Contributors

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

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

MICHAEL J. GRUENTHANER, S.J.

WALTER J. BURGHARDT, S.J.
ALFRED C. RUSH, C.SS.R., S.T.D.

VERY REV. CUTHBERT GUMBINGER,
O.F.M.CAP., S.T.D.

SIMEON DALY, O.S.B.
GEORGE W. SHEA, S.T.D.

AIDAN CARR, O.F.M.CONV., S.T.D.

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

SALVATORE BONANO, C.M.F.
RICHARD KUGELMAN, C.P., S.T.L., S.S.L.

Canobo
VOLUME 1

EDITED

BY

JUNIPER B. CAROL, O.F.M.

THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY
MILWAUKEE

NIHIL OBSTAT:

John M. A. Fearns, S.T.D.
Censor librorum
imprimatur:

►J* Francis Cardinal Spellman
Archbishop of New York
July 2i, 1954

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a
book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implica­
tion is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil
obstat and imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or
statements expressed.

Catholic University of America classification number:
(Lynn Classification), BQT1003
(Dewey Classification), 232.931
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-6959

Copyright, 1955, The Bruce Publishing Company
Made in the United States of America

To His Excellency

The Most Reverend John J. Wright, D.D.

Bishop of Worcester
Episcopal Chairman of

The Mariological Society of America
Outstanding Promoter of Marian Studies

This Mariology Set Is Dedicated
With Sentiments of Profound Gratitude

Prefatory Note
HE Marian Year proclaimed by Pope Pius XII has seen wide­
spread and intense increase of devotion to the Blessed Mother of
Christ. Programs at home and pilgrimages abroad have focused the
attention of millions on the resplendent figure of her who is our life,
our sweetness, and our hope in a sense which every Catholic Christian
understands.
The deepening and development of our understanding of the
dogmas respecting the Blessed Mother must necessarily be a principal
accomplishment of the Marian Year if its fruits are to endure and
its purpose is to be achieved. Catholic devotion does not spring from
poetry, but from that love which is born of knowledge. Nil amatum
nisi prius cognitum applies also to the objects of our piety and religious
cult. Neither is devotion nourished, substantially at least, by senti­
ment or emotion; it is made strong by theological science and by the
strict truth which the scholar unfolds for the admiration and the
profit of even the saints, those actual and those to be.
That is why we may properly hail the publication of the present
collection as a major event of the Marian Year, a praiseworthy and
enduring contribution to the observance of tire hundredth anniver­
sary of the first of the solemn pronouncements of the Church con­
cerning Mary in these modem times which seem destined to be
dedicated in a special way to her.
The credit for this work, its conception and execution, belongs
in more than usual degree with the editor, Father Juniper Carol.
Father Juniper brings unique qualifications of spirit and skill to a
work of editing so ambitious. By ancestry he is heir to the blood of
Spain and therefore lightens bis labor with that ardent love for
the Queen of Heaven which has warmed the songs of Spain and
fired the speculations of her great theologians. By spiritual genealogy
he is a son of the Franciscan family, a kinsman of those friars who,
in every age and land, have preached love of Mary together with
love for her Son. Out of the blend of these temperamental and spirit­

T

vii

viii

PREFATORY NOTE

ual influences there has come the predilection for reflection on and
study of the mysteries surrounding Mary which has dominated his
priestly work.
It is, however, on the scholarly and scientific side that Father
Juniper pre-eminently qualifies for the work of research and orderly
presentation reflected in this ponderous work. First president of the
Mariological Society of America, he has long and energetically sought
to rear solid dogmatic bastions for the growing devotion to Mary.
A specialist in the extensive bibliography and current development
of Mariology, he makes available to other scholars by lecture and by
writing the results of his own painstaking and patient studies as he
now furnishes them with the collection of the work of many. His
theological training featured Mariological branches and his citation
in 1952 for the Award of the Mariological Society was universally
approved and applauded.
It is, then, with grateful admiration for the editor and for all
who have had a part in the work he has compiled and organized that
I accept the honor of presenting this Mariological anthology. May
it give scholars outside the household of the faith some idea of the
learning behind our love for Mary and add to Our Lady’s convinced
clients new reasons for the faith that is in us!
►p John Wright

Episcopal Chairman
The Mariological Society of America

By Way of Introduction
HE present Mariology traces its origin to a series of informal
conversations held between the Editor and several Marian
scholars in the Eternal City as early as the year 1938. One of the
topics of these discussions was briefly this: the definite need of a
comprehensive symposium, in the vernacular, covering the entire
theological tract relative to Our Blessed Lady. As a result of these
preliminary deliberations, the Editor undertook to elaborate a suitable
program to meet this deficiency as far as the English-speaking public
was concerned. While the global conflagration which followed in
1939 virtually shattered any hopes of immediate action in this
respect, nevertheless the original idea continued its process of
development during the war years until it reached the desired
maturity. The establishment of the Mariological Society of America
in 1949 may be credited with having contributed considerably
toward carrying the original plans into effect. By stimulating interest
in Mariology and, at the same time, co-ordinating the efforts and
talents of its members, this national organization soon furnished the
most important element in an undertaking such as this, namely,
willing and able contributors. Finally, the approaching one hun­
dredth anniversary of the dogmatic definition of Our Lady’s
Immaculate Conception seemed to the Editor a most propitious
opportunity to launch the publication of at least the first volume
of the contemplated trilogy and thus pay a humble tribute to
Our Blessed Lady as patroness of these LInited States.
That there is at present a growing demand for a work of this
nature, has been evidenced in recent years by the enthusiastic
reception accorded in other lands to similar projects, such as the
Katholische Marienkunde, edited by Paul Strâter, S.J.;1 Maria.
I'.tudes sur la Sainte Vierge, edited by H. du Manoir, S.J.;2 and La

T

1 Λ set in three volumes published in 1947—1951 by F. Schôningh, Paderborn,
Germany.
1 wo volumes published by Beauchesne, Paris, in 1949 and 1952, respectively.
Λ third volume is now in preparation.

X

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

Madonna seconda la fede e la teologia, written by G. M. Roscbini,
O.S.M.3 English-speaking Catholics should be —actually are —just
as eager to broaden their knowledge concerning the Mother of God
as their brethren in continental Europe. Hence we feel that they,
too, will welcome the publication of a work containing up-to-date,
solid, and authoritative information on the entire field of Marian
theology and cult.
The theological tract known as "Mariology” is vast and complex
indeed, as the reader will gather from a mere perusal of this sym­
posium. The rich Marian patrimony bequeathed to us as part of
the faith of our fathers, and integrated by not a few biblical texts
and countless patristic, papal, and liturgical documents, constitutes
a varied and almost inexhaustible fund of knowledge. The patient
culling of the Mariological data scattered throughout these “sources”
is the task undertaken in the first volume of the present set. It is
here that both the research-loving scholar and the devout client of
Mary will discover abundant, and perhaps even unsuspected, mate­
rial for study and meditation. Once this necessary foundation has
been laid, the systematic treatment of Our Lady’s singular pre­
rogatives will be attempted in a forthcoming volume. And since
an adequate appraisal of Mary’s position in the scheme of salvation
has ever prompted her children to express outwardly their inner
sentiments of gratitude and dependence, our project would be
incomplete if it failed to gather in a third volume the multiple
manifestations of Marian cult and devotion as found in the various
spheres of Catholic life. Against the rich background furnished by
this vast panorama, the alluring figure of Our Heavenly Mother
will stand in all its splendor and beauty, giving us an idea, how­
ever faint, of the exalted mission assigned to her by the Almighty.
So much concerning the appropriateness of this publication and
its contents in general. As to the contributors selected for the various
papers, the Editor feels that they need no special introduction.
Most of them are seasoned writers in the various branches of the
sacred sciences and all have shown sufficient familiarity with con­
temporary Mariological problems and with the solutions to meet
these problems. The criteria adhered to in the preparation of their
papers have been determined with a view to reaching the widest
3 Three volumes so far, published this year (1953) by the Libreria Editrice F.
Ferrari, Rome, Italy. Λ fourth volume has been announced for the near future. This
is by far the best, most complete, and most up-to-date set of systematic Mariology
written by a single author.

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

xi

possible circle of readers. For this reason, while the contributions
are written according to accepted standards of scientific methodology,
their style of presentation is never abstruse or excessively technical.
The symposium, then, is offered, first of all, to the members of the
Catholic clergy, who will find in it not only a refreshing and
stimulating review of their previous theological studies, but likewise
a clear and accurate exposé of more recent currents of thought
in the field of Mariology. Second, to the lay members of religious
orders and congregations, to our seminarians, and to the large
group among our Catholic laity, always eager to broaden and deepen
their knowledge of Marian doctrines. Finally, to non-Catholic groups
earnestly seeking the justification for our teaching relative to Our
Blessed Lady. It should prove rather revealing to them, especially
when brought into comparison with the offensive caricatures of
Marian doctrines drawn at times by some of their less enlightened
coreligionists. It should serve as a timely antidote against the
recriminations of such pseudo critics as Dr. Karl Barth who con­
tends that Catholic Mariology is, in fact, “a pathological conception
of theological thought,” a cancerous growth which ought to be
immediately excised.4 May we note, with a feeling of relief, that
not all our separated brethren share the distorted views of this
misguided theologian. Indeed, it is consoling to observe in this con­
nection that among contemporary Protestant scholars there are not
a few engaged in an honest and sincere endeavor to re-evaluate their
former position and reconstruct a “non-Roman” Mariology on a
more orthodox basis. Witness, for example, the commendable work
of Dr. Hans Asmussen in Germany,5 the Dialogue sur la Vierge,
compiled by Paul Couturier in France,® and the symposium The
Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall in England.7 While the
net result gathered from these essays of rapprochement is not as yet
totally satisfactory, nevertheless, the very effort which inspired them
represents a significant step in the right direction and hence deserving
of our praise. May the pages that follow be of some help to these
and many other sincere non-Catholics in their search for the fullness
4 K. Barth, Die kirkliche Dogmatik, I, 2, Zollikon, 1939, pp. 151—160. Reference
taken from Hugo Rahner, S.J., Die Marienkunde in der lateinischen Patristik, in
Katholische Marienkunde fed. P. Strâter, S.J.), Vol. 1, Paderborn, 1947, p. 138.
8 Maria, die Mutter Gottes, published by Evangelisches Verlagswerk, Stuttgart,
Germany, 1950.
8 Published by E. Vitte, Paris, 1951.
’ Published by Dacre Press, Westminster, England, 1949.

xii

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

of God’s revelation concerning His Immaculate Mother.
On the appearance of this first volume the Editor takes occasion
to express his heartfelt gratitude to all who have in any way
assisted him in this difficult enterprise. He is particularly thankful
to His Excellency, the Most Reverend John J. Wright, Bishop of
Worcester, for having enhanced the prestige of this publication by
writing its preface; to the various contributors for their erudite and
highly informative dissertations; and to the publishers for their
valuable co-operation and many courtesies.
Rev. Dr. J. B. Carol, O.F.M.
Editor

New York
December 8, 1953

Contents
Prefatory Note

............................................. vii

By Way of Introduction.

.

.

ix

MARY IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM
by Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm., S.T.D................................

i

I
II
Ill
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII

Mother of God
Ever Virgin ....
Full of Grace ....
Immaculate ....
Assumed Into Heaven .
Mediatrix With the Mediator
Spiritual Mother .
Queen.....................................
A Closing Word .

.

.

.

................................................ 5
.............................................. IO
.............................................. 14
.............................................. 17
..............................................24
.............................................. 32
............................................. 40
............................................. 45
.............................................. 5°

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
by Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., S.T.D., S.S.L.

.

.

.

51

Introduction: “The Mother of Jesus Was There” .
.
.
51
I Mary in Prophecy
..............................................56
II Mary in Type ....
............................................. 72
Conclusion
....
............................................. 78

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Michael ]. Gruenthaner, S.J.

Parentage.....................................
Education.....................................
Betrothal.....................................
Annunciation .....
Visitation.....................................
Joseph’s Ordeal
....
Bethlehem.....................................
Presentation and Purification .
xiii

............................................. 80
............................................. 80
............................................. 82
..............................................83
..............................................85
............................................. 88
............................................. 9°
............................................. 91
............................................. 94

xiv

CONTENTS

95
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
105
106
107

The Magi .
.
.
.
The Flight Into Egypt .
Return to Nazareth
The Hidden Life .
The Child Jesus in the Temple
Cana....................................
The Public Life
Beneath the Cross .
The Risen Christ .
The Woman of the Apocalypse
Summary
.
.
.
.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT
by Walter ]. Burghardt, S.J. .....

i°9

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Alfred C. Rush, C.SS.R., S.T.D...................

156

Exceptional Birth and Early Years of Mary
.
.
·
·
The Virginity of Mary...............................................................
Mary’s Divine Maternity...................................................... ■
The Death of Mary...................................................... ·
·
The Assumption of Mary............................................. ·
The Queenship of Mary.............................................·
The Intercession of Mary............................................. ·
Conclusion...............................................................

157
158
162
166
170
175
179
182

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES
by Very Rev. Cuthbert Gumbinger, O.F.M.Cap·, S.T.D

185

Introduction...............................................................
I Mary in the Byzantine Liturgy
.
II Mary in the Alexandrian and Ethiopian Liturgies
III Mary in the Antiochene Liturgy .
IV Mary in the Armenian Liturgy
.
V Mary in the Chaldean Liturgy
.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY
by Simeon Daly, O.S.B..
Introduction....................................
Liturgy in Relation to Faith
Maternity....................................
Sanctity.............................................

·

185
188
210
224
233
240

245
245
246
248
254

CONTENTS

xv

Virginity..........................................................................................260
Assumption..........................................................................................261
Queenship......................................................................................... 265
Mediation......................................................................................... 267
In General......................................................................................... 271
Feast of the Purification....................................................................... 272
Seven Dolors..........................................................................................273
Visitation..........................................................................................274
Holy Name.......................................................................................... 274
Presentation......................................................................................... 275
Little Office..........................................................................................276
Marian Antiphons................................................................................ 277
OUTLINE HISTORY OF MARIOLOGY IN THE
MIDDLE AGES AND MODERN TIMES
by George W. Shea, S.T.D.......

281

I Medieval Mariology (Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries)
.
II Modern Mariology (Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries) .
III Contemporary Mariology (1854-1954) .
.
.
.

285
309
315

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
by Aidan Carr, O.F.M.Conv., S.T.D., and
Germain Williams, O.F.M.Conv., S.T.D. .

.

.

328

1. Declaration of the Privilege.....................................................328
2. Certitude of the Privilege.............................................................. 332
Adversaries of the Doctrine.............................................................. 333
Tenor of the Bull “Ineffabilis Deus”........................................... 334
Argument From Scripture.............................................................. 335
Argument From Tradition.............................................................. 344
The Theological Argument.............................................................. 370
The Position of the Blessed Virgin Relative to the Law of
Original Sin .........
379
The Immunity of Mary From Concupiscence
.
.
.
386
The Relation of Mary to the State of Original Justice .
.
391

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN
by Salvatore Bonano, C.M.F.
.....

395

Definition of Terms.......................................................... 395
Errors....................................................................................... 398
Magisterium ..........

399

xvi

CONTENTS

Scripture Proofs...............................................................................400
Tradition........................................................................................405
Theological Proof............................................................................... 408
Freedom From Imperfection.............................................................409
Appendix........................................................................................ 411
THE HOLY NAME OF MARY
by Richard Kugelman, C.P., S.T.L., S.S.L.

.

.

.411

The Form of the Name Mary....................................................413
The Etymology of the Name Mary...........................................414
The First Four Centuries A.D............................................................ 415
St. Jerome to the Sixteenth Century A.D...........................................416
The Modern Period. Sixteenth and Subsequent Centuries
.
418

INDEX OF AUTHORS......................................................................4*5

MARIOLOGY

Mary in the Documents of
the Magisterium
By EAMON R. CARROLL, O.Carm., S.T.D.

λ LL these with one mind continued steadfastly in prayer with the
/ X women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren”
(Acts i : 14). Our Lady’s last appearance in the historical books of the
New Testament shows her at the very heart of the apostolic band.
"She it was,” Pope Pius XII writes, “who through her powerful
prayers obtained the grace that the Spirit of Our Divine Redeemer,
already given to the Church on the Cross, should be bestowed through
miraculous gifts on the newly founded Hierarchy on Pentecost.”1
Before Our Lord ascended into heaven He had promised, “The Advo­
cate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will
teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said
to you” (Jn. 14:26).
The prayerful preparation in the Cenacle for the coming of the
Advocate was not the first time Our Lady had awaited His coming.
I'he Holy Spirit had come upon her in the mystery of the Incarnation
when the Son of God was made man in her virginal womb. She well
knew the Spirit of truth; under His influence the Blessed Virgin’s
brilliant mind manifested itself in the Magnificat. The many mys­
teries she pondered in her heart were truths that she would confide to
the Church’s care.
The presence of Mary in the Gospels is a sign of Christ’s presence
- at the Crib, in Cana, on Calvary. Her presence before Pentecost
was a sign that the Holy Spirit was at hand. Our Lady’s presence
through the history of the Church is still the guarantee that her
divine Son is there. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the
history of Catholic doctrine. The body of Catholic truth is a unified
1 Mystici Corporis, in A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247—248; English translation
of the N.C.W.C., No. 107.

2

MARIOLOGY

whole. If the divine personality of Christ is attacked, then His Mother
is no longer the Mother of God. If the full humanity of tire GodMan is denied, the true and perfect motherhood of Mary is its
defense. When Our Lady’s God-given privileges are rejected and
ridiculed, how sadly history shows that her Son soon fares no better.
A. The Magisterium
Mary in the Documents of the Magisterium is a gathering of the
principal teachings of the Church about the Blessed Mother of God.2
Christ was not only Priest and King, He was also the divine Teacher.
He conferred all three powers on His Church. The term magisterium
means the right and office of teaching truths revealed by God with
that supreme authority to which all must assent. The word magis­
terium is used in two ways: first, for the power of teaching; second,
for the persons themselves who possess the teaching authority.
In the present article, only what the Papal magisterium has taught
about Mary will be examined; this will include the decisions of ecu­
menical councils, i.e., general assemblies to which all the bishops of
the world are invited, with the Pope calling or at least approving the
assembly.
Another necessary distinction is between solemn magisterium and
ordinary magisterium. Solemn magisterium refers to definitions given
by General Councils in union with the Pope, or also by the Pope
alone when he speaks ex cathedra. The Holy Father speaks ex cathe­
dra (Latin for “from the chair,” i.e., from St. Peter’s Chair, as his
2 The principal sources used have been the following: H. Denzinger et C.
Bannwart, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus
fidei et morum, ed. 27 augmentata a J. B. Umberg (Barcelona, 1951); Paul Palmer,
S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (Westminster, Md., 1952), with
grateful acknowledgment for many useful ideas and translations; G. Roschini,
O.S.M., Mariologia, 2a ed. (Romae, 1947-1948), particularly Vol. 1, pp. 33-50
on the Marian Doctrine of the Roman Pontiffs; idem, La Madonna nel pensiero
e nell'insegnamento di Pio XI, in Marianum, Vol. 1, 1939, pp. 121-172; D.
Bertetto, S.D.B., Maria nel domma cattolico (Torino, 1950), pp. 261-323 on
the popes of the past hundred years; J. Bittremieux, Doctrina Mariana Leonis
XIII (Brugis, 1928); idem, Ex doctrina Mariana Pii XI, in Ephemerides Theo­
logicae Lovanienses, Vol. 11, 1934, pp. 95-101. Besides the Acta Apostolicae
Sedis (1909), Le Encicliche Mariane, ed. A. Tondini (Roma, r95o) (from
the time of Pius IX to the present) has been useful; it will be referred to as
Tondini. G. Filograssi, S.I., La dottrina Mariana dei Papi (da Pio IX a Pio XII),
in La Civilità Cattolica, Vol. 103, 1952, iii, pp. 347-364, is a commentary on
Tondini. The English translations have been taken from many sources, sometimes
with slight adaptations. For Pope Leo XIII, the translations are usually from
The Rosary of Mary, ed. by William R. Lawler, O.P. (Paterson, N. J., 1944),
cited simply as Lawler.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

3

successor) when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians
he proposes by his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine of faith or
morals to be believed by the universal Church.3
The ordinary magisterium includes the teaching of the Papal en­
cyclicals, of the ordinary documents of the Congregations (e.g., the
Congregation of the Holy Office in Rome), and of the body of
bishops. Humani generis, encyclical letter of August 12, 1950, thus
explains the authority of the ordinary magisterium:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters
does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the
Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of
which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth Me” (Lk. 10:16);
and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters
already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the
Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment
on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that
matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot
be any longer considered a question open to discussion among
theologians.4
If the Holy Father declares by the extraordinary exercise of his
teaching authority that a certain doctrine is a revealed truth, as
occurred, for example, in 1950 about the Assumption, the truth is
technically known diereafter as a dogma, and the Pope’s action
recalled as a dogmatic definition. In such ex cathedra definitions he
is infallible; the Holy Ghost protects him from error.
But even before any solemn definition, it may be clear from the
ordinary magisterium that a doctrine is a truth revealed by God and
forming part of the Deposit of the Faith. Thus, the Assumption was
already a matter of faith before the definition of November 1, 1950.
But the Church’s proposal of the doctrine, by dogmatic definition,
puts it beyond doubt and discussion. According to Munificentissimus
Deus:
’ D.B., 1839. On the magisterium, see M. Cordovani, O.P., in the article
Chiesa, in Encyclopedia Cattolica, Vol. 3, cols. 1455-1456 (Città del Vaticano,
1950).
4 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 568; authorized Vatican translation. On the
authority of the encyclicals, cf. J. C. Fenton, The Religious Assent due to the
l eachings of Papal Encyclicals, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol.
I23> 1950, pp. 59-67; The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, ibid., Vol.
IZT, pp. 136—150, 210-220; The Lesson of Humani Generis, ibid., Vol. 123,
1950, pp. 359-378.

4

MARIOLOGY

From the universal agreement 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 could know by its own natural powers,
as far as the heavenly glorification 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.5
The popes issue many kinds of documents: some are Apostolic
Constitutions (Munificentissimus Deus, for example), some are en­
cyclicals addressed to the universal Church, some are radio messages
to particular places or to the whole world. Still others are letters to
bishops and superiors of religious orders. Modem communications
bring the Pope’s words, even short addresses to small groups of pil­
grims, to the whole world. Particular or local pronouncements fre­
quently explain more general documents.
B. Deposit of the Faith
The phrase "Deposit of the Faith” (depositum fideF), or simply
the Deposit, means public Revelation, intended by God for all men,
complete and entire, such as it is contained in Holy Scripture and in
divine and apostolic tradition. This Deposit of the Faith was closed
with the death of the last Apostle, so that the whole content of
truths revealed by God was entrusted to the Church before St. John
died. Some of them were written in Scripture, many others were
passed on by word of mouth to subsequent generations. The Chinch,
called by St. Paul “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (i Tim.
3:15), is the custodian of the Deposit of the Faith. As custodian,
it neither adds to nor alters the truths revealed once for all in the
Deposit. “The Church,” declares Pius XI, “never adds anything to
the sum of truths which are contained at least implicitly in the
revealed deposit which it has received from God.”®
But the Church is a living dynamic thing, the Mystical Body of
Christ. And so the unchanging conservation of the Deposit does not
prevent a real progress in the understanding of the contents of the
Deposit by individuals and by the whole Church. This progress is
5 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 756; English of the N.C.W.C. translation by Fr.
Fenton, No. 12. D.B., 1792, says "sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali
magisterio.”
β A.A.S., Vol. 20, 1928, p. 14. Cf. Giacinto Ameri, O.F.M., Deposito della
Fede, in Encyclopedia Cattolica, Vol. 4, cols. 1442-1443 (Città del Vaticano,
1950); C. Vagaggini, Dogma, ibid., cols. 1799-1804, on the evolution of dogma.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

5

known as the development of doctrine. It is a gradual flowering under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whereby doctrines that were but
dimly perceived in early times are now seen as part of the harmonious
pattern of revealed truth. As Newman describes it, “What the
Church once had she never has lost. . . . She has not changed posses­
sions, but accumulated them.” In the course of time, both the
teaching and the taught Church discover, by prayer and study, a
doctrine that has been there beneath the surface all along. In New­
man’s words: “Even centuries might pass without the formal expres­
sion of a truth which had been all along the secret life of millions of
souls.” At length the Church, infallible interpreter of Revelation,
may judge a doctrine to be part of revealed truth, and by dogmatic
definition or by the ordinary magisterium so declare it.7
In the Gospels Our Lord speaks of the householder who brings
forth from his storeroom things old and new (Mt. 13:51-52). In like
manner the Church is forever producing from its treasure of revealed
wisdom truths old and new; the treasury is of inexhaustible richness,
a reflection of the substantial truth of the Divine Word.8 There is
no better example of this development than to survey the Church’s
teachings on the Virgin Mary from her divine motherhood to her
coronation as Queen of heaven.
I.

MOTHER OF GOD

A. Creeds
After the New Testament, no form of early Christian literature
is more ancient than the primitive Creeds. By these early symbols
catechumens committed to memory a brief summary of the principal
doctrines of Christianity. The teaching Church, under the guidance
7 On Cardinal Newman’s Mariology, and his Essay on the Development of
Christian Doctrine, 1845, which he began as an Anglican and finished as a
Catholic, see Francis J. Friedel, S.M., The Mariology of Cardinal Newman
(New York, 1928), especially pp. 50-87. Newman applied his principles on
development in the famous Letter to Pusey, 1865, in defense of the Immaculate
Conception. His own summary of his views on development with the com­
ments of Fr. Perrone, S.J., are given in “The Newman-Perrone Paper on
Development,” ed. Rev. T. Lynch, in Gregorianum, Vol. 16, 1935, pp. 402-447.
F. Druwé, S.J., uses Newman’s theories in La Mediation Universelle de Marie,
in Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949),
e.g., pp. 459, 477, 478, 496, 516. B. Capelie, O.S.B., finds the great Cardinal’s
ideas vindicated in the Assumption in Théologie de l’Assomption d’après la
bulle " Munificentissimus Deus," in Nouvelle revue rhéologique, Vol. 72, 1950,
pp. 1009-1027, esp. p. 1024®.
* Cordovani, loc. cit.

