning the death and passage
of Mary, referred to by St. Andrew of Crete, St. John of Thessalonica,
263

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

St. John Damascene, Metaphrastes, Callixtus and many other Greek
writers seem to be taken from apocryphal books such as De transitu
Mariae by pseudo-Meliton, which was condemned by a decree of
Pope Gelasius; from the treatise De dormitione Deiparae, attributed
to St. John the Evangelist; from the book De transitu Sanctae Mariae,
and others, in which truths are mixed with statements contrary to the
Catholic sense. Hence, many Latin writers have attacked the value of
those books, for as Bede points out, they arc at times openly contra­
dictory to the writings of Luke and Paul.121 Baronins also attacks the
apocryphal books on the death of Mary and quotes Gelasius, Bede
and others.122
Quite fittingly, then, the Church never proposed as certain the an­
cient tradition on the manner and circumstances of Mary’s death. It
is not easy to distinguish what is historical and what is legendary, yet
no one can doubt that many historical and even theological truths
are contained in the apocryphal works.123

Mary was not subject to the corruption of the tomb.
We must distinguish, as we have already said, between death and
the corruption of the tomb, because the first can take place without
the second, as happened in Christ’s death. On the other hand, some
theologians insisted too strongly on this distinction because for them
the corruption of the tomb and the return of the human body to dust,
and not death, was the punishment of sin. Thus, Vega and other
moderns like Müller say that the death which totally corrupts the body
and converts it to dust is the punishment of sin; and after citing the
words of St. Peter Damian, who describes the corruption of the tomb,
he adds that Mary was exempt from death as a penalty of sin because
her death was not the result of sin and therefore she did not undergo
corruption or decomposition.124 We cannot understand how this can
be stated when in the present historical order both death and the
corruption of the tomb are, according to Genesis (2:17 and 3:19), a
punishment of original sin.
The bodily incorruption of the Blessed Virgin can be considered
either before the Assumption or from the moment of that event. It
is de fide that from the moment of the Assumption her body was in­
corruptible, since that is a quality of the glorified body. That she was
incorruptible in body before the Assumption is the hypothesis of

thesis:

264

mary's

bodily attributes

those who maintain that she had the gift of bodily immortality and
therefore never died. But if, as we believe, Mary truly died and then
rose again, it is theologically certain that her body remained incorrupt
for the bnef space of time that it rested in the tomb. This last is the
morally unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church since the
sixth century and of modern theologians as well as the pious belief
of the Christian people. The Constitution Munificentissimus Deus
thus states:
These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ
overcame sin and death by His own death, and the man who is bom
again in a heavenly way through baptism has conquered sin and death
through Christ Himself. Yet, according to His general rule, God does
not will to grant the full effect of the victory over death to the just until
the end of time shall have come. So it is that the bodies of even the
just arc corrupted, and that only on the last day will they be joined,
each to its glorious soul.
Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin should be exempted
from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely
overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was
not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and
she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of
her body. . . .
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a
hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestina­
tion, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine
motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won
a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, was finally granted,
as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be pre­
served free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son,
having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the
glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand
of her Son, the immortal King of the ages.12·

Sacred Scripture. In Genesis (3:15) God promised that He would
place enmity between the serpent and Mary and that Mary would not
be conquered by the infernal spirit, but that she would conquer him.
Now Mary’s victory over the serpent is a victory over sin and death;
not over death itself, as a separation of soul and body (for Christ
died and conquered death by dying), but a victoiy over the permanent
dominion of death through corruption. Indeed, bodily corruption

265

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

would have been a dishonor to her eminent dignity and would have
served no purpose in her work as co-rcdcmptrix.
In Luke i :i8 it is said that the angel greeted Mary, calling her "full
of grace.” If she had suffered corruption, she would better be called
lacking in grace. Pope Alexander III states: “Mary conceived without
losing her virginity, gave birth without pain, and left this world with­
out corruption, because according to the words of the angel, or rather
of God through the angel, she was full of grace, not partly full.”,M
The Fathers. St. Andrew of Crete: “As the womb of her who
brought forth the Redeemer remained ever uncorrupt, so likewise her
dead body never perished. O admirable thing! Her birth escaped all
corruption, and her grave did not admit that final corruption after
death.” 127
St. Germanus of Constantinople: “How could the corruption of the
flesh have reduced to dust and ashes you who had liberated the entire
human race from corruption through the flesh which He who was
bom of you took from you? 128
The common belief of the faithful

Christ’s faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their
pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary,
throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by
cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old
man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a most
sharp sword had pierced her heart as she stood under the Cross of her
divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for
them to affirm that the great Mother of God, like her only-begotten
Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented
them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body
had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the
august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust
and ashes (Munificentissimus Deus).

The Liturgy. This prayer is found in the ancient liturgy for the day
of Mary’s assumption: “Sacred to us, O Lord, is this day's festival,
whereon the Holy Mother of God suffered death for a time, and yet
could not be imprisoned by death’s bonds, because she had brought
forth Thy Son, our Lord.” 128
Theological Argument, i) Although the Blessed Virgin died and

266

mary's

bodily attributes

the natural consequence of death is the corruption of the human body,
the death of Mary was not followed by corruption and bodily de­
composition. The reason for this is that we cannot attribute to Mary’s
death anything that would detract from her motherhood of Cod.
Rather, her death was glorious and meritorious for her and profitable
and exemplary for us, in imitation of the death of Christ. It was for
her an increase in the riches of grace and glory, and for us, consola­
tion and instruction, especially in our struggle with death. The decay
and corruption of the tomb can never be meritorious and honorable
for us, but only an opprobrium of the human state.
2) Mary died so that she would resemble her Son who had also
died. This likeness and conformity demand that just as the sacred
flesh of Christ did not suffer the corruption of the tomb, so neither
would Mary, who in a certain way is the flesh of Christ.
3) Christ, the best of sons, never ceased honoring His Mother.
He showed this clearly, not only while on earth, but particularly
while dying on the cross. The respect of the Son for His Mother re­
quired that He free her from all dishonor, such as corruption of the
body after death, just as He miraculously honors many saints.
4) Moreover, the array of privileges with which Mary was honored
demands her preservation from the corruption of the tomb. 1) The
immaculate conception demands it, for Salmeron says that if her
motherhood demanded exemption from original sin, it also demanded
exemption from corruption after death.180 2) Mary’s spotless virginity
both of mind, which was never stained by a bad thought, and of body,
which Christ did not injure at birth, but preserved and consecrated,
likewise demanded it. If then Mary always preserved the purity of her
soul immaculate and the physical integrity of her body inviolate in
conceiving and giving birth to Christ, she should not be subject to the
corruption of the body and the ignominy of corruption after death.
3) Finally, as Denis the Carthusian argues, if the all-powerful Christ
could preserve His Mother intact, freeing her from the corruption of
the grave; if, as all-knowing, He knew the manner of doing this; if
He wished, as all-good, to give evidence by this last privilege, of His
respect and solicitude for His Mother; who can doubt that Mary
would receive this grace? 181

267

CHAPTER SIX

Gary's Qifts of Body and Soul
*

Three gifts and prerogatives which at once refer to Mary’s body
and soul will be studied in this chapter, that is, the beauty of her body
and soul, her perpetual virginity both of soul and body, and her as­
sumption and glorification in heaven.

Mary’s Beauty
Observations. That is subjectively beautiful whose perception is
pleasing; that is objectively beautiful which possesses the qualities
which make a thing beautiful and cause the pleasure or delight which
the soul feels in its contemplation. St. Thomas points out three ele­
ments of beauty: integrity or perfection of the object, since those
things which are defective are by that very fact ugly; due proportion
or harmony, since what is disordered docs not delight but disgusts;
and brightness or clarity, so that the integrity and proportion of the
object are proposed clearly to the eyes of the body and of the mind,
and from this knowledge follows delight.1 Hence, for St. Thomas
beauty is the splendor of the form shining through the proportioned
parts of matter or various powers or actions, and for St. Augustine it
is the splendor of order.
There is a twofold beauty: that of the body and that of the soul,
or material beauty and spiritual beauty, according as its constitutive
notes are in material and corporeal things or in incorporeal and spirit­
ual things. These notes are found in beauty, not univocally, but ana­
logically, according to the diverse species of sensible and spiritual
beauty. Hence, Dionysius says: “A man is beautiful by reason of the
due perfection in the size and proportion of the members of his body
and a certain clarity of color. In like manner with all other things,

268

mary's gifts of body and soul

because each one is called beautiful so far as it has spiritual or corpo­
real splendor according to its class and so far as it has due propor­

tion.” 3
As the material and spiritual in man are intimately united and
mutually influence each other, it is not to be wondered at that the
spiritual beauty derived from the soul redounds to the body. St
Thomas expressly asserts this of the elect after the resurrection, main­
taining that in them the splendor spoken of in Scripture (Matt. 13:43)
will be caused by the redundance of the glory of the soul in the body.
This same also holds with respect to wayfarers, maintaining due pro­
portion, and especially in those in the state of grace, as Savonarola
so excellently explains when he treats of the beauty of sanctifying
grace.3
Mary was extremely beautiful both in body and in soul.
Sacred Scripture. Canticle of Canticles (4:1): “How beautiful art
thou, my love, how beautiful art thoul” In verse seven of this Canti­
cle we read: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in
thee.” The Book of Wisdom (7:29) says: “For she is more beautiful
than the sun, and above all the order of the stars. Being compared
with the light, she is found before it.” These passages are usually
applied to Mary.
Many women praised in the Old Testament for their beauty give
us an idea of Mary’s incomparable beauty: Rebecca, of whom we read
in Genesis (24:16): “An exceeding comely maid, and a most beauti­
ful virgin”; Rachel, of whom it was written (Gen. 29:17): "Rachel
was well favored, and of a beautiful countenance"; Esther, in whose
book we read (2:15) : “For she was exceeding fair, and her incredible
beauty made her appearance agreeable and amiable in the eyes of all";
and Judith, whose beauty the Assyrians admired when they said
(Judith 11:19): "There is not such another woman upon earth in
love, in beauty, and in sense of words.”
The Fathers. Among those who praise Mary’s beauty are St. Epiphanius, St. John Damascene, St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard and St.
Anselm. They praise her natural beauty as above that of the cherubim
and seraphim, a beauty which the sun and moon admire, adorned
with all virtues, thus recognized in heaven and for which the King of
heaven desired her, sending His celestial messenger from the heavens.
thesis:

269

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

She is beautiful to gaze upon, lovely to contemplate, delightful to
love.4
The Liturgy also celebrates Mary’s beauty: "O Holy Mother of
God, thou art become beautiful and gentle in thy gladness.”8 The
antiphon Ave Regina Coelorum proclaims her beauty over all.
Theological Argument. With regard to her bodily beauty: i) Bodily
beauty results from integrity of the same, due proportion of its mem­
bers and clarity of color. Now Mary' did not have a deformed body,
but one naturally integral, a body which was admirably proportioned
and illuminated by both a sensible and spiritual light or clarity.*
2) The Blessed Virgin, as was said before, was very like her Son.
Now Christ was handsome, according to Psalm 44:3: “Thou art fairer
than the sons of men.” St. Albert the Great states that the nobility
of the body depends on the nobility of the soul and as Mary’s soul
was the most noble after that of Christ, so also was her body most
beautiful among the daughters of men and had the most supremely
perfect body that nature could produce, after that of Christ.7
3) Finally, Mary's corporal beauty should be very eminent for
various reasons: a) Through the efficient cause, since although she
was conceived by her parents Joachim and Anne, nevertheless, St.
Jerome says that the hand of the omnipotent God works in the
maternal womb and He is Himself the Creator of body and soul.’
Since God had chosen Mary as His Mother from all eternity, He cer­
tainly would have adorned her with all beauty, b) Through the ma­
terial cause, because, as Morales says: ‘‘Mary descended from the
noblest race and from such select ancestors that there is no reason for
doubting that she would be anything but very beautiful in body and
more noble than can be described.” 9 We may add that in order to
conceive Mary, St. Anne was miraculously cured of her sterility and
also that Joachim's generative power was strengthened; gifts which
though natural, nevertheless were given miraculously and are precious
because God’s works are perfect, c) By reason of the formal cause,
Mary received a most perfect soul, and this soul demanded a very
perfect and beautiful body, d) By reason of the material cause, since
of her would be born the Son of God and she would have to surpass
all others in perfection and beauty.10
With regard to her spiritual beauty: 1) This beauty consists par­
ticularly in sanctifying grace and its accompaniment of the virtues,
270

M ARY’S GIFTS OF

BODY AND SOOL

supernatural gifts, and the perfect harmony between her faculties and
the interior powers of soul. Now Mary was full of sanctifying grace
and adorned with a rich variety of all of the virtues, gifts, and divine
favors, and she likewise enjoyed a wonderful conformity of all of her
faculties and interior powers, with no deviation whatsoever.”
2) All of the elements making up beauty (integrity, proportion and
clarity), which we admire in corporal beauty, are also analogically be­
coming to the beauty of grace. Grace possesses integrity because it is
a supernatural reality which makes nature deiform and capable of
working on both a human and a divine plane; it has proportion be­
cause it resides in us after the fashion of a nature, and the virtues and
gifts that flow from grace serve to perfect and elevate our natural
faculties and powers; and it possesses clarity because, as the Council
of Trent states in the Catechism, it is a splendor and a light which
cleanses the stain from our souls and makes them more beautiful and
luminous. Besides, as Mary abounded in sanctifying grace and in a
variety of all the virtues, gifts and heavenly favors, so also did she
shine with a supreme spiritual beauty.’2
3) Finally, the closer the creature is to God, the fountain of all
beauty, the more he is illumined, as we read in Psalm 33:6: "Look
to Him that you may be cheered." And so Ghislieri says that we
approach God for the sole motive of being conformed to Him through
our holiness of life; and who among pure creatures can be said to be
nearest to God than Mary, who is holier and more beautiful than all,
having no stain whatever? 18

The brilliance of spiritual beauty illuminated Mary’s coun­
tenance.
Denis the Carthusian says that Mary’s interior dispositions were
reflected outwardly on her countenance as her interior gifts and graces
were increased.’* Gerson also gives evidence of Mary’s clarity, sim­
plicity, honor and goodness. He maintains that even those envious
of her will say that the Lady is worthy of being the Empress of the
whole world and of being crowned its Queen.”
This splendor of countenance was given to some of the saints,
either during prayer or as a permanent quality. Thus, if through his
t and relationship with God, the face of Moses shone with such a
lively splendor that the children of Israel could not gaze upon his
thesis:

271

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

face, and he had to cover it with a veil in order to speak to them
(Exod. 34:29-35), how can this be denied to Mary whose intimacy
with God was so great and was so submerged in the abyss of divine
light? Thus Mary resembled Christ, whose face shone as a ray of
divinity, drawing all souls through love, as happened to Matthew, who
fearlessly abandoned his business, moved only by a word, and at­
tached himself to Christ.10 Mary too, by the majestic beauty of her
countenance, by a certain celestial splendor which illuminated it,
and by the interior harmony of her soul revealed exteriorly, won the
love of all who gazed upon her.
It is concluded from what has been said, that Mary truly bears the
banner of beauty, because God enriched her with so many gifts of
nature and of grace that, with the sole exception of her Son, the
God-Man, she surpassed to an eminent degree all the beauty of crea­
tures. For this reason St. Antoninus says that she attained to such a
degree of beauty that none greater can be imagined in a rational
creature.”
St. Thomas says: "The grace of sanctification not only repressed all
irregular movements in the Blessed Virgin herself, but was also worked
with such efficacy in others that notwithstanding the greatness of her
beauty, she was never coveted by others.” 18
St. Thomas of Villanova sums up what has been said in a few
words: “A Virgin, singularly pure and immaculate, for whom virginity
had the distinctive mark of making virgins of those who gazed upon
her, since hers was a virginity which produced virgins.” 18

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Virginity, as Billuart says, is derived from “verdure,” for just as that
is called green which is not parched by excessive heat, so virginity
means that the person possessing it is free from the fires of concupis­
cence, which seem to be the consummation of the greatest bodily
delight, namely, that of sensual pleasure.20 Virginity may be con­
sidered in two ways: physically, on the part of the body, and this is
the integrity of the flesh, never violated by lustful contact (and this
is not a virtue, but a natural condition at birth, which can be lost
272

mart’s gifts of

body

and soul

even against one’s will); and morally, on the part of the soul, and this
is a spiritual integrity, that is, the will and intention of preserving that
integrity, cither for a certain length of time (premarital virginity)
or perpetually (the virtue of virginity). Hence virginity involves these
two things: the integrity of the flesh and the intention of preserving
it perpetually.

MARY’S CORPORAL VIRGINITY
Mary’s corporal virginity can be considered before, during and after
the birth of Christ. We do not treat here of Mary’s virginity before
Christ’s conception, for it would be unbecoming, since there is so
much evidence of that truth, both in the Gospel and in the prophets.

: Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, having con­
ceived the Lord solely through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Errors. The Jews deny Mary’s glorious virginity before childbirth,
considering Jesus, at least while He lived among them, simply as
Joseph’s and Mary’s Son, conceived in the way common to all men.
Therefore, after the Ascension, in order to dishonor Christ and lessen
His dignity, they denied the honorableness of His origin, covering
Him with the most horrible ignominy, and insulting His Mother by
infamous calumny. Canisius quotes Bruno as saying that truly there
was no creature the Jews hated more than this Mother and her Son.
And truly they who would persecute her Son with such wicked hatred
could not love His Mother.21
Cerinthus, Carpocratcs and the Ebionites, corrupted by the Jewish
ferment, maintained that Mary conceived by conjugal union with
Joseph, like any other woman.
The ancient Protestants, such as Luther, Zwingli and Bucer, ac­
knowledged the virginity of Mary as revealed by Cod.22 The Ana­
baptists are excepted, for they renewed the impiety of the Ebionites,
particularly Luke Stemberger, who maintains that Christ is not the
Son of God, but of Joseph. And what is more, he adds that Joseph
had two or three other children by Mary.21
There are many among the Protestants today who deny that Christ
was conceived of a virgin. Nevertheless, there are some among them
thesis

«73

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

who defend the virginal conception: Zahn and Griitzmacher in Ger­
many, Λ. Wright, H. B. Swctc, C. Gore, W. Ramsay and W. Sanday
in England. In America, B. Warfield is a defender of Mary's virginal
conception, as is also J. Gresham Machen, who in his work, The
Virgin Birth of Christ, printed in 1930, shows himself a defender of
Mary’s virginal conception, though not of her perpetual virginity.
The Rationalists, rejecting a priori supernatural facts, also deny
Christ’s supernatural conception without the assistance of man. They
assert that Christ’s virgin birth is a story manufactured later by Chris­
tian scrupulosity, which thus exalts Jesus as the Son of God, repre­
senting Him crowned by divinity, and they attempt to explain this
through Jewish influence, pagan religions and mythological legends
accepted by ethnic Christians.24
It is de fide, however, that Mary was a virgin before the birth of
Christ.
Creeds and Councils. The Apostles’ Creed professes this truth:
“Bom of the Virgin Mary.” 28
The Lateran Council, under Pope Martin I, declares that if anyone
does not, in accord with the Holy Fathers, acknowledge that the holy
Mother of God and ever virgin and immaculate Mary properly and
truly conceived of the Holy Ghost without man’s cooperation and
that she engendered without corruption and after His birth preserved
her virginity inviolate, let him be anathema (can. 3).20
The Constitution of Pope Paul IV, Cum quorumdam, condemns
those who dogmatized "that the same most Blessed Virgin Mary is
not truly the Mother of God or that she did not always retain the
integrity of her virginity, that is, before birth, during birth, and con­
tinuously after birth."21
The Eleventh Council of Toledo expressly defined that the concep­
tion of Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost left her virginity
intact.28
Sacred Scripture. The Old Testament: Mary’s virginity is prophesied
in Isaias (7:14) : “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and
his name shall be called Emmanuel.” The occasion of the prophecy
was that, Rasin, king of Syria, and Phacee, son of the king of Israel,
were advancing on Jerusalem, and Achaz, king of Juda, knew that he
could not prevail against them. In order that the discouraged king
might recover his courage and decide to trust completely in God, the
274

MARY’S GIFTS OF BODY AND SO V t

Lord sent Isaias to assure Achaz that he would be successful over his
enemies. After Isaias fulfilled God’s command, he ordered Achaz to
ask of God a sign as to his future success (v. 11 ). Achaz refused to do
so under pretext of false piety (v. 12) : "I will not ask, and I will not
tempt the Lord.” Isaias then promised, “Here ye therefore, 0 house
of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you
are grievous to my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give
you a sign. Behold a virgin shall concave, and bear a son, and his
name shall be called Emmanuel” (w. 13-14).
We must now prove that this prophecy refers to Christ, the future
Messias, and to Mary, of whom the Messias was to be bom, though
keeping her virginity intact. That it refers to Christ, the future Mes­
sias, and to His Mother, is shown both positively and negatively. It
can be proved positively because Emmanuel is shown as King of Juda,
which land is called land and inheritance of the Lord (Isa. 14:2-25;
I Kings 26:19), through whom the salvation and glory of the kingdom
of Juda was awaited (8:8; 9:1-7) and through whom the enemies of
the city of God, along with the offences and schemes of the same,
were to be reduced to nothing by a remarkable victory (8:8-10).19
Moreover, Emmanuel is described thus by Isaias (9:6-7): ‘Tor a
child is bom to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsel­
lor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of
Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of
peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom:
to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from
henceforth and forever.” Indeed, the very name Emmanuel (God
with us) is fulfilled most abundantly in Christ the Messias, as are the
wonderful attributes by which He is named Emmanuel. And whatever
is said of His eternal kingdom cannot apply to any other but Christ,
the Messias.
The same is evident in the authentic interpretation of St. Matthew,
which applies to Christ what was said by Isaias concerning the birth
of Emmanuel (1:22-23): "Now all this came to pass that what was
spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, Behold
the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son; and they
shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, 'God with us.’ ”
It is likewise clear from universal Christian tradition and the unani-

a7?

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

mous consent of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the
prophecy of Isaias applies to Christ and to Mary. St. Justin Martyr
says that the words, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child," mean that
the virgin would conceive in a way seemingly impossible to men, but
predicted for the future by the prophetic spirit, so that when they did
come to pass, men would not lack faith, but would believe them as
foretold.80
The authority of the Church also confirms this reference of Isaias
to Christ and to His Mother. In 1773, Lawrence Iscnbiehl, a priest
of the diocese of Mentz and professor of exegesis, claimed that the
words of Isaias: “A virgin shall be with child,” do not refer to Christ
and to His Mother, and that the word Emmanuel was not to be
understood as the Messias in either the literal sense or in a mystical
sense, but that Matthew cited the text of Isaias as a mere historical
note, or merely to refer to him. In the year 1779, Pope Pius VI con­
demned Isenbiehl’s libel as containing doctrine and propositions
which were false, temerarious, harmful, erroneous, and heretical.81 For
this reason, Iscnbiehl, in the same year, acceded to the judgment of
the Sovereign Pontiff and retracted his error.
Finally, the ancient Jews as well as modern non-Catholic commen­
tators understand this prophecy of Isaias concerning the Messias and
His Mother literally, acknowledging that it treats of the Messias.
Therefore they deny that verses 1-6 of chapter 9 were written by
Isaias. But we must hold as true that the prophet Isaias is the author
of the entire book, as confirmed by a decree of the Biblical Commis­
sion, June 28, 1908, and approved by the Sovereign Pontiff.38
That this text refers to Christ and to His Mother can also be ex­
plained negatively. 1 ) The prophecy of Isaias cannot refer to Ezechias,
son of Achaz, and his mother because this prophecy was made when
Achaz was already reigning and he reigned for sixteen years (IV
Kings 16:2; I Par. 28:1) and on his death was immediately succeeded
by his son Ezechias. However, Ezechias was twenty-five years old when
he began his reign (IV Kings 18:2; 1 Par. 29:1 ), and therefore Ezechias
must have been nine years old in the first year of the reign of Achaz.
Hence, his birth could not have been predicted as a future event.
Moreover, the Queen, the wife of Achaz, could not be called ha-alma
(virgin) for she was not a virgin; nor could Ezechias be called Em276

Mary’s

gifts of body and soul

manuel because the Jews would have seen God manifested in him;
nor did all those admirable titles fit him as a future Messias.33 Finally,
neither can it be said, as later Jews affirmed, that the text of Isaias
refers to the other wife of Achaz, who was younger, and to a son

not known.84
a) Nor can the text refer to Isaias’ wife and his oldest son, who was
already bcm when his father uttered the prophecy and with whom he
approached the king (8:3). Moreover, it does not refer to his youngest
son, bom shortly afterwards, whose name was not Emmanuel but
"Hasten to take away the spoils, make haste to take away the prey"
(8:3). Moreover, Isaias could not call his wife ha-alma (virgin), for
she had conceived by Isaias, nor could what was said of Emmanuel
be applied to his sons.
3) Neither can the text be applied to any young woman and her
son not particularly designated, as if the prophet had said that the
time of liberation was so close that if the virgin (of the prophecy)
conceived, salvation would have already arrived at the time of his
birth, so that the son could be called “God with us." This is a per­
fectly arbitrary interpretation, since the prophet does not speak under
any condition but makes a certain and categorical affirmation.38
4) That the prophecy of Isaias refers, rattier, to the Mother of the
Messias who was to conceive Him while preserving her virginity, ap­
pears from the use of the word haalma. The Hebrews used three
words to designate a virgin: naara, betthula, and alma. The word
naara often, but not always, signifies a virgin of any age, for in Deuter­
onomy (22:20) it means violated virginity, and in Ruth (4:12) it
means a widow. The word betthula means a pure virgin, though she
be old; it also means a widow, as in Genesis (29:16). The word alma
means a young and gentle virgin, that is, an adolescent or a virgin in
the flower of youth, intact and not known by man.
Apart from the passage cited by Isaias (714), the word alma is
found only six times in Sacred Scripture39 and it is never used in refer­
ence to married women. The first five passages refer very definitely to
a young unmarried girl. The passage in Proverbs is used to designate
a virgin or one who is such at least in name and in the opinion of the
people.37 From all this it is clear that, according to the manner of
speaking in Sacred Scripture, the word alma is used to designate an

»77

TUE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

mary's gifts of body and soul

intact and single young woman; and what has been said is sufficient
evidence without having to go more deeply into the etymology of the
word.88
Having explained this, we argue as follows: In the prophecy of Isaias
the mother of Emmanuel is called a virgin, and a virgin in an eminent
way, ha-alma, as shown by the apposition of the Hebrew article ha,
which is emphatic. But this virginity must necessarily be taken in
sensu composito, so far as the virgin remains a virgin in her concep­
tion of Emmanuel, and not in sensu diviso, as though she were a vir­
gin before conceiving and lost her virginity in conceiving. Therefore,
Isaias most solemnly announces an extraordinary' prodigy which was
to be fulfilled by God: a virgin who would conceive and bear a child,

ceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his
name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his
father, and he shall be king over the house of Jacob forever; and of
his kingdom there shall be no end." But Mary said to the angel, "How
shall this happen, since I do not know man?” And the angel answered
and said to her, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power
of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One
to be born shall be called the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth
thy kinswoman also has conceived a son in her old age, and she is
now in her sixth month; for nothing shall be impossible with God."
But Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me
according to thy word.”

though remaining a virgin.
Finally, virginal conception and birth were a very appropriate sign
by which the prophet could comfort the pious Jews in their affliction
for, as Knabenbauer says, the divine power is manifested in virginal
conception and birth. While the king and people seemed to think
that all was lost, this prodigy was to show the faithful that nothing
is impossible with God, and by that sign they could understand that
their salvation was assured by God and that if necessary He would
perform the greatest miracles. In pledge of such a will, virginity was
proposed to them as preserved in a state in which, according to the

These words express most clearly that Mary was to conceive Christ,
not according to the natural law, which requires male concourse, but
above the natural order, that is, by the power of the Holy Spirit, who
would overshadow her and keep her virginity intact in conceiving.
The story of Christ’s conception appears thus in St Matthew (1:1823):

natural order, it could not but be lost.39
The New Testament. Two evangelists, St. Luke and St. Matthew,
carefully refer to Christ’s virginal conception, but with this differ­
ence: while in St. Matthew the angel gives Joseph to understand
this mystery after Christ’s conception, in St. Luke the announcement
was made to Mary before she conceived Jesus. The narration of
Christ’s virginal conception according to St. Luke (1:26-38) is as
follows:
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a
town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named
Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And
when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord
is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.” When she had heard
him she was troubled at his word, and kept pondering what manner
of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid,
Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold, thou shalt con-

278

Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary his mother had
been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
to be with child by the Holy Spirit. But Joseph her husband, being
a just man, and not wishing to expose her to reproach, was minded to
put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold,
an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Do not be
afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to thee Mary thy wife, for that
which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth
a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people
from their sins.” Now all this came to pass that what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled. Behold, the Virgin
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son; and they shall call his
name Emmanuel; which is interpreted, "God with us."
The words of St. Matthew prove Christ’s virginal conception, be­
cause it could hardly come about except through the supernatural
power of the Holy Spirit, since no man had any part in it. Not only
does the evangelist point out that Christ’s conception is virginal
because it was accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit, but
on concluding his narration with the words of Isaias, he openly pro­
claims that Mary conceived Christ while remaining a virgin.

*79

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

The Fathers. Already in the early days of the Church, the Holy
Fathers unanimously attested Mary’s virginity in the conception of
Christ.
St. Ignatius Martyr says: “Mary's virginity was hidden from the
prince of this world, as was also her offspring and likewise the death
of the Lord; three famous mysteries which were wrought by God in
silence.”40
St. Justin: "The words ‘Behold a virgin shall be with child’ mean
that the virgin shall conceive without fleshly commerce. For had she
admitted such commerce, she would no longer be a virgin. But the
power of God effected that she conceived as a virgin and yet remained
a virgin.” 41
St. Gregory Nazianzen: “If anyone should say that Christ passed
through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not fashioned in
a way that is divine, but was conceived in a human manner, he is God­
less.” 42
St. Leo the Great: “Unquestionably, therefore, He was conceived
of the Holy Spirit within the womb of His Virgin Mother. She
brought Him forth without the loss of virginity, even as she conceived

Him without its loss."43
The Liturgy frequently celebrates Mary’s virginal maternity. Thus,
on the octave of the Nativity the Church sings: “O wondrous ex­
changel The Creator of man, having assumed a living body, deigned
to be born of a virgin, and having become man without man's aid,
enriched us with His divinity.” 44
Again, on the feast of the Annunciation the Church exclaims:
“You will truly give birth to a son, but your virginity will not suffer
any injury; you will become a mother and you will remain intact
always.”45
Theological Argument. On the part of Christ: i) As the natural
Son of God and the Word of God, it was fitting that Christ should
be born having a heavenly Father but no earthly father, lest the dig­
nity belonging to God the Father be transferred to another. It was
not fitting, says Lactantius, that the Son have two fathers, one eternal
and the other temporal, for as God he has no mother in heaven and
as Man he needed no earthly father.40
2) Moreover, it was fitting that in the human generation of Christ
the characteristic of the Divine Word should shine forth. But it is
280

mary’s gifts of body and joul

proper to the word (verbum mentale) not to stain the virginity of the
mind but to ennoble it. For this reason St. Thomas says: “The word
is conceived without any interior corruption: indeed, interior corrup­
tion is incompatible with perfect conception of the word."4’ There­
fore, as the Word, proceeding from the bosom of the Father, does
not dishonor the Father but shows His infinite fecundity, so it was
fitting that He should not dishonor the Mother of whom He was
conceived in time, but that He should consecrate the virginity of His
own body and that of His mother.
3) As Redeemer of the human race, Christ should not be born in
the usual manner by which original sin is transmitted to men, but
He should have a virgin mother, lest anyone should think that He
was contaminated by the stain of sin. Hence St. Peter Canisius, ap­
plying the words of the Apostle (Heb. 7:26) : “For it was fitting that
we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart
from sinners,” says that He was truly set apart by reason of His vir­
ginal conception and most pure birth.48
4) Further, as Christ’s redemption aims at man’s becoming free
from sin and reborn as a son of God, not of the will of the flesh, nor
of the will of man, but of God, so it was fitting in Christ's temporal
generation that the Virgin Mother shine as an example and model in
conformity with which men in the future would grow spiritually in
the Church.40
5) Finally, in the redemption of the human race Christ is con­
sidered the new Adam, who was to repair the evil done by the first
Adam. So that the first Adam would not surpass the second in splen­
dor and privileges, it was fitting that just as the former was created
from virgin earth, so also should Christ be formed of the Virgin
Mother by the sole power of God.00
On the part of Mary: 1 ) Since she is the Mother of God, it was
fitting that she should at the same time be a virgin, so that in con­
ceiving and in giving birth she would give a proof of the divinity of
her Son. Mary as mother proves that Christ is true man, but Mary
as mother and virgin proves that He is God.01
2) As co-redemptrix with Christ, Mary is the new Eve associated
with Christ in the work of redemption. But just as Mary, by her im­
maculate conception, shows a relationship to Eve in likeness and in
opposition, she does the same by her virginal maternity. The relation­
281

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

ship of likeness is shown by St. John Damascene in these terms; "As
the first woman, Eve, was formed from Adam, without coition, so
Mary gave birth to the new Adam outside the order of nature, though
it would seem that she had conceived according to the way common
to all women.” 82 The relationship of opposition is shown by Ter·
tullian: “Eve believed the serpent, Mary believed Gabriel. The fault
which the one committed by believing, the other amended by be­
lieving. But Eve at that moment conceived nothing from the devil’s
word. Rather, she did conceive, for the word of the devil was seed
for her that she might from that time forth give birth as an outcast
and give birth in pain. As a consequence, she gave birth to a devil,
his brother’s murderer. Mary, on the contrary, bore Him who was
one day to save Israel, His brother and His murderer. God, therefore,
sent down into the Virgin’s womb His Word, our good Brother, to
blot out the memory of that evil brother.” 68

Mary preserved her virginity during childbirth.
Errors. In the fourth century Jovinian maintained that although
Mary was a Virgin in conceiving, she lost her virginity during child­
birth, giving birth to her Son as does any ordinary mother. This here­
tic, after having lived for some time in a monastery in Milan, left and
abandoned himself to every kind of sensual pleasure, so that he earned
the title “Epicurus of the Christians,” given him by St. Jerome.
In the fourteenth century this error was revived by the Lollards in
Germany. According to them, if Mary remained a virgin after child­
birth, she would have given birth, not to a man, but to an angel. This
was also believed by the Anabaptists and Protestants such as Peter
Martyr, Bullinger, Bucer and Beza in the sixteenth century; today
it is held by the Rationalists, who say that just as Christ was conceived
like the rest of men, so also was He bom. But it is de fide that Mary’s
virginity was preserved during the birth of Christ.
Creeds and Councils. The Apostles’ Creed, the Latcran Council,
the Constitution Cum quorumdam of Pope Paul IV, and Council XI
of Toledo, mentioned in the preceding thesis, profess Mary’s virginity
in childbirth.
Sacred Scripture. Isaias (7:14) states: “Behold a virgin shall con­
ceive and bear a son." The prophet not only says that a virgin will
conceive, but that a virgin will bring forth, and therefore it must be

thesis:

282

MARYS GIFTS OF BODY AND SOUL

understood in sensu composito, that is, a virgin remaining a virgin
during childbirth. It was thus understood by the Fathers, such as St
Ambrose in his letter to Pope Siricius (Ep. 42). St. Matthew (1:22),
cited before, is also a proof and St. Luke (2:7) infers Mary’s virginal
conception by these words: "And she brought forth her firstborn son,
and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger."
Mary could not have done this had she been subject to the hardships
common to other mothers.
The Fathers. From apostolic times the Fathers have unanimously
affirmed, implicitly or explicitly, Mary’s virginal childbirth. St. Ig­
natius Martyr says: “From the beginning of the world Mary’s vir­
ginity was hidden, as was also her parturition and the death of the
Lord; three famous mysteries which were wrought by God in si­
lence." 04 These words prove sufficiently that there was a divine mys­
tery involved in Mary’s virginity during childbirth which was hidden
from the devil.
St. Ambrose, referring to the words of Ezechiel (44:2): “This gate
shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through
it, because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it,” says:
What is this gate but Mary? And shut because she is a virgin. Mary,
then, is the gate through which Christ came into this world, when
He was bom by a virginal birth, without loosing the bars of her vir­
ginity.” 68
St. Augustine: “If her integrity was violated by His birth, then
surely He was not bom of the Virgin, and it would be wrong for the
whole Church to profess, as it now does, that He is bom of the Virgin
Marj', whereas the Church itself in imitating its Mother daily begets
its members, yet remains a virgin." ··
St. Leo the Great: “He was conceived of the Holy Ghost within
the womb of the Virgin Mother who brought Him forth without
violation of her virginity, just as she conceived Him without violation
of her virginity.’’87
Tertullian and Origen were accused of having denied Mary’s vir­
ginity in childbirth. Even if this were true, the denial of these two
writers cannot lessen the agreement of so many of the Fathers who
speak without restriction of Mary’s virginal birth. This is confirmed
by Vincent of Lerins, who says that if one or a few of the Fathers
disagree, one should compare the mind of the rest on the same matter

283

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

and judge the proposed question according to the greater majority.»
Perhaps the discrepancy' in this ease can be reduced to Tertullian
alone, for Newbert maintains that Origen’s idea on Mary’s virginity
in childbirth can be summarized by using Scholastic terminology:
that if he denies it materially at times, he always professes it for­
mally.6® In other respects we must forgive these two writers, if on
zealously combatting the Docctists, who denied the reality of Christ’s
flesh, they went beyond the limits of truth and said rashly that Mary
lost her virginity, hoping thus to prove that Christ’s body was not
imaginary.
The Liturgy. The liturgy celebrates Mary’s inviolable virginity dur­
ing childbirth in various places, for example, “For she conceived
Thine only-begotten Son by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost,
and losing not the glory of her virginity, gave forth to the world the
everlasting light, Jesus Christ our Lord.” 00
Theological Argument. On the part of Christ. St. Thomas says that
the word is not only conceived in the mind without corruption, but
also proceeds from the mind without corruption. Therefore, in order
to show that the body of Christ is the body of the Word of God, it
was fitting that it should be bom of an incorrupt virgin. Moreover,
Christ came that He might take away our corruption and it is un­
fitting that in His birth the Redeemer should corrupt His Mother's
virginity.
On the part of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is the Mother of God,
but if Christ had been born as the rest of men, there would be noth­
ing in His birth to show that He was truly God.01 Secondly, she is
co-redemptrix and the new Eve; therefore, unlike Eve and her daugh­
ters, who are subject to pain and corruption through the debt of sin,
Mary was exempt from all those punishments, as she was free from
sin.
Corollary. How Mary’s virginity was preserved intact during child­
birth. It is certain that Mary gave birth to Christ as do all mothers,
for Isaias (7:14) says: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son,” and Luke (2:6-7) says: “And it came to pass while they were
there, that the days for her to be delivered were fulfilled. And she
brought forth her firstborn Son.” On this point, Durandus has a unique
opinion. He rightly agrees as to Mary’s virginity during childbirth,
but because he believes that it is not possible for two bodies to be

284

mary’s gifts of

body and soul

present penetratively in the same place, he draws conclusions that
do not correlate with Mary’s most perfect virginity in childbirth.
Theologians commonly reject the opinion of Durandus. Vizquez
considers it as bordering on heresy, and Medina judges it as dangerous,
if not heretical; and both assert that Christ was born of a virgin,
miraculously, without pain or diminution of her virginal integrity.
The Fathers, particularly St. Fulgentius and St. Peter Chrysologus,
not only deny that Mary’s integrity was diminished in childbirth, but
maintain that it was increased.02 The Fathers and Doctors also use
the star to exemplify Mary’s virginal motherhood; for as a star emits
rays of light without any corruption of itself, so the Blessed Virgin
gave birth to her Son without any corruption to her integrity.03
As regards the possibility of the compénétration of two bodies or
their simultaneous presence in the same place, the only obstacle
would be the body’s quantity. But the quantity by which a body oc­
cupies a place has these effects: internal extension, by which a body
is extended within itself; external or local extension, by which it
occupies a particular place; and impenetrability, by which one body
prevents another from occupying the same place.
But the foregoing effects observe a certain subordination. Thus,
internal extension is the primary and interior effect of quantity, while
location in place and impenetrability are secondary and extrinsic
effects which naturally follow from the first. Now, while every body
is by reason of its very quantity naturally impenetrable, nevertheless
since impenetrability is not the essence of quantity but only a prop­
erty and secondary effect thereof, it can be suspended by divine power,
just as in many miracles the effects or laws of secondary causes are
suspended.
Moreover, since impenetrability is naturally posterior not only to
the extension of parts in themselves, as is required by any being
which is extended, but also to the extension of the parts of the body
in the place it occupies, it is easy to deduce that impenetrability can
be suspended by divine power so that it will not produce its proper
effect, not only in the body itself, which is extended in itself but not
locally (as is the case of the body of Christ in the Eucharist), but
also in the body which is de facto extended in the place it occupies
(as when Christ passed through the closed doors of the Cenacle).
Therefore, the birth of Christ was a miracle of the divine power

285

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

whereas His passing through the closed door was due to the gift Of
subtility which is a property of glorified bodies.
: Mary’s virginity remained intact after childbirth.
Suârcz01 explains that in no way was it possible to suppose that
Maiy lost her virginity after Christ’s birth through violence, unlawful
marital act or in any extraordinary way, as this would be indecorous.
No heretic ever dared to attribute any of those things to Mary. Hence,
the question is whether Mary voluntarily lost her virginity through
the lawful marriage act.
Errors. Many heretics asserted that Mary did not remain a virgin
after the birth of Christ but that, besides Jesus, she and Joseph had
other children, mentioned as brothers of the Lord in the Gospel.
In the third century Tertullian was accused of this error, although
it is not proved for certain that he professed it. In the fourth century
Mary’s virginity after the birth was denied by the Apollinarianists,
and in Arabia, by others whom St. Epiphanius called Antidicomarianites. Besides them, there were Jovinian, Helvidius and Bonosus, Arch­
bishop of Sardis, who was excommunicated by Pope Siricius. In
the seventh century this error began to gain entrance into Spain and
was valiantly refuted by St. Ildephonse of Toledo in his treatise De
virginitate S. Mariae, contra tres infideles. Michael Carranza believes
that this book was written against three heretics who came from
Gothic Gaul to Spain during the time of St. Ildephonse, and that
he called them Jovinian, Helvidius and Pelagius because they taught
the errors of those three.08 Rodrigo, Archbishop of Toledo, Luke of
Tuy, Ambrose Morales and John Mariana mention two heretics who
brought this heresy into Spain from Gaul, although they disagree
as regards their names. However, it seems that in St. Ildephonse’s
treatise, the first heretic is Jovinian; the second, Helvidius; and the
third, the Jew, not any Jew in particular, but the Jews in general.”
In the sixteenth century this same error was revived by the Protestants
and Anabaptists, such as Peter Martyr, Reisner, Bucer, Stemberger
and others. Finally, in our days, the Rationalists impiously renewed
the calumny of the Jews against the Blessed Virgin. However, that
Mary' remained a virgin after the birth of Christ is de fide.
Pontifical Documents and Councils. In his letter Accepi litteras
vestras, Pope St. Siricius says to Anisius, Bishop of Thessalonica:
thesis