6

MARIOLOGY

of its bishops and Supreme Pastor, presented to the believing faithful
a compendium of theology in the succinct form of a set of articles of
belief. Although our present Apostles’ Creed is not earlier than the
sixth century, an ancient Roman Creed appears at the end of the
second century, and in its essential content comes from the age of
the Apostles. Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition, c. 215, quotes this
question from the Roman Rite of Baptism: “Dost thou believe in
Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit from
the Virgin Mary . . .
The Virgin Mary’s true motherhood of the Son of God is set
forth as the Church’s teaching in these first formulas of faith. Our
Lady appears in the first pages of the Gospel as the Mother of Jesus;
with the same right and clarity her maternal office is mentioned in
the earliest Creeds of the Church. The first symbol listed in the
Enchiridion Symbolorum, that of Rufinus, the old Roman Creed form,
has: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His
only Son, Our Lord, who was bom from the Holy Spirit and the
Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. . . ,”910*
The Nicean Symbol, 325, does not directly refer to the Virgin
Mary, although it says that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God
“for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh,
and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day. . .
In
defending the divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity,
the Council of Nicea was implicitly protecting Mary’s privilege as
Mother of God.
B. Council of Ephesus
The Nicean Symbol was called forth by the need to defend the
divinity of the Son of God. The first Council of Constantinople,
381, affirmed the existence of the human soul in Christ, against
Apollinaris, who said that the Word took the place of the soul. Its
Creed said that the Son of God “was made flesh by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary.”12 Neither at Nicea nor at Constantinople was
9 Palmer, Mary in the Documents of the Church, p. 4. On the early Creeds,
see J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 1 (Westminster, Md., 1951), pp· 23-27;
notes that the West tended more than the East to stress the birth from the
Virgin Mary in the early symbols.
t° D.B., 2, Palmer, p. 4.
it D.B., 54, Palmer, p. 7.
12 D.B., 86, where the Latin has "incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria
Virgine.” The Greek has: "from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” The
same difference is true of the Roman Creed of note 11.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

7

there a direct attack on the Virgin Mary. But the error of Nestorius
revealed itself precisely in relation to Mary as the Mother of God.
The controversy that raged between Nestorius, Patriarch of Constan­
tinople, and St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, centered on the term
Theotokos (Mother of God). Nestorius at an earlier date had himself
used this term indifferently with Christotokos (Mother of Christ).
But the battle lines were clearly drawn when a follower of his
openly denied the title Theotokos to the Virgin Mary. It was no
mere quarrel about words. “Mother of God” was refused to the
Virgin Mary on the basis that there were two distinct persons in
Christ — one God the Word, the other Jesus —and that they were
united only by a moral union. Mary was said to be the mother of the
man Jesus, but not of the other Person, God.
Cyril openly challenged Nestorius in 429, and informed Pope St.
Celestine of his action. At the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, 431,
convened with the Pope’s permission, Cyril presided. Nestorius was
condemned, and Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, 430, read out and
approved:

Nor was He first born of the holy Virgin as an ordinary man, in such
a way that the Word only afterwards descended upon Him; rather
was Fie united [with flesh] in the womb itself, and thus is said to
have undergone birth according to the flesh, inasmuch as He makes
His own the birth of His own flesh. . . . For this reason [the holy
Fathers] have boldly proclaimed the holy Virgin Theotokos.13
Pope Celestine sent two delegates with orders to put into effect
his decision that Cyril’s interpretations, including Theotokos, were the
true faith of Nicea and binding on all. The Papal legates arrived
two weeks after the Council had already condemned Nestorius. A
second meeting was called, and the delegates confirmed the decision
already taken. The voice of Rome had Been heard: the matter was
13 D.B., in a, Palmer, p. io. The Latin reads: "Non enim primo vulgaris
quispiam homo ex Virgine ortus est, in quem Dei Verhum deinde se demiserit;
■rd in ipso utero carni unitum secundum carnem progenitum dicitur, utpote
Miae camis generationem sibi ut propriam vindicans. ... Ita [sci. sancti Patres]
non dubitaverunt sacram virginem Deiparam appellare.” On the history of
I'phesus, see G. Bardy, Les débuts du Nestorianisme (428-433), in Histoire de
iTvlise, ed. Fliche et Martin, Vol. 4 (Paris, 1945), pp. 163-186; G. Jouassard,
Marie à travers la Patristique: Maternité divine, Virginité, Sainteté, in Maria.
Înides sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. by H. du Manoir, S.J., Vol. 1, 1949 (Paris),
pp. 69-157; M. Jugie, A.A., Efeso, Concilio di, in Encyclopedia Cattolica, Vol.
·,. cols. 114-119 (Città dei Vaticano, 1950); Philip Hughes, A History of the
Church, Vol. 1 (New York, 1935), pp. 292-306.

8

MARIOLOGY

now settled for all Christianity and for all time. The cornerstone had
been placed by this definition of dogma for the subsequent develop­
ment of Mariology. The intimate bond between the Theotokos and
the God-Man was indicative of the trend the developing Mariology
would take. The belief embodied in the term Theotokos was at once
the glory of Mary’s divine Maternity and the affirmation that God
Himself became man, the son of Mary, took to Himself a human
nature without prejudice to the unity of His divine person. The
Church in ages to come would discover the deeper treasures of the
divine Maternity, for in the words of Pius XII, “from this sublime
office of the Mother of God seem to flow, as it were from a most
limpid hidden source, all the privileges and graces with which her
soul and life were adorned in such extraordinary manner and
measure.”14
Ephesus also showed clearly the Roman Primacy. In word and
act the Papal participation in the Council called by the Emperor was
the intervention of the Supreme Pastor. Cyril, even when he con­
vened die Council, June 22, 431, before many of the bishops and
the Roman delegates arrived, did so as “holding the place of the
Bishop of the Church of Rome.” The legates on their arrival
demanded and received without question a complete review in a
new assembly of the bishops. Philip the Priest addressed them in
words that have become a classic expression of the primacy of
authority of Peter’s successor.15 The Mariology of Ephesus can be
said to come directly from the Supreme Magisterium of the Church.
Here again a pattern has been set: in the subsequent development
of doctrine about Our Lady, the decision will ever rest with Rome.
For Philip stated that the Council had been reunited to carry out
the decisions made by Rome. The members of the Church are
joined to the head, and the blessed Apostle Peter is the head of the
faith and the head of the Apostles.10
C. After Ephesus
Many popes and councils in the centuries immediately after
Ephesus reaffirmed the divine maternity. The Council of Chalcedon
(fourth ecumenical), 451, made its own the word Theotokos: “as
'■* Fulgens Corona, A.A.S., Vol. 45, 1953, p- 580.
15 Philip’s words are in D.B., 112, and were incorporated verbatim at the
fourth session of the Vatican Council, 1870, D.B., 1824.
'"G. Bardy, art. cit., p. 184, n. 4.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

9

regards His Godhead, He was begotten of the Father before the
ages, and as regards His manhood He was for us and for our salva­
tion bom in these last days of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.”17
The second Council of Constantinople (fifth ecumenical), 553,
defended the word Theotokos against false interpretation. It also
accepted and thereby conferred dogmatic value on St. Cyril’s anathe­
mas against Nestorius. There is no evidence that these anathemas
were read and approved at the Council of Ephesus itself. The first
anathema concerns the divine Maternity: “If anyone does not confess
that Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is, in
consequence, Theotokos (Mother of God), since she brought forth
according to the flesh the Word of God who has become flesh, let
him be anathema.”18

D. Lux veritatis
The outstanding document of modem times on the divine mother­
hood is Pius Xi’s encyclical commemorating the anniversary of Ephe­
sus, Lux veritatis, December 25, 193t.18 Lux veritatis reviews the
history of the Nestorian heresy and the events at Ephesus, consider­
ing both the defense of the traditional faith, and the authoritative
position of the Roman Primacy recognized on that occasion. The
central dogma of the Incarnation — that Christ is true God and true
man, the divine and human natures existing unconfused in the
hypostatic union (the union of the one divine Person with the
human nature) —is explained. The divine Maternity is shown as the
corollary of Christological doctrine. From this truth the Pope derives
also the belief that Mary is our spiritual Mother. He concludes by
a double gesture to commemorate the Ephesian anniversary: the
restoration of the mosaic in St. Mary Major of the Theotokos, first
” D.B., 148.
|H D.B., 113, Palmer, p. n. D.B. and Palmer both note that this anathema
was probably not read at Ephesus, on the basis of Fr. Galtier’s research, reported
in Recherches de science religieuse, Vol. 23, 1933, p. 45 if. Also Nilus a S.
Brocarde, O.C.D., De matemitate divina B. Mariae semper Virginis (Romae,
1044), p. 45, n. (60). According to Jouassard, art. cit., p. 135, nos. (56—57), the
divine Maternity strictly speaking was not defined at Ephesus; nonetheless, the
11 inciliar decisions were the equivalent of a definition, even before the approval
uf the anathema at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
A.A.S., Vol. 23, 1931, pp. 493-517; in Tondini, pp. 369—406. Cf. A. Luis,
( '.SS.R., San Cirilo y Nestorio. Enciclica "Lux veritatis," in Estudios Marianos
Asamblea del ano 1948), Vol. 8 (Madrid, 1949), pp. 325—344; the whole
volume treats the divine Maternity.

ΙΟ

MARIOLOGY

placed there after the triumph of Ephesus by Pope St. Sixtus III
in 432; and the extension to the universal Church of the feast of the
Divine Maternity on November 21.

II. EVER VIRGIN
The early Creeds not only affirm with St. Paul that Christ was
“bom of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); they specify “bom of the Virgin
Mary.” And the Council of Ephesus used St. Cyril’s words to state
that the holy Virgin was truly Theokotos, Mother of God. The chal­
lenge to the divine Maternity had sprung from Nestorianism, an
Eastern heresy. The West was less disturbed by speculative errors.
Its more practical bent manifested itself in a vigorous defense of
Mary’s perpetual virginity. Some have asserted that Mary’s perpetual
virginity was invented as a spur to asceticism, but such an opinion
is contradicted by the Creeds accepted in the East and the West, and
is contrary to the Gospels themselves.20 Asceticism, e.g., the respect
for clerical celibacy, did play a part in the acknowledgment of Mary’s
perpetual virginity, but it was not the leading role. It was rather the
part of an agent, working effectively to present to the teaching Church
an adequate formula to state its doctrine precisely. The Ecclesia
docens, the teaching Church, made the final decision.21
Pope St. Siricius (384-399), on the occasion of a dispute about
Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, intervened in 392 with a letter to
Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica. The Bishop had taken Bonosus, a
bishop in Illyria, to task for saying Our Lady had other children.
. . . you had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another
birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ
was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have
chosen to be bom of a virgin if He 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. To
assert such a view is to do nothing less than to accept as a basis that
Jewish falsehood which holds that He could not have been bom of
a virgin.22
20 On the value of the Creeds concerning Mary’s virginity, cf. A. Janssens,
De Heerlijkheden van het goddelijk moederschap, tweede herziene druk (2nd
edit.), Brussel, 1939, p. mff. On the Gospels, cf. C. C. Martindale, S.J.,
Christ's Virgin Birth and the Gospel of the Infancy (London: Catholic Truth
Society, 1948).
21 Cf. O. Faller, De priorum saeculorum silentio circa Assumptionem B. Mariae
Virginis (Romae, 1946), pp. 74-75; Jouassard, art. cit., p. 120.
22 D.B., 91, Palmer, p. 28. On these controversies, cf. Jouassard, art. cit.,

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

11

The attack on Mary’s virginity — especially on her virginity after
the birth of Christ —was motivated by practical rather than by
dogmatic reasons. Helvidius wished to show that the state of virginity
was no better than marriage, and proposed Mary as an example of
both states —of virginity until Christ’s birth, of the motherhood of a
large family in later life. At Rome Christian asceticism was empha­
sizing the superiority of virginity. The young St. Jerome wrote his
vigorous Adversus Helvidium (Against Helvidius) in 383, demon­
strating from Scripture and tradition that Mary was ever a virgin.
That was under Pope Damasus, who died in 384. The enemies of
asceticism reformed their ranks under the ex-monk Jovinian. Pope
Siricius had his clergy examine and condemn their propositions and
excommunicate Jovinian.
When Jovinian fled to the safety of the court at Milan, Pope
Siricius advised the Bishop, St. Ambrose, of the attempt Jovinian
might make to misrepresent true asceticism as Priscillianism, a kind
of Manichaeism with its teaching that the body comes from Satan,
and its condemnation of marriage as evil. St. Ambrose, by a clever
counterstroke, obtained the expulsion of the Jovinian party by the
civil authorities, on the charge of Manichaeism. Jovinian’s denial of
( )ur Lady’s virginity in the actual bringing forth of the Christ Child
was answered by Ambrose.
The Bonosus case next occupied Ambrose’s attention. About 390,
this Illyrian bishop, living in an area of Asia Minor where earlier in
the same century even prominent and orthodox preachers had not
considered Mary’s virginity after Christ’s birth a matter of faith, said
Mary had other children.23 His neighboring bishops condemned him.
Ambrose, appealed to from both sides, suggested to the Council of
Bishops of Illyria the norms by which they might defend Mary’s
perpetual virginity, the greatest argument being the demands of the
divine Maternity. The episcopate of Illyria, under Anysius, to whom
Pope Siricius had written, reaffirmed the condemnation of Bonosus.
Fifty years later, Monophysitism under Eutyches taught that the
divine and human natures blended so perfectly in Christ that He
|> 106 if.; Hugh Pope, O.P., The Perpetual Virginity of Our Blessed Lady,
in Our Blessed Lady (Cambridge Summer School Lectures for 1933) (London,
io 14), pp. 121-141; J.-R. Palanque, Les métropoles ecclésiastiques à la fin du
IV. siicle, in Histoire de l'Êglise, ed. Fliche et Martin, Vol. 3 (Paris), p. 476 ff.;
I high Rahner, Die Marienkunde in der lateinischen Patristik, in Katholische
Muricnkunde, ed. Paul Strater, S.J., Vol. 1 (Paderborn, 1947), p. 146 ff.
1 Jouassard, art. cit., pp. 88-90, nr—112.

12

MARIOLOGY

had only a single nature (hence the name: Mono-phztsis or “single­
nature”). Against this denial of the true and perfect humanity of
Christ, Pope St. Leo I (440-461) wrote the Archbishop of Constan­
tinople, Flavian, in 449,24 after the following series of events: Eutyches concealed his teaching under the mask of opposition to Nesto­
rianism, and even wrote to Pope Leo I in 448. The Pope replied in
praise of Eutyches’ zeal, but said he was not well enough informed
about the Eastern controversy. The same year Eutyches was hailed
before an episcopal council under Flavian and, refusing to retract
his teaching, was condemned as heretical. Eutyches appealed to Rome,
and accompanied his appeal with a letter from Emperor Theodosius.
Pope Leo wrote back that he was still not well informed on events.
But when the case was laid before him in full he confirmed the
judgment against Eutyches.
Meantime the Emperor convened another council at Constantinople
and the Pope sent three delegates to it, one of them the deacon
Hilary, later to become pope himself. Among the letters they brought,
dated June, 449, was one to Archbishop Flavian, containing a com­
plete résumé of Leo’s doctrinal position, since famous as the “Tome
of Pope St. Leo I.” The document reaffirms the truth of two natures
in the one Person of Christ, each with its proper faculties. In the
same tone Our Lady’s perpetual virginity — before Christ’s birth, in
childbirth, afterward Qante partum, in partu, post partum') — is pre­
sented as the Church’s doctrine:
Unquestionably, therefore, He was conceived of the Floly 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. . . .
The Son of God, therefore, came down from His heavenly throne
without relinquishing the glory of His Father, and entered this lower
world by way of a new order and a new mode of birth. ... By way
of à new mode of birth, insofar as virginity inviolate which knew not
the desire of the flesh supplied the material of flesh. From His Mother
the Lord took nature, not sin. Jesus Christ was bom from a virgin’s
womb, by a miraculous birth. And yet His nature is not on that
account unlike to ours, for He that is true God is also true Man.2·’’
24 D.B., 143-144, Palmer, pp. 29-31, where Flavian is mistakenly called
Emperor rather than Archbishop. Background history in G. Bardy, Le Brigandage
d’Éphèse de le Concile de Chalcedoine, in Histoire de l’Église, ed. Fliche et
Martin, Vol. 4 (Paris, 1945), pp. 211-240.
25 D.B., 143—144, Palmer, pp. 30-31. Fr. Palmer gives more of the tome
than D.B. Leo I is quoted in the encyclical Sempiternus Rex, in A.A.S., Vol.
43> 1951> p· 634, on the occasion of the 1500th anniversary of Chalcedon: "de

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

13

The council met at Constantinople in 449. From the first assembly
it was evident that the meeting had been arranged with the conniv­
ance of the Emperor for the advantage of Eutyches alone. It well
earned the title Pope Leo later gave it — latrocinium, den of thieves.
The Pope’s letters were ignored, his legates protesting in vain. Euty­
ches was restored, Flavian charged with heresy and jailed. Emperor
Theodosius died in 450 and was succeeded by Empress Pulcheria.
Both she and her consort, Marcian, favored the Faith.
The truly universal council that Pope Leo desired was sum­
moned, and met at Chalcedon, October, 451, with over five hundred
bishops present. First the Nicean Creed and St. Cyril’s letters to
Nestorius were read, then Pope Leo’s tome. When the tome was read,
I he assembly accepted it unconditionally and enthusiastically: “Be­
hold the faith of the Fathers! the faith of the Aposdes! So do we
loo, all of us, believe, all who are orthodox believe the same! Anathe­
ma to whoever believes otherwise! Thus through Leo has Peter
spoken!”2®
It remained for the first Lateran Council, held in 649 under Pope
St. Martin I, to give the dogmatic definition of the perpetual virginity
of Mary. The occasion was the condemnation of Monothelism, still
.mother attack on the full reality of Christ’s humanity. The heresy
held there was only one will (mono-thelema') in Christ, namely the
divine will.
If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the
holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the
Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fulness of time, and without
seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit God the Word Himself, who before
all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity
brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate,
let him be condemned.21
I he Lateran canon just quoted expressed the belief of East and
■ 11 Virgine de qua est natus.” Chalcedon’s own Creed, D.B., 148, is also quoted,
lor. cit., p. 635. Rouët de Joumel, S.J., Enchiridion Patristicum, ed. 14a (Friburgi
lliisgoviae, 1947), Nos. 2182-2183, quotes more from the tome.
Hiighes, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 316.
D.B., 256, Palmer, pp. 31—32. The Latin is: “Can. 3. Si quis secundum
aunctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanc­
tum «mperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum
«prcialiter et veraciter, qui a Deo Patre ante omnia saecula natus est, in ultimis
■ ο culorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam
|rnin?] genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate,
• 1 indemnatus sit.” (The square brackets are in D.B.)

’4

MARIOLOGY

West alike; and although the council was not ecumenical, the canon
embodies a true dogma. In 681, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the
third to be held at Constantinople, accepted the canon of the Lateran
on Our Lady’s virginity without question.
Professions of faith and symbols formulated by later popes contain
the same doctrine: among them, Leo Ill’s profession of faith of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 8n;28 Innocent Ill’s profession
of faith prescribed for the Waldensians, 1208;28 the formula for the
union of the Greeks of the second Council of Lyons (fourteenth
ecumenical) under Gregory X30; and the Council of Florence in the
Decree for the Jacobites, 1441.31
Paul IV in 1555 thus answered the LInitarians, who denied the
Trinity, the Incarnation, and the virginity of Mary:

In a spirit of paternal severity we are anxious to admonish each and
everyone who has heretofore asserted, taught or believed . . . that the
same most Blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the Mother of God or that
she did not always retain the integrity of her virginity, that is, before
birth, during birth, and continuously after birth. . . ,32
III. FULL OF GRACE
Once the divine Maternity and the perpetual virginity of Mary
had been proposed by the Church’s teaching authority as true Cath­
olic doctrine, the way was open for further development. Chalcedon
was a stimulant to progress in Mariology. The doctrinal defense of
the true flesh, the full humanity of Christ, emphasized more than
ever the importance of the glorious Virgin Mother. Similarly, Chris­
tian writers were inspired to develop the theme of the tender love the
Mother of God had for the Son truly born of her very substance.33
28 D.B., 314 a, n. (3).
28 Ibid., 422.
30 Ibid., 462.
31 Ibid., 708 ff.
82 Ibid., 993, Palmer, pp. 77-78.
33 On Chalcedon’s influence on subsequent Mariology, cf. the articles of H.
Weisweiler, S.J., in Scholastik, Vol. 28, 1953: Das friihe Marienbild der Westkirche unter dem Einfluss des Dogmas von Chalcedon — Die vertiefte Schau
der Virgo-Mater Gloriosa, pp. 321—360, and Die verstarhte Einzeichnung des
Zuges der zartlich liebenden Mutter, pp. 504-525.
On Mary’s sanctity, cf. Jouassard, art. cit., pp. 114-116, 136-155; E. Dublanchy, Marie, in D.T.C., Vol. 9, cols. 2413-2428; P. G. M. Rhodes, Our
Lady’s Endowments, in Our Blessed Lady (Cambridge Summer School Lectures,
>933) (London, 1934), pp. 174-179; J. I. Cartmell, Our Lady in Tradition
and the Fathers, ibid., pp. 80-84.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

15

For the East the decisions of Ephesus seem to have consecrated
the notion of “ever Virgin” along with “Mother of God.” And by tire
time of St. Augustine’s death in 431, the perpetual virginity was also
a pacific possession in the West. Tire Tome of Pope St. Leo expressed
the common belief about it; and finally the Lateran Council, under
Pope Martin I, defined the perpetual virginity. In the light of these
two truths, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Church
would now penetrate into the mystery of Mary’s sanctity. First, we
will consider freedom from personal sin through fullness of grace,
leaving to the next section freedom from original sin.
Belief in Mary’s virginity led to emphasis on her holiness. The
experience of the ascetics first showed the connection between a life
of perpetual virginity and holiness. But still deeper reflection was
needed to appreciate the full treasure, of Mary’s sanctity, and this
came through reflection on the divine Maternity. From the divine
motherhood had come the awareness of perfect virginity; now Chris­
tian thought saw that God would make His Mother all-perfect, by
gifts of grace beyond compare.
In his controversy with Pelagius, who denied original sin and
held the natural perfectibility of man even without supernatural aid,
St. Augustine emphasized the universality of sin. Yet he exempted
Our Lady from the universal law:

Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom,
out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question
raised on the subject of sin — after all, how do we know what greater
degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her
who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was
without sin —to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we
could bring together into one place all those holy men and women,
while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin,
what are we to suppose that they would have replied?34
St. Augustine’s opinion is the real attitude of Christian antiquity.
There were occasional Fathers, even after Ephesus, who said Mary
was guilty of the venial sin of vainglory, misinterpreting the Gospel
incidents of her charitable request to Christ at Cana (Jn. 2:1-12),
and her presence with those relatives of Our Lord who interrupted
,1 sermon in order to speak to Him (Mt. 12:47). Newman says of
the harshest of these, St. John Chrysostom, “his whole passage is as
11 Palmer, pp. 33-34; Rouët de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum, No. 1794.

16

MARIOLOGY

much at variance with what we hold, as it is solitary and singular in
the writings of antiquity.”35
The magisterium did not speak on Mary’s holiness, her freedom
from even venial sin, until the Council of Trent. Direct attacks on
Our Lady were not among the many points the theologians of Trent
felt pressed to refute. Yet Trent, in its teaching on justification,
1547, under Paul III, refers to Our Lady’s freedom from sin as an
exception to the general rule:
If anyone shall say that a man once justified . . . can through the
whole of life avoid all sins, even though they be venial, except by a
special privilege of God, as the Church holds to have been the case
with the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.36
St. Pius V safeguarded this teaching in his condemnation of an
error of Baius in 1567:

Error 73: No one, with the exception of Christ, is without original sin.
Therefore, the Blessed Virgin died because of the sin contracted from
Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, no less than those of the
rest of the just, were the punishment of actual or original sin.37

Mary’s holiness was protected again under Alexander VIII in
1690 by the condemnation of the Jansenist opinion that Mary’s puri­
fication in the temple showed she needed it:
Error 24: The offering which the Blessed Virgin Mary made in the
temple on the day of her purification with two young turtledoves,
one as a holocaust, the other as a sin offering, is sufficient evidence that
she needed purification, and that Her Son, who was presented, was
also marked with the stain of His Mother, according to the words of
the Law.38
It is noteworthy that here again the honor of Mother and Son are
a common cause.
35 J. H. Newman, The New Eve, with introduction by P. Radcliffe (Oxford:
Newman Bookshop, 1952), p. 57.
36 D.B., 833, Palmer, pp. yf>-T7· The Latin concerning Our Lady is: "Can.
23. Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit . . . posse in tota vita peccata
omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de
beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia: A.S.” On the value of Trent in reference to Mary’s
privileges, cf. Ernst Bôminghaus, S.J., Geschichte der Marienverehrung seit dem
Tridentinum, in Katholische Marienkunde, ed. Paul Strâter, Vol. 1 (Paderborn,
1947). PP· 333-337·
37 D.B., 1073, Palmer, p. 78.
38 D.B., 1314. Palmer, pp. 78—79.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

17

The recent popes say much in praise of Our Lady’s sanctity.
Pius IX will serve as a good example:
He [God], therefore, filled her, far more than all the angelic spirits
and all the saints, with an abundance of all heavenly gifts from the
treasury of His divinity, in such a wonderful manner that she would
always be free from absolutely every stain of sin, and that, all beautiful
and perfect, she might display such fullness of innocence and holiness
that under God none greater is known, and which, God excepted, no
one can attain even in thought.39

Our Lady’s freedom from personal sin has never been defined, as
has her lifelong virginity and her freedom from original sin, but it is
nevertheless an article of faith, as Trent states —“as the Church
holds.”40 It is a step further to say that Mary could not sin —that
she was confirmed in grace and impeccable (unable to sin). This is
an opinion defended by many theologians, again on the grounds of
her divine motherhood.
IV.

IMMACULATE

/1. The Beginnings
If the fact that St. Augustine did “not propose to have a single
question raised on the subject of sin in regard to the holy Virgin
Mary out of respect for the Lord” virtually settled the question of
Mary’s freedom from personal sin, the same author’s insistence on
the universality of original sin proved a deterrent to the development
of lx?lief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception.41 Although some writings
of Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great would seem to
exempt Mary from original sin, many more centuries of thought and
prayer were required before the Church would realize that the
Immaculate Conception was among the gifts God provided for His
Mother. And still more centuries would elapse before the supreme
magisterium would solemnly declare the doctrine of Mary’s freedom
from original sin to be a revealed truth, i.e., contained in the original
I Icposit confided to the Apostles.
Ineffabilis Deus, Tondini, p. 30. The English translation is from Mary
Immaculate, by D. Unger, O.F.M.Cap. (Paterson, N. J., 1946), p. 2.
"> Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, 2a ed., Vol. 3, p. noff., for different opinions
nl the theologians on the dogmatic value of Trent’s words. Also J. A. de Aldama,
S I , El valor dogmâtico de la doctrina sobre la inmunidad de pecado venial en
Niu'stra Seriora, in Archivo Teolôgico Granadino, Vol. 9, 1946, pp. 53-67.
♦· Jouassard, art. cit., p. 151.