286

mary’s gifts

of

body ano soul

"Surely wc cannot deny that Your Reverence was perfectly justified
in repressing the teaching that Mary had other children after Jesus
and you had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another
birth should issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ
was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have
chosen to be born of a virgin if l ie had ever judged that she would be
so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse
the birthplace of the Lord's body, that court of the Eternal King." *T
Also, the Latcran Council in the time of Pope Martin I and the
Constitution of Pope Paul IV, already mentioned, openly declared
Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ.
Sacred Scripture. Ezechiel (44:2) : ‘‘This gate shall be shut, it will
not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord
the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.” Although
these words were literally spoken of the eastern gate of the Temple,
in a typical or spiritual sense, they announce Mary's perpetual vir­
ginity, according to the common opinion of the Fathers and Catholic
commentators, among whom St. Ambrose says: “What is this gate
but Mary? And shut because she is a virgin.”08
St. Thomas 00 thus explains this passage of Ezechiel, according to
an anonymous author: “What means this closed gate in the house
of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it
mean that no man shall pass through it, save that Joseph shall not
know her? And what is this that the Lord alone enters in and goeth
out by it, except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that
the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this that
it shall be shut for evermore, but that Mary is a virgin before His
birth, a virgin in His birth, and a virgin after His birth?”
In Luke (1:34) Mary answers the angel who announced the Incar­
nation: “How shall this happen, since I do not know man?” These
words, as we shall demonstrate, express Mary’s vow of virginity. On
the other hand, if after Christ's birth she had known man, she would
have sinned gravely, violating her vow of perpetual virginity.
The same is inferred from St. John (19:26): “Woman, behold thy
son,” by which words, Christ, while hanging on the cross, commended
His Mother to John; words which would not have been spoken had
Mary had other children.
Nor do the words of St. Matthew place any difficulty: "Before

387

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy
Spirit (1:18). . . . And he did not know her till she brought forth
her firstborn son (v. 25).” The words “before,” "not till," and "first­
born,” seem to deny Mary’s virginity after parturition, as though
implying that there had been marital union between Mary and Joseph
later. But there is nothing in these words which contradicts Mary's
virginity after the birth of Christ.
The words “before they came together” can be understood either
as dwelling together under the same roof or as conjugal cohabitation.
The first means that at the time of the Incarnation, Mary and Joseph
were not yet living in the same house, since the betrothed among
the Jews were not brought to the husband’s house until after the
solemnity of the nuptials. The second, the less probable, does not
offer any difficulty either, because St. Matthew, intent on proving
the virginal conception of Christ, says only that Christ is not Joseph’s
son, without mentioning anything that followed His birth, so that
from this silence nothing may be inferred. As St. Jerome observes:
“From the phrase ‘before they came together,’ it does not follow that
they came together afterwards; Holy Scripture merely intimates what
did not happen.” 71
Nor docs the phrase "not till” oppose Mary’s perpetual virginity,
for it simply signifies what did not occur until then, without deciding
anything about a later time, for in this passage St. Matthew proposes
to prove that Christ was conceived, not by male cooperation, but by
the power of the Holy Ghost, without saying anything about what
followed His birth, for it was not his intention to tell the story of
Mary’s life, but to tell the way Christ came into the world, as St. John
Chrysostom maintains.7’
Nor is the word “firstborn” opposed to Mary’s virginity after child­
birth, since Christ is called Mary’s firstborn, not because other chil­
dren were bom to her after Him, but because none but Himself was
bom of her. St. Jerome says that the term “firstborn” does not at all
imply that Mary gave birth to more than one child, for the Scriptures
frequently employ the word “firstborn” to denote a mother’s first
child, whether or not it was followed by any others or remained the
only one.
Neither is there opposition because Sacred Scripture speaks of per­

288

M ARY’S C I F T S OF BODY AND SOUL

sons as ‘'brethren” of Christ; these were relatives of Christ and not

tme blood brothers.
The Fathers. St. Ambrose, Origen and St. Ildephonse are most
forceful in denying that Joseph had marital relations with Mary, even
calling the assertion audacious and disrespectful.”
St. Peter Chrysologus, speaking against Helvidius, shows that the
so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus are none other than close rela­
tions, the children of Cleopha, sister of Mary.”
The Liturgy. The liturgy abounds in expressions such as these:
"After childbirth, O Virgin, thou didst still remain a virgin unde­
filed.”7’ "Him whom a virgin brought forth, remaining a virgin
still.” 7β Ό Blessed Mary, Mother of God, perpetual virgin.”77
Theological Argument. St. Thomas enumerates four arguments of
convenience in defense of Mary’s virginity after childbirth:
1) on the part of Christ, the Only-begotten, the firstborn of God,
perfect in every respect, who should be the only-begotten of Mary;
2) on the part of the Holy Ghost, who overshadows her womb,
and it would be unbecoming that it should be desecrated by inter­
course with man;
3) on the part of Mary, the Mother of God, who would seem
ungrateful were she not content with such a Son and were she, of her
own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had
been miraculously preserved in her;
4) on the part of St. Joseph, in whom it would have been extreme
presumption to attempt to violate her whom by the angel’s revelation
he knew to have conceived of the Holy Ghost.”
Corollary. The brothers and sisters of Christ, mentioned in the New
Testament.
Sacred Scripture frequently makes mention of Christ’s "brethren."
St. John (2:12): “After this (the marriage at Cana) He went down
to Capharnaum, He and His Mother, and His brethren, and His dis­
ciples”; Matthew (>3:55-56)·· “Is n°t this the carpenter’s Son? Is
not His Mother called Mary, and His brethren James and Joseph and
Simon and Jude? And His sisters, arc they not all with us?"; Luke
(8:19) : "Now His Mother and brethren came to Him; and they could
not get to Him because of the crowd”; Acts (114): “All these with
one mind continued steadfastly in prayer with the women and Mary,
289

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren"; and I Corinthians
(9:5) : "Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister,
as do the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Tire names "brother” and "sister” are often used in Sacred Scrip­
ture in a broader sense. Thus Lot, who was the son of Abraham's
brother (Gen. 12:5), is called a brother of this patriarch (Gen. 13:8).
Jacob is called the brother of Laban, his uncle (Gen. 29:15); the
woman is called sister of the spouse (Cant. 4:9); men of the same
tribe ( 11 Kings 19:12 ) or of the same country ( Exod. 2:11 ), are called
brethren. The same occurs in the New Testament, where all Chris­
tians are called brethren (Matt. 25:40; Acts 11:26).
So Christ’s brethren are only His kinsmen. St. James begins his
Epistle with: "James, the servant of God and of our Lord Jesus
Christ," and Jude begins his: "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and
the brother of James.” In this same way patristic tradition interprets
all the passages in which the brethren of the Lord arc spoken of. St.
Thomas teaches the same when he says: “For Scripture speaks of
brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the
same parents, of the same nation, of the same family or by common
affection. Wherefore the brethren of the Lord arc so called, not by
birth, as being born of the same mother, but by relationship, as being

blood-relations of His.”78
Four persons are called brothers of the Lord (Matt. 13:55» Mark
6:3): James the Less, Joseph, Simon and Jude or Thaddeus. As for
the sisters of the Lord, Sacred Scripture does not mention any names.
The degree of relationship between Christ and those called His
brothers is obscure and difficult. Some of the ancient Fathers, prin­
cipally in the East, placing too much faith in the Apocryphal Protoevangelium of James and Gospel of Peter, believed that the brothers
of the Lord were sons of St. Joseph by a previous marriage. This
opinion was rejected completely, for according to St. Jerome,80 St.
Joseph was a virgin.81 St. Thomas agrees with this opinion.82
Some writers, such as St. Antoninus, Eek and Gerson, maintained
that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Mary’s sisters.83 They ac­
tually taught that Anne was first married to Joachim, of whom Mary
was born, and that on his death, Anne married Cleophas. Of this
marriage was born the other Mary, who in turn married Alphaeus
and had four sons: James the Less, Joseph the Just (who is also called

290

mary’s gifts of body and sodl

Barsabas), Simon and Jude Thaddcus. According to Eck, on the death
of Cleophas, Anne married for a third time, to Salomas, of whom
was born a daughter also called Mary. This Mary married Zcbedee
and they had two sons: John the Evangelist and James the Greater.
This opinion has to be completely rejected, for it lacks foundation
and is based on general opinion rather than the authority of the
ancients. Anne was already old and sterile, being over sixty years of
age, when she conceived Mary, as Christopher de Castro attests. It
is highly improbable that after Joachim's death (twelve years after
Mary’s birth), Anne would have married a second or a third time
and would have had more children.84
Many theologians and exegetes suppose that Cleophas and Alphaeus are one and the same person and that he was married to the
Mary who was therefore called Mary of Cleophas (John 19:25) and
of whose marriage were born the four men called brothers of the
Lord. But as Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, and as the Mary who
was Cleophas’ wife is called the Blessed Virgin’s sister, the children
of the former would be called brothers of the Lord, especially if we
remember that the Blessed Virgin, through her mother Anne, and
Joseph, through his father Jacob, had common grandfathers and
ancestors all the way back to Solomon and David. This is shown in
the following genealogical table:

David

Solomon

Nathan

Mathan
1

__________ ,

1
Mathat
1

1
Anne, married Heli or Joachim,

Sole,

1
Jacob,

gave birth to

who begot

of whom was bom

Elizabeth, wife of

Zachary and mother of
John the Baptist.

I--------------------------------- --------------- 1
Clcophas or Alphacus,
JOSEPH, husband of

MARY

Mother of JESUS.

husband of Mary, of

whom were bom
1
Simon

Salome, wife of

1
Mary

.1
James

.1
Joseph

Zcbcdce, of

(Matt. 28:1)

the Less,

(Matt. 27; apostle

(Mark 6),

brother of

Mark 15). called

who sue·

whom were bom

1
Judas, the

cccdcd his

James the

James the

Greater, the

Greater,

Apostle, and John

called

to the

the Evangelist.

Alphaeus,

Episcopacy of

the first

Jerusalem."

Bishop of
Jerusalem

(Acts 1:13;

Mark 15:10;
Gal. 1).

292

Thaddeus.

brother James

MARY’S GIFTS OF BODY AND SOUL

Others hold that Jude and Simon were not bom of the same parents
as James and Joseph, but that Jude and Simon were sons of Clcophas
by his first wife, on whose death he married the other Mary, the
mother of James and Joseph, who had formerly been married to
Alphaeus and by whom she had these sons. F. Prat, following Hegesippus, explains this opinion by the following diagram:
Mary-------(wife of Alphaeus)

James

a second time «------------- Cleophas
(brother of St. Joseph)

Joseph

Simon

Jude

Tints we understand why the Synoptics always relate Joseph with
James and Simon, why they call Mary the mother of James and of
Joseph, or simply the mother of James, but not the mother of Simon
or of Jude, and why St. John says that Mary (wife) of Cleophas is
the sister (through affinity) of the Blessed virgin.’*
However, Suarez’ observation must be borne in mind, namely, for
the same reason that Joseph is considered the father of Christ, Cleo­
phas could be considered the uncle of Christ, and his sons, Christ’s
first cousins.87 St. Augustine had already said that it is not to be
wondered at that some of Mary’s relatives were called brothers of the
Lord, just as relatives on St. Joseph’s side were called His brothers by
those who believed that St. Joseph was the father of the Lord.”

MARY’S VIRGINITY OF SOUL

From the age of reason Mary resolved to preserve her vir­
ginity perpetually.
Errors. Calvin and his disciples Beza and Peter Martyr, who were
followed by the Ccnturiators of Magdeburg, taught that when Mary
was chosen as the Mother of God, she remained a virgin in body
rather than in soul, because in her betrothal she followed the general
custom of the Jews and submitted to the power of her husband with
the intention of procreating children; otherwise she would have in­
thesis:

293

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

tended to deceive lier husband in consenting to the marriage contract.
The Fathers. St. Ambrose exclaims: “Who is more noble than
the Mother of God? Who more resplendent than she, whom Splen­
dor Himself chose? Who is more chaste than she, who conceived a
body without bodily concourse? She was a virgin not only in body,
but also in soul."80
Venerable Bede, illustrating Mary’s words, "How shall this be?” says
that by this she indicated her resolve to live a life of virginity. Thus,
being the first woman to consecrate herself to such a degree of ex­
cellence, she merited by a singular right to be elevated above the rest
of women.80
Theological Argument, i ) Virginity of soul is more important than
that of body, for virginity of body without that of soul is of little
value. For this reason La Cerda says that if virginity of soul does not
exist, virginity of body alone is accidental and not a virtue; the integ­
rity' is merely bodily, not a grace. The form of virginity proceeds from
the soul, and virginity is not worthy of praise if it is not joined to
continence of soul.01 Hence in a body violated by force, virginity re­
mains intact, as is witnessed in St. Lucy's answer to the prefect
Paschasius when he threatened to take her to a brothel: "If by your
order, my virginity is violated against my will, my reward will be dou­
bled.” 82 Hence, as Mary was to excel principally in the virtue of vir­
ginity, it is logical that just as she remained ever virgin in body, she
should also be ever virgin in soul and in will.
2) Salazar says that the conception of Christ required greater in­
corruptibility of soul than of body, for if the purity of Christ’s hu­
manity demanded that the body which was to house Him retain its
integrity before, during and after birth, with much more reason the
glory of divinity required that her soul should not be stained with
the slightest impurity.83
3) Mary, as we have said so many times, was moved by the Holy
Spirit from her infancy so that she would love and do what was better
and more pleasing to God. But virginity is of itself better and more
pleasing to God than its contrary, both absolutely and relatively or
historically, that is, during the time of the Mosaic law. By virginity
man separates himself from the cares of time to devote himself more
freely to God; what is more, he is in a certain way, raised above himself,
becoming a participator in the angelic nature. Thus St. John Chrysos­

294

mary’s cifts of body and soul

tom asserts that virginity surpasses the state of matrimony as heaven
surpasses earth and as angels surpass men."4 St. Basil also extols
chastity as making men like to the angels.”
Moreover, although virginity was rarely observed among the Jews,
there was no law prohibiting its observance. The words of Deuter­
onomy (7:14), “No one shall be barren among you of either sex,
neither of men nor cattle,” do not contain a precept, but the promise
of a blessing. And even if those words did include a precept, the propa­
gation of the human race during the time of the Mosaic law did
not bind all in particular, but the community in general. The same
is true of the words of Genesis (1:28): “Increase and multiply, and
fill the earth.” Nevertheless, during that time the avoidance of sterility
was held as a law among the people for these three reasons: so that
the lineage of the future Messias might be conserved with more cer­
tainty; so that the worshippers of the true God would increase more
and more; so that the worst vices would not stain the people.
Although virginity and consequent sterility were considered a dis­
grace by the Hebrews, not all sterility was disgraceful, but only con­
jugal sterility. Virginal sterility was praised sufficiently during the
time of the Mosaic law. For this reason, Judith and Anne, after a
short period of conjugal life, are praised for their chaste widowhood,
just as are some notable men of that time, such as Jeremias, Elias,
Eliscus and Daniel, who are said to have preserved their virginity. In
the Book of Wisdom we read: "For happy is the barren; and the
undefiled, that hath not known bed in sin. She shall have fruit in the
visitation of holy souls” (3:13).
4) Finally, although we admit that virginity, in the spiritual sense,
was weak in the Hebrew people and was held in disgrace, it redounded
to the praise of the Virgin Mary who, inspired by God, was the first
to embrace this virtue which in her time was rejected by Israelite
custom.
T h E s r s : Mary made a vow to preserve her virginity.
Errors. Tire Protestants, who deny Mary’s resolution to preserve
her virginity, reject her consecration by vow. However, in the com­
mon opinion of Catholic theologians, it is certain that Mary made a
vow of virginity.
Sacred Scripture. Luke (1:31-34): “Behold, thou shalt conceive in

a95

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

thy womb and shalt bring forth a son. . . . But Mary said to the
angel: How shall this happen, since I do not know man?" She had
by her vow made herself morally impotent.
Maldonado says that this impotcncy is twofold: cither natural (be­
fore puberty or in advanced age) or moral (what is not lawful cannot
be performed, as when a Christian says that he cannot eat meat on
Friday, that is, it is not lawful to do so). Moral impotence is also
twofold: by reason of a law or precept or by reason of a vow. Mary’s
impotence was not natural impotence but a moral impotence which
was the result of a vow.8®
Speaking of this, St. Ambrose remarks: “Mary answered the an­
nouncing angel: ‘How shall this be done, because I know not man?’
She would not have said this unless she had already vowed her vir­
ginity to God." 87 St. Bernard understood Mary’s words as her com­
plete surrender to God; so that if it were God’s will, she would break
her vow in order to give birth to such a Son, if that were fitting.8’
Pope Benedict XIV does not doubt that Mary made a vow of vir­
ginity, for he believes that her answer, “How shall this happen, since
I do not know man,” is sufficient proof of her vow of perpetual vir­
ginity.08
Theological Argument: i) “Works of perfection,” says St. Thomas,
“are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfillment of a vow. Now
it is clear that . . . virginity had a special place in tire Mother of
God. It was therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated
to God by vow.” 100
2) St. Bonaventure says that Mary’s virginity had to be resplendent
to an excellent degree so that she would be a worthy dwelling-place
of God, because as wisdom is the splendor of eternal light and a spot­
less mirror incapable of receiving impurity, it was fitting that she be
conceived incorruptible, and incorruption of the will consists in the
vow of virginity. Also, Mary was to be an example of virginity for all
women, just as God proposed Christ as an example for men; and as
the vow most worthy of imitation is the vow of virginity, for this
reason should Mary have made it. Further, the grace of holiness was
to shine in Mary; therefore, no other virgin can surpass the Blessed
Virgin Mary in this; and as the Most High loved her above the rest
because of her great dignity, she had to be holier and more lovable
than tire rest. Hence, even excluding her maternity of God, she is

296

MARY’S GIFTS OF BODY AND SOUL

to be loved and praised above all the saints, and for this reason, the
Holy Spirit, who inspires others to make the vow of virginity, would
not withhold it from her.’01
Corollary: It is certain that Mary took the vow of virginity before
the Annunciation, as is evident from St. Luke (1:34): "How shall
this happen, since I do not know man?” As we have already shown,
these words signify the vow of virginity. It is also the common opin­
ion that Mary took the vow of virginity before her marriage to St.
Joseph.102 But the exact time that Mary made the vow before mar­
riage cannot be determined. James Christopolitanus, Banadas, Magal­
lanes and Garriguct maintain that Mary made her vow of virginity
in the first moment of her conception, because she then had the use
of reason and was enlightened by heavenly light. St. Thomas and
many of his followers teach that Mary took the vow of virginity from
the beginning. Suarez, Vdzquez, Salmerôn, Serry, Lepicier and others
maintain that Mary made the vow of virginity in her youth, e.g.,
at the age of three when she was presented in the Temple by her
parents (Salmerôn), at her first deliberate act (Suarez), at a more
mature age, when the first thought of virginity came to her and she
pondered it (Vâzquez), when she reached the age of reason (Lepicier), from the moment she began to consider virginity and the use
of marriage, she made her vow through the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, because she knew that this type of sacrifice was most pleasing
to God (Serry). Campana and De la Broisse maintain that Mary was
implicitly dedicated and consecrated to God from the first moment
of her use of reason, but she consecrated herself explicitly by the vow
of virginity when, pondering marriage, chastity and virginity, she
understood through divine inspiration that it would be pleasing and
acceptable to God if she strengthened her virginity by vow.
Amidst such a variety of opinions, it seems that one should main­
tain that Mary took the vow of virginity from the time she attained
the use of reason, which was from the first moment of her conception.
Corollary: St. Thomas IM and many of his followers teach that
Mary made two vows of virginity: a conditional vow before her mar­
riage to St. Joseph, and an absolute vow after her marriage. Under
the Old Law, men and women were seriously concerned with the
duty of begetting, because the wonhip of Cod was to be spread
according to carnal generation and because the Messias was to come

297

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

through generation. Mary made a conditional vow of virginity at first
in case God should will something else; later, when she was espoused
to Joseph and knew by divine revelation that it was acceptable to
God, she made an absolute vow, as did Joseph also.
Regarding this opinion of St. Thomas, Serry observes that the
Angelic Doctor was misled by the supposed testimony of St. Augus­
tine, quoted by the Master of the Sentences and by Gratian, the falsity
of which St. Thomas could not have known, due to the lack of au­
thoritative codices in his time.104
St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Vazquez, Suârcz, Estius, Sylvius, Serry,
Billuart and others teach that Mary' made an absolute vow of vir­
ginity before contracting marriage.105 Tin’s opinion seems to be the
one preferred because of the following reasons: i) Mary’s objection
to the angel (Luke 1:34) that she knew not man would not have
been made if she had only taken a conditional vow, because the
message of the angel would have released her from a conditional vow.
2) The absolute vow, as firmer and stronger, is more perfect than a
conditional vow; but Mary’s vow was most perfect, for she was after­
wards an example and model of the vow of chastity for all women.
3) A conditional vow on Mary's part would seem superfluous, since
she was always submissive to God’s will; also it is not in keeping with
her humility to wait for a revelation by God as to the state of life
she was to embrace. An absolute vow of virginity would be no ob­
stacle to the marriage between Mary and Joseph because, as has
already been said, the immediate object of the marriage contract
is the fundamental right over their bodies which the man and wife
give mutually. Now, joined to the consent may be the renunciation
of this right, even previous to marriage, by means of the vow of vir­
ginity, either on the part of both or by one with the consent of the
other; however a violation of such a vow would incur the sin of sacri­
lege.1*” 4) Lastly, it must not be forgotten that Mary’s virginal mar­
riage with St. Joseph was contracted under God’s inspiration and
direction and that it was therefore through divine ordination that
Joseph and Mary took a vow of virginity.
The Blessed Virgin is the first of all in the vow of virginity,
both in time and dignity.
Observations. It is one thing to practice virginity and another to

thesis:

298

mary’s gifts of body and soul

take a perpetual vow to do so. Many theologians admit that certain
remarkable men like Elias, Eliseus, Jeremias, and John the Baptist
preserved their virginity, but it is not evident that they vowed it. The
present question concerns virginity confirmed by vow.
That Mary was the first to take the vow of virginity can be shown
in two ways: either by dignity, so far as she surpasses all other virgins
in the perfection of this virtue, or by reason of time, so far as no one
had ever before taken this vow. This is the common teaching of the
Fathers and theologians.
First Part of the Thesis
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Jerome: "Christ the virgin and
Mary the virgin inaugurated the beginnings of virginity of both
sexes.” 107 St. Ambrose says that Mary raised the standard of virginity
and erected for Christ the pious banner of the inviolate.10· Venerable
Bede says: “Truly was she called full of grace to whom was given by
divine favor the privilege of being the first among women to offer to
God her most glorious gift of virginity.” 109
St. Bernard says that in Mary the holy liberty of soul surpassed the
decrees of the Mosaic law and she made to God a vow of perpetual
virginity of body and soul.110 Richard of St. Laurence states that Mary
is called Virgin of virgins because she was the first among all to make
the vow of virginity.111 St. Thomas of Villanova exclaims: "O virgins,
what a wonderful teacher is youisl It is not St. Augustine, nor Bene­
dict, nor Francis, nor Dominic, nor any other holy Father who is your
teacher as to how to guard your virginity. It is the holy Virgin, Mother
of God, who was the first to come upon this way of life, and she has
pointed it out to the children of Adam. She was the first to teach
men celibacy, to live the angelic life in the flesh, imitating the purity
of celestial spirits. She was the first to make a vow of virginity to God,
and by her example she moved others to do the same, as it is written :
‘The Queen stands at thy right hand . . . behind her the virgins, her
companions, are brought in to thee.’113
Second Part of the Thesis
The Fathers. St. Ephrcm refers to Mary as the crown of all virgins;
St. Epiphanius, “the princess of virginity”; St. Ambrose, “standardbearer of virgins and teacher of virginity.” «» St. Peter Chrysologus
praises Mary by saying; "Virgin truly happy who received the glory
of the divine seed and are Queen of all chastity.” >»« Hugh of St. Vic­

’99

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

tor says: "Virgin of virgins, singular for integrity, unparalleled in
chastity, eminent in dignity." 1,8 Richard of St. Laurence states:
'Virgin of virgins, who germinates among the flowers and delights
us by the delicacy of her fruit." 110 St. Antoninus writes: “Virgin of
virgins, because she surpassed all in being exempt from concupiscence,
surpassed all in purity and fecundity, being the only fertile virgin."111
Theological Argument. Mary possesses among all virgins the palm
of virginity, with regard to all the circumstances which are wont to
accompany the vow of this virtue: in the intensity of the act, because
Mary’s vow arose from the greatest grace and love of God, in which
she surpassed all the other virgins together; in duration of time,
because she made the vow in the first moment in which she attained
the use of reason and preserved it most perfectly until the end of her
life; in firmness, because Mary’s vow of virginity not only had its
foundation in a most intense love of God, but was grounded on her
plenitude of grace in such a way that she was free from all inordinate
movements, even the slightest, and was surrounded by the resplendent
gifts of the virtues which are so helpful to virginity.
Corollary. Whether Mary would have preferred virginity to divine
maternity had she been given the choice of one or the other.
Some theologians such as Contenson and Lepicier maintain that
if Mary had been given her choice of virginity or the divine maternity,
she would undoubtedly have preferred virginity to maternity. This
opinion is sometimes used by preachers to praise Mary’s virginity,
because, as Contenson argues, although the divine maternity is
greater than virginity, nevertheless the intense love of God sometimes
defers goods which are more excellent in themselves, because love
for the beloved is inclined more to giving than to receiving. But Mary,
through her maternity, received an immense gift from God, and from
His hands, the greatest honor, but through her virginity she gave to
God something more precious, that is, she offered her body and soul
as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God.118
But it would seem that the opposite opinion should be preferred.
St. Bernard maintains that while Mary would have regretted going
against her vow, she would have chosen to do God’s will.110
Moreover, the choice between virginity and maternity was given
either in such a way that if she chose virginity, the Redeemer of the
human race would not have been born of another woman, or in such

300

mart’s gifts of

body and sodl

a way that if she refused maternity, God would have to choose an­
other mother for the work of human redemption. In the first hypothe­
sis, Mary (and Lcpicier makes the same assertion) would prefer to
surrender her virginity by contracting marriage, so that the Savior
could be given to the world, rather than deprive the human race of
the Savior. In the other hypothesis, Mary would still have chosen
to be the Mother of God, because the salvation of the world and
the elevation of the human race following immediately from ma­
ternity is a more excellent, more universal, and more fitting good,
according to the dictates of reason, than is the particular good of
virginity.
The argument for the first opinion does not hold much force. It
is based on the fact that perfect charity tends more to give than to
receive and that Mary therefore would have chosen to consecrate
her virginity rather than accept the honor of maternity, for in accord
with God’s ordination, the office of Mother of God consists not only
in giving the Redeemer His body, so that He might suffer and die
for the salvation of men, but also in being united to her Son in His
sorrowful expiation, suffering most intensely, almost dying with Him,
and giving her whole life for this divine mission.
Finally, there is no reason for carrying this question any further,
for in the present economy God wished to be bom of Mary, and "pos­
sessing a mother’s joys with a virgin’s honor, her like hath not ap­
peared before nor since." 120

Mary’s Assumption and Glorification
We end the treatise on the graces and privileges of the Blessed Vir­
gin Mary by considering those graces and privileges with which she
was crowned eternally at the end of her earthly life: her assumption
and glorification in heaven.
The title assumption, although used much by the Fathers and
theologians to signify the passing of those who die in the Lord, as
used by St. Gregory Nazianzen when he says that his sister Corgonia
was lifted up to heaven, and St. Gregory of Tours who mentions the
assumption of St. Avitus, was commonly reserved to indicate that
301

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

most singular prerogative of Mary by which her body was transferred
to heaven.121
There exists this difference between ascension and assumption:
ascension is applied to Christ, who rose to heaven by His own power;
assumption refers to the Virgin, who by a singular privilege was raised
body and soul into heaven.122
Mary's assumption is sometimes called pausatio, terminus, dormition, transitus, but the name assumption has pre-eminence, which,
as more fitting in signifying this prerogative, was directed to be ob­
served by a decree of the commission in charge of the correction of
the Breviary during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV.
Assumption, considered strictly, prescinds from death and resur­
rection, and means nothing more than the glorious translation of
Maty’s body and soul to heaven, for her assumption would have been
a reality even if she had been transported to heaven with a glorified
body and soul, without dying and arising. As Rcnaudin remarks, the
Assumption is not necessarily connected with the incorruption of the
tomb, for her bodily preservation could have occurred by mere incorruption, by a glorious resurrection or by a glorification which was
not preceded by death.123
Nevertheless, if the Assumption is considered concretely, and as it
is presented in the liturgy and in the documents of the Fathers and
theologians, it certainly includes all these elements: previous death,
preservation from the corruption of the tomb, and anticipated resur­
rection. Thus, we must say that Mary’s assumption consists in her
anticipated resurrection and a glorious bodily life in heaven.
The third of these elements is essential to the assumption; the
others are not necessarily related to it, although in fact they may have
preceded or accompanied it. Of these elements some are of cmpiricohistorical import, such as death, incorruption in the tomb, resurrec­
tion from the dead and bodily ascension to heaven; others pertain
to the supernatural order and can be known only by divine revelation,
e.g., the permanent incorruption of Mary’s body and her heavenly
glorification. Pope Pius XII wrote: "Thus, from the universal agree­
ment of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain
and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily
assumption into heaven—which surely no faculty of the human mind

302

mary’s GIFTS of body and soul

could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorifica­
tion of the virginal body of the revered Mother of God is concerned—
is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something
that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all the children of the
Church." 124 Therefore, although there are no historical proofs for
the first group of facts, we need not conclude from that the lack of
any divine revelation concerning the other truths.12®
The Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into
heaven.
Opinions. Luther doubted that Mary was raised to heaven soul and
body, and believed rather that she was not, by which he judged that
the feast of the Assumption should be suppressed. John Rivio denied
that Mary was elevated bodily into heaven because it is not evident
in any part of Sacred Scripture. Nevertheless, other Protestants, such
as Bullinger and Brencius, acknowledge Mary’s assumption.
Of the Greek Schismatics, none denied Mary’s bodily assumption;
rather, the Armenian Council of 1342 expressly asserted: "The
Church of the Armenians believes and holds that, by the power of
Christ, the holy Mother of God was assumed bodily into heaven.”128
The Synod of Jerusalem, held in 1672 against the Calvinists, likewise
affirmed belief in Mary’s bodily assumption.127
All Catholics have for centuries unanimously believed that Mary
was assumed body and soul into heaven, and Fathers of the Church
and theologians have likewise taught this. St. Peter Canisius main­
tained that the belief in Mary’s assumption was so universally held
in the Church that anyone who held the contrary would have to be
considered temerarious and possessed of a heretical spirit.128
By his Dogmatic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, issued on
November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly defined Mary’s assump­
tion in the following words: "We pronounce, declare and define it to
be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God,
the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly
life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
In treating of the magisterium of the Church, the Code of Canon
Law states that no truth is to be taken as declared or defined by the
Church unless it is manifestly evident that such is the intention of
thesis:

JO?

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the Church.’20 On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that
the Roman Pontiff infallibly defines all and only those things which
he signifies explicitly that be intends to define.130
As regards Man’s assumption, we must distinguish between the
fact and the mode. The fact refers to the essential element of the
assumption, that is, Mary’s transfcrral, body and soul, to heaven. The
mode refers to the other accessory elements of the assumption, such
as whether Mary’s bodily assumption occurred after her death and
resurrection or was effected without her death and subsequent resur­
rection.
Pope Pius XII limited himself merely to the definition of the fact
of Maw’s assumption, without determining the mode or manner. He
says: "The ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her
earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Con­
sequently, the death of Mary does not come under this dogmatic
definition because it is not manifestly evident that it has been defined
nor was it the intention of the Holy Father to define it. Rather, he
carefully avoided it. Much less does Mary’s bodily immortality enter
into the definition. Nor is there any authorization for including this
opinion in the definition, for the definition itself does not offer a
single word in support of Mary’s bodily immortality and there is noth­
ing in the liturgy or the writings of the Fathers which weakens the
arguments in defense of the death of Mary.
The dogmatic definition states that Mary was assumed to heavenly
glory, elevated body and soul to the glory of heaven. It is necessary
to distinguish between the state of beatitude and the place of beati­
tude. What has been defined is Mary’s passage or transit from the
state of a wayfarer (in via) to the state of the terminus, which is the
state of beatitude or the life of glory. But the translation of Maw
to heaven as a corporal place assigned as the dwelling of the blessed
does not fall under the definition, although tradition and the eccle­
siastical magisterium consider it more conformable to Scripture.19’
The definition, moreover, does not determine the excellence of Maw's
glow in heaven, although in some passages her glory is exalted, as it
is also in the prayer which Pope Pius recited before the multitude
on the day of the proclamation of the dogma of Mary’s assumption.
Sacred Scripture. Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmities between thee
and the woman, and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head.”

304

mary’s gifts of

body and soul

The enmities established by God between the woman and the devil,
between her seed and his seed, are established so that the woman,
with and through Him who is of her lineage, will crush the head of
the serpent and obtain complete victory over him. This tnumph
which Christ obtained over Satan, the serpent (Apoc. 12:9), in which
Mary played an important part, is a triumph not only over sin and
concupiscence, but also over death (I Cor. 15:26; Heb. 2:14), which
entered the world through the envy of the devil (Wisd. 2:21). There­
fore, as Christ by His resurrection completely triumphed over death,
so Mary, intimately associated with Christ, was exempt from the
corruption of the tomb and was assumed into heaven.
Pope Pius XII states: “Since the second century the Virgin Mary
has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, al­
though subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with
Him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the
proto-evangelium (Gen. 3:15), finally resulted in that most complete
victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together
in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Consequently, just as
the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final
sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed
Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glori­
fication of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: ‘When this
mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the
saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”'
Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art
thou among women." Pope Alexander III says that Mary conceived
without offending modesty, gave birth without pain, and left the
world without corruption, according to the angel’s word, or rather,
of God through the angel, so that she could show herself full of grace
and not partially full of grace.133
Mary is called “blessed among women,” not only blessed by so
great a Son, but also by the blessing contrary to the common curse
of original sin. This curse, common to men and women, is threefold:
of sin, of concupiscence and of death. Therefore, as the Virgin
Mother of God is called blessed by having escaped the curse of sin
and concupiscence, so also was she blessed through having escaped
death, in the sense that she was freed from its bondage by her glorious
assumption. St. Thomas, discussing the curses pronounced against

305

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MAR

man as a consequence of sin, says that the third, that men and women
should return to dust, did not apply to the Blessed Virgin, who was
bodily assumed into heaven.’8·'’
There are also passages in the Old and New Testaments designat­
ing Mary’s assumption. "Arise, O Lord, in the place of Thy dwelling,
Thou and the ark of Thy majesty” (Ps. 131:8). "The daughters of
kings come forth to meet thee, adorned with gold of Ophir, the
queen stands at thy right hand” (Ps. 44:10). "Who is she that cometh
forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terri­
ble, as an army set in array?” (Cant. 6:9). "Who is this that cometh
up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?”
(Cant. 8:5). “Where I am there also shall my servant be” (John
12:26). “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with
the sun, the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of
twelve stars” (Apoc. 12:1).
The Fathers and Theologians. The ancient Fathers of the Church,
up to the fifth century, said nothing explicitly concerning Mary’s
bodily assumption, except St. Epiphanius, who, although doubting
Mary’s death, does not seem to doubt her assumption.’34 Nor should
the silence of the Fathers at this time be wondered at, since they
were attacking the Docetists and Valentinians, who said that Christ’s
body was heavenly, and the Collyridians, who presented Mary as a
goddess. Perhaps they judged it more opportune to keep silent on
Mary's bodily assumption, lest they give those heretics the occasion
of propagating their errors.
Since the fifth century the Fathers and theologians have clearly
taught Mary’s bodily assumption.
St. Gregory of Tours: “The Lord commanded the holy body (of
Mary after her death) to be borne on a cloud to paradise, where,
reunited to its soul and exulting with the elect, it enjoys the neverending bliss of eternity.” 138
St. Modestus of Jerusalem : “Wherefore, the most glorious Mother
of Christ our Savior and God, who is the giver of life and immortality,
was raised to life by Him, shares incorruptibility with Him forever,
who raised her from the tomb and assumed her to Himself, as He
alone knows.” 180
St. Andrew of Crete: “A spectacle truly new it was, and beyond
human thinking; the woman who surpassed the heavens in her purity,

306

mary's cifts of

body and soul

crossed the threshold of heaven’s sanctuary. ... As the womb of her
who brought forth the Redeemer remained ever uncorrupt, so like­
wise her dead body never perished. O admirable thing! Her birth
escaped all corruption, and her grave did not admit that final corrup­
tion after her death." 137
St. Germanus of Constantinople: "Thou art she who, as it is writ­
ten, appearest in beauty, and thy virginal body is all holy, all chaste,
entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely
exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed
into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious,
undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” 138
St. John Damascene: “Your soul did not descend to hell, nor did
your flesh suffer corruption. Your immaculate, spotless body was not
abandoned to the earth, but you, Sovereign Queen, Lady and true
Mother of God, were transported to the heavenly mansions."**
St. Theodore Studita: "Today the terrestrial heaven, clothed in the
garb of immutability, is transplanted to a better and eternal habita­
tion.” 140
Testimony of Mary’s assumption is also found in the sermons of
Atto, the Bishop of Vercelli, in the tenth century and in those of St
Fulbert of Chartres and St. Peter Damian.**1 St. Anselm of Canter­
bury prays to the Mother of God through the merits of her glorious
assumption and through her most sweet Son who raised her to heaven.
In this prayer he also affirms her death.**3
St. Bernard: “The Church requires us to celebrate with great ven­
eration the day when Mary bore joy to heaven.”143
St. Amadeus of Lausanne affirms that Mary’s flesh remained incor­
rupt, as it is incredible that her body should have seen corruption;
for it was really united to her soul, and together with it, crowned with
glory in the heavenly courts.1**
With regard to the apocryphal books, the first explicit mention of
Mary's assumption is found in writings of this kind circulated in the
East in the first centuries. The principal ones are the Liber de Tran­
situ, written in the second century by Leucius, in which appear
heresies on the Trinity and the constitution of the world, the book
of Pseudo-Melito, De Transitu Beatae Mariae Virginis, composed
in the fourth or fifth century. Historia Euthymiana, from which St.
John Damascene transcribed the answer given by Juvenal, Bishop of

3°7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Jerusalem, to Marcian and Pulcheria concerning Mary’s transit, com­
posed perhaps in the eighth century.
As to the value of these apocryphal books, while some give them
no credence because they are of uncertain origin and filled with
legendary fables, others state that they can be used as historical testi­
mony of the faith of those times. But it is necessary to distinguish
carefully between the fact of Mary’s bodily assumption and the more
or less probable or uncertain additions made by doubtful or heretical
authors. The authors of the apocryphal books have drawn from the
tradition and mind of the Church the substance of the fact of the
Assumption, which they later embellished with fables and legends.
With good reason, then, in order to defend the integrity of the faith,
altered by so many false narrations, Pope St. Gelasius, in the year 494,
condemned, along with other apocryphal books, the book by the
Pseudo-Melito.
Sacred Liturgy. The feast of the Assumption, which is now cele­
brated solemnly in the universal Church, goes back to the early cen­
turies. With regard to the Oriental Church, Kellner believes that the
feast of Mary’s assumption was celebrated in the fifth century because
it was celebrated by the Nestorians and the Monophysites, who sepa­
rated themselves from the Church in that century.145
About the middle of the sixth century this feast was celebrated on
January 18 by the Orientals. In order to spread the devotion which
already existed, the Emperor Mauritius decreed that the feast of
Mary’s Dormition be celebrated on August 15 instead of January
18. This diversity of time Capelie explains through some Coptic
documents in which the Dormition of the Virgin was set for the
20th—21st of the month of “Tobi," that is, on January 18. But the
Assumption was celebrated the 16th of the month of “Mesore,”
which is 206 days from the first, and this seems to be the source of
the change introduced in Constantinople around the year 600. From
here the feast spread to Jerusalem during the time of the Patriarch
Modestus and to Thessalonica during the time of John, Archbishp
of that church, and to almost all the rest of the Orient, except Mace­
donia.
With regard to the Western Church, it is probable that the feast
of the Assumption was celebrated in Rome in the fifth century, since
in the Sacramentarium for the Mass of the Assumption, we read:

308

mary’s gifts of

body and soul

"Receive, O Lord, the gifts which we offer Thee in the repeated
solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for it redounds to Thy praise
that she has truly been raised to Thy glory.” Also, the Sacramentarium
Gregorianum, which is substantially more ancient than that of St.
Gregory the Great, contains this collect: "May we receive eternal
help, O Lord, from the festivity we celebrate this day, on which the
Holy Mother 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.”
But it is certainly evident that the feast of the Assumption was
celebrated in Rome by the year 650, on August 15, and from this time
it has never ceased being celebrated. Pope St. Sergius prescribed that
a stational procession be held on four Marian feasts: the Nativity
of Mary, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Dormition of
the Virgin Mary.140 In the year 817 Pope Paschal I, according to the
testimony of Anastasius, adorned the Church of St. Mary Major and
beautified its chapels with a statue of the Assumption.147 St. Leo IV,
in the year 847, prescribed that the feast of the Assumption be com­
memorated with an octave, and in the year 849, he permitted Anscarius, Bishop of Hamburg, to use the pallium on Easter, Pentecost,
the Nativity of our Lord, and the Assumption, Nativity and Purifica­
tion of Mary.148
Pope Nicholas I, in the year 867, commanded the Bulgarians to
follow the custom of the Roman Church in observing a fast on the
vigil of the Assumption.,4B
In Gaul, at the beginning of the fifth century, January 18 was cele­
brated as the feast of St. Mary, as is evident from St. Cesarius of
Arles, the Missal of Bobbio and the Gothic Missal, used in Gaul until
the eighth century. This festival seems to be the same as the one
celebrated at the end of the fourth century in Antioch, entitled.
Memory of the holy and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God. It seems
to have been passed on to Gaul chiefly through the work of Cassian
and the monks of Lirinenses.1®0 St. Gregory of Tours (De glor.
martyr.) asserts that in the sixth century the feast of the glorious
Assumption of the Virgin was celebrated in Caul on January 18. The
same is confirmed by St. Odilo in the ninth century.
In England, according to the testimony of Janssens and Campana
the first explicit mention of the feast of the Assumption occurred