18

MARIOLOGY

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a classic example
of the development of doctrine.42 Theologians distinguish three stages
in the progressive awareness of a revealed truth not explicitly con­
tained in the sources of revelation. The first stage is implicit accept­
ance, the period of tranquil possession. The second stage in the
development of a dogma is the period of discussion and controversy,
during which the precise meaning of the doctrine is clarified, as
well as its relationship to Revelation and to other doctrines. In the
third stage, the doctrine is received by the entire Church, is the
common teaching of the ordinary magisterium, or finally even
solemnly defined.
In the present case, the first stage was the tranquil acceptance of
the unique graces and privileges of Mary, which, as we now know,
imply the Immaculate Conception. The early Christians accepted
Mary’s singular position as Mother of God, as ever a virgin, as all­
holy, as the New Eve. Thereby they implicitly accepted the Immacu­
late Conception, which is implied by the divine motherhood. During
the first period of undisputed acceptance, the first liturgical evidences
appear: feasts of the “Conception of St. Anne,” hymns, homilies.
B. Period of Discussion
The second phase, that of controversy, began with St. Bernard’s
(d. 1153) opposition to the spread of the feast of the Conception of
Mary. The controversy raged through the age of Scholasticism, divid­
ing into two camps the greatest doctors of theology, some of them
saints and all of them loyal to Our Lady.
42 Cf. F. J. Connell, C.SS.R., Historical Development of the Dogma of the
Immaculate Conception, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 114,
1946, p. 340 ff., and the same article in Studies in Praise of Our Blessed
Mother, ed. J. C. Fenton and E. D. Bénard (Washington, D. C., 1952), pp.
93-99; T. E. Flynn, The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, in Our Blessed
Lady (Cambridge Summer School Lectures, 1933) (London, 1934), pp. 93-120;
X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in D.T.C., Vol. 7, cols. 979-1218; E.
Druwé, S.J., Kerkleer omirent de Onbevlekte Ontvangenis in Middeleeuwen en
Moderne Tijden, in Verslagboek der zevende Mariale Dagen, 1937 (Tongerloo,
Ι93θ)> PP· in-131 (the whole Volume 7 of Mariale Dagen is on the Immaculate
Conception); B. A. McKenna, The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
(Washington, D. C., 1929); M. Cabrera, E. Schoenstein, C. Mondor, The
Immaculate Conception, in Priestly Studies (Santa Barbara, Calif.), condensed
in Our Lady's Digest, Vol. 6, 1951, pp. 301-320 (subtitle: A Franciscan Study);
J. Duhr, S.J., L'évolution du dogme de l'immaculée Conception, in Nouvelle
revue théologique, Vol. 73, 1951, pp. 1013—1032; Friedel, op. cit., pp. 294-311;
A. Wolter, O.F.M.. The Theology of the Immaculate Conception in the Light
of "Ineffabilis Deus," in Marian Studies, Vol. 5, 1954, pp. 19-72.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

19

Many thought it impossible to reconcile freedom from original
sin with the fact that Mary was born of human parents through
natural generation. Some were against a feast of the conception of
Mary, because they misunderstood it to refer to the active conception,
namely to the generation of Mary by her parents Joachim and Anne.
In reality, the feast concerned the passive conception of Our Lady,
the union of her soul and body in her mother’s womb. This confusion
of active and passive conception still occurs, just as even Catholics
sometimes confuse Mary’s Immaculate Conception with Christ’s
Virgin Birth. Other opponents considered an immaculate conception
incompatible with the universality of the Redemption of Christ. The
Scholastic Doctors of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, e.g., St.
Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, were more commonly
against the belief in a sinless conception. The Franciscan John Duns
Scotus (d. 1308), perhaps under the influence of his confrere, Wil­
liam of Ware (d. 1300), showed that a preservation from original sin
by tire merits of Christ would be an even more perfect form of
Redemption than to be rescued from already contracted sin. By the
mid-fifteenth century the greater number of theologians were in favor
of the Immaculate Conception, and the liturgical celebrations had
widely spread. But still there had been no approval on the part of
the magisterium.
A dogmatic decision on Mary’s freedom from original sin was
proposed at the Council of Basel, but the definition of 1439 was
invalid because the Council had fallen under the excommunication
of Pope Eugene IV.

C. Decisions From Rome
Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484), a Franciscan (Conventual), was the
first officially to encourage the doctrine.48 His constitution Cum prae­
celsa of 1477“ approved and indulgenced the feast of the Conception
of the Immaculate Virgin:
When, with that deep insight that comes of devout contemplation,
we search and discover the sublime proofs of those merits which
cause the Queen of heaven, the glorious Virgin Mother of God, raised
upon her heavenly throne, to outshine like the morning star all other
•1C. Sericoli, O.F.M., Immaculata B. M. Virginis Conceptio juxta Xysti IV
i .institutiones (Sibenici et Romae, 1945).
44 Sericoli defends the date of February 27, 1477; see op. cit., pp. 31, 33,
note 22. The constitution is also known as Cum praeexcelsa.

20

MARIOLOGY
constellations. . . . We deem it fitting, and even our duty, to invite
by means of indulgences and the remission of sins all the faithful
of Christ to offer thanks and praise to God ... for the wondrous
Conception of this same Immaculate Virgin, and to celebrate or to
be present at Masses and at other divine functions which have been
instituted for this purpose.45*

During Sixtus’ reign, the long-standing controversy between the
Dominicans, on one side, and the Franciscans, Carmelites, and Ser­
vîtes, on the other, flared anew when Bandelli, later General of the
Dominicans, wrote two books against the Immaculate Conception,
implying in the second that the Pope had not truly intended to
make the object of the feast Our Lady’s conception, but rather her
sanctification (like St. John the Baptist).
Two Bulls, both titled Grave Nimis, appeared in reply, one in
1481, directed to Lombardy where Bandelli was preaching: it speci­
fied that Mary’s conception, not merely sanctification, was the object
of the feast. The second, of September 4, 1483, was directed to the
entire Church. It forbade either side to call the other heretical; but
the adversaries of the belief were threatened with excommunication
not only if they called the defenders heretics, but even if they
charged the defenders with error and falsity.48 Yet, in spite of sucb
signs of favor to the belief, the Pope concludes by saying "since the
matter has not yet been decided by the Roman Church and Apostolic
See.”47
Sixtus IV’s successors continued to favor the feast. Many contented
themselves with simply repeating his constitutions, as Leo X (in
1502 and 1515). So also Julius II (1503-1513), Pius IV (15591565), and Sixtus V (1585-1590). The question was discussed at
the Council of Trent, but the determined opposition of a small group
defeated definite decision on it. Nevertheless, the Council declared
in the session on original sin (fifth session, June 17, 1546, under
Pope Paul III):

This same holy Synod declares that it is not its intention to include
in this decree, where there is question of original sin, the blessed and
45 D.B., 734, Palmer, p. 74; full text in Sericoli. op. cit., pp. 153-154.
40 Cf. Sericoli, op. cit., p. 40 ff.; D.B., 735. Palmer, p. 75, give part of the
second Grave Nimis.
47 D.B., 735. Cf. A Robichaud, S.M., The Immaculate Conception in the
Magisterium of the Church prior to 1854, in Marian Studies, Vol. 5, 1954,
pp. 99-ÏO3·

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

21

immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Rather, the constitutions of
Sixtus of happy memory are to be followed. . . .48
Pius IX interprets the action of Trent as follows:

Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent
sufficiently insinuated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary
was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that
nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Writings, which
would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Virgin.*9
Trent also indirectly advanced the eventual acceptance of the
belief by clarifying the notions of original sin, of grace, and of the
supernatural life.
Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572) included the feast of the Conception
in the reformed Missal, 1568, for tire whole Latin Church, and like­
wise condemned the error of Baius which stated, “No one, with the
exception of Christ, is without original sin. Therefore the Blessed
Virgin died because of the sin contracted from Adam. . . .”so He like­
wise forbade debates before the public on the subject. Paul V renewed
this prohibition in 1617. In 1622 Gregory XV further forbade, except
.nnong the Dominicans themselves, even private writings and sermons
against the Immaculate Conception. The celebration of the feast
was enjoined on all, with a warning against replacing the word “Con­
ception,” by any other word, as “Sanctification.”
Controversy continued nonetheless. Pope Alexander VII (16551657), appealed to for an authentic statement of the true object of
the feast, issued his constitution, Sollicitudo, December 8, 1661. The
document determines the object of the feast as understood by the
common sentiment of the Church, pastors and faithful alike.

Ancient is the piety of the Christian faithful toward our Blessed
Mother, the Virgin Mary. They believe that her soul, in the first
moment of creation and infusion into her body, was, by a special
grace and privilege of God, and in consideration of the merits of Jesus
Christ her Son, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from
the stain of original sin. And it is in this sense that the faithful
cherish and celebrate with solemn rites the feast of her Conception. . .
[Alexander VII then renews the decrees of Sixtus IV, Paul V and
D.B., 792, Palmer, p. 77; cf. M. Tognetti, O.S.M., L'lmmacolata al Con• ilio Tridentino, in Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 304-374 —to be continued in
• later number.
Ineffabilis Deus; in Unger, op. cit., p. 9.
•° D.B., 1073, Palmer, p. 78.

22

MARIOLOGY
Gregory XV] ... in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the
Blessed Virgin, at its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed
with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin. . . .51

D. Definition lay Pius IX
It remained for Pius IX to take the final step. Crowned pope in
1846, he personally signed the decree of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites of September 30, 1847, authorizing a new Mass and Office
of the feast, extending it on February 2, 1849, to the whole world.
Our present Mass and Office is from 1863, also by order of Pius IX.
In 1848 a commission of theologians was named to study two ques­
tions: Can the Immaculate Conception be defined as a dogma? and:
Is such a definition opportune? On February 2, 1849, the encyclical
Ubi primum was sent to the bishops of the world, seeking their
views on the definability.
The replies from the bishops were better than nine tenths (546
out of 603) favorable. Some did not consider the definition then
opportune because of attacks on the Church; only four or five were
quite against any dogmatic definition. Another commission was
appointed to draw up the Bull of definition; they worked over a
year on it. The document was not only to promulgate the dogma,
but also to include arguments in its favor. It was then submitted to
the cardinals and finally to members of the hierarchy assembled in
Rome from the whole world. The result of the long process was a
precisely phrased presentation of the belief of all Catholicism, the
Church learning (Ecclesia discens) as well as the teaching Church
(Ecclesia docens).
On December 8, 1854, in the presence of 200 cardinals, arch­
bishops, and bishops, the Holy Father invoked the Holy Spirit, and
then read the words that settled forever all dispute about Our Lady’s
privilege :

... To the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the glory
and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of
the Catholic faith, and the increase of the Catholic religion, We, by
the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles, Peter
and Paul, and by Our Own, declare, pronounce, and define that the
doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
of her Conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the omnipotent
God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of
01 D.B., 1100, Palmer, p. 78.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

2·3

mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been
revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and constantly believed
by all the faithful.52

In these words of the dogmatic definition, the Pope is speaking ex
cathedra, that is, by his supreme infallible authority as Vicar of Christ.
The terms are similar to Alexander VIPs, yet so carefully chosen that
it is clearly Mary’s person, body and soul, that is the subject of the
privilege. From the very first moment of union of soul and body, in
view of the merits of Christ, Mary was kept free from original sin
by the grace of God —a unique exception to the common lot of
mankind. Moreover, this doctrine is revealed by God; therefore it
belongs to the original Deposit of the Faith. And so the Catholic’s
“I believe” now extends to the privilege of the Immaculate Con­
ception just as truly as it does to the divine motherhood — on the
authority of God Himself, who cannot deceive.
The rest of Ineffabilis Deus, the document of the definition, makes
a worthy setting for the dogmatic definition. The various arguments
in the development of belief in the sinless conception of Mary are
cited; the traditional interpretation of Sacred Scripture, especially of
the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15), and of the greetings of Gabriel
and Elizabeth (Lk. 1:28, 42); the evidence of the liturgy; and finally
the proximate preparation when with one voice clergy and faithful
entreated the Pope to define with his supreme judgment the Immacu­
late Conception. The bishops had been heard, indeed their advice
had been first sought, but the final act was the Pope’s alone.53
Pius IX mentions in Ineffabilis Deus some benefits hoped for
from the definition: that the “most powerful mediatrix and concilia­
trix of the whole world” win peace for the Church, “pardon for the
inner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation
02 D.B., 1641, Palmer, pp. 86—87, Tondini, p. 54. The Latin is: “. . . Ad
limiorem Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis, ad decus et ornamentum Virginis Deiparae,
nd exaltationem fidei catholicae et christianae religionis augmentum, auctoritate
I 'omini nostri lesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra declara11111S. pronuntiamus et definimus, doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem
Muriam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia
•M privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi lesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni
originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam atque idcirco
111> omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.” Cf. R. Aubert, La pro• himation de l'immaculée Conception en 1854, in Collectanea Mechliniensia, Vol.
V'. 1951, pp· 594-597; G. Geenen, O.P., La Bulle "Ineffabilis Deus," in Marie,
Vol. 7, Nov.-Dec., 1953, pp. 41-43.
1 R. Aubert, Le pontificat de Pie IX (1846-1878), in Histoire de l'Église, ed.
ΙΊο Ικ· et Martin, Vol. 21 (Paris, 1952), pp. 278—280.

MARIOLOGY

24

for the afflicted, help for those in danger.”54 The century of develop­
ment in Marian doctrine and devotion is the evidence of how gra­
ciously Our Lady accepted Pius IX’s prayers.
Inspired by the fiftieth anniversary of the definition, Blessed Pius X
gave the world the encyclical Ad diem ilium, about Our Lady’s part
in the restoration of all things to Christ (Eph. i:io) which the
saintly Pope made the rule of his pontificate. According to Blessed
Pius X, these were the lessons of the Immaculate Conception
definition :
Let the nations believe and profess that the Virgin Mary, in the first
moment of her conception was free from all stain, and they must
admit original sin, the redemption of mankind by Christ, the Gospel,
the Church and even the law of suffering. . . . This plague [the
rejection of all authority] which is equally destructive of civil and
Christian society, is destroyed by the dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception of the Mother of God. For by it we are all constrained to
recognize in the Church a power to which one must submit not only
the will but also the intellect, since it is through this subjection of
the reason that the Christian people sing to the Mother of God:
“Thou art all fair, O Mary, and there is no original stain in thee.”
So again we conclude that the Church rightly attributes to the august
Virgin this that she by herself destroyed all the heresies in the
whole world.55

V.

ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN

A. Present State of Belief
“Studies were undertaken with new enthusiasm, which gave due
prominence to the dignity and sanctity of the Mother of God.”5®
These words from the Marian Year encyclical, Fulgens Corona,
describe one of the results produced by the definition of the Immacu­
late Conception. The Pontiff also recalls that it was his privilege
to define,

. . . that the Mother of God was assumed body and soul into heaven:
and thus to satisfy the wishes of the faithful, which had been more
urgently expressed after the solemn definition of the Immaculate Con54 Unger, op. cit., p. 23, Palmer, p. 88, Tondini, p. 56.
55 Tondini, p. 320; English from D. Unger, Mary Mediatrix (Paterson, N. J.,
1948), p. 6.
00 A.Â.S., Vol. 45, 1953, p. 578.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

25

ception. For then, as We Ourselves wrote in the Apostolic Letter
Munificentissimus Deus, “the faithful were moved by a certain more
ardent hope that the Dogma also of the corporal Assumption of the
Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as soon as possible by
the Supreme Magisterium of the Church.”57
What the belief of the faithful and the studies of the scholars had
held and hoped for became a reality on November 1, 1950, when the
Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, in his office as supreme teacher of the
universal Church solemnly defined:

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication
again and again to God, and have called upon the Spirit of Truth,
for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished His special affection
upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King
of the ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the
glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of
the entire Church; by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the
Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We
pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that
the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having com­
pleted the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into
heavenly glory.58

Munificentissimus Deus does not neglect the past history of Papal
favor to the Assumption, but the theological principle invoked to jus­
tify the proclamation of the dogma is the present uniform faith of
the whole Church. The Holy Father appeals, first of all, to the “con­
cordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the
concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal
authority sustains and directs” as manifesting the bodily Assumption
to be a revealed truth.58
87 Ibid., p. 583.
88 Ibid., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 769. The Latin is:
. divinitus revelatum dogma
esse: Immaculatam Deiparam semper Virginem Mariam, expleto terrestris vitae
cursu, fuisse corpore et anima ad caelestem gloriam assumptam.” English of the
N.C.W.C. translation, No. 44; also in Palmer, p. 113.
8U A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 756; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 12. Cf. Bishop
Wright, The Dogma of the Assumption, in The American Ecclesiastical Review,
Vol. 124, 1951, pp. 81-96, and the same article in Studies in Praise of Our
Blessed Mother, ed. J. C. Fenton and E. D. Benard (Washington, D. C., 1952),
pp. 215-230; P. Parente, La giustificazione teologica della defmizione dommatica
• li’ll’Assunzione, in Euntes Docete, Vol. 4, 1951, pp. 257—274; G. Filograssi, S.J.,
< 'institutio Apostolica "Munificentissimus Deus" de Assumptione beatae Mariae
Virginis, in Gregorianum, Vol. 31, 1950, pp. 323-360.

20

MARIOLOGY

Β. The Assumption in History
The documents of the magisterium before the reign of Pius XII do
not exhibit any official Papal statement clearly stating Our Lady’s
bodily Assumption. There has never been any doubt that her soul
is in heaven. For example, Benedict XII authoritatively declared in
1336 that the souls of the saints enjoy the beatific vision.80 Pope Pius
XII’s first express mention of Our Lady’s presence, body and soul, in
heaven is in the encyclical on the Mystical Body, 1943. Yet, as
Munificentissimus Deus relates, “Various testimonies, indications and
signs of this common belief of the Church are evident from remote
times down through the course of the centuries.”81
What are some of these signs? How have the popes shown their
approval of belief in the Assumption in the history of the Church?
Munificentissimus Deus looks first to the law of prayer (lex orandi'),
saying that the sacred liturgy “because it is the profession, subject
to the supreme teaching authority within the Church, of heavenly
truths, can supply proofs and testimonies of no small value for decid­
ing any individual point of Catholic doctrine.”82 Lex orandi, lex
credendi (the law of praying is the law of believing) is an old
motto, based on the close connection between sound doctrine and
true devotion. The Church’s care of cult is not a merely disciplinary
matter; in approving its liturgy the Church acts infallibly. The official
prayers of the Church, particularly the Mass and Divine Office, are
a practical school of Christian doctrine. The Apostolic See has
used its authority to encourage the feast of the Assumption and to
explain its true sense. Nor does the Pope neglect the Rosary in the
attitude of the faithful, for he adds, "Nor can we pass over in silence
the fact that in the Rosary of Mary, the recitation of which this
Apostolic See so urgently recommends, there is one mystery proposed
for pious meditation which, as all know, deals with the Blessed Vir­
gin’s Assumption into heaven.”83
Pope St. Sergius I (687-701) prescribed the litany or stational
procession to be held on the four Marian feasts: the Nativity, An­
nunciation, Purification, and Dormition. 84 Linder Pope St. Adrian I
30 D.B., 530.
61 A.A.S., Vol.
32 A.A.S., Vol.
63 A.A.S., Vol.
64 A.A.S., Vol.

42, 1950,
42, 1950,
42, 1950,
42, 1950,

p.
p.
p.
p.

757;
758;
758;
760;

N.C.W.C.
N.C.W.C.
N.C.W.C.
N.C.W.C.

translation,
translation,
translation,
translation,

No. 13·
No. 16.
No. 15·
No. 19·

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

27

(772-795) appears for the first time in the West the title “Assump­
tion” for die feast earlier called the “Dormition” or “Falling Asleep”
of Our Lady. The Pope sent Charlemagne the Gregorian Sacramentary, a liturgical book containing the prayer Veneranda, in which
occur the words, “this day 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 incarnate from herself.”05
Pope St. Leo IV (847-855), again according to Munificentissimus
Deus, “saw to it diat the feast, which was already being celebrated
under the title of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of God,
should be observed in even a more solemn way when he ordered a
vigil to be held on the day before it and afterwards prescribed prayers
on the octave day. When this had been done, he decided to take part
himself in the celebration. . . .”°°
Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) counted the Assumption an opin­
ion that could be held or not held, for the Church had not yet
decided.07 Many theologians were strongly in favor of the doctrine,
among them St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bona­
venture, Scotus. The Assumption never met the strong scholastic
opposition found in the case of the Immaculate Conception.
Between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries a series of gradual
changes in the Mass for the Assumption and its vigil emphasized
more and more the glorious resurrection of Mary; less emphasis was
placed on her death. St. Pius V (1566-1572) removed from the
second noctum of Matins the lessons wrongly attributed to St. Jer­
ome. These readings, in an excess of prudence against the apocryphal
■ lories of Mary’s death and resurrection, had counseled an attitude of
,1B This prayer now occurs as a Collect in the Assumption Mass of the Dominican,
( '.irmelite, and other rites. Cf. the articles of Dom B. Capelie, O.S.B., L'Oraison
''Veneranda" à la Messe de l'Assomption, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses,
Vol. 26, 1950, pp. 354-364; Le témoignage de la Liturgie, in Études Mariales
Assomption de Marie, II), Vol. 7, 1949, pp. 35—62; and L’Assunzione e la liturgia,
in Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 241-276.
1111 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 760; N.C.W.C. translation, No. r9·
07 Cf. G. Geenen, O.P., L'Assomption et les Souverains Pontifes. Faits, docu­
ments et textes, in Angelicum, Vol. 27, 1950, pp. 327—355; this reference, p. 334.
I i. Geenen has gathered his facts from M. Jugie, A.A., La Mort et l'Assomption
.le la Sainte Vierge CCittà dei Vaticano, 1944); and from G. Hentrich et R. G.
■ le Moos. Petitiones de Assumptione Corporea B. V. Mariae in caelum definienda,
’ vols. CTypis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1942). Cf. also, for the popes of that period,
< ' Piana, O.F.M., Assumptio beatae Virginis Mariae apud scriptores saec. Xlll
1 Sibcnici et Romae, 1942).

2.8

MARIOLOGY

reserve toward the bodily Assumption. Pius V put in their place
lessons explaining the bodily Assumption.68
C. Pius IX to the Present
From Pius IX to Pius XII, the popes have spoken more often of
Mary in heaven. They have at the same time received petitions and
encouraged the movement for the dogmatic definition. May we not
then see in their references to Our Lady in heaven an implicit affirma­
tion of her bodily Assumption?
Pius IX (1846-1878), in Ineffabilis Deus, emphasized the close
bond that linked the Mother of God with her Son Jesus Christ:
“from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one
and the same decree of predestination.”69 Munificentissimus Deus
connects the sinless conception and anticipated resurrection as parts
of the same victory over sin and its consequences. “[Mary] by an
entirely unique privilege completely overcame sin by her Immaculate
Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remain­
ing in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until
the end of time for the redemption of her body.”70
In 1864 Pius IX received a petition for the definition of the
Assumption from Queen Isabella II of Spain. Although the Pope
judged the time not yet opportune for the definition, he wrote in
reply, “There is no doubt that the Assumption, in the sense com­
monly believed by the body of the faithful, follows from the Immacu­
late Conception.”71 A petition was presented in 1870 at the Vatican
Council.72
Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) gave his explicit approval to the
program of studies of the International Marian Congress held at Fri­
bourg, Switzerland, 1902. The topics included the dogmatic study
of the Assumption. Among Leo XIII’s many Marian documents,
especially the Rosary encyclicals, some references seem to concern
88 Cf. William O’Shea, S.S., The History of the Feast of the Assumption, in
The Thomist, Vol. 14, 1951, pp. 127-128.
69 Quoted in Munificentissimus Deus, A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 768; N.C.W.C.
translation, No. 40.
70 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 754; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 5. On the relation­
ship between the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, cf. Roschini, The
Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, in The Thomist, Vol. 14, 1951, pp·
59-71, and K. Healy, O.Carm., The Assumption among Mary's Privileges, ibia.,
pp. 77-81.
71 Geenen, art. cit., pp. 337-338; Healy, art. cit., p. 78.
72A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 755; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 7.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

29

the Assumption, especially those treating of Our Lady as Queen. For
example, lucunda semper (1894) thus describes the glorious mysteries
of the Rosary: “. . . We behold her taken up from this valley of
tears into the heavenly Jerusalem, amid choirs of angels. And we
honor her, glorified above all the saints, crowned with stars by her
Divine Son, and seated at His side, the sovereign Queen of the
universe.”73
Blessed Pius X was already interested in the Assumption when he
was Patriarch of Venice. He was one of the instigators of the petition
sent to the Fribourg Congress. As Pope he encouraged the movement
for the definition, sending congratulatory messages concerning the
Congresses of 1906 at Einsiedeln, Switzerland, and Valencia, Spain.
Both conventions submitted petitions for the proclamation of the
Assumption as a dogma. On another occasion, in 1908, he said,
“There is still need for many studies, and for serious ones.”74 The
same year he ordered the definability thoroughly studied.
Some consider that Ad diem ilium of Blessed Pius X alludes to the
Assumption in its interpretation of the Woman of the twelfth chapter
of the Apocalypse. “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed
with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head
a crown of twelve stars” (Apoc. 12:1). After quoting this text,
Blessed Pius adds: “No one is ignorant that this woman signified
the Virgin Mary, who remained inviolate when she brought forth our
I lead. ... So John saw the most holy Mother of God already enjoy­
ing happiness. . . .”75
Benedict XV, like his two predecessors, decreed that all the petitions
for the Assumption be kept. During World War I he requested that
the sending of petitions be deferred until peace came again.
Pius XI encouraged the movement for the definition. On March 2,
1922, he named Our Lady under her title of the Assumption prin­
cipal Patroness of France; and on May 31, 1937, gave his approval
to the third-centenary celebrations of Louis XIII’s solemn consecra­
tion of the kingdom to Our Lady, a vow that was annually com­
memorated on the feast of the Assumption.
The pontificate of Pius XII is distinguished by a whole series of
statements and writings about the Assumption, before as well as after
die definition. To list or attempt to analyze them would require a
'•'Tondini, 158; Lawler, 116 (The Rosary of Mary, ed. Wm. Lawler, O.P.)
( Paterson, N. J., 1944).
Geenen, art. cit., p. 339.
’» Unger, Mary Mediatrix, pp. 16-17.

30

MARIOLOGY

book. A few selected examples must suffice here.
In Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, there is the first explicit men­
tion in a Papal document of Our Lady’s bodily Assumption into
heaven:

May she, then, most holy Mother of all Christ’s members, to whose
Immaculate Heart We have trustingly consecrated all men, her body
and soul refulgent with the glory of heaven where she reigns with
her Son — may she never cease to beg from Him that a continuous
copious flow of graces may pass from its glorious Head into all the
members of the Mystical Body.™
Meantime, the Holy Father was taking active steps toward the
definition. He issued special orders commanding more advanced
inquiries into the matter, and likewise ordered the publication of the
petitions since Pius IX’s time.’7 Following the same procedure which
Pius IX had used before defining the Immaculate Conception, by
the letter Deiparae Virginis Mariae, May 1, 1946, the Pope asked
all the bishops,
... to make known to Us how much devotion is manifested by the
clergy and the faithful entrusted to your care toward the Assumption
of the Most Blessed Virgin, in accordance with the faith and the piety
of each. Above all, We desire to know if you, Venerable Brethren, in
your outstanding wisdom and prudence, are of the opinion that the
bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined
as a dogma of faith, and if, with your clergy and people, you so desire.78
D. "Munificentissimus Deus”
The replies of the bishops showed the “outstanding agreement of
the Catholic prelates and the faithful.”79 On November 1, 1950, in
the fullest exercise of his supreme teaching authority, speaking infal­
libly as Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father defined the Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heavenly glory, as a
truth revealed by God.
78 A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247-248; English of the N.C.W.C. translation, No.
108. There is also a connection between the doctrine of the Immaculate Heart, to
which the Pope here refers, and the bodily Assumption, for Our Lady’s Most
Pure Heart is her physical heart; cf. Remigius De Roo, Regina in Coelum Assumpta,
in Les Tracts Mariais, Nos. 37-38, Mars-Avril, 1953, pp. 49-5°· There are many
studies on Mystici Corporis, e.g., J. Dillersberger, Das neue Wort uber Maria,
(Salzburg, 1947).
77 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 756; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 10.
78 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 782—783.
7flA.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 756; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 12.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

31

The dogmatic definition concerns the Assumption alone: "... a
divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the
ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life,
was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”80 In the precise
words of the definition are mentioned, in addition to the Assumption,
only the three privileges of Our Lady defined as dogmas in earlier
centuries: Mother of God, ever Virgin, Immaculate. Nothing is said
of xvhen or where or in what manner the Assumption occurred. Nor
does the actual formula say anything about Mary’s Mediation, her
Queenship, or other privileges.
Munificentissimus Deus provides a rich background for the better
understanding of the newly defined dogma. The theological principle
of the universal consent of the Church is explained, and new light
shed on tire role of the supreme magisterium. À survey is given of the
belief across the ages, both in the liturgy and in patristic and theo­
logical writings.
The marvelous harmony between Mary’s gifts is described: “God
. . . put the plan of His providence into effect in such a way that all
(he privileges and prerogatives He had granted to her in His sovereign
generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony.
. . . The wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the
most provident God has lavished upon this revered associate of our
Redeemer. . . .”81 The Assumption is compared with the Immaculate
Conception; with Mary’s association in her Son’s victory over the
devil, sin, and death; with her virginity in the birth of Christ. The
common fountainhead of all Mary’s privileges is the divine mother­
hood. The scriptural foundations are examined in the light of tradi­
tional interpretation: especially the Protoevangelium — the Woman
of Genesis 3:15; the “full of grace” of Luke 1 :z8; and “that Woman
clothed with the Sun, whom John the Apostle contemplated on the
island of Patmos” (Apoc. 12:1 ff.).82
At the close, the Holy Father expresses his confidence:
. . . That this solemn proclamation and definition of the Assumption
will contribute in no small way to the advantage of human society,
since it redounds to the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, to which the
Blessed Mother of God was bound by such singular bonds. It is to
be hoped that all the faithful will be stirred up to a stronger piety
"MAS., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 769; cf. note 57 for the Latin text.
'1 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 754, 758; N.C.W.C. translation, Nos. 3, 14.
'1 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 763; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 27.

MARIOLOGY

32·

toward their heavenly Mother, and that the souls of all those who
glory in the Christian name may be moved by the desire of sharing
in the unity of Christ’s Mystical Body and of increasing their love for
her who in all things shows her motherly heart to the members of
this august Body. ... In this magnificent way all may see clearly to
what a lofty goal our bodies and souls are destined. Finally it is our
hope that belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven will make
our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more
effective.83
VI.

MEDIATRIX WITH THE MEDIATOR

A. Mediation in General
Cardinal Mercier of Belgium began the movement to petition the
Holy See for the definition of the doctrine of Our Lady’s Mediation
of all graces. On January 12, 1921, Pope Benedict XV,84 permitted
a special Office and Mass in honor of Mary Mediatrix on May 31.
In 1922, Pius XI organized three commissions of theologians (in
Rome, Spain, and Belgium) to make a serious study of the question.
There is in the writings of the recent Popes, especially the encyclicals
from Pope Pius IX to the present day, a mine of material about
Mary’s role in the gaining and distribution of divine graces.
Today many theological writers hold that this belief is contained
implicitly in divine revelation and could be defined as a dogma.
There is no Catholic theologian who denies to Our Lady the title:
Mediatrix of all graces. But since the term “mediation” has many
shades of meaning, the sense in which the Mother of God is called
Mediatrix must first be explained.
A mediator is a person who stands in the middle and unites indi­
viduals or groups which are opposed. Our blessed Lord, the God-Man,
was uniquely fitted to be the Mediator between God and man. St.
Paul says, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God
and man, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for
all . . .” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). By offering Llimself, through His whole life
and the sacrifice of the cross, Christ, our Mediator, destroyed the
middle wall between God and ourselves, wiped out the handwriting
against us, brought His human brothers back to full friendship with
God the Father. The Lord fulfilled His mission of mediation by
becoming our Redeemer or “Ransomer.”
83 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 769-770; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 42.
•M.A,S., Vol. 13, 1921, p. 345·

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

33

The Redemption or mediation Christ accomplished on earth did
not end there. The divine grace won by the Redemption must be
applied to individuals through the means determined by Christ, that
is, through Flis Church, by faith, the Sacraments, etc. The first phase
of Our Lord’s mediation was the work of Redemption perfected on
the cross; the second phase is the individual application of the fruits
of this work.
Where, then, is there place for another Mediator? In what sense
is the Mother of Christ associated with her Son in His work of
mediation? Does her association extend to both phases of His re­
demptive work? What has the Church’s magisterium said on these
topics?
If there is only “one Mediator,” as St. Paul writes, then any other
Mediator can only be such in strict dependence and in a secondary
sense. Pope Leo XIII quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on the possibility
of other mediators:
... As the Angelic Doctor teaches, “there is no reason why certain
others should not be called in a certain way mediators between God
and man, that is to say, insofar as they co-operate by predisposing and
ministering in the union of man with God.” Such are the angels and
saints, the prophets and priests of both Testaments; but especially has
the Blessed Virgin a claim to the glory of this title. For no single
individual can even be imagined who has ever contributed or ever
will contribute so much toward reconciling man with God. She offered
a Saviour to mankind, hastening to eternal ruin, at that moment when
she received the announcement of the mystery of peace brought to
this earth by the angel, with that admirable act of consent — and this,
“in the name of the whole human race.” She it is from whom Jesus
is born; she is therefore truly His mother, and for this reason a worthy
and acceptable “Mediatrix to the Mediator.”85
St. Thomas Aquinas’ phrase “in the name of the whole human
race” recalls what is the oldest idea about Mary found in Christian
literature after the New Testament itself. By representing all human­
ity in consenting to the Incarnation and in offering the Victim on
Calvary, Our Lady, like a new Eve, repaired the harm in which the
first Eve was involved. Some writers claim tire parallel between the
first Eve and the second Eve goes back to the Apostles themselves.80
Fidentem piumque, Tondini, pp. 248-250; Lawler, pp. 150-151; D.B., 1940 a.
Cf. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior
I ife (Dublin, 1948), p. 184; for this point and for many others, see E. Druwé,

34

MARIOLOGY

Cardinal Newman showed in the writings of St. Justin (d. 165),
St. Irenaeus (d. 200), and Tertullian (d. 240), Mary’s association
with Christ the new Adam. Adam called his helpmate and wife
“Eve,” meaning Mother of the living. Adam’s fall introduced original
sin into the world, but Eve had an intimate personal share in “that
awful transaction” (Newman’s phrase). Yet even in the hour of
punishment God promised a Redeemer, and warned the serpent,
“I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy
seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15)· The woman who would crush the
serpent’s head was the obedient Virgin, Mother of the Redeemer.
Newman concluded from his investigations: “St. Justin, St.
Irenaeus, and others, had distinctly laid it down, that she [Mary]
not only had an office [i.e., of motherhood], but bore a part, and was
a voluntary agent in the actual process of redemption, as Eve had
been instrumental and responsible in Adam’s fall.”87 St. Irenaeus’
idea of tire “Virgin who regenerates us” shows the close parallel
between Eve, mother of all the living, and Mary, the new Eve,
mother of those bom again through Christ’s redemption. “By the
time of St. Jerome (331-420), the contrast between Eve and Mary
had almost passed into a proverb. He says, ‘Death by Eve, life by
Mary.’ ”8889
90
In the order of history the belief of the faithful and the writings
of the Church’s theologians were expressly directed to Our Lady’s
share in Christ’s work of mediation even before such doctrines as the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were explicitly held.88
Newman saw the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as “an im­
mediate inference from the primitive doctrine that Mary is the
second Eve.”80
A common term to describe Mary’s participation in Christ’s re­
demptive work is “Coredemptrix.” By it is meant the association of
the Mother of Christ in the properly redemptive work which Our
Lord performed on earth, principally through His Passion and death.
In the second phase of Our Lord’s mediation Our Lady is called the
S.J., La médiation universelle de Marie, in Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge, ed.
H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), pp. 417-572.
8T Cardinal Newman, An Essay in the Development of Christian Doctrine
(London, 1845), p. 384 — reference from L. Riley, Historical Conspectus of the
Doctrine of Mary's Co-Redemption, in Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, p. 84, n. (229).
88 Cf. Cardinal Newman, The New Eve (Oxford, 1952), p. 19.
89 Cf. Druwé, art. cit., p. 478.
90 Newman, op. cit., p. 25.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

35

“dispensatrix of all graces” or often simply “mediatrix.” Some writers
divide the two phases of mediation into the objective Redemption
and the subjective Redemption.
Our consideration of the teaching of the popes on both Coredemptrix and Dispensatrix will be restricted to the past century,
from Pius IX to the present. Earlier evidences do exist of Papal
statements on Mary as mediatrix, but the many Marian writings
and discourses of the recent Popes are more than sufficient expression
of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. We say “ordinary”
magisterium because up to the present the Church has not yet used
its teaching authority to give a dogmatic definition of Mary’s
Mediation.

B. Coredemptrix
In interpreting statements of recent popes concerning the Co­
redemption, the advice of Bittremieux is opportune. Namely, we
should presume that the popes have followed a consistent line in their
teaching, the more so when they quote their predecessors, even
though a predecessor may not have taken so clear a stand as his
successor. This was the case in the history of the Immaculate Con­
ception. The Coredemption seems to enjoy a similar development,
with successive popes speaking ever more favorably.91 What, then,
do the popes tell us about Mary’s share in her Son’s redemptive work?
The title “Coredemptrix” first received Papal sanction under Pope
Pius X, by his approval of its use in a decree of the Congregation
of Rites concerning the feast of the Seven Dolors.92 Pius XI used the
term on several occasions, for example, in the radio address to
01 J. Bittremieux, II movimento mariologico dell'anno 1938-1939, in Marianum,
Vol. 2, 1940, p. 12; Druwé, art. cit., p. 458. On the Coredemption: J. B. Carol,
OEM., De Corredemptione B. Virginis Mariae (Civitas Vaticana, 1950); H.
Sriler, S.J., Corredemptrix, Theologische Studie zur Lehre der Letzen Piipste über die
Miterloserschaft Mariens, Rom, 1939; Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, on the theme
of the Coredemption. Studies in Praise of Our Blessed Mother, ed. J. C. Fenton
nod E. D. Benard (Washington, D. C., 1952), contains the following articles on
this topic; after the pagination in studies is given in parentheses the volume, year
mid pages of The American Ecclesiastical Review, where these studies first appeared:
T. U. Mullaney, O.P., The Meaning of Mary's Compassion, pp. 100—127 (Vol.
i.'’>, 1951, pp- 1-6, 120—129, 196-207); A. Michel, Mary's Co-Redemption, pp.
147-146 (Vol. 122, 1950, pp. 183-192); C. Boyer, S.J., Thoughts on Mary's
<'0 Redemption, pp. 147-161 (Vol. 122, 1950, pp. 401-415); J. Carol, O.F.M.,
Alary's Co-Redemption in the Teaching of Pope Pius XII, pp. 162-170 (Vol. 121,
1949, pp. 353-361).
A.A.S., Vol. 41, 1908, p. 409.

36

MARIOLOGY

Lourdes, 1935, which will be quoted later.93 The word Coredemptrix
is now accepted almost universally, for its use by Pius XI and by
theologians has shown that Coredemption is still only a subordinate,
secondary, dependent collaboration in Christ’s all-perfect, selfsufficient work of salvation.
Pius XI in Ineffabilis Deus wrote of the association of Mary with
her Son:

. . . Just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed
human nature, blotted out the handwriting of the decree that stood
against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the Cross (Col. 2, 14), so
the Most Holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and
indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity
with that poisonous serpent, and most completely triumphed over him,
and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.94
Pius XI extends this union of Mother and Son to the Redemption :
“The most blessed Virgin, conceived without original sin, was cnosen
to be the Mother of God so that she might be made an associate
in the Redemption of mankind.”95 Our Lady’s acceptance of the
Annunciation was her consent to become Mother of the Redeemer.
From this standpoint alone Mary had at least a remote part in the
Redemption. Whether she had a proximate, immediate, direct share
in the actual Redemption is a disputed question among Catholic
scholars. Those who defend the Coredemption in the strict sense
appeal to the following Papal statements about Mary’s role in Cal­
vary; the adversaries (a small but strong minority) interpret the same
documents differently.99
Pius X in Ad diem ilium stated:

. . . The most holy Mother of God had not only the honor of “having
given the substance of her flesh to the only begotten Son of God, who
was to be born of the human race,” whereby a victim was prepared for
man’s salvation, but she was also entrusted with the task of tending
and nourishing this Victim and even of offering it on the altar at
the appointed time.97
83 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, 2a ed., Vol. 2, p. 389; R. Laurentin, Le titre de
Corédemptrice. Étude historique, in Marianum, Vol. 13, 1951, pp. 396-452.
84Tondini, p. 42; Unger, Mary Immaculate, p. 11.
85 A.Â.S., Vol. 25, 1933, p. 80 (Epistola ad Card. Binet).
80 Cf. L. Riley, Historical Conspectus of the Doctrine, in Marian Studies, Vol.
2, 1951, p· 96 ff.
87 Cf. Unger, Mary Mediatrix, p. 8; Palmer, p. 94; Tondini, p. 312.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

37

Leo XIII wrote that Mary was a “co-worker with Christ in His
expiation for mankind,” and that on Calvary “she offered up her
Son to the divine justice dying with Him in her heart.”88
Benedict XV said it more clearly: “Thus, she [Mary] suffered and
all but died along with her Son suffering and dying; thus, for the
salvation of men she abdicated the rights of a mother toward her Son,
and insofar as it was hers to do, she immolated the Son to placate
God’s justice, so that she herself may justly be said to have redeemed
together with Christ the human race.”98
Pius XI in Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928, wrote, “[Mary] by
giving us Christ the Redeemer, and by rearing Him, and by offering
Him at the foot of the Cross as Victim for our sins, by such intimate
association with Christ, and by her own most singular grace, became
and is affectionately known as Reparatrix.”100
Pius XII has also spoken of Our Lady’s part in the Redemption.
Tire epilogue to Mystici Corporis tells us: “Free from all sin, original
and personal, always most intimately united with her Son, as another
Eve she offered Llim on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the
children of Adam sin-stained by his fall, and her mother’s rights and
mother’s love were included in the holocaust.”101
Munificentissimus Deus shows the connection between the truths
of the Assumption and the Coredemption, by stressing the close
association between Mary and the Redeemer.102 Our Lady is called
the alma socia Redemptoris, “revered associate of our Redeemer.”103
The belief in the new Eve is recalled: the struggle and victory com­
mon to the Blessed Virgin and her Son. Finally Mary is again called
"the noble associate of the divine Redeemer (generosa Divini Re­
demptoris socia) who has won a complete triumph over sin and its
consequences.”104

C. Dispensatrix
In Doctor Mellifluus, May 24, 1953, the encyclical on the 800th
1,8 Tondini, pp. 204-206; Lawler, pp. 114-115. lucunda semper.
“«A.A.S., Vol. 10, 1918, p. 182; Palmer, p. 97; Carol, De Corredemptione, pp.
524-527.
’θ0 A.A.S., Vol. 20, 1928, p. 178; Palmer, p. 98.
ιοί A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247-248; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 107; Palmer,
pp. 98-100.
Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M., The Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus"
and Our Blessed Lady's Coredemption, in The American Ecclesiastical Review,
Vol. 125, 1951, pp. 255-273.
A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 758; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 14.
104 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 768; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 40.

38

MARIOLOGY

anniversary of St. Bernard’s death, Pius XII repeats the great Marian
writer’s phrase on Our Lady’s Mediation: “It is the will of God that
we should have nothing which has not passed through the hands
of Mary.”105
St. Paul teaches that “. . . He [Christ] is able at all times to save
those who come to God through Him, since He lives always to make
intercession for them” (Hebr. 7:25). Mary’s share in this second
phase of Christ’s mediation, namely the dispensing of the graces of
the Redemption to individuals, has been believed in the Church
from earliest times. The Gospels show Our Lady as the channel of
divine grace, first of all through her divine motherhood, but also on
other occasions. In the mystery of the Visitation, the unborn John
was filled with grace through Mary’s charitable visit. “Her only Son,”
says Mystici Corporis, “yielding to a mother’s prayer in ‘Cana of
Galilee,’ performed the miracle by which ‘His disciples believed in
him’ (Jn. 2:n).”10e lucunda semper describes the scene in the
Cenacle: “Mary is . . . there, praying with the Apostles and entreating
for them with sighs and tears, she hastens for the Church the
coming of the Spirit, the Comforter, the supreme gift of Christ, the
treasure that will never fail.”107
Mary’s office of dispensatrix of graces is the consequence of her
part in the Redemption. Adiutricem populi says that after her
Assumption
she began, by God’s decree, to watch over the Church, to assist and
befriend us as our Mother; so that she who was intimately associated
with the mystery of human salvation (sacramenti humanae redemp­
tionis") is just as closely associated with the distribution of the graces
which for all time will flow from the Redemption. The power thus
put into her hands is all but unlimited.108

Pius XI spoke by radio to Lourdes, April 28, 1935, at the conclu­
sion of the Jubilee Year of the Redemption. “O Mother of pity and
mercy, who as Co-sufferer and Co-redemptrix (compatiens et corredemptrix) assisted thy most dear Son, as on the altar of the Cross
He consummated the Redemption of mankind . . . preserve in us
and increase each day, we beg of thee, the precious fruits of the
Redemption and of thy Compassion. . . .”109
105 A.A.S., Vol. 45, 1953, p· 382.
100 Ibid., Vol. 35, 1943, pp· 247-248; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 107.
10T Tondini, p. 206; Lawler, p. 115.
108 Tondini, p. 222; Lawler, p. 130.
100 L'Osservatore Romano, April 29-30, 1935; English translation as in G. Shea,

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

39

How great is Mary’s power when she intercedes in our behalf?
I he popes set no limit on it; they speak of a truly universal Media­
tion—of all graces and for each individual, even for those who
through forgetfulness or ignorance fail to ask her help. For Pius IX,
“with her Son, the Only-begotten, she is the most powerful Mediatrix
and Conciliatrix of the whole world.”110 Leo XIII in encyclical after
encyclical on the Rosary extols Mary’s Mediation; e.g., in Magnae Dei
Matris: one of many similar passages reads:

When we have recourse to Mary in prayer, we are having recourse
to the Mother of mercy, who is so well disposed toward us that, what­
ever the necessity that presses upon us, especially in attaining eternal
life, she is instantly at our side of her own accord, even though she
has not been invoked; and dispenses grace with a generous hand from
that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed
in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother
of God.111
Pius X: in Ad diem ilium says:

By this community of pain and will between Christ and Mary “she
merited to become in a most worthy manner the Reparatrix of the
lost world,” and consequently, the Dispenser of all the gifts that
Jesus acquired for us by His Death and Blood. . . . Who knew better
than all others the secrets of His Heart, and who by maternal right
distributes the treasures of His merits.112
After saying that Mary “may justly be said to have redeemed
together with Christ the human race,” Pope Benedict XV continues:
“for this very reason, every grace we receive from the treasury of the
Bedemption is given to us as by the hands of the same sorrowing
Virgin.”113
Even the favors for which we thank the other saints come through
the Queen of All Saints. Thus Pius XI in Ingravescentibus Malis
(encyclical on the Rosary) mentions his gratitude for the recovery
of his health: “This grace . . . We attribute to the special intercession
of the virgin of Lisieux, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, but we know
I he Teaching of the Magisterium on Mary's Spiritual Maternity, in Marian Studies,
4. 1952, p. 98. Bover, Shea, Carol, Seiler, and other Mariologists attach great
doctrinal value to this message of the Pope.
""Tondini, p. 54; Unger, Mary Immaculate, p. 22; Palmer, p. 88.
1 **
1 Tondini, p. 158; Lawler, p. 79.
"’Tondini, pp. 312-314; Unger, Mary Mediatrix, pp. 8-10; D.B., 1978 a.
""A.A.S., Vol. 10, 1918, p. 182.

40

MARIOLOGY

nonetheless that all things are given to us by the great and Good
God through the hands of His Mother.”114115

VII. SPIRITUAL MOTHER
Our Lady’s Mediation is the proof of her motherly love for men.
Pius XI wrote in Lzix veritatis, “She, by the very fact that she brought
forth the Redeemer of the human race, is also in a manner the most
tender Mother of us all, whom Christ Our Lord deigned to have as
His brothers (Rom. 8:29).”116 The belief of Catholics that Mary is
our spiritual Mother has never been solemnly proclaimed by the
magisterium of the Church. Nor does the invocation of Mary as
Our Mother occur in these words before the Middle Ages, but the
spiritual motherhood was equivalently believed in the patristic
phrases, “second Eve, new Eve, Mother of the living.” The doctrine,
as recent popes have told us, is implicit in the Gospels: in Mary’s
fiat at the Annunciation, and in Christ’s legacy on Calvary “Behold
thy mother” (Jn. 19:27). The popes by their ordinary teaching
authority have been preaching Mary’s spiritual motherhood with ever
increasing emphasis. Papal statements on the “Mother of grace” are
at least as old as Sixtus IV, who used this term in Cum praecelsa,
1477·“’
Benedict XIV (1740-1758) wrote in approval of the Marian so­
dalities: “The Catholic Church, schooled by the Holy Ghost, has
always most diligently professed, not only to venerate Mary most
devoutly as the Mother of the Lord and Redeemer, the Queen of
heaven and of earth, but also to honor her with filial affection as the
most loving Mother who was left to her with the last words of her
dying Spouse.”117
Pius IX (1846-1878) frequently referred to Mary as Our Mother.
The encyclical Uhi primum, February 2, 1849, asking the bishops’
114 Ibid., Vol. 29, 1937, p. 380; Tondini, p. 424.
115 Tondini, 400. These pages borrow heavily from the thorough treatment of
Fr. George W. Shea, The Teaching of the Magisterium on Mary's Spiritual
Maternity, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 35—110. The whole volume is
devoted to the spiritual motherhood, with studies oy W. Sebastian, O.F.M., William
R. O’Connor, C. Vollert, S.J., etc. Cf. also C. Vollert, Mother of Divine Grace,
in Studies in Praise of Our Blessed Mother, pp. 24-36, originally published in The
American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 126, 1952, pp. 258-270. English translations
for this section are Dr. Shea’s.
116 Shea, art. cit., p. 42.
117 Shea, art. cit., p. 44, quoting Benedicti XIV Opera Omnia, Vol. 16 (Prati,
1846), p. 428. This was the Bull Gloriosae Dominae.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

41

mind on the Immaculate Conception, speaks of “the most holy Mother
of God, and the most loving Mother of us all, the Immaculate Virgin
Mary.”118 Ineffabilis Deus calls Our Lady “the dearest Mother of
mercy and of grace.”119 Addressing a group of pilgrims September
17, 1876, Pius IX said, “There on Calvary, at the foot of the Cross,
represented by St. John we were placed under the protection of Mary
as our Mother. The last words of the testament which Jesus pro­
nounced . . . ‘Woman, behold thy son.’”120
The ten Rosary encyclicals and tire Quamquam pluries on the
patronage of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph give us Pope Leo
XIII’s teaching. Mary “is our Mother not in a human way but through
Christ.”121 She is “at one and the same time God’s Mother and
our Mother.”122 “Just as the most holy Virgin is the Mother of Jesus
Christ, so she is the Mother of all Christians.”123 Indeed the “whole
human race was entrusted” to her motherly care.124
Pope Leo’s Marian doctrine pictures Mary’s spiritual Maternity
under a double aspect: first, because she is Mother of Christ; second,
because of her association with the Redeemer even to Calvary.

By the very fact that she was chosen to be tire Mother of Christ,
Our Lord, Who is at the same time our brother, she was singularly
endowed above all other mothers with the mission of manifesting
and pouring out her mercy upon us. Moreover, if we are indebted
to Christ in that He has shared with us in some way the right,
peculiarly His own, of calling God our Father and possessing Him
as such, to Christ’s loving generosity we are similarly indebted for
sharing in His right to call Mary Mother and to possess her as such.125

Just as the most holy Virgin is the Mother (Genetrix) of Jesus Christ,
so she is the Mother of all Christians, whom indeed she bore (gene­
ravit) on Mt. Calvary amid the supreme throes of the Redeemer; also,
Jesus Christ is as the first-bom of all Christians, who by adoption
and Redemption are His brothers.120
118 Tondini, p. 2.
,in Tondini, p. 56.
180 Shea, art. cit., p. 54.
1/1 Tondini, p. 160. Cf. J. Bittremieux, Doctrina Mariana Leonis XIII CBrugis,
iijx8), pp. 32-42, on the spiritual motherhood.
' -'2 Aaiutricem populi, Tondini, p. 230.
'''Tondini, p. 116 (Quamquam pluries).
174 Tondini, p. 136 (Octobri mense): “universitatem humani generis, in loanne
• li .· ipulo, curandam ei fovendamque commissit.”
,an Magnae Dei Matris, Tondini, 158; Shea, art. cit., p. 59.
“"Quamquam pluries, Tondini, p. 116; Shea, art. cit. p. 58.

42

MARIOLOGY

Blessed Pius X in Ad diem illum (1904) has a magnificent passage
on Mary Our Mother. The reader is urged to consult the whole
encyclical:

For is not Mary the Mother of Christ? She is therefore our Mother
also ... as the God-Man He acquired a body composed like that of
other men, but as the Saviour of our race He had a kind of spiritual and
mystical Body, which is the society of those who believe in Christ.
“We, the many, are one body in Christ” (Romans 12,5) . . . Mary,
bearing in her womb the Saviour, may be said to have borne also all
those whose life was contained in the life of the Saviour. All of us,
therefore, who are united with Christ and are, as the Apostle says,
“Members of His body, made from His flesh and from His bones”
(Ephesians 5,30), have come forth from the womb of Mary as a body
united to its head. Hence, in a spiritual and mystical sense, we are
called children of Mary, and she is the Mother of us all . . . the
Most Blessed Virgin is at once the Mother of God and of man. . . .12T

The final phrase in Latin is: “Dei simul atque hominum parens
est.” The word parens (parent), earlier used by Pius VII,127
128 implied
a genuine maternity. It is used by Pius XI, in his first encyclical,
Ubi arcano, December 23, 1922: ‘The Virgin Mother of God and
the most loving Mother of all of us.”129
The new Code of Canon Law was promulgated under Pope Bene­
dict XV. Canon 1276 tells us: “It is good and useful to suppliantly
invoke the Saints of God, reigning together with Christ . . . but above
the others let all the faithful show the Most Blessed Virgin Mary
filial devotion.’’130 The letter Inter Sodalicia (to the Sodality of Our
Lady of a Happy Death) contains these words:
. . . she, having been constituted by Jesus Christ as the Mother of
all men, received them as bequeathed to her by a testament of infinite
charity, and since with maternal tenderness she fulfills her office of
protecting their spiritual life, the Sorrowful Virgin cannot but assist,
more zealously than ever, her most dear sons by adoption at that moment
when their eternal salvation is at stake.131
127 Tondini, pp. 310-312; Shea, art. cit., pp. 72-73. Cf. Dillersberger, Das
neue Wort Uber Maria (Salzburg, 1947), pp. 197-205; William G. Most, Blessed
Pius X and the Blessed Virgin Mary, in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol.
52, 1952, pp. 311-314.
128 Cf. Shea, art. cit., p. 48.
129 Â.A.S., Vol. 14, 1922, p. 675.
130 Codex iuris canonici, 1276; Shea, art. cit., p. 80.
131 A.A.S., Vol. 10, 1918, pp. 181-182; Shea, art. cit., pp. 81-84.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

43

Pope Pius XI spoke or wrote of the spiritual Maternity on more
than 50 occasions. Bertetto well calls him, “The Pope of the Spiritual
Maternity and of tire Rosary.”132 Rerum ecclesiae, the encyclical on
the Propagation of the Faith, February 28, 1926, says: “. . . since
on Calvary all men were commended to her motherly affection, she
loves and cherishes no less those who do not know of their Redemp­
tion by Jesus Christ than those who happily enjoy the benefits of
the Redemption.”133
On the occasion of the jubilee year of the Redemption, Pope
Pius XI made frequent references to the dying Saviour’s words
proclaiming His Mother as Mother of Men, for example, an allo­
cution of August 19, 1933: “The nineteenth centenary of the Re­
demption ... is also . . . the centenary of the universal Maternity
of Mary, officially proclaimed by the Divine King from His throne,
the Cross.”134
On November 30, 1933, the Pope gave a discourse to pilgrims:
“It is precisely under the cross, in the last moments of His life, that
the Redeemer proclaimed her our Mother and universal Mother:
‘Behold thy Son,’ He said to St. John who represented us all; in
the same Apostle we, all of us, received those other words: ‘Behold
thy Mother.’”135
The radio address to Lourdes, April 28, 1935, begins: “Let us all
pray to our common Mother. . . . Preserve in us and increase each
day, we beg of thee, the precious fruits of the Redemption and of
thy Compassion, and, thou who are the Mother of all, grant that . . .
we may finally enjoy untroubled the gifts of peace.”136
Mystici Corporis of Pius XII, June 29, 1943, condenses in a few
paragraphs of exact and beautiful phrases the Marian teachings of
the Church. What recent popes have said about the spiritual Mater­
nity is said here still more forcefully:

. . . She who corporally was the mother of our Head, through the
added title of pain and glory became spiritually the mother of all His
members. . . . Bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous
burden of her sorrows and desolation, truly the Queen of Martyrs,
she more than all the faithful “filled up those things that are wanting
of the suffering of Christ... for His Body, which is the Church” (Col.
1:12 D. Bertetto, S.D.B., Maria nel Damma Cattolico (Torino, 1950), pp. 295-302.
I33A.A.S., Vol. 18, 1926, p. 83.
,:H Shea, art. cit., p. 92.
133 Ibid., p. 93.
1 :l" L'Osservatore Romano, April 29-30, 1935; Shea, art. cit., p. 98.