309

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

at the Council of Cloveshoe in the year 747, and during Alfred's
reign in the years 871-896 it attained such solemnity that the whole
week preceding it was kept by all as one of great festivity.’®1
The Ordo of Lanfrancus, Archbishop of Canterbury in the years
1005-1089, enumerates the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin among those celebrated as feasts of the first class.1®2
It is also evident from the Antiphonary of the Cathedral of Lcôn
and the Liber Comitis of the monastery of San Millân, preserved
at present in the Spanish Academy of History, that the feast of the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was already celebrated in Spain
in the seventh century. With what pomp this feast was celebrated
in Spain is attested by the Codex Missarum of St. Ildcphonse, Arch­
bishop of Toledo, the Vita Sancti Ildephonsi, written between 774783, the Mozarabic liturgy, which abounds in the praises of the
Assumption, and Sermon 4 of St. Martin of Leôn.1®3
The object of this cult was not only the peaceful death of the Virgin
and the assumption or glorification of her soul, but also her bodily
assumption, as appears in the liturgical prayers and homilies of St.
Gregory of Tours, St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St.
Germanus and St. Odilo.1®4 Nor is there any difficulty in the fact that
the word "dormition” is used in these sermons, for Pope Benedict
XIV (De Festis) shows that the word means the same as assumption.
The Common Belief of the Faithful. Both the hierarchy of the
Church and the faithful have professed Mary’s glorious assumption
since ancient times; for example, St. Antoninus, St. Thomas of Vil­
lanova, and St. Charles Borromeo. St. Charles Borromeo, whose piety
and priestly solicitude for the glorious assumption of Mary is testified
by the Acts of the Fourth Council of Milan, commanded that on
the day of Mary’s assumption, a Solemn Pontifical Mass be cele­
brated by all the bishops and that the day be observed with solemnity
in parish churches.1®® Added to these are St. Francis de Sales, Bos­
suet, St. Alphonsus Liguori and, in our day, all the bishops of the
world, particularly the 194 bishops of the Vatican Council, who
petitioned for the dogmatic definition of Mary’s assumption. Also,
the Bishops of Spain, Latin America and Portugal, who during the
Marian Congress held in Seville in the year 1929, petitioned Pope
Pius XI to define Mary’s assumption.1®8
All of the faithful, instructed by their bishops, confess Mary’s

310

mary’s gifts of

body and soul

bodily assumption into heaven, as is evident from popular devo­
tions, congregations instituted under this title, and the innumerable
churches dedicated to Mary's assumption. One of the first monuments
of the assumption is to be found at Zarogoza, Spain, and dates back
to the fourth century.
The Theologians. The common opinion of most of the theologians
from the Middle Ages until the present time is that Mary was as­
sumed into heaven body and soul. Peter of Poitiers, successor to the
Master of the Sentences at Paris, testifies to this, as do many others,
such as St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and
Durandus. In 1497 John Morcellus, while preaching in the Church
of St. Benedict, stated that the faithful were not obliged under pain
of mortal sin to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven body
and soul, as it was not yet an article of faith. The Faculty of Theol­
ogy of Paris commanded that Morcellus himself reject these proposi­
tions in the very Church where he had preached them to the people;
with which command the preacher complied.18*
Theological Argument. 1 ) As the Mother of God, the flesh of Mary
was the flesh of Christ. Therefore, as Christ’s holy body, without
stain of any corruption, attained immediately to the glory of the
Resurrection and Ascension, so it was fitting that the flesh of Mary
should be preserved from the corruption of the tomb and assumed
gloriously into heaven.
2) Moreover, in Mary a most excellent virginity was united to the
divine maternity. And since, as St. Ambrose says, heaven is the home
of virginity, it was not at all fitting that Mary’s virginal body should
remain outside her homeland in the darkness of death. Besides, the
Apostle says: “In Christ all will be made to live. But each in his own
tum” (I Cor. 15:22-23).
3) It was indeed fitting, in accordance with Mary’s perpetual vir­
ginity, and in particular with her virginal parturition, which did not
diminish but consecrated her integrity, that she should be freed from
the corruption of the tomb and transferred to incorruptible life. For
this reason St. Andrew of Crete says: "As the womb [of Mary] was
in no wise corrupted by parturition, so her flesh was not corrupted
after death.” 168
4) By reason of her divine maternity, Mary was enriched with many
graces and privileges, as signified by the words of the angelic salutaP*

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

tion: “Full of grace." Therefore St. Thomas says that it is reasonable
to believe that she who brought forth the Only-begotten of the
Father, received greater privileges of grace than all others.1” But
Mary’s bodily incorruption and her assumption pertain to the privi­
leges of grace, since consummate grace, which is principally the glory
of the soul, pertains also to the glory of the body, for from the soul
it redounds to the flesh.
5) Finally, the divine maternity places Mary' in a completely unique
order which approaches the hypostatic union and borders on the
divinity. The beginning of that order is the unique privilege of her
immaculate conception, and in order that the end might correspond
to the beginning, it is fitting that the same order should be crowned
with the singular privilege of her glorious assumption. On this point
Father Bernard says beautifully: “In Mary the life of grace begins
by an immaculate conception and is terminated by an assumption and
coronation of glory. Λ triumph of grace from beginning to end." ,M
6) As regards her association with Christ in the work of redemp­
tion, just as Christ arose and ascended into heaven after His passion
and death, so it was fitting that Mary', who had suffered and almost
died with Him, should be preserved from death’s corruption and be
taken bodily into heaven.
7) On the part of Christ, there is no mark of respect and love which
Christ, the best of sons, did not bestow upon His Mother, not only
while he lived on earth, but as He was dying on the cross. Christ's
filial piety toward His Mother could not permit her to be forgotten
after His ascension into heaven, and Christ could not have shown
His piety and love for His Mother in a better way than to take her
purest body to heaven, giving her the greatest beatitude. Hence, the
Scotist argument, Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit (God could, it was fitting
that He should, therefore He did), which was suitably used in de­
fense of Mary’s immaculate conception, would also seem to apply
to her glorious assumption.
Corollary. On what day after her death Mary was raised and as­
sumed into heaven nothing certain can be established. St. Antoninus
enumerates three of the main opinions. He says that some maintain
that it was on the fortieth day; others, on the same day as her burial;
still others, on the third day, as was the case with her Son.1®1
The first opinion was proposed to show Mary’s likeness to her Son,

M ARY’S GIFTS OF

BODY AND SOÜL

who ascended into heaven forty days after His resurrection, but this
reason is not sufficient, for while it was fitting that Christ be bodily
present in order to prove His resurrection and to teach His apostles,
it was not in any way necessary that Mary’s body remain that long in
the tomb.
The second opinion also rests on a weak reason, namely, that the
Church celebrates the Dormition and the Assumption on the same
day.
The third opinion is more common and probable and is defended
by St. John Damascene, Nicephorus Callixtos, Christopher de Castro,
Suarez and others. Actually, there was no reason for her remaining
in the tomb very long, but it was fitting that she be raised from the
dead and assumed into heaven on the third day after her death, so
that she would resemble her Son.
Corollary. There were some who maintained that Mary’s body was
borne on the wings of angels to heaven and there it was brought back
to life and reunited to her soul. This opinion seemed to be favored
by St. Amadeus, Bishop of Lausanne, and also by the Fathers and
writers who affirmed that Mary’s body was translated to heaven with
the help and accompaniment of angels.
The true opinion teaches that Mary was resurrected to immortal
life, not in heaven, but in the tomb, and after being returned to life
she was taken to heaven. No sacred writer explicitly defends the con­
trary opinion, although some writers, such as St. Amadeus, write in
ambiguous terms.
Suârez states that although Christian art usually pictures Mary
carried to heaven by angels, since she had a glorified body after being
raised from the dead, she could have risen by her own power. It is
said that she was borne by angels because they accompanied her to
give her honor; she is said to have been assumed or elevated to heaven
rather than that she ascended, because that power was not connatural
to her as it was to her Son.”2
thesis: Mary’s essential glory surpasses the glory of all the angels
and all the blessed, both intensively and extensively.
Heavenly glory is both essential and accidental. Considered essen­
tially, glory' consists in the intuitive vision of God, from which follow
as natural properties, love and joy in the possession of the supreme

3D

THE BI. ESSED VIRGIN MARY

good. Essential glory, as to its comparative degree of specific perfec­
tion, is the same in all the blessed, according to the common opinion
of theologians; but as to its quantitative degree, there is a twofold
difference, that is, intensive and extensive, according to which the
blessed contemplate more or less perfectly the essence of God Him­
self or secondary' objects, possible or existing, in the vision of the
divine essence.
Accidental glory is understood as consisting of those things which,
although not necessary for beatitude, perfect it in some way, as do
certain revelations and delights, aureoles, special bodily gifts and cer­
tain external goods such as honor and reverence.
The Theologians. St. Peter Damian says: "As the light of the
moon and stars is so entirely eclipsed on the appearance of the sun
that it is as if it were not, so also does Mary’s glory so far exceed
the splendor of all men and angels that in comparison with her they
do not even appear in heaven.” 103
St. Bonaventure says that Mary surpassed all the blessed and the
angels in nature, in grace and in glory.’04
St. Bernardine of Siena: “According to the measure of her grace by
which she surpassed others on earth, so great is her singular glory in
the kingdom of the blessed." 108
Theological Argument. Heavenly glory is in proportion to the per­
fection of grace and charity and the quantity of merits acquired in
time, as the Apostle says: “God, who will render to every man ac­
cording to his works” (Rom. 2:6). Now Mary, as explained before,
surpassed all the saints in both fullness of grace and incomparable
charity, as also in tire abundance of her almost infinite aggregate of
merits.
As the beatific vision is not enjoyed by the blessed through the
natural faculty of knowledge but through the lumen gloriae (light of
glory), the most perfect vision of God does not depend on the greater
natural sharpness of comprehension, but on a greater participation
in the light of glory. The light of glory is infused more or less, accord­
ing to the diversity of grace and charity and according to the quantity
of merits. But Mary surpassed all the blessed in the perfection of
grace, of charity and in the quantity of her merits; therefore she sur­
passed all in intensive glory.
Tire extensive perfection of the beatific vision is as great as the
3M

mary’s gifts of

body and

sovt

number of possible and existent beings contemplated in the divine
essence. But Mary sees in the Word more possible and existent crea­
tures than all the blessed because the greater the degree of intensity
of vision, the greater the number of possible beings that are seen in
the divine essence. As St. Bernard says: “Rightly is Mary called the
one clothed with the sun, who penetrates more deeply into the abyss
of the divine wisdom than can be imagined, so that she seems as
immersed in that inaccessible light as the condition of a creature will
permit.” 180
Moreover, any one of the blessed, by virtue of the vision of the
divine essence, sees in Cod all those things related to his state. Now
Mary's vision, with regard to those things in relation to her state,
although not equal to the knowledge of the soul of Christ, who saw
all possible and actual beings of all times, was extended to a high
degree. It exceeded the knowledge of all the blessed, for to Mary’s
state as the Mother of God, associated with the redemption, and
Queen of all creatures, pertain not only the things common to all the
blessed, but also all those which in some way refer to the salvation of
men in the order of nature and of grace.1”
Corollary. From the supereminent intuitive vision of God, above
all the saints, given to Mary, follows the beatific love with which
Mary alone loves God more than all creatures together. If in life
she surpassed the seraphim in ardor, what must be the flame of her
love after being submerged in her Lover when she entered into the
joy of her Son?
Nor is it true, as some assert, that Mary does not love God in heaven
with more perfection than on earth, where she loved God with all the
impetus of her grace and charity, for the love with which Mary loves
God in heaven is much more perfect than that with which she was
consumed while on earth, because love always follows knowledge.
The impetus of love directed by faith is one thing; that which accom­
panies the clear vision of God is another. Therefore, no matter how
much one may love Cod in this life, that love will always be inferior
to the love of heaven, as the morning light never attains the perfec­
tion of the light of midday. To vision and love is joined ineffable joy,
in such a way that, just as Mary living on earth was a bitter sea, so
in heaven, says Gerson, she is an ocean of immense delight.1*"
Corollary. Accidental glory, as we have said, consists of those things

3*5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

which, although they arc not of the essence of beatitude, neverthe­
less perfect it in some way. Many theologians affirm that Mary re­
ceives from Christ many new revelations about free and contingent
future things, according as that may be of convenience to her min­
istry'. However, Vega is of the contrary opinion, because although the
angels and blessed may see anew some effects and works of grace
which they did not know before these revelations were made to them,
Mary- docs not receive new revelations because all things future are
as present to her through her knowledge of vision.inB
Moreover, in addition to the supreme joy which accompanies the
vision of the triune God, Mary delights greatly in the contemplation
of the humanity of her only-begotten Son and in the sight of all of
the elect. All the elect in heaven love the humanity of Christ above
all creatures, and therefore they delight in the contemplation of Him,
not only because He is so good, so beautiful and so lovable in Him­
self, but also because of the many benefits of grace and of glory ob­
tained thereby. More especially does Mary delight in the humanity
of Christ, and since she contemplates Him more perfectly and loves
Him more ardently than the rest, so she delights more in His sight
over all the others.
On the other hand, Mary obtained through the incarnation of the
Word more and better graces than the rest, since through the Incar­
nation she became the Mother of God, Mistress of the world, Queen
of angels and Mother of the Church militant and triumphant. For
this reason she contemplates the humanity of her Son with greatest
joy and in her contemplation becomes filled with ineffable sweetness.
Lastly, while on earth, Mary treated Christ her Son with the utmost
familiarity, and was no less intimately associated with His persecu­
tions, labors, anguish, passion and death. For that reason, she now
delights meritoriously, more than all the saints, in the honor, exalta­
tion and beauty of His glorious humanity.
All the blessed, redeemed by the Blood of Christ and reborn
through His grace, are spiritual children of Mary. And it is a natural
thing in a mother to delight and be happy in the triumphs of her
children. Moreover, it is a joy to possess the good desired. Now as
Mary ardently desires salvation for her children, she prays for them,
obtains graces for them, and delights greatly in obtaining their salva­
tion. Moreover, the more ardently she loves Christ her Son, the more

316

mary's gifts of body and soul

fervently docs she desire the fruit of His passion and death. On this
account, seeing the passion of her Son bearing fruit in so many saintly
souls, she is deeply joyous in the salvation of those numberless chosen

souls.
To accidental glory of soul pertain also the aureoles, as explained
before. The aureole is used as a diminutive with respect to the crown
of the blessed. The essential reward of the blessed, which consists in
the intuitive vision of God, is usually referred to in Sacred Scripture
by the name “crown" (I Cor. 9:25; II Tim. 4:8; I Pet. 5:4; Apoc.
2:10), since the crown is the symbol of victory and regal power. The
saints, fighting and following in the footsteps of Christ the King,
conquered with Christ and reign with Him.
The aureole is something added to the crown, a certain accidental
reward, peculiar to the dignity and the honor bestowed for a special
victory, or, as St. Thomas says: “A crown is due to the fight which is
followed by victory." 170
Three aureoles are distinguished with respect to the victories in
the three conflicts which beset every man: the world, the flesh and
the devil. St. Thomas says: “In the conflict with the flesh, he above
all wins the victory who abstains altogether from sexual pleasures
which are the chief of this kind; and such is a virgin. Wherefore an
aureole is due to virginity. In the conflict with the world, the chief
victory is to suffer the world’s persecution even until death; where­
fore the second aureole is due to martyrs who win the victory in this
battle. In the conflict with the devil, the chief victory is to expel the
enemy not only from oneself but also from the hearts of others; this
is done by teaching and preaching, and consequently the third aureole
is due to doctors and preachers."171
At first glance it would seem that these aureoles do not concern
Mary, since she does not have the office of teaching; moreover, not
having the fomes of sin, she had no trouble whatever in resisting the
concupiscence of the flesh; finally, the aureole of martyrdom is not
that of interior compassion, but of real martyrdom, and as the end of
Mary’s life was to be a peaceful one, it would not seem that she could
be adorned with the aureole of martyrdom. Nevertheless, Mary was
adorned most eminently with the three aureoles mentioned, since, as
is evident from what has already been said, Mary preserved perpetu­
ally her virginity of body and soul, and was more than a martyr when,

3*7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

during the passion of her Son, she suffered pain which was the same
as death. Moreover, through her office of the maternity of God, she
is adorned with a certain singular splendor, which is more perfect and
of a more elevated order than any other aureole.
Besides the gifts common to glorified bodies, Mary’s body shines
with singular beauty. There are four gifts of glorified bodies: impassi­
bility, subtility, agility and clarity, according to the Apostle (I Cor.
15:42-44): “What is sown in corruption rises in incorruption; what
is sown in dishonor rises in glory; what is sown in weakness rises in
power; what is sown a natural body rises a spiritual body. If there is
a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."
These gifts will certainly be in the bodies of the blessed through a
certain redundance of their souls, not through a physical influx but
through a moral causality, for since the soul is glorified and the body
had been its collaborator in merit and in work, it should also be its
companion in the reward and happiness of glory. For this reason, the
greater the beatitude of soul and its essential reward, the more emi­
nent will these gifts be in the body. And thus they were in Mary,
whose beatitude is incomparably superior to that of all the saints.
Moreover, the body of the Virgin Mother of God also shines with
a singular and beautiful splendor, since the more closely united a soul
is to uncreated light and the more submerged in it, the more beauti­
ful, clear and resplendent is the flesh it animates. But Mary’s soul is
submerged in uncreated light as radiantly and as profoundly as can
be communicated to a pure creature outside the hypostatic union.
Moreover, if we consider, as Denis the Carthusian says, that Mary’s
body was deified, dignified, and exalted supernaturally and gratui­
tously in this life by the incarnation of the Word, fulfilled in her and
by her, by her maternal and most intimate communication with Him,
by her sanctification in the first moment of her conception, by her
most perfect acts of virtue, by her immunity from sin and her com­
plete subjection to reason, we can understand in some way how it
would be very just and fitting that her most innocent body would be
glorified and adorned by her Son in heaven.172
To all of this we must add the external goods of honor and rever­
ence tendered her in heaven. She is honored by her Son, as His most
worthy and most beloved Mother, to whom He refuses nothing, never
318

mary’s gifts of body and soul

takes His gaze from her and through whose ments and supplications
He shows mercy, pardons and assists all.
She is honored by all the blessed, who praise her fervently because
they see her as the Mother of God, all beautiful and adorned with
the splendor of the most perfect holiness, the companion and co­
operator of the Redeemer, through whom, with Christ and under
Christ, the human race has been repaired and the heavenly mansion
restored; and since so many great benefits come through her. her
happiness and glory is ineffably increased.
In heaven Mary constitutes a special order or hierarchy.
The bull Ineffabilis Deus praises Mary thus: "So wondrously did
God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from
the treasury of His divinity, that this Mother, ever absolutely free of
all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy
innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even
imagine anything greater.”
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrem salutes Mary as pure
Mother of God and Queen of all; holier than the seraphim, incom­
parably more glorious than all the other heavenly hosts.1”
Gerson asserts that the Virgin alone constituted a second hierarchy
under God, the supreme hierarchy, at whose right hand is seated the
humanity of Christ.174
The Sacred Liturgy. “Mary has been taken up to heaven, the angels
rejoice.” “The Virgin Mary has been taken into the bridal-chamber
of heaven, where the King of kings sitteth on a throne amid the
stars.” 178
Theological Argument. St. Albert the Great explains that just as
Christ stands midway between God and the pure creature, so there
should be a creature between Christ and the pure creature, and this
is the Blessed Virgin.17®
St. Antoninus explains that Maiy surpasses the seraphim more than
the seraphim surpass the cherubim; but the seraphim occupy an order
distinct from the cherubim and therefore Mary surpasses all the
angelic hierarchies.177
And surely, as the dignity of the divine maternity is of a superior
order, placing Mary in a unique position, approaching the hypostatic
thesis:

3>9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

union, it was necessary that Mary form in heaven a special hierarchy
above all the orders of saints and of angels.
The immense joy of the saints in heaven is increased by
the presence and vision of the glorious Virgin Mary.
Doctorsand Theologians. St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard, Denis the
Carthusian and St. Bernardine of Siena assert that there is an increase
in happiness in heaven from the sight of Mary, and that when the
glorious Mother of God ascended to heaven she augmented the joy
of its inhabitants, so that after God, the presence of this most beauti­
ful Queen is the greatest glory of the blessed in heaven. St. Bernardine
of Siena says that the blessed love Mary with a greater love than they
love themselves or all other creatures.178
Theological Argument. As joy is born of love, the more intensely
an object is loved, the greater the joy in its presence and contempla­
tion. The blessed love Mary most ardently because their love for Mary
exceeds their love for all the saints, and since we know that love is
inclined to return love for love, each of the saints knows clearly that
he has received more through the Blessed Virgin than through all
the blessed together.
Actually, the blessed cannot but be happy in contemplating the
glorious Virgin Mother of God, since she is the most brilliant and
spotless minor in whom the perfections of God—omnipotence, wis­
dom, goodness, charity, piety and mercy—are reflected to so great a
degree. As Denis the Carthusian stated, after the sacred humanity of
Christ, there is nothing in the world as glorious and admirable for
contemplating God in His effects than the Blessed Virgin Mary’.170
thesis:

320

Translator's Bibliography

Ancient Christian Writers: Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St.
Ignatius of Antioch (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1946).
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Authorized Edition (New York: Charles Scribner’s
and Sons, 1899).
Bible, New Catholic Edition (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co.,
1949).
de Sales, St. Francis, Treatise on the Love of God, 3rd ed. (London:
Burns and Oates, 1884).
Doheny, Wm. J., Papal Documents on Mary (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954).
Dominican Missal, English Dominican Fathers.
Dominican Sisters’ Office Book (New York: Joseph F. Wagner. 19421
Cardeil, A., The Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Dominican Saints
(Milwaukee: Bruce, 1937).
Kelly, T., Life of the Blessed Virgin, translated from the Italian of
Romuald Gcntilucci (New York: 17 Barclay St., 1878).
Liguori, St. Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary (St. Louis: Redemptorist
Fathers, 1931).
Newman, J. H.. The New Eve (Great Britain: Samuel Walker, 1952).
Palmer, Paul, S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (Westminster.
Md.: Newman Press, 1952).
Pohle-Preuss, Mariology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1948).
Pohle-Preuss, Christology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1916).
Philipon, Μ., O.P., The Mother of God (Westminster, Md.: Newman
Press, 1953).
St. Andrew Missal (St. Paul: E. M. Lohman).
Scheeben, M. J., Mariology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1946).
Schroeder, H.
O.P., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St.
Louis: B. Herder, 1941 ).
Sheed, F. J., The Mary Book (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1950).
St. Thomas, Summa Contra Centiles, trans. English Dominicans (New
York: Benziger Bros., 1928).
St. Thomas. Summa theologica, trans. English Dominicans (New York:
Benziger Bros., 1948).

3«

Notes

CHAPTER ONE
• Lepici». T'· * D“te' Vi'S' ''

·■ : ii

'ά ν«*. i™»" · "· Μ“'·

;0Ioeia: De Manae nomme.

tolico, I, p. HI, c. i.
• Jn Matth.. p. 44•In Speculo, c. ».
’Ecclus. 24:24·
'Apoc. 12:1.
•Luke 1:3·
“Matt. 22:42; 21:9.
"Luke 1:31-32·
“Apoc. 5:5; 22:16.
“Luke 2:4.
"Rom. 1:3.
“Tim. 2 8.
“ De cons. Evang., c. 2.
"’Num. 36:6-9.
u Hom. 2, Super Missus est.
“ Knabenbaucr; In Evang. sec. Matt.,
P· 43"Luke 1:36.
“Luke 1:5.
- In lib. Judic., VII, q. 47·
“ Com. a Lapide: In Luc., c. I; atThomas, In IV Sent., dist. 20, q. 2,
■Hcb. 7:i3->4·
■De Fide orth.. IV, 15.
- De festis B.M. Virg., II, c.9·
"II Cor. 8:9·
. D,,v
■Hom. 1. I" Nat,v- ΒΛ '
-Benedict XIV: De festss DNC.

O,2 De Nativ. B. Mariae.
« Hom. I, De Nativ. B-M.V.
■ OraT». De dormit. Virg.

323

“ Benedict XIV, De festis.
"Theol. Mar., VI, 1.
■ Ep. »74 <»d Can. Lugdn.

"Luke » 35·
■De Deo Homine seu de Myn.
Incarn. Marial. X, dist. 6, C. ».
-Tract, de Beatiss. Virg., II, 1. ».
t XIV. ».6.
« De fide orth., IV, c. 5.
“ Jugie, Hom. Marial. Byxmt.

“Ibid.

“Exod. 35 25; 38:8.
“ De Virgin., I, c. 3.
"I Kings 3:3.
“IV Kings 11:2-3.

“ M Matth7, tract. XXVI. '· ’3
"I Kings 2:22; Π Mach. 3:20.
-In Exod., c. 38. 2.
- La Sainte Vierge, c. 5.
■ La Sainte Vierge. I, c. 2.
■De fide orth.. IV, c. 13·
“Matt. 13-55-56·

•Nnm’i/s-t ^P1™ ™ *
S. Joseph, p. I, a. 3-Saint Joseph, c. 3.
•Cf. Knabenbaucr, Evang. «c
Matth.; Fillion, Vie de NS. Jesuf

Christ, p. III.
“Matt. 1:18.
-Luke 1:26-27.
- HI. q. XXIX. d. VII, sect I.
“Matt. 1:16; 19-20.
■Luke 2:4.
“Luke 2:33.
"Matt. 13:55.

NOTES

-Luke 2:27; 41; 43"Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27.
" Palmieri, Tr. de matrimonio Chris­
tiano, 3.
" In Lue., hom. 6.
"Contra Julianum, II, e. 1.
"Matt. 1:20.
"De Nupt. et Concup., I.
"Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 29, a. 2.
" Matt. 12:55; Mark 6:3.
" De Sancta Ch. gener.
"Hom. 2 super Missus est.
"De Virginit. Mariae, e. 1.

" De sancto Matrim. sacr., II, d. 29.
■Vega, op. cit. palaest. 22, ccrt. 2.
“Luke 1:26-27.
" Matt. 1:20.
“Matt. 1:18.
"Matt. 1:20-24.
“Matt. 1:19.
"Cf. Palmieri, I.
"Haer., 78.
"Op. cit., II, sect. I, q. XXIX.
" Or. In Nativ. Dorn.
"Num. 36:6.

CHAPTER TWO

Luke 1:43, 2:34-51; Mark 3:31, 6:3;
‘Summa theol., Illa, q. 24, a. 1.
•Summa theol., Illa, q. 24, aa. 1-2. John 2:1, 19:25-26; Acts 1:14.
"La Mère de Dieu, II, c. 1.
•Prov. 8:22-23.
“Serm. de Transfig. Christi.
‘Ecclus. 24:5.
"Or. 1 de Nativ. Virg.
‘Dominican Missal, Votive Mass of
"Mariologia, III, n.81.
the Most Holy Rosary.
" In III, 2. 1, a. 3.
•Luke 19:10.
"Op. cit., q. 1, a. 3.
’Gal. 4:4.
"Luke 1:26-38.
‘Tract. VIII, In Joan.
“Cf. Luke 1:26-32.
• Or. de Cruce.
" Super cap. 1 Luc.
“De excell. Virg., cap. 1.
"Hom. 4 super Missus est.
“Illa, dist. 22, 4.
" Serm. De Annunt.
“Cf. Illa, dist. 10, sect. 8.
“Cf. Letcher, De Verbo Incarnato,
"Mass for the Feast of the Immac­
ulate Conception.
cap- 3. n. 339.
“Octobri mense, September 22,
“ De Deo incam., q. 4, dub. 2.
“In III Sent., dist. 4, a. 3.
1891.
"Op. cit., I, sect. II, q. 2, a. 11.
“Cf. De Virginis Matris Nativitate.
” In III Sent., dist. 4, a. 2.
“Cf. Suarez, In III, q. 30, a. 1.
“ Cf. Billot, De Verbo Incarnato, th.
“In III, dist. 22, n. 15.
"Serm. 291, De Sanctis.
"Summa theol., Ila, q. 2, a. 11.
“Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 30, a. 2.
“ Muller, Mariologia, thesis 2, n. 68.
"Cf. Luke 1:26.
"In III, q. 2, a. 12.
“Cf. Dan. 8:i6ff.
“De Deo uno, I, c. 6.
“ Ep. Ad Eustochium.
" Op. cit., II, 5, n. 182.
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 30, a. 3.
" Ibid., a. 4.
"Ep. 63.
" Hom. 2 super Missus est.
"1 Kings 10:1.
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 5.
"Luke 1:36.
“In III, dist. 22, n. 28.
“Matt. 2:13.
"Cf. Gen. 3:15; Matt. 1:16, 2:11;

NOTBS

-De Maria Deipara Virgine III.4
-Pope Pius XI. Lu’ ve,,‘d'“· **·
cembrr »5. »9Ρ·
-Denz. 113·
"Dcnz. »56.
•Denz. 190.
“Denz. 101.
•Dcnz. 993.
•Denz. 1462.
•A.A S., XX111, »4·
•Luke 1:43.
•Luke 1:31 ff.
" Rom. 1 3.
•Gal. 4:4.
-Matt. 2 11; Luke 2:37. 38; John
3:1; Act., 1:14
"Ephes, XVIII, a.
" Apofog., XV, 2.
"Apolog., I, 63.
• Contra Noetum.
"Adv. Haer., Ill, 21.
"De came Christi, c. 17.
"Ibid., c. 18.
"Cf. Neubert, Marie dans CEglise
antenicécnne, c. 3, nn. 132-33.
"Ep. ad Alexandrum Constantinopolitanum, 12.
"Contra Arian., or. 4.
“Ep. 101.
“ De Virgine. II. 7.
" D'Alcs, "Le Symbole d'Union de
Panne 433 et la première école nestorienne." Recherches de Science Re­
ligieuse, juin, 1931.
■ De Haer., IV, c. 12.
“ Contra Julianum, VIII.
■ Jannota, Theotocologia Catholica.

4 "Clement, “Le sens chrétien et la
maternité divine de Marie." Ephemer­
ides Theologicae Lovamenses. oct.
1928.
" Summa theol.. Ilia., q. 35· *· 4·
-Cf. Summa theol. Ilia, q· 35. a >■
- Cf Summa theol.. Ilia. q. 35. a. 4
•° Compendium theol.. c. 221.
" Summa theol., III·, q. 35· «· 4·
ad 211m.
-Mor., VIII. c. 27.

3^

• De Annunf, sermo 1.
" De fide orth, III, C. S.
“ Denz. 284.
- Summa theol.. Ilia, q. 32, ·. ».
• Denz. 6.
• Dcnz. 86.
•Luke 1:35.
’•Matt. 1:20.
■" Ep ad Ephe»., η. ι8.
■"Summa theol., Illa. q. 31· *■ *'
• Contra Gentiles, IV, 45.
‘•Summa theol., Illa, q. }2. ·· J·
'· Denz. 282.
·" Cf. Summo theol., Illa, q. 31. *■ 5·
-Gal. 4:4.
'"In Lucam 4:11.
■" De fide orth, ΠΙ, 2.
“· De fide orth.. III. 2.
“■ Summa theol., Illa, q· 6. at. 1. »·
“· Dcnz. 205.
“•Denz. 250.
"‘Rom. 1:3·
••Gal. 4 4·
«· Ep. i ad Cled.
De Trin, XIII. »7“De fide orth., III. 2.
•"De fide ad Petr, c.18.
» Summa theol. ilia. q. 33· *■ *
m Matt. 2:1.
-Luke 1:35.
••Luke am.
» Eput. ad Flavianum.
·“ De fide orth. III. 7“■ Contra Eutychetem, II.
m Summa theol, Illa. q. 35. ·· 5·
"•Loe cit.
•"Loe. cit.
“· De Virg·. II.
■“Or. 52, Ad SVM.
- De Concept. BM.V.
■“Senn. 5»·
_
“■ Canisius. De Maria Virg Deipara,
I, cap. 2.
De Annunt.
■" De excell. Virg, c. 3.
'"In Hum llae. q. 3. a. 4 ad 2um.
“· Sa tolli, De Incam, 1. q. IU. cond.
■■ Medina, In lllam. q. 31. a. 4·

NOTES

Hom. 4 super Missus est.
1,1 Mariologia, th, i, n. 34.
'° Mariale, q. 197.
■"Summa theol., Ia, q. 15, a. 6, ad
4um.
’" De Maria Virgine, V, c. 15.
’“Serm. 5.
■"Cf. St. Gregory Nazianzcn, In
Laudem Virginitatis.
Rom. 8:29.
’“Matins Hymn, Common of a
Virgin.
’"Paradiso, cant. 33, c. 1.
’"Cf. Terrien, op. cit., II, 4.
“■ Summa theol., Illa, q. 20, a. 1, ad
2um.
’" De Virginitate S. Mariae, c. 8.
*“ Neminem Fugit, January, 1882.
“* Luke 2:49.
“•John 8:29. Cf. Lcbreton, La Vie
et I'Enseignment de Jesus-Christ, Notre
Seigneur, chap. 1, 4.
“· Cf. Debout, La femme aux douze
étoiles, p. 107.
“’John 19:26-27.
“* Cf. Divinum illud.
’"In Speculo BM.V., c.7.

In HI, q. 27, dist. 1, sect. 2.
Op. cit., XXV, cert. 2.
Mariale, q. 141.
-Luke 11:27-28.
’“ In Lucam, IV, c. 49
'· In Luc., c. 1.
'"In III, q. 2. a. 11.
’"Cf. Catechism of the Council of
Trent. McHugh and Callan cd., p. 238.
’" Mysterium fidei, elucid. 50, epil.
’" Mariale, q. 119.
’“ Ibid., q. 79.
’” De Assumptione Marial.
’“ Ineffabilis.
Augustissimae Virginis.
”* Lux veritatis.
”· De nat. et grat., C. 36.
’“De Concept. Virginis, c. 18.
’” Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 5.
'n Sermo de S. Joseph.
’“John 16:15.
’"Or. 2, In dormit. B.M.V.
“’ In Nativ. B.M.V., cone. III, n. 8.
’” Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalitia,
March 22, 1918.
“*Cf. De praedicatione evangclica,
Π, c. 49.

CHAPTER THREE
’ Summa theol.. Ia, q. 85, a. 7.
'Op. cit., dis. VI, c. 1. specui. 1.
•De Deo Creante, dist. IV, a. 1,
n. 661.
• Dictionnaire de Théologie Catho­
lique. t. VII, c. 846.
• Bull Ineffabilis Deus, December 8,
1854.
• Jugie, "Immaculée Conception dans
l’Eglise Grecque après le Concile
d’Ephèse" in D.T.C.
’ Civilta Cattolica, a. 78, t. IV, 1927.
• Cf. Dcnz. 735.
• Dcnz. 792.
" Sollicitudo Omn. Eccl., December
8, 1661.
“Cf. Denz., 2, 123; cf. also St. Au­

gustine, De Genesi ad litteram, L. VIII.
’’ Cf. Palmieri, De Deo Creante, t. 87.
” De Verbo Incarnato, t. XII.
"Dial. cum Tryphone. For a com­
plete bibliography of all the literature
on the Immaculate Conception see
The Dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception by Edward O'Connor, C.S.C.
(Notre Dame: 1958).
“Adv. haer., Ill, 22; V, 19.
“De came Christi.
” Serm. exeg. ad Gen., 3.
" Newman, Anglican Difficulties.
’· Theodoretus, dial. Erasnites.
" In S. Mariam Dei Genitr.
“ De Assumpt. B. Virg. and In Dor­
mit. Deiparae.

NOTES

■ De nat. et grat.. c. 36.
" In fert. BAf.V., serm. 4.
" Contr. Julian., V, 15.
"De Conceptione B.V Mariae.
* Op imperf. contr. Julian., IV.
“ De Maria Deipara, Lb. I. c. 7.
■ De pecc. mer. et remiss., 1.
" De ortu ac progressu cultus et festi
-De Gen. ad Litt., X, 18.
immaculati conceptus, ». 1.
"Serm. 5. In Nativ. Dorn.
“ Or. I, in Nativ. Deip.
"Immaculée Conception dans FEg" l^rud in Concept. S. Annas.
lise latine, t. 7.
" Speculum Historiale, Lb. VI, c. 65.
- In Paschale, opus, 1.
“Ep. 174.
“ Quoted by Ballerini, Sylloge, I, 34.
"Theol. mor.. Lb. VII. Dissert
"De Concept. Virgin., 18.
super censuris circa Immac B.V. Manae
“Cur Deus Homo, II, 16.
Concept.
■CI. I Sent., dist. 30-31.
"Cocao, Thesaurus Catholicus
- In III Sent., q. IX, memb. 2.
" Scrip. Oxon., super Sent., Lb. Ill,
“ In III Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2. dist. 3. q. 1.
* III Sent., dist. 3.
“Cf. Mazzella, De Deo Creante.
"In III Sent., dist. 3, a. 1.
dist. 4, a. 4.
“Mariale, 9, 139.
“ Summa theol., Illa, q. 17, a. 3.
“In III Sent., dist. 3, a.4.
“ Ibid.
“I Sent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3; d. 17,
“ Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 17, a. 3
q. 1,3.4.
“ St. Peter Canisms, De Maha Virg.
“Summa theol., Illa. q. 27, a.4.
Deip. Lib. IV, c. 12.
“De controv. Chr. fid.. Ill, 4, c. 15.
"Mariale, q. 133.
“Summa theol., la llae, q. 81, a. 3.
“ Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 4.
“Quodl., VI, q. 5, a. 7.
“ Cf. Lcpicier, op cit.. P. 11, c. 1. a. 3
"Cf. Cobat, Experientiae theologi­
“St. Thomas here states that Mary
was not sanctified in her parents, be­ cae, Lb. 7, c. 15.
" Summa theol., la. q. 100, a. 2.
fore the completion of her conception,
"Cf. Ripalda, De Concept. Virginis,
nor before the animation of her flesh
by a rational soul, but only after her
"Cf. St. Albert, De laudibus B.M.
animation and before birth. Cf. In III
Virginis; St. Jerome. Serm. de Assumpt.
Sent., dist. 3, q. 1, a. 1.
B.M. Virg.; St. Anselm. De excell
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 1.
“In I Sent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad
3um.
“Summa theol., la, q. too, a.2.
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 5, ad
“D. Th. Plac., XXIV, p. 553. 1931.
“Cf. Lib. de laud. B.V. Marial.; aum.
Disp, super aliquibus dubiis Sent. Mag"Cf. St. Bernardine of Siena, Serm
4, De Concept. BM.V.
Petri Lombardi, q. 96.
“In 111 Sent., dist. 3, c. 1.

CHAPTER FOUR

' Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 5, ad
* The Glories of Mary, chap. 5.
• Serm. 44, De Nativ. B. Mariae.

3’7

•In TV, dist. IV, q. 6 ad. rum
•Summa theol., loc. cit.
•Mariale, q. 46.
'In IV, dist. 5, a.a.

NOTES

" De laud. glor. Virg. Mariae, Lib.
III, a. 2.
• Mariale, q. 135.
’’Serm. 3, De Nativ. Mariae.
“St. Augustine, Serm. 2, De An­
11 In 111, dist. 18, sect. 2.
nunt.; St. Germanus, De Praesent.
Deiparae.
"Op. cit., I. VII, e. 1.
“ Mariale, q. 46.
” Rupert of Deutz, loc. cit.; Denis the
Carthusian, In Cant., V.
“Summa theol.. Ha llae, q. 24, a. 8.
” Maldonado, In ]oan., c. 3.
“ Cf. St. Bernardine of Siena, Serm.
2, De glor. nom. Mariae.
” Suârez, In 111, dist. 19, sect. 1.
*’ De laud. glor. Virg., Ill, 7.
"Decretum pro Armenis.
” Ep. to the Ephesians.
“St. Ephrcrn, De Ss. Dei Genitr.
” Apol. contra Jovinianum and Ep. V.M. laudibus; St. Ildephonse, Serm.
ad Lucinum
1, De Assumpt. B.M.; Raymond Jour­
” Cf. Mariale, q. 43.
dain, Contempt, de B. Virgine, 8; St.
" Cap. Nova, extrav. de Poenitentia. Bernard, Serm. 2, In Assumpt. B.M.
" Cf. Gerson, Super Magnificat, tr. 9.
" Mariale, q. 54.
"Serm. 140, De Annunt. B.M. Virg.
”Cf. Mariale, q. 44.
“ Cf. Richard of St. Laurence, De
"Serm. de Passione.
laud. B. Mariae, Lib. III.
" De gratia, Lib. IX, c. I.
"De praeconio et dignitate Mariae,
"Cf. Richard of St. Laurence, loc.
Lib. I, a. 15; cf. also St. Bonaventure, cit.
In Speculo, c. 5; St. Peter Chrysologus,
“De Virginitate, Lib. II.
"Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
Serm. 140, De Annunt. B. Virginis;
St. John Damascene, Hom. 2, In Dor­ q.51.
“De Poenit., sect. 1, q. 4.
mit. B.V. Mariae; St. Peter Damian,
Serm. 40, In Assumpt. B.M. Virg.;
“Cf. Suârez, De Poenit., d. 2, sect.
Richard of St. Laurence, De laud.
3; Tanner, De Poenit., q. 2, dub. 2.
Deiparae, Lib. II; St. Thomas of Vil­
” Summa theol., Ila llae, q. 104, a. 2.
"Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
lanova, Serm. 2, De Nativ. Virginis.
q. 55; St. Bernard, Serm. In Signum
" In III, disp. 18, sect. 4.
" Carmina Nisibena.
Magnum.
"St. Peter Damian, Serm. 40, In
" Cf. Office of the Seven Dolors, at
Assumpt. B.M. Virginis; St. Germanus Matins, resp. 6.
“Cf. St. Ambrose, De Virginitate,
of Constantinople, Or. In Praesent.
Deiparae.
Lib. II, c. 2; St. Albert, Mariale, q. 59.
“Summa theol., Ila llae, q. 143,
" Loc. cit.
“ Comm, in Luc., c. I.
a. 143, a. unie.
“Summa theol., Ila llae, q. 49, a.
" Cf. Denis the Carthusian, De praec.
et dign. Deiparae, III, 13.
unie.
" Ad glorias. Virg. Mariam deprec. et
“See St. Ambrose, De Virginit-, II,
2, and Richard of St. Laurence, De
laus.
laud. B. Mariae, Lib. IV.
"Luke 1:45.
“Haer., Ill, 23.
“ Cf. Vega, op. cit., pal. 17, cert. 12.
“ On Holy Virginity, c. 3.
“ Cf. Mariale, q. 61.
"In Signum magnum.
“ De praec. et. dign. Deiparae, III,
a. 19.
" In Luc., I.
"Summa theol., Ila llae, q. 5, a.4.
” Stimul. amoris, III, c. 19; Richard
"Suârez, In III, dist. 19, sect. 1.
of St. Laurence, De laud, virginis, c.
IV.
"In Lucam, cap. 1·
“In I Cor., c. 15.
“Serm. 4, In Assumpt. B.M.V.; St.