44

MARIOLOGY
1,24); and she continued to show for the Mystical Body of Christ,
born from the pierced Heart of the Saviour, the same mother’s care
and ardent love, with which she clasped the Infant Jesus to her warm
and nourishing breast.137138
*

The Latin term used for “Mother of all His members” is
genetrix — the first time in a Papal document that this word is used
for spiritual motherhood. It was previously used only in reference
to the divine Maternity.188
Pius XII relates the mysteries of the Annunciation and of the
Crucifixion to the spiritual motherhood:

But when the little maid of Nazareth uttered her fiat to the message
of the Angel and the Word was made flesh in her womb she became
not only the Mother of God in the physical order of nature, but also
in the supernatural order of grace she became the Mother of all, who
through die Holy Spirit would be made one under the Headship of
her divine Son.13®
(Mary) became our Mother when the Divine Saviour was accom­
plishing His sacrifice of Himself, and thus, under this title also, we
are her children.140

In the homily delivered immediately after the solemn definition
of the Assumption the Pope said: “We are all children of the same
Mother, Mary, who lives in Heaven, the bond of union for the
Mystical Body of Christ and new Eve, new Mother of the living,
who wishes to lead all men to the truth and grace of her
divine Son.”141
The souls in purgatory still benefit from Mary’s motherly care:
“And certainly this most gentle Mother will not delay to open, as
soon as possible, through her intercession with God, the gates of
Heaven for Her children who are expiating their faults in Purgatory —
a trust based on that Promise known as the Sabbatine Privilege.”142
137 A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247-248; D.B., 2291; N.C.W.C. translation, No.
107; Palmer, pp. 99-100.
138 Cf. G. Geenen, O.P., Mother of the Mystical Body, trans. Sister Mary
Madonna, C.S.C., in Cross and Crown, Vol. 2, 1950, pp. 385-402; p. 391 on
Genetrix.
138 Tondini, p. 538: Radio message delivered in English to the National Marian
Congress at Ottawa, June 19, 1947.
110 A.A.S., Vol. 39, 1947, p. 582. The encyclical, Mediator Dei, November
20, 1947.
141 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 781.
142 Nentinem profecto latet, February it, 1950, A.A.S., Vol. 43, 1950, p. 391.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM
VIII.

45

QUEEN

A. In Popes of the Past
For centuries, the Church has called Our Lady “Queen.” Yet it
comes as a surprise to many to discover that the magisterium,
through the statements of the recent popes, and most of all through
I lis Holiness, Pius XII, has presented a strikingly complete picture
of Mary’s Queenship in harmonious relationship with her other
privileges.143
As early as Pope St. Martin I (d. 655) there are references to
Mary as Queen and Empress.144 Under Pope Adrian I (d. 795), the
Seventh Ecumenical Council (second of Nicea) defended the use
of sacred images, those of Our Lord (Dominus') God and Saviour
Jesus Christ, and of our Immaculate Lady (.Domina— a word with
royal significance), the holy Mother of God.143
Boniface IX (1389-1404) calls Mary “perfect Queen, royal Virgin,
Queen of the heavens.”146 Sixtus IV’s Cum praecelsa of 1477 speaks
of the glorious Virgin Mother of God as “Queen of heaven” and also
of her tireless intercession with “the King whom she bore.”147
Benedict XIV in Gloriosae Dominae, September 27, 1748, not only
recalls die long tradition in the Church of venerating Mary “as
143 American Mariologists have been giving special attention to the Queenship.
Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, is entirely devoted to this theme; the present writer
contributed Our Lady's Queenship in the Magisterium of the Church, pp. 29-81.
I he United States section of the Mariological Congress held in Rome, October,
1950, treated the same question: cf. the Acts of the Congress, Alma Socia Christi,
Vol. 3 (Romae, 1952), containing (in English) the episcojpal addresses read at
the meeting, by Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop Cushing, and Archbishop O’Boyle,
imd the studies on different aspects of the Queenship by J. C. Fenton, K. Moore,
O.Carm., T. B. Falls, U. Mullaney, O.P., A. Rush, C.SS.R., F. Connell, C.SS.R.
Besides the many books and articles referred to in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, the
following recent titles may be noted: Remigius J. De Roo, Regina in coelum
assumpta (.Les rapports entre l'Assomption et la Royauté de Marie'), in Les Tracts
Mariais, Nos. 37-38, Mars-Avril, 1953, an excellent work, its Canadian author’s
doctorate thesis at the Angelicum University, Rome, 1952; Leone Jambois,
Hegalità di Maria Santissima, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, Vol. 10, cols. 635-638
( Città del Vaticano, 1953); G. Filograssi, S.J., La dottrina mariana dei Papi (da
Pio IX a Pio XII), in La Civiltà Cattolica, anno 103, 1952, Vol. 3, pp. 357-359.
From the progress this belief in the Queenship has made, in the liturgy, the Papal
icuchings, among the theologians and the people, Filograssi calls it certain Catholic
doctrine.
144 Cf. P. Aubron, De la Souveraineté de Maria, in Souveraineté de Marie,
Congrès Marial de Boulogne S/Mer (Paris, 1938), pp. 121—122.
140 Cf. A. Luis, C.SS.R., La Realeza de Maria (Madrid, 1942), p. 80.
>4" Ibid.
,4T Carroll, art. cit., in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, p. 41.

46

MARIOLOGY

Mother of the Lord and Redeemer, Queen of heaven and of earth,”
and of honoring “her with filial affection as the most loving Mother,"
but also adds, “For this is the most beautiful Esther, whom the
supreme King of Kings so loved that for the salvation of His people
He seems to have given her not merely half his kingdom, but in
some manner to have communicated to her His whole rule and
power. This valiant woman is that Judith, whom the God of Israel
permitted to gain victory over all the enemies of His people.”148
Ineffabilis DeusltB of Pius IX exalts Mary in these words,
. she
has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth,
and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and classes of Saints.”
"Queen conceived -without original sin” was placed in the Litany of
Loreto after 1854.
Leo XIII frequently called Our Lady “Queen of the Most Holy
Rosary.”150 The encyclical Magnae Dei Matris recalls Mary’s con­
tinual association with her Son:
It is thus that the crown of the kingdoms of heaven and of earth will
await her because she will be the invincible Queen of martyrs; it is
thus that she will be seated in the heavenly city of God by the
side of her Son, crowned for all eternity, because she will drink with
Him the cup overflowing with sorrow, faithfully through all her life,
most faithfully on Calvary.151

Ad diem ilium of Blessed Pius X mentions Mary’s Queenship in
the context of her association with Christ in the work of human
salvation and in the ministration of graces. “Christ “has taken His
seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high’ (Heb. 1:3), and
Mary as Queen stands at His right hand. . . .”152 In a similar setting
Mary is called “Queen of Martyrs”: “With Mary present and wit­
nessing it, that divine sacrifice was perfected by which we have
been redeemed, and she shared in it to such an extent that the
3,38 Ibid., p. 43. The Epistle in the new Mass of the Assumption also recalls
Judith’s triumph (Judith 13:22-25; 15:10); cf. A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, p. 793.
Carroll, art. cit., p. 45.
150 Salutaris ille, Tondini, p. 84, is the apostolic letter of December 24, 1883,
commanding the insertion of “Queen of the Most Holy Rosary” in the Litany
of Loreto.
151 Tondini, p. 166; Lawler, p. 88. Note the connection between Coredemption
and the Queenship.
152 Tondini, pp. 312-314; Unger, pp. 9-10; Carroll, art. cit., pp. 53-54.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

47

Queen of Martyrs both brought forth and nourished the most sacred
Victim.’’103
Benedict XV’s war-tom pontificate is full of his pleas to the
“Queen of Peace.” In adding the prayer “Queen of peace, pray for
us” to the Litany of Loreto, the Pontiff said, “Will Mary, who is
Queen not of wars and slaughter, but of the kingdom of peace,
disappoint the trust and the prayers of her faithful children? . . .
Faith and history alike point to the one succor, to the omnipotence
of prayer, to the Mediatrix, to Mary. In all security and trust we cry,
Regina pacis, ora pro nobis.”154
Pius XI, in at least three encyclical letters, begs the Queen of
the Apostles to grant unity to the Church, (r) In Ecclesiam Dei,
November 2, 1923, on the third centenary of the martyrdom of St.
losaphat, Pius XI urges us —like St. Josaphat —to go to Our Lady,
who is also loved by tire schismatics. “Let us invoke this most kind
Mother, especially with this title, Queen of the pastures, that the
straying brothers may return to the life-giving pastures, where Peter,
ever living in his successors and Vicar of the Eternal Shepherd,
feeds and guides all the lambs and sheep of the Christian flock.”155
(2) Rerum Ecclesiae, February 28, 1926. “May Mary, the most
I loly Queen of the Apostles, graciously second our common under­
takings; Mary, who since she holds in her mother’s heart all men
who were committed to her on Calvary, cherishes and loves, not
only those who happily enjoy tire fruits of the Redemption, but those
likewise who still do not know that they have been redeemed by
Jesus Christ.”153 (3) Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931, in commemo­
ration of Ephesus. “Linder the auspices of the heavenly Queen, We
desire all to beg for a special favor of tire greatest importance, that
she who is loved and venerated with such ardent piety by the people
of the East, may not permit that they should be unhappily wandering
nnd still kept apart from the unity of the Church and thus from her
Son, Whose Vicar on earth We are.”157
lr l A.A.S., Vol. 3, 1911, p. 266: a letter of April 30, 1911; cf. Seiler, CorreJrniptrix, p. 76; Druwé, art. cit., p. 448.
IMÈ pur troppo vero, Christmas Eve address to tire cardinals, 1915, quoted
lioin the translation in Principles for Peace — Selections from Papal Documents,
I ru XIII to Pius XII, ed. hy. H. C. Koenig (Washington, D. C., 1943), No. 425.
' A.A.S., Vol. 15, 1923, pp. 581-582.
Ibid., Vol. 18, 1926, p. 83; English from The Global War for Christ (New
York, 1944).
ln’ A.A.S., Vol. 23, 1931, p. 513; Tondini, p. 402; N.C.W.C. translation.

48

MARIOLOGY

B. Pius XII on the Queenship
Pius XII, the Pope of the Assumption, the Pope of the consecration
of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, is also the Pope of
Our Lady’s Queenship. More than any of his predecessors, Pope Pius
XII has brought into relief the fuller meaning of Our Lady’s power
as queen. Mary is Queen not alone in the sense of excelling all other
creatures; she is Queen also in a proper sense, that is, with real
power, with true association in her Son’s kingdom of grace. The
foundations of her Queenship are the divine Maternity and her co­
operation in the work of the Redemption. Mary’s kingdom is co­
extensive with Christ’s; but the traditional title, Queen of Mercy,
indicates the special sphere of her interest. About the exact nature
of her Queenship theological writers are not agreed; some emphasize
her Queenship as parallel (though subordinate and dependent) to
Christ’s kingship, through her conquest with Him; others insist
on the feminine character of Mary’s rule —through her mother’s
power over the heart of Christ.
From the abundance of Pius XII’s documents on the Queenship
we limit ourselves to a few selections. Addressing the world by radio
on October 31, 1942, the twenty-fifth anniversary of Our Blessed
Lady’s apparitions at Fatima, Portugal, the Holy Father “in the role
of representative of the whole human race” solemnly declared:

As the Church and the entire human race were consecrated to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus so that, in reposing all hope in Him, He might
become for them the sign and pledge of victory and salvation: so We
in like manner consecrate ourselves forever also to thee and thy Im­
maculate Heart, Our Mother and Queen, that thy love and patronage
may hasten the triumph of the Kingdom of God.158
On Columbus Day, October 12, 1945, the Pontiff sent a radio mes­
sage to the Mexican Marian Congress for the fiftieth anniversary of
the crowning of the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
The Pope addressed not alone the people of Mexico, recovering with
Our Lady’s help after the decades of persecution, but all America.
His legate was Cardinal Villeneuve from Canada.
158 A. A.S., Vol. 34, 1942, pp. 345-346; translation from Principles for Peace,
No. 182. For other documents in connection with the consecration to the Immaculate
Heart, and their bearing on the Queenship, cf. Carroll, art. cit., pp. 162-166; K.
Healy, O.Carm., Theology of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of
America (Cincinnati, 1949), pp. 102-127.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE MAGISTERIUM

49

The most holy Virgin was the providential instrument chosen by the
designs of the heavenly Father to give to the world His beloved Son;
to be the Mother and Queen of the Apostles who were to spread his
doctrine to the whole world. . . . [In conclusion the Pope speaks
directly to Our Lady of Guadalupe.] . . . We set again on your brow
the crown, which places forever under your powerful patronage the
purity and integrity of the holy faith in Mexico and in the whole
American continent. For we are certain that as long as you are
recognized as Queen and Mother, America and Mexico will be safe.159

On May 13, 1946, the Pope delivered what he has since called
11 is radio message on the Queenship as his legate, Cardinal Masella,
'.olemnly crowned the statue of Our Lady at Fatima.
He, the Son of God, reflects on His heavenly Mother the glory, the
majesty and the dominion of His kingship; for, having been associated
to the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as
Mother and co-operatrix, she remains forever associated to Him, with
an almost unlimited power, in the distribution of the graces which
flow from the Redemption. Jesus is King throughout all eternity by
nature and by right of conquest; through Him, with Him and sub­
ordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by
right of conquest and by singular election. And her kingdom is as
vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her
dominion. And this queenship of hers is essentially maternal, exclusively
beneficent.100

Space limitations preclude discussion of the queenly phrases in
ΛI ystici Corporis: ‘‘Queen of Martyrs” and “reigns in heaven with
her Son.”101
Munificentissimus Deus has several mentions of the Queenship in
connection with the Assumption. In commemoration of the dogmatic
«l<Tmition another queenly title has been added to the Litany of
lr"’A.A.S., Vol. 37, 1945, pp. 265-267; Tondini, p. 505®. The Pontiff alluded
In the anniversary commemorated on October 12, without mentioning Columbus’
iiiinte.
1,10 A.A.S., Vol. 38, 1946, p. 266; Tondini, pp. 518-519. This important message
1« Munctimes titled Bendito seja from its opening words in Portuguese, other times
i ulled Benedicite Deum. Cf. Carroll, art. cit., pp. 66-69; J· B. Carol, O.F.M.,
Mery’s Co-redemption in the Teaching of Pope Pius XII, in The American
I ■. Ir .iastical Review, Vol. 121, 1949, p. 359, and again in Studies in Praise of
Our Blessed Mother, ed, J. C. Fenton and É. D. Bénard (Washington, D. C.,
in·. .· >, pn. 167-168; De Roo, op. cit.; Filograssi, art. cit.
[ "" A.AS., Vol. 35, 1943, p. 248; cf. Carroll, art. cit., pp. 69-71. The Latin
"iiinic|uc simul cum Filio suo regnat” for “reigns in heaven with her Son” is a
■ly strong phrase, as the commentators note.

MARIOLOGY

5o

Loreto: “Queen assumed into heaven.”182 From his study of this
topic, Father De Roo concludes that the solemn proclamation of the
bodily Assumption on November i, 1950, has been an invitation
given us by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, the great Marian Pope of
the twentieth century, to open a new chapter in Marian doctrine:
Queen assumed into heaven!183
Munificentissimus Deus contains a brilliant paragraph which is a
striking summary of Marian doctrine:
The revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way
with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, im­
maculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine mother­
hood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a
complete triumph over sin and its consequences, was finally granted,
as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be pre­
served free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own
Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul
to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the
right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the ages.184

A CLOSING WORD
There are many more teachings which the popes have given us
about Our Blessed Mother; for example, their recommendations of
traditional Marian devotions like the Rosary and the Brown Scapular,
or their praise of Marian saints, like St. Louis Marie Grignion de
Montfort, St. Bernard, St. Ephraem, St. Simon Stock, St. Bernadette.
In preaching the imitation of the holy Mother of God; in encourag­
ing pilgrimages to her shrines, as Lourdes, Fatima, Loreto, La Salette;
in extending consecration to her Immaculate Heart; or in approving
any form of veneration of Our Lady, the magisterium at the same
time reminds us that true devotion flows from sound doctrine. May
the serious study of Mary, Seat of Wisdom, bring home to us the
truth which our supreme Teacher underlines with these words: “Do
not forget, Catholics of Mexico and of all America: true wisdom is
that which she gives you, that which she teaches you, in the name
of the Incarnate Wisdom!”185
1(12 A.A.S., Vol.
163 De Roo, op.
164 A.A.S., Vol.
1C5A.A.S., Vol.

42,
cit.,
42,
37,

1950, p. 793.
p. 56.
p. 768; N.C.W.C. translation, No. 40.
1945, pp. 265-267; Tondini, p. 511.

Mary in the Old Testament
By ERIC MAY, O.F.M.Cap., S.T.D., S.S.L.

INTRODUCTION; “THE MOTHER OF JESUS WAS THERE”
HEN Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, came into
the world, He was not very particular about the kind of place
where He was to be cradled, or the clothes He would wear or the
food He would eat. But on one point Fie was very definite. The
woman who was to be His Mother had to be perfect. And perfect
she was —sinless, stainless, Virgin as well as Mother.
We cannot doubt that the God-Man was very proud of His
Mother Mary. And that fact, perhaps, emphasizes our astonishment
at finding the Virgin Mary mentioned rather infrequently in the
pages of Holy Writ. We do not know when or where she was born,
for instance; we do not know when or where she finished the earthly
course of her existence; and it is little enough that we read of her
apart from St. Luke’s infancy section. This comparative silence of
Sacred Scripture concerning the Mother of God has teased the minds
of men for centuries. We can always answer, as did St. Lawrence
of Brindisi and Didacus Stella (concerning the Assumption), that
divine mysteries are far above us, so that a holy silence and quiet
admiration praise them more than fulsome words on tip of tongue
or pen.1 Ultimately, however, one must conclude that we know everydiing about Mary that God thought it good for us to know.
How much do we know? That is to say, in how many passages does
die written Word of God speak to us of Mary? To satisfy this query,
several prior questions must first be answered. The difficulty lies not
so much with the New Testament where disputed Marian texts are
lew (e.g., the identity of the Woman in Apoc. 12), but rather with
the Old Testament. Should we expect to find references to Mary

W

1 Laurentius de Brindisi, Sermo II, In Assumptione, in the Mariale (Opera
Omnia, i) (Padua, 1928), pp. 590-591; Didacus Stella, In sanctum lesu
• 'Inisti Evangelium, Vol. 2 (Lugduni, 1583), p. 53. Fr. Anthony Cotter, S.J.,
lia·, written a general article worthy of consideration: The Obscurity of Scriptun·, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1947, pp. 453—464.
Ji

52

MARIOLOGY

scattered through the history of the Old Covenant? If so, they would
have to be in the nature of a revelation and a prophecy. A priori,
there is nothing against this inasmuch as the same holds true for
Old Testament messianic passages regarding the Person of Christ.
And one would almost expect to find the Messias and His Mother
linked together in prophecy as in reality.
Granting the possibility of Marian passages in the Old Testament,
in what manner do these texts refer to the Mother of God? Such a
question draws one inevitably into a consideration of biblical her­
meneutics and the various senses of Sacred Scripture. This ground
has already been covered in scholarly fashion by other authors,2 and
since that is not our primary concern here, and because the termi­
nology involved is still open to dispute, we merely summarize our posi­
tion in the matter for our immediate needs. We accept, then, the
customary pattern given in standard manuals of Introduction to
Sacred Scripture.3 We accept the literal sense as a strict biblical sense
(whether this be properly literal, taking words or phrases in their
obvious, etymological meaning; or improperly literal, understanding
words in their transferred, figurative meaning; or literal in the fuller
sense, i.e., taking words in their “developed” literal sense as known
to God alone or those to whom He reveals it). The typical sense (the
meaning in which persons, things or actions directly signified by a
text, according to the intention of the Holy Spirit refer also to still
other persons, things, or actions) is likewise a strict biblical sense.
Besides these strict scriptural senses4 there is the so-called consequent
sense (not strictly literal, but derived from words of Scripture by a
reasoning process), and the accommodated sense (a meaning which
one adapts to the words of Scripture, intended neither by tire human
2 Outstanding is a recent article by Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The Use of
Sacred Scripture in Mariology, in Marian Studies, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 67-116.
Cf. also S. Alameda, O.S.B., La Mariologia y las fttentes de la revelaciôn, in
Estudios Marianos, Vol. 1, 1942, pp. 41-100; J. Coppens, Les harmonies des
deux Testaments, in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Vol. 70, 1948, pp. 799-810;
Vol. 71, 1949, pp. 3-38, 337-366, 477-496; Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., La
Madonna seconde la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1953), pp. 49-147.
3 E.g., H. Hôpfl and B. Gut, O.S.B., Introductio Generalis in Sacram Scrip­
turam, 5 ed. (Romae, 1950), p. 434 ff.; John Steinmueller, A Companion to
Scripture Studies, Vol. i (New York, 1941), p. 226 ff.
4 According to another common division the biblical senses may be explicit
(the meaning explicitly expressed in the words) or implicit (the meaning con­
tained in the words either formally — making it equivalent to an explicit con­
cept — or virtually — when the meaning is derived by a reasoning process). The
“consequent sense” corresponds to the virtually implicit sense.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

53

nor the sacred Author). These, then, are the senses we take into
consideration when investigating the Marian texts of the Old
Testament.
Before proceeding to the Old Testament passages commonly con­
sidered as Marian, there are several points to bear in mind. Despite
the tons of ink and paper devoted to Mariology in recent decades,
agreement is still lacking on some fundamental concepts. Perhaps
this is due mainly to a vague and conflicting terminology; perhaps
not. But it is still possible to find authors who refuse outright, or at
least hesitate to see literal references to Mary in the Old Testament
because of a mistaken notion that in interpreting early and primitive
texts one may not go beyond whatever the first readers could have
understood.5 Such an attitude surely exceeds the proper caution to
be observed lest one read something into a text not intended by its
divine and human coauthors. Tire attitude does less than justice to
the strict scriptural senses, not excluding the fuller and the typical
senses.
This fact leads logically to another consideration. It is frequently
taken for granted that revelation, developing slowly as it did over the
centuries before Christ, left those of the Old Dispensation (even the
•ages and prophets) helpless to understand the messianic message.
I lence, some think a direct reference to the Mother of the Messias
as early as the Protogospel (Gew. 3:15) is out of the question. The
same line of thinking governs their consideration of even the VirginBirth prophecy in Isa. 7:14. Too advanced a concept, they say; hence
at best they grant a typical reference to the future Baby and His
Virgin Mother.
Must we patiently breathe “Amen” to such a view? May we not
probe deeper and perhaps come up with a different answer? Granted,
that there is a gradual development of the messianic theme in the
Old Testament.6 Granted, that according to St. Augustine’s famous
’ Cf. D. Unger, art. cit., pp. 107-108. As applied to Gen. 3:15, cf. bibliography
In Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., The Scriptural Basis for Mary's Spiritual Maternity,
in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, p. 114 if. R. Galdôs, S.J., Maria en la Biblia,
in Cultura Biblica, Vol. 3, 1946, pp. 113-115, contends that theologians of note
limit Old Testament texts, which are applicable literally to Mary, to Isa. 7:14.
I Ic adds that “enthusiastic Marianophihsts” (like Roschini) also try to bring
Im ward texts like Gen. 3:15 and Jer. 31:22.
·' Cf. particularly E. F. Sutcliffe, S.J., The Meaning of the Old Testament,
in .4 Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (henceforth: OCHS') (London,
tosD· PP· 127-132; Augustin Bea, S.J., Das Marienbild des Alten Bundes, in
hiilholiscne Marienkunde (ed. P. Strater), Vol. 1 (Paderborn, 1952), pp. 22-43.