328

NOTES

Gtnnanus, De Praesent. Deiparde; Jour­
dain, Contempt de B Virg., VI, 16.
■Cf. In Lucam, c. 1.
•Hom. 4, Super Missus est.
"Serm. 51.
"Cf. Deiparae Elucid., princ. lï,
et. 2.
"tn Idm llae, cl. 17, a. 2.
"De. Trinit., VIII. c. 19.
"Denis the Carthusian, De laud.
glor. Virg. Mariae, II, a. 3.
" Revue Ecclésiastique de Liège, sept.,
1931.
"Denis the Carthusian, op. cit. II,
a. 6.
"John of St. Thomas: op. cit., dist.
»8, a. 5.
" The Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the

Dominican Saints.

"Denis the Carthusian, op.

cit., Ill,

“ Summa theol,, Illa, q. 17, a. 3.
Tr. de Beatiss. Virg., Il, c. », a. 4.
“ Serm. 51.
*" De laud. glor. Virg. Manae, I,

Summa theol., 111a, q. 34. a. 3.
”*Serm. De B. Maria.
’“Serm. 36.
Cf. Summa theol., lia llae, q. 175,
M·
■”Ep. »74.
""Cf. Defensio Immac. Concept.
B.M.V., c. 31. When one of his dis­
ciples attacked this doctrine by saying
that he did not approve of the method
of arguing which states that God
could do it, and therefore He did do it,
Gerson replied: “And what if it be­
fitted His divine honor to grant this
grace?"
‘“Serm. de Resurrectione.
1,0 The Mystery of Mary, II, chap. 36.
1,1 Hom. 9, In Luc.
“In Cant. Lib. I.
"* See Denis the Carthusian, De dign.
et praec. Virg. Deiparae, II, 1.
“‘Cf. Suârez, In Illam, dist. »9,
sect. 3.
Sodlmayr, Theol. Mar., I, q. »0,

" In lam-IIae, q. 17, a. 6.
"Cf. Summa theol., Ila llae, q. 19,
a. 8.
"See also St. Albert the Great,
Mariale, q. 69.
"Suârez, In Illam, dist. »8, sect. 2.
"Cf. Summa theol., la llae, q. 111,
i,
a. 4
“Enc. Adjutricem populi.
■'•See St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
"Mariale, q. 12.
"Cf. De laud. glor. Virg. Mariae,·, q- »09.
"'Suârez, In Illam, dist. 14, sect. 4.
II, a. 4.
"* See Denis the Carthusian, op. cit.,
"Cf. Summa theol., Ilia, q. 27, a. 5,
II, a. 14.
ad 3um.
"’Serm. De Assumpt.
"Summa theol., Ha llae, q. 177, a. 2.
In II Sent., dist. 23, q. 2, a. 2, ad
“ Cajetan, In Illam, q. 27, a. 5;
Denis, op. cit., II, a. »9; St. Peter Ca'“Summa theol., Illa, q. 12, a. 3.
nisius, De Maria Virgine, V, c. 1.
“
Hom.
6, In Lucam.
"Summa theol.. Ilia, q. 27, a. 5.
“ Sec Bernard, Hom. 4, Super Missus
"Cf. St. Bruno, Hom. De Nativ.
Dom.; Rupert, In Cant., IV.; St. Al­ Est.
'“In Illam, dist. 19, sect. II.
bert, Mariale, q. 151; Knabenbauer,
“See Denis the Carthusian, De
Comm. in Lucam, ».
’■Denis the Carthusian, De laud, hlaud. glor. Virg. Mariae, II, a. 16; St.
Thomas of Villanova, Cone. », In
glor. Virg. Mariae, II, a. 18.
BM.V,
"Suârez. In Illam, dist. 20, sect. ». Assumpt.
Λ
“· Metaphys., IV, lect. 6.
" Op. cit., VII, c. 6.
‘"In lllam, dist. 19, sect. VI.
"Mariale, q- »»7·
“Cf. Summa theol., la, q.94, a.4.
•’In III, dist. 20.

329

NOTES

‘"De lib. arbitr., Ill, q. »8.
'"De virt. Mariae, IV, semi. 2.

See St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., IV,
c.17.

CHAPTER FIVE
'In Illam, disp. 2, sec. 2.
“Sec St. Peter Canisius, De Maria
*Cf. St. Antoninus, Summa theol., deipara, IV, cap. 25.
" Comm, theol., IV, d. 2, q. 1, p. 3.
IV, tit. 15, c. 10.
•See Bernardine of Busti, Mariale,
"Or. 1, De Nativ. Virginis.
“Serm. 1.
II, serm. 4.
‘Cone. 3, In Nativ. Virg.
“ Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 3.
" Op. cit., pal. 7, cert. 4.
‘Op. cit., c. 1, specu). I.
‘De peccat, merit., II, c. 29.
"Super Magnificat, tr. 5.
’ St. Bonaventure, Medit. vitae
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 18, a.2.
■ Ibid., a. 3.
Christi, c.77; St. Laurence Justinian,
"Op. cit., IV, 15, c. 14.
De triumphali agone Christi, c. 21;
"Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
Denis the Carthusian, In cap. 19
q. 130.
Joannis.
• Tr. de Deo creante et devante, th.
•St. Bernardine of Siena, Serm. 51,
In passione Domini; St. Bridgit, Revel., 51·
• De Gen. ad litt., VI, c. 25.
1, c. 10, and IV, c. 70.
“Dcnz. 1078.
•Benedict XIV, De festis. B.M.
·' In II Sent., dist. 19, q. 1, a. 2.
Virginis, II, c. 4.
“Summa theol., la, q. 97, a. 2. ad
'· In Exposit. Pass. Domini.
" De instit. Virg., c. η; of. St. An­ 41101.
“ De Civ. Dei, XIV, c. 26.
selm, Enarrat. Evang., 1.
“ In Illam, d. 115, c. 3.
"Cajetan, De spasmo B.M.V.
“ Dcnz. 1073.
” In Luc., c. 2. annot. 57.
" Enarr. in Ps. 34, serm. 2.
“ Op. cit., IV, c. 26.
"Sec St. Andrew of Crete, Hom. in
“ St. Thomas, De veritate, q. 26,
dormit. Deiparae; St. John Damascene,
a. 10; Suarez, De anima, I, 5, c. 6.
Or. 1, de dormit. Virginis; St. John of
“Haeres., 36.
"Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda semper, Thessalonica, Or. in dormit. Dominae
September 8, 1894.
nostrae Deiparae.
“ Secret in the Mass of the Assump­
“Cf. op. cit., P. II, cap. 2, a. 2.
”Cf. Ep. de suscept, human. Christi. tion.
·· Summa theol., Ila Ilae, q. 164, a. 1,
" Cf. Summa theol., la, q. 97, a. 2.
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 15, a. 5, ad ad lum.
" La Vergine Immortale.
2um.
" L'Assunzione e I'lmmaculata Con“Ibid., Illa, q. 15, a. 2, ad lum.
·· Menologia, P. II, cap. 2, a. 1; La cezione.
Cienda Tomista, tomo 77, 1950; Es­
" De arcanis catholicae veritatis, VII,
tudios Eclesiasticos, Vol. 21, 1947; De c. 10.
definibilitate Assump. B. Virg. in
“Comm. mor. in Evang, historiam,
coelum.
"Summa theol., la Ilae, q. 27, a. 4.
" La mort et l'assomption de la sainte
Vierge.
•Summa theol., Illa, q. 15, a. 6.
“ La asunciôn de Maria, III, c. 4.
“De excellent. Virg.

33°

NOTE

"Op. cit.. II. sect. 3, mem. 2, q. 50.
"Litt. Apost.. March 22, 1918.
"Mariale, q. 181.
"Cf. Peter Calatinus, De arcanis
catholicae veritatis, VII, c. 10.
"llaer., 78.
"Echos d'Orient (1926); cf. also
Janssens, op. cit.
“Cf. Campana, op. cit., I, P. II,
q. 5, a.i.n. 1.
“ Cf. op. cit.
“ "Il problema della morte di Maria
SS. dopo la costituzionc dogmatica
Munificentissimus Deus," Marianum, II
(«95«)
“Cf. Aperribay, “La muerte de la
Sma. Virgen, problema mcramente histôrico o también teolôgico?”, Estudios
Marianos (1950).
“Cf. Billuart, op. cit.; Novato, De
eminentia Deip. Virg. Mariae, II, c. 8.
" Cf. Lcpicier, op. cit., II, c. 2, a. 3;
Janssens, Trot. de Deo-Homine, II, sect.
3, q. 50.
"Cf. Merkclbach, loc. cit. Aldama,
Mariologia, c. 5, a. 1.
“ Cf. Gregorianum, XXXI, 4
(1950).
"Cf. L'Osservatore Romano, 16-17
(*933)” Cf. “Notae quaedam ad inter­
pretationem Bullam Munificentissimus
Deus," Marianum, fasc. 2 (1951).
” Cf. Gallus, loc. cit.
" Cf. Bonncfoy, “La Bulle Dogma­
tique Munificentissimus Deus," Ephem.
Mariologicae, fasc. 1 (1951); Cuervo,
La Cienda Tomista, January-March
(1951); Quera, "La Bula Munificentis­
simus Deus," Razôn y Fe, July-August
(»95«)·
’* Cf. Filograssi, Gregorianum, XXXI,
4 (1950); Aldcma, “Boletin asuncionista," Estudios Eclcsidsticos, JulySeptember (1951).
Cf. Aldama, loc. cit.
’· Cf. Lamy, S. Ephraemi Syri hymni
et sermones.
n Enarr. in Ps. 34.

33*

"Cf. Or. 1 de dormit. BAf.V.
"Encom. de dormit. SS. Deiparae,
c. 6.
"Or. in dormit. Deiparae; Jupe,
Homel. Marial. Byzant.
" Sec Scheeben, Mariology. II. ch. 7.
The homily of St. Athanasius, ated by
Clycas, is unauthenticated. There is
no historical tradition on the subject of
Mary's death before the first five cen­
turies. However, dogmatic considera­
tions connected with Mary's privileges
as the Mother of Cod are proofs of
Mary's death (Translator’s note).
"Annal. Eccles., an. 48. 11 and 12.
The testimony of Timothy of Jerusa­
lem, Hesychius and Crissipus is not con­
clusive.
■ Cf. Sacrament. Gregorianum. The
words "Dormition" and "Pausatio"
used in the Creek liturgy signify the
death of Mary.
" Cf. Peter Canisius, De Maria Vir­
gine, V, c. 1.
" Cf. De Vita et obitu Patrum, c. 67.

" Op. cit., an. 48.
"Ciitoveus, a famous opponent of
Luther, and Terrien teach that Mary
did not die of sickness or old age. Cf.
Molani, Histor. sanet, imaginum, ill;
Terrien, op. cit., VIII, c. 1.
" De celebrandis vigiliis.
"In Illam, dist. 21, sect. 1.
"Serm. 2, In Assumpt. S. Mariae.
"Mariale, q. 131.
“ Cf. Denis the Carthusian, op. dt.,
IV, a. 3; Thomas of Villanova, Cone.
4, De Assumpt. Virg.; Bossuet, Senn.
1, Pour ΓAssumpt.
"Summa theol., Ila Ilae, q. 175·
a. 3, ad sum.
“ Trealise on the Love of Cod, Bk.
VII. chap. 14.
"Summa theol., Ila Ilae, q. 175.
a. 5. ad mm.
"Lcpicier, Tr. de Beaties. Virg.,
P· ii, c. 2, a. 3.
" Loc. cit.

NOTES

"hi Vierge Marie, p. ïî, c. 16.
’"Cf. Tillcmond, Annot. in S. Vir­
ginem; Serry. Exercit., 65; Alexander,
Histor. Eccles.
'“Cf. Cornélius a Lapide, ht Act.,
>0:19.
'"Cf. Campana, op. cit., I, p. III,

ct>Λ .
"•Cf. St. Andrew of Crete, Or. in
dormit. B. Virg.; St. John Damascene,
Or. 1 in dormit. B.M.V.; St. John of
Thessalonica, Or. in Dormit. Dorn,
nostrae Deiparae; Callixtus, Hist. Eccl.,
XV, c. 14; Baronius, Annal. Eccles., an.
48.
'MCf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V,
“Cf. Callixtus, Hist. Eccles., loc.
cit.
“Of>. cit., V.c. 1.
'" Hist. Eccles., VIII, c. 24.
“Ad diem, September 16 and Jan­
uary 22; cf. Trombelli: op. cit., d. 45,
q-3·
“Cf. Bianchi, “Un Sopraluogo a
Efcso,” Mater Dei (1931).
"’Cf. Trombelli, op. cit., d. 44, sect.
3; Castro, Hist. Deip. Virg. Mariae,
c. 20; Canisius, op. cit., V, c. 1; Suârcz,
In lllam, d. 21, sect. 1.
*“ Cf. Callixtus, Hist. Eccles., II,
c. 21; St. Antoninus. Chron., I, VI, c. 3;
Denis the Carthusian, De laud. glor.
Virg. Mariae, IV, a. 7.
ή Op. cit., c. 8, n. 12.
“Cf. Mctaphrastes, Or. de vita et
dormit. Deiparae; Epiphanius, Narr. de
dormit. B.M.V.; Callixtus, Hist. Eccles.,
II, c. 21.
"· Op. cit., IV, a. 3.
Cf. St. Gregory, De glor. mar­

tyrum. II, c. 4; St. Epiphanius, loc. cit.;
St. John Damascene, Scrm. 1, In Assumpt. B M. Virg.; Callixtus, Hist.
Eccles., II, c. 21; St. Anselm, De excell.
Virginis, c. 8; Amadeus, Hom. 8.
"’Cf. St. Gregory, De glor. mar­
tyrum. c. 1; St. John, loc. cit.; St. John
Damascene, Or. 2, De dormit. Deiparae;
Mctaphrastes, Or. de vita et dormit.
Deiparae; Callixtus, loc. cit.
Adv. Magdeburgenses.
”· Cf. Hist. Deip. Virg. Mariae, c. 20.
"· Cf. op. cit., V, c. 3.
’* Cf. loc. cit.; Callixtus, op. cit., II,
c. 22.
”' Retract, in Act. Apost., c. 8.
“ Cf. Annal. Eccl., c. 48.
“Cf. De la Broisse, op. cit., c. 12.
“ Vega, Orig. div. apost. doctr.
evect. B. Virg. ad glor. coel., etc.
“ Cf. ‘'Munificentissimus Deus,"
translated by Rev. J. C. Fenton, The
Thomist, January, 1951.
“ Ep. ad soldanum Iconii.
“88 Or. In dormit. Ss. Deiparae;
cf. also St. Modestus, Encom. in dormit.
Ss. Dorn, nostrae semper que Virg.
Mariae.
'"In dormit. B. Mariae; cf. also St.
John Damascene, Or. 2, De dormit. B.
Mariae; St. Bernardino of Siena, Scrm.
52; Denis the Carthusian, Enarr. in
Cant; St. Thomas of Villanova, Cone.
5, In Assumpt. B.M. Virginis.
'"Gregorian Sacramentary; cf. St.
Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 132, who
comments at length on this prayer.
'"Cf. Salmerôn, op. cit., tr. 38.
De laudib. glor. Virg. Mariae, IV,

CHAPTER SIX
‘Su’"™1 f,le°·1·’ J?' q’39’ a- 8•De div. nomin.. V.c. 4.
•Cf. Fenrtb: 'De Chnsto pulchri-

tudinis prototypo,’’Divus Thomas Ptecentius, January, 1926.
‘Cf. St. Epiphanius, Encom. Vir-

33»

NOTES

ginis; St. John Damascene, Or. i, De
Nativitate Mariae; St. Peter Damian,
Scrm. i, In Nativ. Deiparae; St. Ber­
nard, Hom. 2 super Missus est; St. An­
selm, Or. 51.
•Ant. for Vespers, Feast of the
B.V.M.
• Cf. Richard of St. Victor, In Cant.

“ Cf. Denz. 2115.
“Cf. Eusebius, Demonstrat., VII,
C. I.
“Cf. Knabenbauer, op. cit.. h. 1.
“ Cf. Knabenbauer, op. cit., h 1.
“Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Ps. 67 26;
Cant. 1:3, 6:7; Prov. 30:19.
" Perrone, De Incom., II. c. 2.
“Cf. Franzclin, Tr. de Verbo In­
carnato, th. 15.
“Cf. Knabenbauer, loc. cit.
"Ep. ad Ephes.
“ Apol. I pro Christianis.
“ Ep. ad Cledonium.
“ Ep. 28. See also St. Irenaeus. Haer,
Ill, 21; Tertullian, De cam. Chr., 16;
Origen, De pnncipis, I, and In Joan.,
32; St. Ephrcm, De Ss. Dei Genitr.
Virg. Mariae laudibus; St. Epiphanius,
Anchoratus; and Ildephonse of Toledo,
De virginit. S. Mariae, c. 1; St. Augus­
tine, Serm. 9, In natali Domini.
“ Ant. 1 at Vespers.
“ Resp. 3 for Matins. See other feasts
of B.V.M.
“ Instit., IV.
"Summa theol., Illa, q.28, a. 1.
“Cf. op. cit., II, c. 3.
“Cf. St. Leo the Great, Senn. 4,
De Nativ. Domini.
“Cf. St. Ambrose, Senn. 37, De
Quadragesima.
“ Cf. St. Athanasius, Or. De Incom.
Verbi.
“De fide, orth., IV, c. 25.
“ De Came Christi, c. 17.
“Ep. ad Ephesios, 18; cf. also St.
Gregory, Serm. in sancta Theophania.
" De instit. virg., c. 8; cf. also St.
Ephrem, Serm. adv. haereticos.
"Enchir., 34; cf. also St. Peter
Chrysologus, Serm. 117.
*’ Ep. 38; cf. also St. Ildephonse, op.
cit., c. i.
“ Cf. adv. haeres, novit.
“Cf. Marie dans ΓEglise antenicé-

4-7·
’Cf. Mariale, q. 15.
'Cf. Ep. ad Pammachium.
•Cf. In cap. 1 Matt., II, tr. 10.
“Cf. Richard of St. Laurence, op.
cit., V.
“ Cf. Richard of St. Laurence, De
laud. B. Maria..·, V.
“Cf. Bittrcmieux, "De pulchr. ef­
fectu grat. sanctif.,” E.TX., V, fasc. 3
(1918).
“Ghislieri, In Cant.
“ Cf. De laud. glor. Virg. Mariae,
I. 30.
“Cf. Serm. de Conceptione.
“Cf. St. Jerome, Comm, in Matt.,
c.9.
"Summa, IV, tit. 15, c. 10; cf. also
St. Ambrose, De instit. Virg., c. 6.
“In Ill Sent., dist. 2, q. 1, a. 2, ad
4um. Sec also St. Bonaventure, In
Illam, dist. 3, q. 3; and Denis the Car­
thusian, In Cant., 2.
” Serm. 2, De Annunt.
" Curs. Theol.: De temperantia, dist.
4, a. 2.
“ Op. cit., II, c. 6.
“ Cf. Canisius, op. cit., II, c. 17.
- Ibid., c. 8.
“Fillion, Vie de NS. Jésus-Christ;
App. XII; Vosté, De concept, virg.
Jesu Christi, Ag., an. X, fasc. 3 (1933).
“ Denz. 6.
“Cf. Denz. 256.
” Denz. 993.
“ Cf. Denz. 282.
" Knaocnbauer, Comm, in Isaiam
prophetam, h. 1.
·» Apol. I pro Christianis.
"Preface of the BVM.; cf. Feast
“ Cf. J. H. Janssens: Mermen, sacra,
of the Annunciation, Resp. 3 at Matins
c. 3, sec. 3.

333

NOTES

“De Instit. Virg., II.
"In Luc., c. i.
" Maria effigies revelatioque trinitatis
et attributorum Dei, acad. 20.
" Feast of St. Lucy, lesson 6 at
Matins.
" Cf. Salazar, op. cit.
"De Virginit., VI, c. 1.
“Cf. Lib. de virginité.
“ In Illam, dist. 5, sect. a.
"Cf. Maldonado, In Luc., c. 1.
• Vizquez, In IIlam, dist. 121, C. 2.
"De Sancta Virginitate, c. 4.
“Cf. Menéndez Pelayo, De rebus
" Hom. 4, Super Missus est.
Hispaniae, XI, Historia de los hetero"De festis BM. Virg., c. 1, n. 7.
doxos espanolcs, III, I, C. 3.
’"Summa theol., Illa, q. 38, a. 4.
" Denz. 91.
"* Cf. St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent.,
" Cf. De instit. Virg., c. η.
d. 30.
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 28, a. 3.
’“Cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. in
"Serm. 25 in the works of St. Augus­
Nativ. Dom.; St. Augustine, De sancta
tine, appendix.
virginitate, c. 4.
“Comm. in Matth., 1:18.
*
“ In IV Sent., dist. 30, q. 2, a. 1.
” Cf. Hom. 5, In Matth.
““For the passage in question, cf.
n St. Ambrose, De instit. Virg., c. 6;
Origen, Hom. 7, In Luc; St. Ildephonse, IV Sent., dist. 30.
Cf. St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent.,
De virginit. S. Mariae, c. 2.
dist. 30; Scotus, In IV Sent., q. 2; In
’* Serm. 48.
"Vers, ad ant. Alma Redemptoris 111am, d. 124, c. 2; Suârez, In Hlam,
d. 6, sect. 2; Estius, In IV Sent., d. 13;
Mater.
’· Magnificat Ant., I Vesp. Feast of Sylvius, In Hlam, q. 28, a. 4-, Serry,
Exercit., 21; Billuart, Cursus Theologi­
the Purification.
” Benedictus Ant., Off. of B.VJVf. for cus, De Beata Virgine Maria, d. 1, a. 4.
*" Cf. Billot, De Matrimonio, th. 35.
Saturday.
’"Ep. 48, Ad Pammachium.
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 28, a. 3.
mDc Instit. Virg., c. 5.
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 28, a. 3,
Hom. de fest. Annunt.
ad ;um.
“‘Serm. in Signum magnum.
" In Matt. c. 12.
,u De laud. B.M.V.
"Adv. Helvid. de perpetua virginit.
“•Cone. 2, De Annunt.
Mariae.
*“ St. Ephrem, Serm. de Ss. Dei
“Cf. Comm, in Cal., 1:19.
" Cf. St. Antoninus, Chron., IV, c. 6; Genitrice; St. Epiphanius, Haeres., 78;
Eck, Serm. S. Annae, Gerson, Serm. de St. Ambrose, De Instit. Virgin., c. 5.
nativ. Virg.
“* St. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 143.
" Cf. Castro, op. cit., c. 3; Lippo““Hugh of St. Victor, Serm. in
qualibet festo B. Mariae.
manus, De vitis sanctorum.
“ Wirceburg, De Incarn. Verb, divini,
"° Richard of St. Laurence, De laud.
B.V. Mariae, III.
sect. 3, a. 2.
"Recherches de Science Religieuse,
St. Antoninus, op. cit., IV, tit. 15,
c. 22.
XVII (April, 1927).
“In Illam, disp. V, sect. 4.
*" Cf. Contcnson, op. cit., X, d. 6,
“In Matt. 17; cf. Calmet, In Evang.
“'Hom. 4 super Missus est.
Luc., “De genealogia J.C.”