54

MARIOLOGY

dictum the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old
Testament becomes manifest in the New.7 Granted further, that
nothing of a supernatural nature in the Old Dispensation could be
learned apart from revelation. Is it not possible, however, that God
may have revealed His mysteries more frequently than we have
supposed? Could Moses have appreciated that it was of the Messias’
Mother he was writing in that Woman-Seed prophecy of Gen. 3:15?
Did Isaias understand what he was really saying when referring to
the Virgin Mother (7:14) or the Suffering Servant (53)? The argu­
ment that Jewish contemporaries seemingly did not comprehend does
not appear to be sufficient warrant to deny at least a possibility of
knowledge to these men who stood in so intimate a relationship to
God.8
Not yet has sufficient stress been placed on the fact that both Old
and New Testaments had the same divine Author. Not yet has
enough been written about oral tradition as a second source of revela­
tion during the Old Dispensation. To give due consideration to this
latter point, no doubt, will lead one to a position not too far removed
from that of Father J. Arendzen. This author, in explaining Isaias’
Virgin-Birth prophecy, remarks:

Does the exclusive stress of the prophecy [of Isa. 7:14] lie on the
miracle itself that it will be a virgin who will conceive and thus that
God in one unique instance will give the crown of virginity and
maternity to one person, making her mother and leaving her a maid?
It would seem not. The miracle is indeed plainly and unmistakably
foretold, but rather as a thing taken for granted, as a thing already
known, something which needed not a repeated prophecy to bring
it to the notice of Israel then living. Divine revelation in the Old
Testament was no more limited to the Written Word, or the Bible,
than it is in the New. It was then a living progressive revelation both
by the spoken and the written Word, as it is now a living completed
revelation contained both in Scripture and Tradition and maintained
by the infallible Church. Hence there is no need to suppose or de­
mand that Isaias then for the first time brought to the notice of Israel
the glories of the Mother of the Messias. . . . The prophets of Israel
were living people who prophesied with the living voice. Some of
their prophecies have by God’s Will come down in writing, some of
7 "In Vetere Testamento Novum latet, et in Novo Vetus patet,” Quaest. in
Hept., II, 73; PL, 34, 623.
8 Along similar lines cf. Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., Ecce Agnus Dei (Washing
ton, D. C., 1947), pp. 100-108 and 123-129, tor John the Baptist’s advanced
knowledge regarding die expiatory deadi of Christ.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

55

them have not. There is nothing to force us to say that the mystery of
the Virgin birth must have been unknown to Elias or Eliseus, Amos,
Osee or Joel because they preceded Isaias. Though the immediate pur­
pose of Isaias’ prophecy to Ahaz was the devastation of Palestine by
the Assyrians within a few years, he states with utmost clarity that the
Mother of the Messias is to be a Virgin as well as a Mother.9

With the increased interest in Mariology during recent years, an
interest given greater impetus by the declaration of tire dogma of the
Assumption in 1950, authors are diligently re-examining Sacred
Scripture in its bearing on this special branch of theology. As one
writer has put it, “Mary is at the point of junction of the Old and the
New Law, which means that one cannot realize the whole signifi­
cance of her vocation without replacing her in the Old Testament;
a thorough understanding of the passages in Matthew and Luke in
their early chapters is impossible without this constant reference to the
biblical atmosphere which we have in common with Israel.”10 We
just cannot afford to study the biblical era as merely human history,
or the Sacred Text solely in the light of literary criteria. To do so is
to end up with what has been aptly called “minimum Mariology.”
In recent Mariological research the trend has been toward an
examination of biblical themes rather than of isolated texts. Thus, as
C. Moeller explains in an article for prospective catechists, “the
teacher should be aware of tire general significance of the texts and,
above all, of the Old Testament themes which are the foundation of
the Marian revelation in the New Testament. Mary is placed at the
turn of the old and new economy: on the one hand she is the supreme
(lowering of this human preparation (although realized through
grace) of the ‘cradle,’ destined to receive the Messiah; on the other,
alter Jesus, Mary represents ‘the consent and cooperation of the
( hurch.’”11 The theme motif is not always invoked in precisely the
•..une way. The basic idea, however, is to consider the concatenation
i if Marian texts in both Old and New Testaments as bearing a unified
message, one text helping to explain the other.12 To our way of think­
ing, this is not only a justified approach —it is a necessity.
" J. Arendzen, Our Lady in the Old Testament, in Our Blessed Lady (CamI'tMge Summer School Lectures for 1933) (London, 1934), pp. 10—11.
10 Charles Moeller, The Virgin Mary in Contemporary Thought, in Lumen
Vitae, Vol. 8, 1953, p. 191.
11 Charles Moeller, Doctrinal Aspects of Mariology, in Lumen Vitae, Vol. 8,
lust. p. 227.
' * The following are a few examples of how the biblical theme motif has
ln'< i> applied to Marian doctrine. A general article is that of Ermenegildo Florit,

MARIOLOGY

56

We have already seen that the Old Testament texts commonly
recognized as Marian are relatively few in number. Of these texts,
not all refer to Mary directly, or in the strict literal sense. It is disputed
whether some refer to her at all. There are many Old Testament
types which find their fulfillment in the Mother of God. There are
innumerable other passages accommodated to Mary for homiletic or
liturgical purposes. It shall be our main concern to determine which
Old Testament passages really refer immediately and formally to
Mary. We shall discover that though the texts be few, the Old
Testament has quite a bit to tell us about the Blessed Mother.

I.

MARY IN PROPHECY

i Gen. 3:15
After the lamentable moral fall of Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden (Gen. 3) they awaited their punishment.
But before He punished Eve (v. 16) and Adam (w. 17-19), almighty
God meted out punishment to Satan who had seduced Eve under the
guise of a serpent (v. 14). As part of Satan’s punishment God ad­
dressed to him those momentous words which have come to be
known as the Protogospel.
Context.

Text.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman,
between your seed and her seed;
He shall crush your head
and you shall lie in wait for his heel.”

The number of recent books and articles on this verse is simply
phenomenal and offers perhaps the best indication of its importance
Maria nell'Esegesi Biblica Contemporanea, in Studi Mariani, Vol. I, 1942-1941.
pp. 87-90. In particular, for the universal Mediation of Mary, cf. Joseph Bovcr,
S.J., Universalis B. Virginis mediatio ex Proto-evangelio (Gen. 3:14-15) demon­
strata, in Gregorianum, Vol. 5, 1924, pp. 569-583; for the spiritual Materniiy
of Mary, cf. E. May, O.F.M.Cap., The Scriptural Basis for Mary's Spiritual
Maternity, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. m-141; for the Assumption,
cf. Bonaventura Mariani, O.F.M., L'Assunzione di Maria SS. nella Sacra Scrithtra,
in Atti del Congresso Nazionale Mariano dei Prati Minori d'Italia (Studia Mariana.
1) (Roma, 1948), pp. 456-468; for Mary as Spouse of the Divine Word, <1.
C. Moeller, Doctrinal Aspects of Mariology, pp. 236-238, and F.-M. Broun,
Marie Mère des fidèles. Essai de théologie johannique (Paris, 1952). —Cf. also
J. Levie, Les limites de la preuve d'Ecriture Sainte en théologie, in Nouvelle
Revue Théologique, Vol. 71, 1949, pp. 1009-1029.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

57

to the study of Mariology.13 Not that everyone agrees on the exact
interpretation of the verse. In fact, some Catholics still find it difficult
to see how Mary is concerned in the verse at all, except perhaps
accommodatively.1415
How anyone can still question Mary’s connection
with Gen. 3:15 in a true scriptural sense, after the use made of the
verse by recent popes, is a mystery. Most recently, for example, in
promulgating the Marian Year of 1954 His Holiness Pope Pius XII
pointed out:
In the first place, the foundation of this doctrine [the Immaculate
Conception] is to be found in Sacred Scripture, where we are taught
that God, Creator of all things, after the sad fall of Adam, addressed
the serpent, tire tempter and corrupter, in these words, which not a
few Fathers, Doctors of the Church and many approved interpreters
applied to the Virgin Mother of God: “I will put enmities between
thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed” (Gen. Ill, 15). Now,
if at any time tire Blessed Mary were destitute of Divine grace even
for the briefest moment, because of contamination in her conception
by the hereditary stain of sin, there would not have come between her
and the serpent that perpetual enmity spoken of from earliest tradition
down to the time of tire solemn definition of the Immaculate Concep­
tion, but rather a certain subjection.16
However, interpretation of the verse remains an issue of dispute.
Even those who agree that Gen. 3:15 is Marian, disagree on the pre­
cise scriptural sense involved. Thus, some explain the text as a refer13 For the purposes of bibliography in this treatise, we have been forced to
select only the more noteworthy and pertinent books and articles. The most recent
and most complete volume on the Protoevangelium is the study by Dominic J.
Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The First-Gospel, Genesis 3:15 (St. Bonaventure, N. Y.,
Franciscan Institute, 1954).
14 E.g., Antonine De Guglielmo, O.F.M., Mary in the Protoevangelium, in
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1952, pp. 104—115; Léon Leloir, La
Médiation Mariale dans la théologie contemporaine (Bruges, 1933), pp. 87—90;
II. Brodmann, O.F.M., Quid doceat S.S. utriusque Testamenti de indole historica
narrationis de paradiso et lapsu Gen. 2—3, in Antonianum, Vol. 12, 1937, p. 355.
15 Fulgens Corona as translated in The Catholic Mind, Vol. 51, 1953, p· 739·
( Is it possible that by the phrase “earliest tradition” Flis Holiness may have
meant to go as far back as the primitive tradition of the Old Dispensation?) More
than a few authors have stated in so many words that the Church is morally
unanimous today in its Mariological interpretation of Gen. 3:15. On this point,
cf. A. Bea, S.J., Maria SS. nel Protoevangelo (Gen. 3, 15), in Marianum, Vol.
i
1953, pp· 1-21 ; M. Peinador, C.M.F., De argumento scripturistico in Mariologia, in Ephemerides Mariologicae, Vol. 1, 1951, p. 337; V. Bertelli, Il senso
niariologico pieno e il senso letterale del Protoevangelo (Gen. 3, 15) dalla
'Ineffabilis Deus’ al 1948, in Marianum, Vol. 13, 1951, pp. 369-395. The

58

MARIOLOGY

ence first to Eve, then to Mary, and call it the typical sense.*il
16 In recent
years more and more authors are seeing a literal reference to Mary in
the Protogospel. Some explain it as the improper literal sense.17 Others
prefer to see here a verification of the fuller sense.18 Still others find
a direct and properly literal reference to Mary in the verse,19 and
it is with this view that our sympathy lies — for exegetical as well as
traditional reasons.
A scriptural passage is the work of God as well as of man; and
while the exegete will first apply the principles of literary criticism
to the text, he may not stop there. This is particularly true of a
disputed text. It is most especially true of a text that has been used
latter concludes: “Abbiamo detto che si puo dunque intendere mariologicamente
il Protoevangelo. Ma oseremmo dire anche di più: che si deve interpretare in
tai senso” (p. 395).
16 E. Sutcliffe, S.J., Protoevangelium, in The Clergy Review, Vol. 2, 1931, pp.
155-159; G. Repetti, La tipologia mariana nel Protoevangelio, in Divus Thomas,
Vol. 14, 1937, p. 289; J. Dougherty, The Fall and Its Consequences, in The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 3, 1941, pp. 230-231; A. Robert, P.S.S., La
Sainte Vierge dans l'Ancien Testament, in Du Manoir’s Maria. Études sur la
Sainte Vierge, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), p. 35.
17 T. Gallus, S.J., sees the whole context as a continued metaphor. Mary is
in the text figuratively or metaphorically, the so-called '‘allegorico-dogmatic”
sense; Beata Virgo Maria Protoevangelio praesignata, in Alma Socia Christi, Vol.
11, ’953, pp· 58-67. This author has written extensively on the Protoevangelium.
Cf. e.g.: Interpretatio mariologica Protoevangelii (Gen. 3, 15) tempore postpatristico usque ad Concilium Tridentinum (Romae, 1949); Observationes ad
"Novam Protoevangelii mariologicam interpretationem," in Ephemerides Mariologicae, Vol. 2, 1952, pp. 425-437; Interpretatio mariologica Protoevangelii post
tridentina . . . , pars prior: a Concilio Trid. usque ad annum 1660 (Romae,
’953)· Cf. also J. R. Garcia, C.M.F., Glosas critico exegéticas. Il, Maria en el
Protoevangelio (Gen. 3:15), in Cultura Biblica, Vol. 8, 1951, pp. 193-197.
18 E.g., Teôfilo de Orbiso, O.F.M.Cap., La Mujer del Protoevangelio, in
Estudios Biblicos, Vol. 1, 1941, pp. 187—207; J. Trinidad, S.J., Quomodo prae
nuntietur Maria in Gen 3:15? in Verbum Domini, Vol. 19, 1939, p. 357; M. de
Jonghe, De Protoevangelio, in Collationes Brugenses, Vol. 29, 1929, esp. p. 435;
F. Ceuppens, O.P., Mariologia Biblica (Romae, 195’), p. 17.
19 Cf. Francis X. Peirce, S.J., Mary Alone is "the Woman" of Genesis 3, 15, in
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1940, pp. 245-252; idem, The Woman
of Genesis, in The Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 103, 1940, p. 94®.; idem, The
Protoevangelium, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 13, 1951, pp. 239-252;
A. Vitti, S.J., Maria negli splendori della Teologia Biblica, in La Civiltà Cattolicn,
Vol. 3, 1942, pp. 193—201; Michael von Neukirch, O.F.M.Cap., Kleine then
logisch-praktische Mariologie (Leipzig, 1925), pp. 19-20; G. Roschini, O.S.M,,
La Madonna seconda la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 2 (Romae, 1953), p. 49 if.;
Theophilus ab Orbiso, O.F.M.Cap., Sancti Laurentii Brundusini quaedam de
theologica biblica quaestiones, in Collectanea Franciscana, Vol. 22, 1952, pp. 251280. A further elaborate bibliography will be found in Juniper Carol, O.F.M.,
De Corredemptione B. V. Mariae (Civitas Vaticana, 1950), pp. 86-91.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

59

so frequently in connection with Marian dogma and Marian theology
in general. Here the authentic interpretation of the Church as mani­
fested by the authority of the Fathers, the analogy of faith, papal
encyclicals, and the teaching magisterium must find place. Where
Gen. 3:15 is concerned, we believe that the teaching Church has said
enough to provide a solid foundation for the directly literal Marian
interpretation of the verse. And we believe that there are good exegetical reasons for saying the same.
Briefly, the two most cogent reasons for holding that Mary alone
is the Woman mentioned in Gen. 3:15 are: (1) the fact that the
total and perpetual enmity placed between the Woman and Satan
was verified in Mary alone; (2) the fact that the Woman’s Seed, at
total and perpetual enmity with Satan’s seed, crushed Satan’s head.
Jesus Christ was the one who did this. He is the Woman’s Seed;
Mary is Flis Mother.
We proceed to positive proof. It was a complete and perpetual
enmity predicted between the Woman and Satan. The Hebrew word
for “enmity,” ’êybâh, means just that, as we can gather from its use
elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Num. 35:21 where it means
a personal enmity that leads to murder; Ezech. 25:15 where it signi­
fies a national destructive enmity), as well as from the very nature
of the passage. Which woman of history qualifies for such an enmity
with the devil if not the Immaculate Mother of Jesus, who never for
a moment fell beneath Satan’s power? Eve surely does not. We know
how Scripture speaks of her. She was the one who brought sin into
(he world (Ecclus. 25:33; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). Never was
she said to be “full of grace.” And even though Eve did repent of
the original sin, are we really to suppose that never again for an
instant did she yield to temptation until her dying breath?20 Again, it
will pay us to remember that Pope Pius IX had this perfect enmity in
mind when defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.21 The
type of enmity predicted in Gen. 3:15 is perhaps the strongest reason
lor rejecting the view that Eve, here, is a type of Mary.
It is the Woman’s Seed who crushes Satan’s power and is harmed
somewhat in the crushing. Of whom is this perfect victory, the
Redemption, verified if not of Jesus the Messias who brought salvaao Fr. Peirce, S.J., Protoevangelium, loc. cit., p. 251, quite correctly ridicules
the idea, as proposed (for example) by Fr. Ceuppens in his Quaestiones selectae
ι·λ· Historia primaeva (Romae,
1947), ρ· 197·
■ i Cf. Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap., Mary Immaculate, the Bull Ineffabilis
Dews of Pope Pius IX (Paterson, N. J., 1946), pp. ίο-n and note on p. 30.

6o

MARIOLOGY

tion to the world by His bloody death on the cross? He and He alone
brought about the objective Redemption (although Mary co-operated
in a secondary capacity). Need this be proved? But if Christ is the
individual to be identified through parallelism with the Woman’s
Seed, then surely the Woman herself can only be Mary His Mother.22
These reasons do not appeal to everyone, it is true. There are
numerous objections, mainly on exegetical grounds. One widespread
objection holds that Mary cannot be tire Woman of Gen. 3:15, at
least not primarily and directly, because the context is against it.
Throughout Chapter 3 only one woman is mentioned: Eve. There­
fore, tire woman in verse 15 must also be Eve, according to the
(literary) principle of hermeneutics that a word is determined by its
context. This is more certain (say the objectors) in that the word
for woman in Hebrew has the definite article (haiSM'), which by
anaphoric usage refers to previously mentioned Eve. In reply, we
may point out that there are very good reasons for identifying the
Woman of verse 15 without reference to the immediate context. The
surrounding verses, 14 and 16, are also prophetic it is true, but they
are not messianic as is verse 15. And wherever else in the Old Testa­
ment the Woman appears in a messianic text (as we shall see), that
Woman is Mary, Mother of the Messias. Therefore, considering
Gen. 3:15 in its remote context, i.e., tire Old Testament —and indeed
the entire Bible, we are to identify this Mother of the Perfect Victor
with Mary. Then, too, the fact that the Hebrew word for Woman
has the article does not by any means prove an anaphoric usage.
There are many similar phrases in the Old Testament where use of
the article is not anaphoric.23 The reference here, then, is to a certain
Woman who with her Son will be victorious over Satan.
If this is true, what did the prophecy mean to Adam and Eve?
So runs another line of objection. From the words of verse 15 alone,
22 As is well known, the Vulgate reading of verse 15c is: "Ipsa conteret
caput tuum” — "She shall crush your head.” Philologically, this is an incorrect
rendition of the Hebrew hû’ (“he”). Theologically, though, as a strict traditional
argument it has great value, linking the Blessed Mother with her divine Son
in the perfect victory over Satan. Cf. E. Gallagher, S.J., Evaluation of the
Arguments in Favor of Mary's Co-redemption, in Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951.
p. 109; L. Kosters, S.J., article Maria, in Lexikon für Théologie und Kirche,
Vol. 6 (Freiburg i/Br., 1934), col. 887.
23 "D’une façon générale on peut dire que l’emploi de l’article en hébreu
est assez flottant. En poésie l’emploi de l’article est très libre. . . .’’ Paul Joüon,
S.J., Grammaire de l'Hébreu Biblique (Rome, 1947), p. 421. The author then
goes on to show how the article can express perfect determination, lack of
determination, or imperfect determination.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

61

it is said, our first parents could not have understood a reference to
a personal Messias (and His Mother). In answer, one may note in
all justice that the time sequence of punishment was not necessarily
immediately successive. There is nothing in the text to force us to
believe that Adam and Eve even heard the original punishment of
Satan.24 True, at some time they must have learned of the prophecy.
In any case, however, where is the necessity for Adam and Eve to
have understood the prophecy in its fullness, inasmuch as even we
of the twentieth century a.d. are not perfectly clear on all the
messianic prophecies? For the rest, it is at least quite possible that
Adam and Eve had had a revelation of the Incarnation prior to the
fall, in which case there would have been no difficulty in recognizing
the Woman and her Seed, regardless of when they learned of the
Protogospel.25*
Another objection looks to the precise meaning of the word
“seed.” Some argue thus. The seed of Satan in verse 15 is certainly
a collective noun (because of scriptural passages which speak of
Satan’s offspring in the plural); but by parallelism the Seed of the
Woman, then, is also a collective. But if it is collective, then we
do not have here primarily a reference to the individual Messias,
and consequently His Mother Mary is not primarily the Woman.
I lowever, it is not at all certain that Satan’s seed is a collective noun.
Why could it not very well be a metaphorical reference to the one
thing the devil had spawned in Eden, and for which he was now
being punished — original sin, which after all was that which necessi­
tated the Redeemer?28 Even granting, however, that the seed of Satan
does refer to a collectivity, this does not demand that the Woman’s
Seed equally refer to a collectivity. The parallelism in this part of
the verse is already weakened, to the extent that a metaphorical gen­
eration is certainly indicated regarding Satan, true physical generation
in the case of the Woman. The Woman’s Seed is an individual,
and parallelism seems equally well served by the generic idea of
offspring against offspring.
In view of the solid arguments proving that Mary is certainly the
24 Fr. Peirce, S.J., Protoevangelium, pp. 239-240.
25 Cf. Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap., Franciscan Christology, Absolute and
Universal Primacy, in Franciscan Studies, Vol. 2, 1942, pp. 454-458.
20 As we have noted elsewhere (Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, p. 121), we
un see one real difficulty with a restriction of Satan’s seed to the individual
. use. In Apoc. 12:9 we find other devils associated with Satan, and this in a
pussage which evidently alludes to Gen. 3:15.

02

MARIOLOGY

Woman of Gen. 3:15, and even that she alone is the Woman directly
intended by the Author and (through revelation) the coauthor of the
verse, it is not surprising to see the fruitful use made of it in modern
Mariology.27
2. Isa. 7:14-16
Context. In 734 b.c. the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel, and
Damascus, were seeking to force the southern Jewish king­
dom of Juda into an alliance against Assyria. To have a more pliable
instrument at the helm of Juda, they plotted to replace King Ahaz
with their own choice. In the face of this pressure Ahaz was assured
by the prophet Isaias that all would go well, provided that the King
of Juda spumed the human assistance of Assyria against Israel and
Damascus and placed his entire trust in God. Then Isaias foretold
the collapse of the Israel-Damascus project. King Ahaz was not to
be afraid of their threats; their plan would fail (7:4-9). To help the
King’s faith Isaias offered him a sign, a miracle, as proof that he
spoke in God’s name (w. 10-11). When King Ahaz refused to ask
for a sign, on a flimsy pretext, Isaias gave him the providential and
prophetic sign of the Virgin Birth.

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

Text.

Again, as befits a text of this kind, very much has been written
concerning it.28 Unlike most Protestant authors,29 Catholics are
27 E.g., for the Immaculate Conception, cf. Jaime Lladô, El Proto-Evangelio y
la Inmaculada, in Cultura Biblica, Vol. 5, 1948, pp. 344-345; for the Co­
redemption, cf. J. Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione B. V. Mariae (Civitas
Vaticana, 1950), pp. 86-91; N. Garcia Garcés, C.M.F., Mater Corredemptrix
(Romae, 1940), esp. pp. 30-33; for Mary’s spiritual Maternity, cf. Eric May,
O.F.M.Cap., The Scriptural Basis for Mary's Spiritual Maternity, in Marian
Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 111-141; J. Bover, S.J., Universalis B. Virginis
mediatio ex Protoevangelio (G en. 3, 15) demonstrata, in Gregorianum, Vol.
5, 1924, pp. 271-272; for the Assumption, cf. F. S. Mueller, S.J., Origo divinoapostôlica doctrinae evectionis B. Virginis ad gloriam coelestem quoad corpus
(Oeniponte, 1930), esp. pp. 58-63; R. W. Gleason. Studies on the Assumption:
3. The Assumption and Scripture, in Thought, Vol. 26, 1951, pp- 533-539.
28 Besides the standard commentaries on Isaias, a list of recent specialized
sources would include: Hubert Vecchierello, O.F.M., The Virgin Birth of
Christ (Paterson, N. J., 1932); Heinisch-Heidt, O.S.B., Theology of the Old

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

63

agreed that the prophecy refers to Jesus Christ the Messias. Pope
Pius VI condemned the proposition that tire prophecy does not refer
to Christ in any way.30 However, whether the words of Isaias are a
literal or typical reference to the Messias (and to Mary His Mother)
remains a point of disagreement among Catholic writers. How the
Virgin Birth of Christ could be a sign to King Ahaz when it would
only occur 700 years later remains the major difficulty to be ex­
plained. For our part, we believe that Isaias’ momentous prophecy
refers properly, directly, and exclusively to the Virgin Birth at Bethle­
hem; and this represents the much more common opinion among
Catholic expositors.
The Hebrew prophecy reads literally: “Behold, the Virgin is
pregnant and bearing a son, and she shall call his name ‘God-withus.’” The Hebrew word translated by “virgin” is 'ahnâh. Biblical
Hebrew had several words to designate a young woman. Na'àrâh was
applied to a young lady, married or not. Beûiûlâh was used only for
a virgin, young or old. 'Almah, in its etymology, implicitly although
not necessarily, supposed the state of virginity (something like the
German Jungfrau or the English “maiden”). In its usage, 'almah was
quite similar to the more rigid Hebrew word Ifthûlah and explicitly
signified a young virgin of marriageable age.31 In the light of the
immediate scriptural context (the promise of an extraordinary sign)
and the remote scriptural context (Mt. 1:23), the word 'almâh in
Isa. 7:14 must definitely be understood in the sense of “virgin.” Con­
firmation of this is found in the Septuagint Greek translation, parthehos (virgin). It is noteworthy that the Jews were not scandalized at
the translation parthenos until the Christians used it against them.
The Messias, then, was to have a Virgin Mother.
Testament (Collegeville, Minn., 1950), pp. 305-307; C. C. Martindale, S.J.,
Mother in Israel, in The Mary Book (New York, 1950), pp. ίο-n; T. E.
Hird, Who is 'The Boy' in Isaias 7:16? in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
Vol. 6, 1944, pp. 435-443; E. Power, S.J., The Emmanuel Prophecy of Isaias, in
The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Vol. 70, 1948, pp. 289-304; idem, Isaias, in
CCHS, esp. pp. 546-548; A. Vaccari, S.J., De Signo Emmanuelis Is 7 in
Verbum Domini, Vol. 17, 1937, PP· 45-49, 75-81; Schaefer-Brossart, The
Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture (New York, 1913), p. 18 ff.; Hipôlito Arias,
C.J.M., Im Virgen Madré en Isaias, in Cathedra, Vol. 4, 1950, pp. 413-421.
211 E.g., the Anglican L. S. Thornton, The Mother of God in Holy Scripture,
In E. L. Mascall (ed.), The Mother of God, a Symposium (Westminster, 1949),
p. 21.
In his Brief Divina, September 20, 1779; Enchiridion Biblicum, No. 59.
" C. Lattey, S.J., The Term Almah in Isa. 7:14, in The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1947, pp- 89-95.