■ 40 Cf. St. Leo. Serm. 1. De Nativ.
“Cf. St. Fulgentius, De laud. Manae
ex partu Salvatoris; St. Peter Chrysolo·
gus, Serm. 142.
“Cf. St. Athanasius, Quacst. 19; St.
Bernard, Hom. a, super Missus est.
Sec also Contcnson, op. cit., X, d. 6,

334

NOTES

■·» Second antiphon for Lands of the
Nativity of our Lord.
■“ Cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Or.
funebris in laud, sororis suae Gorgoniae;
St. Gregory of Tours, De glor. Confes­
sorum, c. 49.
'“ Cf. Pepe Benedict XIV, De festis
B.M.V., c. 8.
“Cf. Renaudin, Assumpt. B.M.
Virg. Matris Dei, c. 10.
** Munificentissimus Deus, Novem­
ber 1, 1950.
“* Cf. Janssens, De glorif. corpor. B.
Mariae Virginis, E.T.L., fasc. 3, 193»,
“· Mansi, Cone. collectio, XXV.
" Cf. ibid., XXIV.
“* Cf. De Maria Virgine, V, c. 5.
“Cf. Codex Juris Canonici, canon
3“Cf. De Guibert, De Christi Ec­
clesia, th. 39.
Cf. Billot, De Novissimis, p. 53.
'“Ep. ad soldanum Iconii; Mansi,
Cone. Collectio. XXI, c. 898.
‘“Expos, salut, angelicae.
M Cf. Haeres., 42, c. 6.
'“ De glor. martyr. I, c. 4.
”· Encom. in dormit. Deiparae.
m Or. 1 and 2, In dormit St.
Deiparae.
In dormit. B. Mariae.
“Hom. 1, In dormit. B.V. Mariae.
Laud, in dormit. Deiparae.
‘“ Cf. St. Peter Damian, Serm. 40,
De Assumpt.
‘“Or. 4c, Ad S. Virg. Mar. in As­
sumpt. eius.
‘“Ep. 174; See also Serm. 1, In
Assumpt. Mariae; Hugh of St. Victor,
De Assumpt. ct decern praecon. Mar.
semper Virg.
Hom. 7, De B. Virg. obitu, As­
sumpt. in coelum.
’“Cf. Heortologie, 168.
‘“Pope Benedict XIV, De festis
B.M. Virg., c. 8.
'·’ Trombelli, op. cit.. d. 46, q. 1, c. 1.
“•Quoniam Apostolicae.
Labbe: Collect. Concil.

335

“Campana: Maria nel culto cattolico, sec. 2, c. 1, a. ia.
Cf. Labbe, Cone. Collect. (Paris:
>7’5); Wilkins, Cone. Mugnal Brittaniae (London: 1737).
““Cf. Decreta pro Ord. S. Benedicti,
sect. 7-8.
'“Cf. Gordillo, La Asunciôn de
Marla.
'“ Cf. Gordillo, op. cit.
“ Cf. St. Antoninus, Summe theol.,
p. IV, t. 15, c. 43; St. Thomas of Vil­
lanova, Cone. 4 and 6, In Assumpt.
B.M.V.; St. Charles Borromeo, Acta
Eccles. Mediolanensis.
“ Crimea oficial del Congreso Mari­
ano Hispanoamericano de Sevilla.
“Cf. Frassen, Scotus Academicus.
De div. Verb Incam., d. 3, a. 3, sect.
3. q 5'“ Or. de Dormit. B.M.V.
“"Summa theol., Illa, q. 27, a. 1.
'"Le mystère de Marie, I, c. 14
(English tr. The Mystery of Mary
[Herder: St. Louis]).
'•'Op. cit., p. IV, tit. 15, c.45.
Cf. Suirez, In lllam, d. 21, sect. 2;
cf. also St. Thomas of Villanova, Cone.
5, In Assumpt. BAL Virg.
‘“Serm. 40, De Assumpt. B.VAL
'" In Speculo, c. 5.
'“Serm. 1, In Assumpt., cf. also St.
Thomas of Villanova, Cone. 2, De
Assumpt. B.VAt.
In Signum magnum.
Cf. Su.-irez, In lllam. dist. 21, sec.
3, who maintains that Mary’s vision in
glory extends to all things except those
which pertain peculiarly to Christ and
the interior thoughts of His soul.
'“Cf. Contenson, op. cit., X, d. 6,

'"Op. cit., pal. 35, cert. 4.
m Summa theol., Suppl., q. 96, a. 1.
Loc. cit., a.n.
'“De laud. glor. Virg. Mariae, IV.
'" Cf. De laud. Deiparae.
"•Tr. 4. Super Magnificat; cf. also

NOTES

St. Peter Damian. Serm. 40, In Assumpt. B.MV.; St. Bernardine of Siena,
Scrm. 3, De g/or. nom. Mariae.
'"Ant. 3 and 5, Vespers for the
Feast of the Assumption.

336

'"Mariale, q. 151.
,nOp. cit., IV, tit. 15.
'"Serm. 61.
*”Cf. De laud. glor. Virg. Mariae,

Index

Adam, sin of. and divine maternity, 31·
33; and Incarnation, 31-33
Affections of will in Mary, 241-43
Age, of Mary and Joseph at marriage,
27-28; of Mary at death, 262
Albert the Great, St., on the Immacu­
late Conception, 117-18
Ancestry of Mary, 3-7
Angel of the Annunciation, 44-46
Anne, St., devotion to, 9; mother of
Mary, 7-9; sterility of, 9-10
Annunciation, 40-47; fittingness of, 4145; time of, 26
Apostolate, compared with divine ma­
ternity, 82
Appetite, sensitive, in Mary, 239-41
Aquinas, St. Thomas, on the Immacu­
late Conception, 118-23
Assumption, 301-13; dogmatic defini­
tion of, 303-5; in the liturgy, 308·
10
Augustine, St., on original sin, 109-11
Augustinians, on the Immaculate Con­
ception, 136
Aureoles, Mary’s, 317-18

Carmelites, on the Immaculate Con
ception, 136
Carthusians, on the Immaculate Con­
ception, 136
Charisms, 210-16
discernment of spirits, 215-16
faith, 211-12
gift of tongues, 216

miracles, 213-14
prophecy, 214-15
wisdom and knowledge, 21213
Charity, in Mary, 185-88; Mary's in­
tensity of, 188; perfection of, 186
Chastity, Mary’s, 195
Childbirth, Mary's virginity during,
282-86
Children, Mary’s, 289-93
Christ
birth of, 62-64; 282-86
brothers and sisters of, 289-93
conception of, 59-62; 273-82
genealogy of, 292
human nature of, 59-62
obedience to Mary. 75
predestination as Redeemer, 31-33
Baptism of Mary, 172-73
Son of Mary, 63-64
Beauty, elements of, 268; division of, Clemency, Mary’s, 196-97
268; in Mary, 268-72
Communion, Mary’s reception of, 173·
Belethi, John, on the Immaculate Con­ „ 74 Conception
ception, 131
active principle of Christ’s, 56-58
Bernard, St., and feast of the Immacu­
Immaculate; see Immaculate Con­
late Conception, 131-33
Betrothal, among Jews, 19-20; of Mary
ception
manner of Christ’s, 59-62
and Joseph, 19-20
of Christ, 59-62; 273 82
Birth of Christ, 62-64, 282-86; of
of Mary, 9-12
Mary, 9-13
Body, beauty of Mary’s, 268-72; Concupiscence, 147-48; in Mary, 147·
Mary's glorified, 318-19; of Christ,
5°
Confession, Mary’s use of, 174
58-59; perfection of Marys, 230
Bonaventure, St., on Mary’s sanctifica­ Confirmation, Mary's. 173
Confirmation in grace. iMary’s, 159·
tion, 115-17
, ,
61
Borromeo, St. Charles, on the Immacu­
Continence, Mary’s, 196
late Conception, 135
Corruption, Mary’s bodily. 264-67
Brethren of Christ, 289-93
Counsel, gift of, in Mary, 106-7
Burial, Mary’s, 262-64

337

NDEX

David. family of, 4-5
Death
cause of Mary’s. 256-59
Mary’s, 251-67
Mary's age at, 262
place of Mary's, 259-62
prodigies at Mary’s, 262-64
sin as cause of, 2^8
Debt, of original sin, 145; in Mary.
>45-47
., .
De condigno; see Merit
De congruo; see Merit
Defects. Mary’s natural bodily, 236-39
de Sales. St. Francis, on the Immacu­
late Conception, 13536
Discernment of spirits, Mary’s, 215-16
Dominicans, on the Immaculate Con­
ception, 136-37
Dominion, Mary’s, of lower powers,
243-46
Dormition, Mary s, 302, 308

Elizabeth, Mary’s kinship to, 5-7
Emotions; see Passions
Ephesus, as place of Mary’s death, 259·
62
Error, Mary's exemption from, 227-29
Eucharist, Mary's reception of the,
>73'74
Eve, relation of Mary to, 103-5

Faith
charism of. zi 1-12
Mary’s, 180-84
Mary’s, during Passion, 183-84
Mary’s growth in, 182
objective, 180-81
subjective, 181-82
Father, Mary’s relation to, 71-72
Fear of the Lord, gift of, in Mary,
208-9
Fomes, in Mary, 147-52
Fortitude, gift of, 207; virtue of, 19394
Franciscans, on the Immaculate Con­
ception, 117; 147-50

Gabriel, 45
Genealogy, of Christ, 292; of Joseph,
292; of Mary, 292
Ghost, Holy, gifts of, 200-209
Gifts, of Holy Ghost, 200-209
counsel, 206-7
distinction from virtues, 201

Gifts, of Holy Ghost (continued)
fear of the Lord, 208-9
fortitude, 207
knowledge, 205-6
piety, 207-8
understanding, 202-4
wisdom, 204-5
Glory, Mary's, 313-20; Mary’s acci­
dental, 31519; Mary's position in
glory, 319-20
Grace
actual, 209-10
at Mary’s conception, 162-64
ex opere operantis, 168-71
ex opere operato, 171-70
gratis data, 162; 210-16
gratum faciens, 162 ff.
habitual, 162
Mary’s actual, 210
Mary's final, 176-78
Mary's fullness of. 162 ff.
Mary's habitual, 162-78
Mary’s increase of, 167-76
Mary's initial, 164 67
of angels and blessed, 164-67; 174
78
of Mary at the Incarnation, 168
sanctifying, and divine maternity,
77’79
Gratitude, virtue of, 193
Greek Fathers, on the Immaculate
Conception, 106-7
Hales, Alexander of, on Mary’s sancti­
fication, 114
Healing, charism of, 213-14
Holy Ghost, active principle in Incar­
nation, 56-58; Mary's relation to, 76
Honesty, virtue of, 195
Hope, virtue of, 184-85
Humility, virtue of, 197-98
Hypostatic union, in relation to Mary,
66-68
Ignorance, Mary’s freedom from, 22729
Illness, Mary’s freedom from, 231-32
Immaculate Conception, 90-145
development of doctrine on, 103-29
Greek Fathers on. 106-7
in the Eastern Church, 129-30
in the liturgy, 129-35
Scholastic controversy on, 113-27
Scriptural proof of, 96-103

B8

NDEX

Immaculate Conception (continued)
theological argument for, 141-45
Western Fathers on, 109-10
Immortality, bodily, 247; of Mary’s
body, 249-51
Impassibility; see Suffering, Mary’s
freedom from
Impeccability, Mary’s, 158-60
Imperfection, moral, in Mary, 157-58
Incarnation, moment of, 55; purpose
of, 31 ; see also Conception of Christ
Incorruptibility, Mary's bodily, 264-67
Infirmity, Mary’s freedom from bodily,
Interpretation of tongues, 216

Jerusalem, as place of Mary’s death,
259-62
Jesuits, on the Immaculate Conception,
, *38
Jesus
ancestry of, 4-5
conception of, 59-62
son of David, 4-5
Joachim, St., father of Mary, 7-9
Joseph, St.,
age at marriage, 27-28
ancestry of, 4-5
betrothal to Mary, 19-20
flowering staff of, 17-19
genealogy of, 292
marriage of, 20-28
Justice, virtue of, 189-90
Knowledge
acquired, 225-26
angelic, 222
beatific, 219-21
gift of, 205-6
infused, 221-25
infused per accidens, 222-24
infused per se, 222-23
Mary’s, 217-19
Law, sacraments of New, 172-76; sacra­
ments of Old, 171-72
Levi, tribe of, 5-7
Liguori, St. Alphonsus, on the Im­
maculate Conception, 136
Liturgy, and the Assumption, 308-10;
and the Immaculate Conception,
129’35 Peter, on· ■onginal
1 · sin, 113
Lombard,
Lord, fear of the; see Fear, Gifts

339

Magnanimity, virtue of, 193
Magnificence, virtue of, 193
Marriage, of Mary and Joseph, 20-28;
consummation of, 24-25; time of,
25-27; validity of, 20-25
Mary
actual grace in, 209-10
age at death, 262
age at marriage, 27-28
ancestry of, 3-7
and acquired knowledge, 225-26
and acquired virtues, 199-200
and affections of will, 241-43
and beatific knowledge, 219-21
and cause of death, 256-59
and communion of saints, 320
and control of lower powers. 243-46
and debt of bodily suffering, 237-39
and debt of original sin, 145-47
and degree of glory, 319-20
and error, 227-29
and gift of immortality, 249-51
and gifts of Holy Ghost, 200-209;
see Gifts
and hypostatic union, 66-68
and ignorance, 227-29
and intensity of charity, 188
and natural bodily defects, 236-39
and priesthood, 175
and remedium naturae, 171-72
and sacraments, 172-76; see Sacra­
ments
and sacraments of the Old Law.
171-72
and the Trinity, 69-76
annunciation to, 4-47
assumption of, 301-13
as true Mother of God, 47-55
authority over Christ, 73-76
beauty of, 268-72
betrothal of, 19-20
birth of, 9-13
bodily corruption of, 264-67
bodily infirmity of, 231-32
bodily perfection of, 230-67
burial of, 262-64
charisms in, 210-16; see Charistns
childhood of, 13-19
compared with Eve, 103-5
conception of, 9-12
death of, 251-67
extraordinary increase in grace, 176
final grace of, 176-78
freedom from actual sin, 152-57

INDEX

Mar)· (continued)
freedom from concupiscence, 1475°
freedom from moral imperfection,
>57-58
freedom from sin, 89161
fullness of grace, 162 fl.
genealogy of, 292
grace at conception of, 162 64
grace of, at Incarnation, 168-69
grace received ex opere operantis,
168-71
grace received ex opere operato,
171-76
growth of faith in, 182
immaculate conception of, 90-145
impeccability of, 159-61
increase of grace in, 167-76
infused knowledge in, 221-25
initial grace of, 164-67
in state of glory, 313-20
kinship of Elizabeth to, 5-7
knowledge in. 217-29
marriage of, 20-28
merit of, 168-71
merit and divine maternity of, 33·

37

Mary (continued)
286-93; perpetual, 293-95; vow
of, 295-301
virtues of, 178-80; see also Virtues
Maternity, divine, 63 64
and beatific vision, 79-80
and Mary's formal sanctification, 8ς86
and sanctifying grace, ηη·ηο
and the hypostatic union, 66-68
and the priesthood, 80-82
as basis for impeccability, 159-60
as reason for Mary’s existence, 3940
as source of Mary's graces and privi­
leges, 82-88
compared with apostolatc, 82
compared with Mary's graces, 82-88
compared with Mary's virginity,
300-301
development of doctrine on, 50-51
dignity of, 65-76
heresies concerning, 47-49
Mary’s, 29-40
Mary’s merit and, 33-38
Mary’s predestination to, 29-40
when effected in Mary, 55
Matrimony, sacrament of, 175
Meekness, virtue of, 196
Mercy, virtue of, 196-97
Merit, de condigno, 36; de congruo,
36; Mary's, 168-71
Miracles, charism or, 213-14
Modesty, virtue of, 195-96
Mortality, Mary's, 246-51
Mother of Christ, 54
Mother of God, 47-55; see also Ma­
ternity, divine
Movements, primo primi, 243-46

merit and glory of, 37-39
mortality of, 246-51
Mother of God; see Maternity, di­
vine
name of, 1-3
natural moral virtues in, 199-200
parents of, 7-9
passibility of, 235-36
passions in, 239-41
place of death, 259-62
predestination to divine maternity,
29-33; ‘o gM. 37’39
presentation of, 14-19
private revelations to, 224-25
Name, of Mary, 1-3
prodigies at death of, 262-64
Needs, Mary’s bodily, 236-37
purity and holiness of, 105-6
relation to subsistent God, 68-69; Obedience, of Christ to Mary, 75; vir­
tue of, 192-93
to Trinity, 69-76
Orders, holy, 175
special privileges of, 86-88
sorrow of, 241-43
Pain, Mary's, 241-43
spiritual pain of, 241-43
Passibility, Mary's, 235-46
swoons of, 232-35
Passion, Mary's faith during, 183-84;
transitory beatific vision of, 220-21
use of reason in, 217-19
Mary's suffering during, 232-35
virginity of, 272-301; before Annun­ Passions, in Mary, 239-46
ciation, 273-82; during child­ Patience, virtue of, 195
birth, 282-86; after childbirth, Pelagian heresy, 109

340

INDEX

Penance, sacrament of, 174; virtue of.

Perfection, Mary's bodily, 230-67
Perseverance, virtue of, 194
Piety, gift of, 207-8
Predestination, 29; to divine maternity,
29-40
Presentation, of Mary, 14-19
Priesthood, 175; and divine maternity,
80-82
Prodigies, in Mary’s childhood, 17-19;
in St. Joseph, 17-19
Prophecy, charism of, 214· 15
Prudence, virtue of, 189
Purity, virtue of, 195
Reason, Mary’s use of, 217-19
Religion, virtue of, 190
Remedium naturae, 171-72
Resemblance, Christ's bodily, to Mary,

Staff, St. Joseph's flowering, 17-19
Suirez, on purpose of Incarnation, 32
Suffering, debt of bodily, 237-39
Swoons, Mary's freedom from, 232-35
Temperance, virtue of, 104-95
Temple, presentation of Mary in, 14*9
Theotokos, 51. 54
Thomas Aquinas, St., see Aquinas. St.
Thomas
Thomists, on purpose of Incarnation.
3»
Tongues, gift of, 216
Trinity, Mary’s relation to, 69-76
Unction, extreme, 174-75
Understanding, gift of, 202-4

Villanova, St. Thomas of, on the Im­
maculate Conception, 135
Virginity, 272-301
Mary’s, after childbirth, 286-93
Mary's, before childbirth, 273 82
Sacraments
baptism, 172-73
Mary's, during childbirth, 282-86
confirmation, 173
Mary's, of soul, 293-95
Mary's vow of, 295-301
extreme unction, 174-75
Holy Eucharist, 173-74
primacy of Mary's vow of, 298-300
holy orders, 175
time of Mary’s vow of, 297-98
with respect to divine maternity,
Mary's reception of, 171-76
matrimony, 175
300-301
penance, 174
Virtues, 178-80
Sacraments, of Old Law, 171-72
acquired, 178-79
Sanctification, Mary’s, at conception,
cardinal, 179
90-14;; compared to divine mater­
infused, 178-80
nity, 85-86
Mary's acquired, 199-200
Scotists, on purpose of the Incarna­
moral, 179-80
tion, 32
natural, 178-79
Scotus, Duns, on the Immaculate Con­
secondary, 179
ception, 123, 125-27
supernatural, 178-80
Shamefacedness, virtue of, 195
theological, 179-80
Sickness, Mary’s freedom from, 231- Vision, Mary's beatific, 220-21; and
divine maternity, 79-80
Vow, Mary's, of virginity, 295-301;
primacy of, 298-300; time of, 297actual, Mary’s freedom from, 152-57
98; with respect to divine maternity,
Mary's freedom from all, 89-161
original, as motive of the Incarna­
300-301
tion, 31; debt of, 145; Mary’s
Western Fathers, on the Immaculate
freedom from. 145-47
Conception,
109-10
Son, Mary's relation to, 72-76
Wills, harmony of, in Mary, 245-46
Sorrow, Mary’s, 241-42
Wisdom, charism of, 212-13; g*ft of,
Soul, Mary's beauty of. 268-72
204-5
Spirit, Holy; see Holy Ghost
Works, Mary's meritorious, 168-71
Spirits, discernment of, 21516
Revelation, private, in Mary, 224-2;

34*