64

MARIOLOGY

Verses 15-16 of tire prophecy are explained traditionally in this
wise: the Child shall eat butter (or curds) and honey (i.e., shall
be reduced to eating the natural products of the land, as an indication
of His poverty —and this is confirmed by the subsequent verse 22);
thus he was to learn from experience the exercise of virtue (refusing
the evil life). For before that time (i.e., Christ’s time, 700 years later)
the land of Israel (Israel and Aram) was to be laid waste.
Fr. F. Peirce, S.J., reviewing an article by Feuillet on this question,
has some enlightening remarks in modification of the “traditional”
view.32 It is a false supposition, he maintains, that in verse 16 there
is an immediate time link between the two halves of the verse. All
that the verse says is that at some time prior to the advent of the
Child (whether this be sixty-five years or seven centuries) the IsraelDamascus combine will have ceased to be. It does not state that tire
Child is close at hand, or that He is a sign of an approaching
liberation, much less that He will precede Juda’s liberation. The Mes­
sianic Promise, when first given (Gen. 3:15) contained no reference
to temporalities. Even when first given to Abraham (Gen. 12:3) it
was without a temporal note and was absolute, independent of human
wills. Later, because of Abraham’s fidelity (Gen. 26:3-4) temporal
prosperity was added to the picture. From then on the Messianic
Promise held a twofold note, an absolute promise that Messias would
come, and an additional promise of prosperity conditioned upon the
obedience of the Chosen People. At the close of the patriarchal
period, Jacob in his deathbed blessing (Gen. 49) conferred the
Messianic Promise upon Juda (v. 10) and the blessing of special
prosperity upon Joseph (vv. 25-26). In the days of David, who was
king of all the Jews, this prosperity was stressed again (3 Kings 2:34). From King David on, fidelity and infidelity succeeded one an­
other, so that at the time of King Ahaz infidelity loomed large in the
history of the nation; and in God’s designs the time had come for a
definite stand. Ahaz and the House of David were put to the test:
“If you will not believe, you will not continue” (Isa. 7:9). The sign
is not merely (though it is primarily) the Virgin Birth, but the
Virgin Birth in poverty; a sign therefore with a twofold aspect, one
desirable and the other unpleasant. As verse 13 shows, the sign was
directed not only to Ahaz but to the whole House of David. Since
32 Review of A. Feuillet, Le Signe proposé à Achaz et l'Emmanuel (Isaïe,
7, 10-25), ™ Recherches de Science Religieuse (April, 1940), pp. 129-151.
Peirce’s review appeared in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 104,
1941, pp. 80-84. Cf. also E. Power, Isaias, in CCHS, pp. 547-548.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

65

King Ahaz was out of favor with God, the unpleasant aspect of the
sign was directed toward him. Though the Birth in poverty was
still far in the future, within a short time the reasons for that
poverty would begin to manifest themselves, in the gradual dissolution
of the temporal power of David’s House. Damascus and Israel would
soon feel the power of Assyria; Juda herself would suffer, and all
within the lifetime of Ahaz. And scion of the House of David as
he was, although a faithless one, the King could not fail to recognize
the sign of the divine displeasure in the constant incursion of enemy
forces from the north and south into his borders, incursions far differ­
ent from the hitherto sporadic attacks of small nations along its
borders. This explanation of Fr. Peirce seems worthy of anyone’s
consideration; and it helps to set the marvel of the Virgin-Birth
prophecy into its historical milieu.
It is hard to see how the typical sense could be verified in Isa.
7:14. Yet some Catholics imagine that Isaias was referring to his own
wife and son as types of Mary and Jesus. The essential similarity
necessary between a true type and its antitype is lacking here. No
woman conceiving and bearing according to the normal laws of nature
can represent the Mother of Emmanuel in that respect wherein tire
type and antitype should be really similar. Furthermore, the titles
given to Emmanuel in Isa. 9:6, especially that of 'Ël Gïbbôr —
“Mighty God,”33 cannot be applied metaphorically to any child other
than the Messias.
Isa. 7:14-16, then, is Marian as well as messianic, and the refer­
ence to the Virgin Mother of the Saviour is at once directly and
properly literal.
3. Mich. 5:2-3
Context. The prophet Micheas, like his contemporary Isaias, warned
that Israel was to be reduced to a remnant before she
could again be worthy of God’s promised mercy. Not only would the
Northern Kingdom of the Jews be taken into exile; Jerusalem itself
was destined for destruction. But the final gathering together of the
scattered people would be accomplished by a Mighty Ruler from a
humble little town —a Ruler whose antecedents are mysteriously
eternal, and who is bom of a Woman.

Text.

“And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the
thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me

88 Cf. W. McClellan, S.J., El Gibbor, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
Vol. 6, 1944, pp. 276-288.

66

MARIOLOGY

that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the
beginning, from the days of eternity. Therefore will he give them
up even till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth:
and the remnant of his brethren shall be converted to the children
of Israel.”
The exact relationship between the prophets Isaias and Micheas
has not been fully determined,34 but Catholics commonly agree that
the Nativity prophecies of both refer as with one voice to Mary, the
Mother of Jesus.35 We know that at Christ’s time, Jews of all classes
understood Mich. 5:2-3 in a messianic sense, the learned (Mt. 2:46) as well as the unlearned (cf. Jn. 7:40-42). Micheas foretold that
a new Ruler was to merge in Israel, i.e., was to be bom in David’s
humble birthplace, Bethlehem. Yet this same Ruler to be born in
Bethlehem was considered as having had existence from eternal
days. Hence, a double origin: one eternal, one temporal. God would
permit Israel’s enemies to oppress her until “she that travaileth shall
bring forth (the Saviour).” This mother, thus introduced suddenly
as known and determined (Hebrew: yôlëdâh, yâlâdalt) but without
mention of a husband, was to be understood in the same sense as
the Virgin Mother of Isa. 7:14 who bears Emmanuel. This Ruler
would gather together His brethren (the dispersed Jews) and form
a blessed people at last secure from enemies, because He would be
endowed with the majesty and authority of Yahweh.
Perhaps no one has brought out the Marian significance of this
messianic passage better than Fr. K. Smyth, S.J. He writes:
34 Yet, according to C. P. Caspari, "Es môchte kaum zwei prophetische
Schriften geben, die in alien Beziehungen in einer so starken Verwandtschrift
mit einander stehen, als das Buch Micha’s und das Jesaja’s.” Über Micha den
Morasthiten und seine Prophetische Schrift (Christiana, 1852), p. 444.
35 Cf. P. L. Suàrez, C.M.F., Un texto mariolôgico en Miqueas, in Cultu ru
Biblica, Vol. to, 1953, pp. 247-248; H. Arias, C.J.M., La Virgen Madre en
Isaias, in Cathedra, Vol. 4, 1950, p. 419 (where he maintains that Mich. 5:2
is unintelligible apart from Isa. 7:14); Schaefer-Brossart, The Mother of Goil
in Holy Scripture, pp. 56-58; Gaspare de Stefani, Maria Santissima nell'Antieo
Testamento, nella sua vita e nella vita della Chiesa (Torino, [n.d.]), pp. 68-70;
A. Vitri, S.J., Maria negli splendori della Teologia Biblica, in La Civilt.i
Cattolica, Vol. 3, 1942, pp. 193-201; E. Rosales, O.F.M., La Realeza de Marin
en las Sagradas Escrituras, in Aetas del Congreso Asuncionista Franciscano <!<·
America Latina (Buenos Aires, 1950), pp. 217-218; Heinisch-Heidt, Theology
of the Old Testament, pp. 305-307.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

67

Because it is God’s plan to raise up a Saviour, not from royal Sion,
but from Bethlehem, he will leave Israel at the mercy of her enemies,
till a Mother hears Child. Then begin God’s blessings, with the return
of the Child’s exiled brothers. Abrupt and succinct, this prophecy
evidently supposes a great current of Messianic prophecy then familiar
to all. It harmonizes perfectly with Isaias 7:14. There is the same sign
of deliverance: the appearance of a Mother, the coming of the Child,
then the return of the exiles; cf. Is 7:3 ‘A Remnant will Return.’
Through the centuries which prophetic vision has to pierce, only fig­
ures gigantic in their import can fie distinguished. But, however indis­
tinctly perceived, a Woman looms large throughout the great prophe­
cies of Redemption. In the Proto-Evangel, Gen 3, in Isaias and in
Micheas salvation comes through one who always associates with him­
self a Mother. Thus the Catholic Church follows out fundamental
lines of revelation in the honour paid to the Virgin Mary, Mother
of God, and in acknowledging her significance in the economy of
Redemption.36

We agree with the view that Mich. 5:3 is a proper literal reference
to Mary, the Mother of Christ, and another important part of the
Marian picture in the Old Testament.
4. Jer. 31:22
Chapter 31 of Jeremias’ prophecy holds out the hope of
the restoration of the Jews (w. 1-14). At present, Rachel
( the mother of Joseph, i.e., Ephraim) is pictured in the prophet’s
imagination as watching from her tomb at Rama, and bemoaning
I he ruin of her children. But she need not grieve, says the prophet;
I phraim will yet repent (w. 15-20), and both Ephraim and Juda
will be restored together (w. 21-30). In confirmation of this, a
great sign is promised (v. 22).

Context.

“How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wander­
ing daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the
earth: a woman shall encompass a man” (Douay Version).
Text.

As with the preceding texts, there seems little room for doubt that
we are dealing here with a messianic text in a messianic context.37
Kevin Smyth, S.J., Micheas, in CCHS, p. 675.
»’F. Ceuppens, O.P., however, holds that Jer. 31:22 is to be considered
iiii Aianic by reason of context, without any reference here to the Person of
M. ■■■.ias, much less to His conception in Mary’s virginal womb. The text, he

68

MARIOLOGY

That raises once more the interesting question: Who is the Woman
concerned in this messianic text? Could it be Mary? Is this in some
way another Old Testament reference to the Virgin Birth? There is
no unanimity among Catholics on the matter. Some say no;*38
some say yes;39 the views of others are more or less in between.40
The exegetical arguments usually brought against a Marian inter­
pretation of Jer. 31:22 are these. The Hebrew reads: neqëbah (a
female) tesôbël· (shall surround) gdber (a male). But (it is claimed)
the word for “female” is never used in Sacred Scripture for a virgin;
the word for “surround” is never found in the Bible in the sense
of childbearing. As for the “traditional” interpretation of the text,
say these authors, the Virgin-Birth analysis of the passage seems to
have been something personal to St. Jerome.
The case in favor of the Marian character of the verse has been
well stated by Fr. Cuthbert Lattey, S.J., as follows:

And then a great sign is promised, so great that it is even called a
creation. The verb is in the perfect tense (“hath created”), but it is
generally admitted that this is merely another example of the wellknown idiom, the “prophetic perfect,” a vivid manner of presenting a
prophecy as already fulfilled. The present writer accepts Knabenbauer’s
explanation in CSS [Cursus Sacrae Scriptzirae] which he regards as
far more plausible than any odrer, but of course it presupposes that
miracle and prophecy are possible. Instead of the initiative being
taken by the man, as is usual in human generation, the physical
process on the purely human side will be set on foot by the woman,
who will “press round" a man (a meaning given by BDB [Brown,
Driver and Briggs] to the verb in this passage, but with a different
implication). The miracle is emphasized by the word used for “woman”
being an unusual one, which stresses the sexual character. The word
says, concerns the conversion of the faithless Israelitic people (the spouse) to
Yahweh her God in the messianic era, which will be truly “a new thing
upon the earth.” De Prophetiis Messianicis, pp. 428-433.
38 F. Ceuppens, O.P., ibid.; also in his Mariologia Biblica (Romae, 1951),
pp. 48-54; A. Robert, P.S.S., La Sainte Vierge dans l'Ancien Testament, pp.
24—26; R. Galdôs, S.J., Maria en la Biblia, in Cultura Biblica, Vol. 3, 1946,
pp. 113-115.
39 C. Lattey, S.J., Jeremias, in CCHS, p. 584; Schaefer-Brossart, The Mother
of Jesus in Holy Scripture, pp. 58-62; Anton Scholz, Commentar zum Bûche des
Propheten Jeremias, 1880, p. 368 ff.; M. Scheeben-T. Geukers, Mariology, Vol. I,
(St. Louis, 1946), pp. 18-19.
■*°E.g., Fr. Closen, S.J., in an article in Verbum Domini, Vol. 16, 1936,
PP· 295~3°4> translated the pertinent phrase "mulier viro providet” and found
its ultimate verification in Mary.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

69

for “man” (that found in Gabri-el “man of God”) is also an unusual
one, implying strength and power; a cognate word (a fact significant
in the present context) is applied as a name to the Messias in Is 9:6
(“God the Mighty”), and directly to God Himself in Ps 23:8 (twice);
Deut 10:17; €tc· This explanation of the passage is confirmed by the
fairly obvious reference which it contains to Is 7:14, which can rea­
sonably be supposed to have been familiar to Jeremias’ hearers and
readers, as to those of Mic 5:3, immediately after the mention of
Bethlehem. Like Isaias, Jeremias passes easily by a process of compenetration from the temporary deliverance to the full Messianic de­
liverance of which it is a type.41
It is very interesting to note that authors like Lattey, Smyth,
Schaefer-Brossart, and Scholz do not hesitate to attribute a wide
knowledge of previous Old Testament Marian texts to the contem­
poraries of Isaias and Jeremias. Scholz, for example, confesses that for
him Jer. 31:22 is a paraphrase and interpretation of Isa. 7:14; and he
adds significantly: “Such explanations may be well assigned to the
already existing knowledge in Scripture, down to the time of Jere­
mias, abused by pharisaism.”42
True, one does not have quite the same confidence in referring
this text literally to Mary as he would, say, the Proto-Gospel. But
because of the striking similarity between this sign in Jeremias and
the Virgin-Birth sign of Isaias; because, again, of the remote scriptural
context, we see no serious reason to doubt that Jer. 31:22 presents
yet another high light in the over-all Marian picture in the Old
Testament. We concur with Frs. Knabenbauer and Lattey.

Canticle of Canticles
The Canticle of Canticles is a love song. It tells of an espousal.
The interpretation of the book and the identification of the scrip­
tural sense intended therein are well-known difficulties. Leaving aside
for our present purpose all the ramifications found in biblical intro­
ductions to the book, we hold as the more probable view that the
Canticle cannot be understood in a proper literal sense; that it em­
bodies elements of both parable and allegory; that in God’s intention
it represents first in point of time the relationship between Yahweh
and the Chosen People (cf. Osee 2:16-20; Isa. 54:6, 62:5; Jer. 2:2,
3:1 if.; Ezech. 16:32—38), then the union of Christ with His Church
41 C. Lattey, Jeremias, in CCHS, p. 584.
42 Anton Scholz, op. cit., p. 368.

7o

MARIOLOGY

(cf. Mt. 22: iff., 25:1 ff.; Jn. 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23-32;
Apoc. 21:9). Whether or not this last meaning is a verification of
the fuller sense is a matter of opinion. The important further ques­
tion that concerns us here is: did Almighty God also intend in the
Canticle to refer to the close union between Christ and His Blessed
Mother? Is this a Marian book in any sense?
From patristic times down to our own day there have been com­
mentators who extended (if that is the correct word) the parabolicoallegoric understanding of tire Canticle to an ascetico-mystical inter­
pretation. Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the individual Christian soul
is the bride. Since the Virgin Mary is the holiest of the Church’s
members; since her union with Christ is the most intimate imagi­
nable; since after Christ she occupies the main position in the economy
of salvation, in a special way Mary is the Bride discussed in the
Canticle.*3 And for our part, we do believe that Mary was included
in the mind and intention of God when He inspired the sacred
author to write the Canticle of Canticles. Be this the “fuller” sense
or the “fullest” sense (if you will), Mary’s role as Sponsa Verbi is
too evident within the remote context of both Testaments to cast
serious doubt on a Mariological interpretation of the Canticle. Here
we have one of those biblical themes mentioned earlier, a theme aptly
indicated according to its general line of development by Charles
Moeller when he writes:

This first line of explicit biblical themes [i.e., espousals in tire Old
Testament; Church-Bride in the New] being thus recalled to mind,
from Genesis to the Apocalypse, a second series can be discerned,
renewing the former in its emphasis and revealing Marian implications.
This second series of themes is to be found in the Johannine revelation,
which, to our mind, together with the Canticle of Canticles for the Old
Testament, represents the peak of the New. The Marian texts in St.43
43 Cf. D. Buzy, Le Cantique des Cantiques (Paris, 1949), p. 29 ff.; Juan G.
Arintero, Cantar de los Cantares (Salamanca, 1926), Introduction; PougetGuitton-Lilly, The Canticle of Canticles (New York, 1948), pp. 144-145; P. P.
Saydon, The Canticle of Canticles, in CCHS, pp. 497-498; Paschal Parente,
The Canticle of Canticles in Mystical Theology, in The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1944, pp. 142-158; Alfonso Rivera, C.M.F., Sentido Mariologico del Cantar de los Cantares? in Ephemerides Mariologicae, Vol. 1, 1951,
pp. 437-468; Vol. 2, 1952, pp. 25-42. Rivera gives as the conclusion to the
first part of his article: “Admitimos como verdadero, junto con el sentido
eclesiolôgico, el sentido mariano del Ct., con la probabilidad y fuerza que le
da la interpretaciôn tradicional y moralmente unànime de la exégesis cristiana.
confirmada por el anilisis interno y los criterios de analogia exegética del Ct.”
(p. 468).

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

71

John’s Gospel (II, ι-ii; XIX, 25-27) linked on the one hand to
verse 13 of the prologue [John 1] and to Genesis III, 15 and on the
other to Apoc. XII, sheds a flood of light on Mary the Bride of the
Word, associated in the redemption, and the spiritual mother of the
faithful. It is necessary to note that we are here using a literal exegesis
founded on the secret connections placed by St. John himself between
the different parts of his gospel and between that gospel and Genesis
and the Apocalypse.*'

The Canticle of Canticles, then, looked ahead in a fuller sense to
the special relationship that would exist between the Word of God
and His Bride, Mary —even though the author’s contemporaries, per­
haps, would not have plumbed the depths of the Canticle's meaning.
6. Other Texts
A passage from another of the major prophets is frequently men­
tioned in connection with the Virgin Birth. Ezech. 44:1-3 reads:
"And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward
sanctuary, which looked toward the east: and it was shut. And the
Lord said to me: 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, and it shall be shut for the prince. The prince
himself shall sit in it. . .
The prophet refers to a prince who rules
for Yahweh. Among his privileges is a special place for sacrificial
meals, the eastern gate of the grand Temple in Jerusalem. This gate
was never to be opened by another, inasmuch as Yahweh had entered
through it. Now, it is true that a goodly number of the Church
Bathers and writers and preachers have seen in this sealed gate a
figure of Mary’s perpetual virginity.45 But was this merely by way
of homiletic accommodation and not intended as the strict scriptural
sense? We think so. There seems to be no good exegetical reason
lor thinking otherwise.
There are not wanting authors who imitate St. Jerome and see in
Isa. 11 : i a reference to Mary along with her Messias Son.48 But
44 Charles Moeller, Doctrinal Aspects of Mariology, in Lumen Vitae, Vol.
8, *953, PP· 236—238. D. Buzy calls the Canticle of Canticles “tire fourth
Gospel of the Old Testament”; ibid., p. 33.
4B Cf. E. Power, S.J., Ezechiel, in CCHS, p. 619. Some patristic quotations
h<· available in Schaefer-Brossart, The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, p. 63 ff.
Schaefer himself concludes: “This application [of Ezech. 44:2 to Mary] is made
in such a manner that the conviction becomes evident that such a reference to
Mary was also intended by the Holy Ghost.”
40 E.g., Eduardo Rosales, O.F.M., La Realeza de Maria en las Sagradas

72

MARIOLOGY

they do so without adequate foundation. The text reads: “And
there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower
shall rise up out of his root.” Isaias contrasts the figure of a sprout
from Jesse’s root with the forest metaphor of the preceding verse.
The forest (symbolizing Assyria) is utterly destroyed, but the stump
of Jesse (the royal family of Juda) envisions a shoot springing up:
the Messias. By parallelism the subjects of verse i "rod . . . flower”
both refer to the Messias —not one to Him, the other to His Mother.*47
Still another passage is sometimes referred to Mary in a direct
scriptural sense. It is the second half of Ps. 44 (45). This psalm,
the nuptial song of the king, is certainly messianic. But (so the
argument runs), if the first half of the psalm concerns the Messias,
an individual, why should not the second half also refer to an indi­
vidual Queen — Mary?48 The more common view, however, seems to
see in Ps. 44 either a reference to the espousals between Christ
and the Church directly, or a literal reference to some royal wed­
ding (Solomon’s?) which is then a type of the messianic espousals
(cf. Eph. 5:25-27). As for our opinion, we must confess to more
than a little interest in the Marian interpretation through the fuller
sense. We have here almost the same setup as in the Canticle of
Canticles. When we note how consistently the Church and Mary
are brought together in explanation of passages like Ps. 44, the
Canticle of Canticles, and Apoc. 12, as by a kind of interrelationship,
it seems difficult to restrict Mary’s presence in Ps. 44 to one of mere
accommodation.

II. MARY IN TYPE
Among the many beautiful things Monsignor Ronald Knox has
written is a short article wherein he treats Esther of the Old Testa­
ment as a type of Mary. He asserts that “there is a mystical signifi­
cance in the Old Testament everywhere; and that, above all, the hisEscrituras, in Aetas del Congreso Asuncionista Franciscano de América Latina
(Buenos Aires, 1950), pp. 216-217. He thinks the prophecy refers to the
Messias in the literal, express sense, and to Mary in the implicit, literal sense.
47 Simon-Prado, Praelectiones Biblicae. Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 1 (Taurini,
i949?> p- 463·
48 Thus, Eduardo Rosales, O.F.M., La Realeza de Maria, pp. 218—220. E. C.
Messenger, Our Lady in the Scriptures, in CCHS, p. 114, likewise thinks that
the (primary) collective meaning of the Spouse does not exclude the “applica­
tion” of the text to the King’s Mother, Mary. However, Eustace Smith, O.F.M.,
doubts the Marian verification; The Scriptural Basis for Mary's Queenship, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, p. 114·

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

73

tory of the Jewish people foreshadows and typifies the glories of our
Blessed Lady.” Remarking that there is much that is violent and
some things which are dull in the Old Testament, the distinguished
author adds:
But through this tangled skein runs a single golden thread; between
these soiled pages lies, now and again, a pressed flower that has
lost neither its colour nor its sweetness. That thread, that flower, is
the mention, by type and analogue, of her whom all generations of
Christendom have called blessed, the Virgin of Virgins, the Queen
of Heaven, the holy Mother of God. It is not wonderful that it
should be so. For our Lady is, after all, the culmination of that
long process of selection, of choosing here and rejecting there a human
instrument suited to his purpose, which is so characteristic of God’s
dealings with his ancient people.49

Many years ago His Holiness Pope Pius IX pointed out the same
truth even more vividly in his incomparable Bull Ineffabilis Deus,
wherein he solemnly defined the dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception. He took great pains to list many of the persons and objects
in the Old Dispensation which, according to the Fathers, typified or
prefigured the all-pure Mother of Christ. The pertinent passages read :
This illustrious and singular triumph of the Virgin [mentioned in
Gen. 3:15], together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holi­
ness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable
abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges
— these the Fathers saw [typified] in that ark of Noe, which was
built by divine command and escaped entirely safe and sound from
the common shipwreck of the whole world (Gen. 6-9); also in that
ladder which Jacob saw reaching from earth to heaven, by whose
rungs the angels of God ascended and descended, and on whose
top the Lord Himself leaned (Gen. 28:12-13); a^so ’n that bush which
Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, but which was not
only not consumed nor injured in any way but grew green and blos­
somed beautifully (Ex. 3:1-3); also in that impregnable tower before
the enemy, from which hung a thousand bucklers and all the armor
of the strong (Cant. 4:4); also in that garden enclosed on all sides,
which cannot be violated nor corrupted by any deceitful plots (Cant.
4:12); also in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with
divine splendors, is full of the glory of God (3 Kings 8:10-11); and
in very many other types of this kind. By them the Fathers have
49 Esther as a Type of Our Lady, in Sheed’s The Mary Book (New York,
>950). pp· 15—16.

74

MARIOLOGY
handed down the tradition that exalted things have been signally
predicted of the Mother of God and of her spotless innocence and
holiness which was never subject to any blemish.50

The Holy Pontiff then goes on to demonstrate how the Fathers used
the words of the Prophets of old to describe Mary’s sinlessness and
great gifts. Spotless dove, they called her (Cant. 6:8), and the Holy
Jerusalem, the exalted throne of God, the ark and house of holiness
which eternal wisdom built for herself (Prov. 9:1). They addressed
Mary as that Queen who, full of delights and leaning on her
Beloved (Cant. 8:5), came forth from the mouth of the Most High
(Ecclus. 24:5), entirely perfect. And a little later in the encyclical
the Pope brings together still further examples of how the Fathers
appealed to Scripture in describing Mary’s purity and holiness.

Hence, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the
lily among thorns, or the earth entirely intact, virginal, undefiled,
immaculate, ever-blessed and free from all corruption of sin, from
which was formed the New Adam; or the flawless, brightest and most
pleasant paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by
God Himself and protected against all snares of the poisonous Serpent;
or the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted;
or the fountain ever clear and sealed by the power of the Holy Spirit;
or the most divine temple; or the treasure of immortality; or the one
and only daughter not of death but of life, the child not of anger but
of grace, which by the singular providence of God has always blos­
somed, though it sprang from a corrupt and infected root, contrary to
the ordinary and fixed laws.51
To the thorough list of His Holiness might be added other in­
animate objects of the Old Dispensation which have been considered
as types of Mary. Aarons rod, for example (Num. 17:8). Only
Aaron’s rod, among many others, blossomed forth; so Mary is the one
flower of innocence that sprang from our corrupt nature. Gideons
fleece is another example (Judges 6:36-40). At one time the fleece
was wet with dew while the surrounding ground remained dry; then
again the fleece remained untouched by dew though the earth
around was soaked. Thus Mary was filled with God’s grace from the
first moment of her conception while all others remained deprived
Mary Immaculate, The Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX, translated
and annotated by Dominic Unger, O.F.M.Cap. (Paterson, N. J., 1946), pp.
11—12.
51 Ibid., p. 14.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

75

of it; she alone was preserved from sin while the whole world suc­
cumbed to it.
Nowhere is Marian typology more in evidence than with regard
to certain Old Testament personages. Just a few pertinent examples.52
Eve heads the list. She is the mother of all the living on the natural
plane, Mary on the supernatural level. Respha the daughter of Aia,
who mourned for her crucified sons (2 Sam. 21:8-10) and the
mother of the Machabean martyrs who so generously offered up the
martyrdom of her sons (2 Macc. 7), are types of Mary mourning
for the death of her crucified Child after generously assisting Him
in His sufferings. Bethsabee (3 Kings 2:19), seated on a throne at
the right hand of her son Solomon, shared his glory and power.
Mary, seated in heaven at the right hand of her Son Jesus, shares
with Him our love and veneration. By her charms Rachel (Gen. 29)
won the heart of Jacob; so Mary won the heart of God. Rachel’s
son Joseph, having been sold by his brethren, attained great honor
and saved his people. Mary’s Son Jesus, sold by His brethren, saved
the world and reached an infinite glory. Esther, Judith, Debbora, and
Jahel were all types of Mary in that they were instrumental in tire
salvation of their people. More specifically, Esther who was of lowly
birth won the favor of a most powerful king and became his spouse;
so Mary, a poor and humble Jewess, won the heart of God and shares
with Him the empire of the world. Esther alone was exempted from
a law which bound everyone else; Mary alone was exempted from
the law of original sin. As for Judith, whereas she saved her fellow
Jews from harm by cutting off Holofemes’ head, Mary played her
grand role of Coredemptrix by crushing the head of the serpent.
Judith’s praises were on every tongue; so are the Blessed Mother’s, as
foretold in the Magnificat.
The question naturally arises whether these Old Testament per­
sons, events, things are genuine scriptural types intended as such by
Almighty God, or whether they fall into the class of mere accommo­
dation. The question is very difficult to answer. Scripture itself seems
to be silent on the matter (except for the generic reminder of St. Paul
in i Cor. 10:6, 11 that the typology of the Old Testament was in­
tended for us); and from the wording of the Fathers it is not always
clear just how these Old Testament realities refer to Mary. Surely
■2 Cf. esp. Fr. Canice, O.F.M.Cap., Mary, a Study of the Mother of God
( Dublin, 1950), Chap. 3; M. J. Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. 1 (St. Louis, 1946),
i>, 35 if. For a fuller development of Eve as a type of Marv, cf. Francis Friedel,
I he Mariology of Cardinal Newman (New York, 1928), Chap. 2.

76

MARIOLOGY

it places no strain on our credence to see in many of these types a
deliberate anticipation on God’s part of the tremendous role to be
played by His Mother in the New Dispensation. The difficulty is
where to draw the line between the strict biblical sense known as
the typical, and mere accommodation.
Here, the relationship between Mary and the Wisdom literature
calls for special consideration. Some remarks of Pope Pius IX in the
Bull Ineffabilis Deus are pertinent. “From the beginning and before
the ages,” he says, “God chose and appointed a Mother for His
Only-Begotten Son, from whom this Son would take His flesh and
be born when the blessed fullness of time would arrive.” A little
later in the encyclical the Holy Father states that since die Church
on the feast of the Immaculate Conception uses those passages of
Sacred Scripture which speak of the origin of Eternal and Incarnate
Wisdom, by that fact the Church implies that Mary’s origin and
conception was sacred and immaculate.53 And the Holy Father con­
cludes: “For her origin was preordained by one and the same decree
with the Incarnation of divine Wisdom.”
The Wisdom passages utilized in Church liturgy for the vigil of
the Immaculate Conception are taken from Ecclus. 24:23-31 and
Prov. 9:1. On the great feast day itself, the epistle is taken from
Prov. 8:22-35 which reads (Douay Aversion):
I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither had
the fountains of waters as yet sprung out:
The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established:
before the hills was I brought forth:
He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of
the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain
law and compass he enclosed the depths:
When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of
the waters;
When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the
waters that they should not pass their limits: when he balanced the
foundations of the earth;
53 Op. cit., pp. i, 3. The Holy Father’s words are: “For this reason the
very words by which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom, and
by which they represent His eternal origin, the Church has been accustomed
to use not only in the ecclesiastical offices but also in the Sacred Liturgy [the
Eucharistic Sacrifice], applying them to this Virgin's origin.”

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

77

I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day,
playing before him at all times;
Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children
of men.
Now therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep
my ways.
Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my
gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors.
He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from
the Lord.
Despite the aptness of the accommodation of these words to Mary,
we believe that such passages are not Marian in a scriptural sense.
Not in the proper literal sense, inasmuch as the text refers to
Hypostatic Wisdom;54 not in the typical sense, because it would not
be proper to make the more dignified (the Incarnate Word) a type
of the less dignified (Mary).
For the rest, there are a multitude of Old Testament texts which
the Church in her liturgy, and the Fathers in their homiletic works,
have accommodated to Mary by extension or allusion. We have
already mentioned some of these accommodations (e.g., the closed
eastern gate of the Temple, Jesse’s root, etc.). Pope Pius XII men­
tions more of them in his recent encyclical Fulgens Corona. There
he notes that the Fathers, to support their belief in Mary’s Immacu­
late Conception, claimed for her such titles as “Lily Among Thorns,”
“Land Wholly Intact,” “Unfading Tree,” “Fountain Ever Clear,”
and the like.55 Other accommodations are contained in the Litany of
Loreto, and in the Marian praises of medieval theologians and
preachers.58 Beautiful as such accommodations to Mary undoubtedly
are, they were intended neither by the Floly Spirit nor by the human
authors of Sacred Scripture. They do not constitute the biblical
84 Cf. Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., The Logos in the Old Testament, in The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1946, esp. p. 442 if.; also E. C. Messenger,
Our Lady in the Scriptures, in CCHS, p. 114· tn a rather unique way, Scheeben
in his Mariology, Vol. 1, pp. 22-35, makes an attempt to reconcile the reference
to both Eternal Wisdom and to Mary in this Wisdom literature.
»5 Fulgens Corona, as translated in The Catholic Mind, Vol. 51, 1953,
Ρ· 739·
88 E.g., cf. Raphael Huber, O.F.M.Conv., The Mariology of St. Anthony of
I’adua, in Studia Mariana, 7 (Burlington, Wis., 1952), pp. 188-268. St. Anthony
gave Mary affectionate titles like “Paradise of Humanity,” “Rainbow in the
I leavens,” "Lily and Rose,” “Door of Paradise,” etc. - based on texts like Gen.
2:8 and 9:13; Ecclus. 50:8; Osee 14:6; 3 Kings 6:25.

78

MARIOLOGY

meaning of the text in any sense and hence may never be proposed
as such; nor can they be used (as a scriptural proof) to prove
Marian doctrine.

CONCLUSION
The scattered threads of our research have still to be tied together.
As we have discovered, the Old Testament does not tell us all we
would like to know about the Blessed Virgin, any more than does
the New Testament; but it reveals a loving preparation on God’s
part for the advent of His Mother. In the key periods of Old Cove­
nant history, beginning with the very dawn of revealed religion, the
promise of the Mother as well as her Saviour Son is manifest —now
in the bold tones of direct prophecy, now in the more subdued tones
of type and figure.
Man’s fall in paradise can indeed be called the felix culpa, bring­
ing in its wake so grand a promise of salvation, a promise that asso­
ciates Mary, “the woman,” with her Messias Son in the redemption
of mankind, a promise that implies her extraordinary purity and
virtue. As time passed and the Holy Spirit in His great wisdom in­
spired more and more men to write the books of the Old Testament,
He included many references to the Messias, His Kingdom, His
Mother, in the form of minor incidents or major personages who
served to prefigure the grand realities of a later century. These types
no doubt were essentially obscure to the Jews of old and perhaps to
the sacred writers themselves; by and large they achieve their full
recognition and significance only in the light of the more complete
New Testament revelation. But God did not rest content with type
and figure. In the turbulent age of the prophets He saw to it that
the men who spoke for Him would once again refer directly to His
wonderful Mother. And He added a new, distinctive note. Tire
Mother of the Messias was to be a Virgin Mother! Thus, the startling
sign given the reluctant King Ahaz, entrusted to the lips and pen of
Isaias. This news was fully confirmed by a contemporary, Micheas,
and reasserted at a later date by the great Jeremias. In all of these
major prophetical announcements the Woman concerned is Mary —
Coredemptrix, Immaculate Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ. Not yet
did these texts exhaust the Old Testament references to the Blessed
Mother, for when the Holy Spirit inspired that intimate and beau­
tiful composition known as the Canticle of Canticles which de­
scribes the vast bond of love and union between Yahweh and His
Chosen People, Christ and His Church, likewise included in the

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

79

meaning — and that by God’s intent — was the ineffable bond of union
between the God-Man and His Mother.
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, the Old Testament
stands revealed in the New.” How true those words are of Mary’s
presence within the pages of the Old Testament. Pope Pius XII makes
a particularly practical observation in the middle of his encyclical
Fulgens Corona. He says:
Just as all mothers are deeply affected when they perceive that the
countenance of their children reflects a peculiar likeness to their own,
so also our Most Sweet Mother wishes for nothing more, never rejoices
more than when she sees those whom, under the cross of her Son,
she has adopted as children in his stead, portray the lineaments and
ornaments of her own soul in thought, word and deed. . . . The com­
memoration of the mystery of the Most Holy Virgin, conceived im­
maculate and immune from all stain of original sin, should, in the
first place, urge us to that innocence and integrity of life which flees
from and abhors even the slightest stain of sin.57

Sincere devotion to Mary, then, is a means of acquiring virtue. It
is well to note again that the basic truths underlying devotion to
Mary, though brought to fulfillment in the New Dispensation, were
all prophesied with an astonishing degree of clarity already in the
Old Testament. God could do no less for His Mother.
'7 Fulgens Corona; loc. cit., p. 742.

Mary in ike New Testament
By MICHAEL J. GRUENTHANER, SJ.

INCE the Annunciation took place in Nazareth and most of
Mary’s relatives resided there, she was most probably bom in
that village. It is situated in the hill country of southern Galilee,
bordering upon the great plain of Esdraelon. Though not a great
religious, political or social center, it must not be conceived as an
isolated settlement of a remote comer of northern Palestine. The
great caravan routes to Egypt and the Mediterranean were within
easy reach. Sepphoris, which Herod chose as the capital of Galilee
from 4 b.c. to about 18 a.d., was a few miles north of Nazareth.
The last stretch of the road from Jerusalem to Sepphoris passed
through Nazareth. From the heights of Nazareth one could, looking
southward, obtain a view of the scenes of not a few of Israel’s exploits.
According to tradition, the house where Mary was bom was lo­
cated on the site where the Basilica of the Annunciation now stands.
This is built over some caves or grottoes one of which is venerated
as the scene of the Annunciation. Even in modern times Nazareth
contains homes consisting of two parts: a small wooden flat-topped
house fronting the street and an adjoining cave hollowed out by
human hands or by nature. A home of this type may well have been
the place of Mary’s birth. This would be an additional proof that
Mary’s parents lived in modest circumstances, without being paupers.1

S

PARENTAGE
The Church venerates Mary’s parents as Joachim and Anna. These
names may be authentic but they are not guaranteed to be such,
since they are derived from the apocryphal Protoevangelium of
James,2 which goes back to the second century but embodies much
that is pure fantasy. Nothing historically trustworthy is known about
1 Cf. J. M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1938), p. 395. Cf.
also the standard guides to Palestine such as Meistermann, Bâdeker, etc.
2 M. J. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1926).
S„

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

81

Joachim and Anna, but they must have been persons of superior
sanctity, for they have been virtually canonized by the Church and
we may rest assured that God must have chosen parents worthy to
educate a child of such high destiny and singular holiness.
St. Paul emphasizes the fact that Christ is carnally descended from
David. Writing to the Romans, he declares that Jesus is of the seed
of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). At Antioch, in Pisidia,
he tells his audience that Jesus, the Saviour, was brought to Israel
from the seed of David (Acts 13:23). He exhorts Timothy: "Remem­
ber Jesus Christ risen from the dead, of the seed of David according
to my gospel” (2 Tim. 2:8). St. John calls Jesus “the root of David”
(Apoc. 5:5) and represents Him as saying: “I am the root and the
offspring of David” (Apoc. 22:16). There cannot be the least doubt,
then, that Mary was of Davidic lineage, at least through Joachim,
her father, and perhaps through Anna, her mother, as well. The
bodily origin of the Messias from David had been predicted by Isaias
(11:1), Jeremias (23:5; 33:15), and Zacharias (3:8; 6:12).
Joachim and Anna named their daughter Miryam, after the
valiant sister of Moses (Exod. 15:20). In the Septuagint this was
rendered Mariam. Hence Mary’s name is occasionally given as Mar­
iam in the Gospels, although the Greek form Maria is more frequent.
This has been Anglicized into Mary.
Did Joachim and Anna have other children beside Mary? St. John
tells us that "beside the cross of Jesus were standing His mother, and
His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (Jn.
19:25). Since it would be quite unusual for two sisters to have the
same name, we must probably distinguish four persons with the
Syriac Peshitto, which clarifies the text by inserting the conjunction
“and” before "Mary of Clopas.” Who, then, was this anonymous
sister of the Lord’s Mother? St. Matthew, omitting the Mother of
Jesus, names three women as witnessing the crucifixion: Mary Mag­
dalene, Mary, the Mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee (27:56). St. Mark mentions the same three with
slight modifications: Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James the
Less and of Joses, Salome.
If we assume that the Johannine list enumerates four women, it
follows from a comparison with the Synoptic list that Salome was the
sister of the Mother of Jesus and that James and John, the sons of
Zebedee, were His cousins. It is possible, however, that “sister” is
employed by St. John in its broader Semitic sense of cousin or relative.

82

MARIOLOGY

I£, on the other hand, we suppose that St. John enumerates but
three women, so that “His mother’s sister” is the title of Mary of
Clopas, we must conclude that she was the sister of Our Lord’s
Mother. According to Hegesippus3 (c. 180), this Mary was the
wife of Clopas, the brother of Joseph. Hence she was the sister of
the Lord’s Mother in the sense of being her sister-in-law. In addition,
she may have been related to Mary by blood. Consequently, it is
not clear that Mary had a sister in the proper sense of the word.
EDUCATION
While there were elementary and advanced schools for boys, there
was no provision for the education of girls. The majority of the
Jewish rabbis were hostile to female education, although this was
endorsed by a few. Accordingly, if she acquired the arts of reading
and writing, she did so at home under the guidance of her father or
mother. That this was not impossible is shown by the fact that some
Jewish women became distinguished scholars in the early centuries
of the Christian era.4
Despite her lack of formal education, Mary must have acquired a
familiarity with the history of the Chosen People and the messianic
prophecies of which it was the recipient and custodian. This famili­
arity was assured by her attendance at the synagogue on the Sabbath
and the Jewish festivals. In the morning and evening services held
on these occasions selections from the Law and the Prophets were
publicly read and translated into Aramaic, the current language of
the common people. A discourse, also, was delivered on some text
of Scripture. Certain psalms were chanted.5 If, as seems likely, she
accompanied her parents on pilgrimages to Jerusalem, she heard and
learned the Psalms of Degrees sung by the pilgrims on their way to
the holy city and Estened to the chanting of the psalms in the liturgy
of the Temple.®
Her spiritual life, also, was nurtured by private devotions. Every
Jew was encouraged to pray often: he was expected to begin and end
the day by lifting up his heart to God; grace was said before and
after meals; certain psalms were recommended for private recitation;
every contingency of life was to be met by suitable prayer. It seems
3 As quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3, 11, 2.
4 J. Bonsirven, Le Judaïsme palestinien, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1935), p. 213.
5 Cf. Bonsirven, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 139, 141-143.
6 Pss. 119-133 (120-134). Cf. Bonsirven, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 119,
147-148.

139,

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

83

reasonable to suppose that Mary even exceeded these high ideals and
that she was, in fact, gifted with the highest forms of mystic prayer.
BETROTHAL7
We read in Mt. 1:18 that Mary was espoused to a man named
Joseph and we glean from Lk. 1:27 and from the genealogies of
the Gospels that he was a scion of David (Mt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38).
But his illustrious origin did not imply social prominence. After the
demise of Zorobabel (after 515 b.c.), the house of David seems to
have declined steadily in wealth and influence. It is mentioned for
the last time in the Old Testament in 1 Par. 3:1 f. So we find that
Joseph was no more than a carpenter of Nazareth not famed for his
erudition (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3). This again is a sign that Mary’s
parents belonged to the artisan class, for, according to Jewish opinion,
bride and bridegroom were supposed to be of the same social and
economic status.8
That Joseph sought a wife does not surprise us, for marriage was
obligatory for a Jew; an unmarried man was stigmatized by the rabbis
as not a man and as devoid of joy, blessing, and well-being.9 But that
Mary, who was resolved to preserve perpetual virginity (Lk. 1:38),
should consent to espousals seems strange. She may have yielded to
pressure from her parents or guardian to conform to the prevailing
custom, leaving it to Divine Providence to safeguard her resolution.
Perhaps she disclosed her resolve to Joseph and persuaded him to
consent to a virginal marriage. It is possible, also, that Joseph enter­
tained the same ideals, so that he needed no persuasion to accept the
kind of espousals contemplated by Mary.
A young man usually became betrothed between the ages of
eighteen and twenty-four; a girl, between twelve years and one day
and twelve years six months, the period when she was classified as a
maiden (na'arah). The obligation to secure a husband for her was
considered urgent when she became a bogereth, that is, when she
reached the legal state of puberty, after the age of twelve and a half.
7 Cf. P. Gâchter, The Chronology from Mary’s Betrothal to the Birth of Christ,
in rheological Studies, Vol. 2, 1941, pp. 347-368; U. Holzmeister, De nuptiis S.
Joseph, in Verhum Domini, Vol. 25, 1947, pp. 145—149; E. Neubert, La chrono­
logie depuis les fiançailles de Marie jusqu'à la naissance du Christ, in Marianum,
Vol. 4, 1942, pp. 10—20.
r ’ Cf. Bonsirven, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 209; W. L. Strack and P. L. Billerbeck,
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, Vol. 2 (München,
>924), pp. 377-378·
11 Cf. Bonsirven, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 208.

84

MARIOLOGY

But these were standards set up by the rabbis; in practice, girls some­
times became betrothed at a more advanced age, although most prob­
ably not as late as twenty, as it was thought calamitous to postpone
marriage so long.10
A great disparity in age between the bride and bridegroom was
deprecated, but widowers sometimes were forced to marry young
girls.11 Hence Mary and Joseph were both youthful at the time of
their betrothal, unless Joseph was a widower. Many of the apocryphal
gospels and some Oriental writers believed that he was such and
that the brothers and sisters of the Lord mentioned in the canonical
gospels were Joseph’s children by a first, deceased wife.12 In the West,
St. Jerome gave the deathblow to this opinion by asserting in his reply
to Helvidius the perpetual virginity of Joseph.13 This has been the
unanimous belief of the Catholic Church ever since.
Jewish nuptials consisted of two steps: betrothal and marriage
proper. After certain financial arrangements concerning the bride
had been signed, the bride and bridegroom were betrothed to one
another in the house of the bride. The bridegroom gave her a small
object having the value of a peruta, the smallest coin, in the presence
of two witnesses, saying: “By this you are betrothed to me.” Betrothal
could also be accomplished by a written document and by intercourse
with the expressed intention of betrothal.14
Betrothal was in every respect equivalent to our marriage. The
betrothed girl was called the man’s wife; she became a widow if her
betrothed died; she was subject to levirate marriage; when widowed
or divorced, she could claim the financial settlement accorded to a
wife in the same circumstances; in case of infidelity she was liable
to the same punishment as an adulterous wife; like a wife she could
not be dismissed without a bill of divorcement. Marital relations were
licit in Judea during betrothal. This does not seem to have been
customary in Galilee.15
If the betrothed woman had not been married previously, she
usually waited a year before the second step, the marriage proper,
was taken. On the day set for the ceremony the bridegroom conducted
10 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., p. 375; Bonsirven, loc. cit.
11 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 379.
12 Carlo Cecclielli, Mater Christi, Vol. 2 (Romae, 1948), pp. 51-52.
13 St. Jerome, De virginitate perpetua B. Mariae adversus Helvidium. PL, 23,
203ΛΒ, 213B.
14 Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 384-394.
15 Cf. ibid., p. 393.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

8?

his betrothed in solemn procession from her parental home to his
own. Thereupon the wedding was celebrated for a week.16
ANNUNCIATION
Not long after her betrothal,17 Mary received an epoch-making
revelation while she was at prayer in her home. The angel Gabriel
appeared to her, probably in visible form, as he had to Zachary in
the Holy Place of the Temple (Lk. i:n). He greeted her with the
words: “Hail, full of grace, die Lord is with thee, blessed art thou
among women” (Lk. 1:28). Some think that the Greek word for
“hail” (chaire~) represents the salutation shalom, meaning “peace,”
“prosperity,” in common use among the Jews. But the literal sense of
chaire, “rejoice thou,” may be intended. For this exhortation is re­
peatedly found in the Prophets and rendered chaire in the Septuagint (Soph. 3:14-17; Joel 2:21; Zach. 9:9; Lam. 4:21). In this
supposition the very first word uttered by the angel suggests that he
is a herald of spiritual happiness.18
“Full of grace” translates kecharitomene, the perfect passive parti­
ciple of charitôô. It denotes one who has been and still is the object
of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to
be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and
remains in this state.19 Verbs ending in όδ, such as haimatôô (turn
into blood), thaumatôô (fill with wonder), spodôômai (bum to
ashes) frequendy express the full intensity of an action. Hence
kecharitômënê has been felicitously rendered “full of grace” by the
Vulgate and the Peshitto. This rendering expresses the conviction of
the Church that the divine favor was fully bestowed upon Mary, in
the sense that she was ever immune from the least stain of sin and
that she abounded in the graces of the supernatural life and in all
the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit which flow from that life.
“The Lord is with thee”20 continued the angel, enunciating the
fact that she enjoyed the effective divine assistance in all her endeav10 Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 504-518, on Mt. 9:5; p. 879, on Mt. 22:2.
17 Cf. D. Frangipane, Utrum B. V. Maria ab angelo salutata jam in domo Joseph
ut conjux fuerit, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 25, 1947, pp. 99—ni.
18 S. Lyonnet, Chaire Kecharitômëne, in Biblica, Vol. 20, 1939, pp. 131—141; cf.
R. Bernard, L'évangile de l'Annonciation, in La Sainte Vierge, figure de l'Eglise
(Paris, 1946), pp. 7-40.
10 Cf. L. Cerfaux, Gratia plena, in Mémoires et Rapports du Congrès Marial
tenu à Bruxelles (1921), Vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1922), pp. 34-40.
20 Cf. U. Holzmeister, "Dominus tecum," in Verbum Domini, Vol. 23, 1943,
pp. 257-262.

86

MARIOLOGY

ors for God’s glory, like Gedeon, to whom a similar declaration was
made and who crushed the foes of Israel as one man (Judges 6:12,
16). Gabriel concludes his address with “blessed art thou among
women,” indicating that she occupied a unique position among the
women of all nations and ages (Lk. 1:28, 29).
Mary was much perturbed by this salutation, far more than
Zachary had been by the apparition of the angel in the Holy Place
of the Temple.21 The cause of her perturbation was not the eulogistic
character of Gabriel’s greeting, which her profound humility must
have borne with equanimity, but the intimation conveyed by his
words that she was selected for some great task the difficulty of which
she viewed with apprehension. While she was pondering on the
possible import of die message, the angel reassured her, addressing
her familiarly by her name, bidding her not to fear and reaffirming
the fact that she had found favor in God’s sight (Lk. 1:30). Then
he recounted the nature of die grace conferred upon her: “And
behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and give birth to a Son,
and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be
called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him
the throne of David, his father. And he shall reign over the house
of Jacob throughout the ages and his kingdom shall have no end”
(Lk. 1:30-33).
This announcement of the dignity destined for Mary alludes
to several messianic prophecies which she may have recollected from
her attendance at the synagogue or from her private perusal of Scrip­
ture. First, there is a reference to the prediction of Isaias: “Behold, a
virgin will conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name
Emmanuel” (7:14). Emmanuel (God is with us) is equivalent in
meaning to Jesus (the Lord saves). “He shall be great” recalls the
appellation El Gibbor (Strong God) bestowed upon the messianic
Child by Isaias (9:6). “Son of the Most High” reminds us of the
words of the Psalm: “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten
thee” (Ps. 2:7). His Davidic descent explains why the Messias was
termed “The Branch of David” (Jer. 23:5; 32:15) or simply “David”
(Jer. 30:9; Ezech. 34:23; 37:24). His everlasting rule is a verification
of the promise made to David (2 Sam. 7:13; Ps. 88:4).
At this point Mary asked the angel: “Flow shall this be since
I know not man?” (Lk. 1:34.) If Mary had expected to have relations
with her husband, the question would have been senseless. It only
21 Cf. the verbs in Lk. 1:12, 29.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

87

becomes intelligible if we assume that she was inalterably resolved
never to have such relations. It is not unthinkable that she had taken
a vow22 of perpetual chastity even though we cannot find a similar
instance among the holy men and women of the Old Law. Since her
union with God was unparalleled among the saints of the Old Testa­
ment, her mental attitude cannot be appraised by their standards. Her
question was not prompted by incredulity, for she did not ask for a
proof of the angel’s words, nor is she charged with disbelief and
punished as Zachary was in similar circumstances. As a matter of fact,
she is praised by Elizabeth for her faith (Lk. 1:45). Her query did
not spring from curiosity but from a legitimate desire to know what
measures she must adopt to attain the realization of the angelic prom­
ise, since the use of the natural means of procreation were impossible
to her.
Gabriel replied: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the
power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore, the Holy
One who shall be born of thee shall be called Son of God” (Lk.
i .-35). The conception of the Child, therefore, will be due to a special
intervention of God, which, being an outward act, was the work of
the Most Holy Trinity but is appropriated to the Holy Spirit because
it is a supreme expression of divine love and bears an analogy to
His procession from the mutual love of the Father and the Son.
This act of divine omnipotence is compared to a cloud casting its
beneficent shadow upon an object or covering and filling it with its
presence.23 The angel may be alluding to the miraculous cloud which
filled the Tabernacle at Mount Sinai. It symbolized the presence of
God dispensing benefits to His people (Exod. 40:34-38; Num. 9:22).
Its action in filling the tabernacle is described by the verb episkiazein
in the Septuagint version of Exod. 40:35, the very verb used by
St. Luke in this passage and rendered “overshadow” in the English
translation.
Gabriel closes his description of the coming Saviour with the
words: “Wherefore the Holy One who shall be bom of thee shall
Ire called the Son of God.” This cannot mean that He will be con­
stituted Son of God in the proper sense of the term because of His
virginal conception, for in this sense He is the Son of God by virtue
22 Cf. J. J. Collins, Our Lady's Vow of Virginity, in The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, Vol. 5, i943> PP· 37ΐ~3θΐ·
23 Cf. H. Rongy, La conception surnaturelle et virginale du Christ d’après
Saint Luc, in Mémoires et Rapports du Congrès Marial tenu à Bruxelles (1921),
Vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1922), pp. 21-33.

88

MARIOLOGY

of His eternal generation. Consequently, it must signify that His
supernatural conception will be a sign or a proof enabling men to
recognize Him as the Son of God.
The angel concludes his discourse to Mary by a reference to the
wonderful event which had befallen her kinswoman Elizabeth (Lk.
1:36-37). The relation of this event was designed, first, to gladden
Mary: Elizabeth, advanced in years and sterile, unjustly suspected
of being under a divine curse as all barren wives were among the
Jews, was declared to be in the sixth month of her pregnancy. This
marvel of divine goodness is said to be a proof that the incomparably
greater prodigy of the Incarnation will be accomplished: “For with
God nothing will be impossible” (Lk. 1:30). This was the second and
more important reason for revealing the blessing bestowed upon
Elizabeth to Mary.
Throughout her conversation with the angel, Mary displayed
admirable virtues: simplicity, prudence, wisdom. When Gabriel
finished speaking, Mary was confronted by the supreme test of her
faith, obedience, and humility. Would she assent to the will of the
Triune God, who did not wish to save the world without Mary,24
to become the Mother of the Divine Word in His human nature?
Would she satisfy the yearnings of mankind for salvation, the longing
of the souls in Limbo for liberation, the hope of the angels for the
redemption of man? Her answer to Gabriel was: “Behold the hand­
maid of the Lord! Be it done to me according to thy word” (Lk.
1:38). This shows that her faith in the angel’s revelation was com­
plete and unreserved, that her consent to be the Mother of God was
not passive but active, unforced, absolutely free, that her humility was
deep and her obedience wholehearted. At this moment the Incarna­
tion took place, and the angel departed.
VISITATION25
After the Annunciation, Mary hastened to visit her kinswoman
Elizabeth, who resided in an unnamed town in the hills of Judea,
which is most probably to be identified with Ain Karim, about four
miles west of Jerusalem. Various motives may be assigned for this
24 Cf. H. Barré, Le consentement à l'incarnation rédemptrice, in Marianum, Vol.
14, 1952, pp. 233-266; J. M. Bover, Virginis consensus fuitne vera Corredemptio?
in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 2 (Romae, 1952), pp. 164-176; A.-M. Malo, Données
de l’évangile de S. Luc pour la Corédemption de Marie, ibid., pp. 178-183.
25 Cf. F. Ogara, De doctrina mariana in visitationis mysterio contenta (I.k.
ï: 39-56), in Verbum Domini, Vol. 17, 1937, pp. 199-204, 225-233, 289-295.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

89

visit, among which the resolve to aid her aging relative with her
domestic duties was the least important. Above all, she must have
desired to felicitate Elizabeth upon the extraordinary boon granted
to her and to rejoice with her over tire Incarnation, of which this
gift was a guarantee, as she had been told by the angel Gabriel. She
must, also, have been anxious to bring the blessing of the unborn
Messias to Elizabeth, her child, and her husband. This is true all
the more if Mary knew that Elizabeth’s son was to be the precursor
of Jesus.
Elizabeth had a supernatural experience when Mary entered her
house and greeted her: the babe maturing within her womb leaped
for joy (Lk. 1:41, 44). At the same time she was filled with the
Holy Spirit, who led her to understand this phenomenon. The child’s
manifestation of joy was due to the pre-eminence of Mary and her
Son. As she expressed it in the resounding tones of enthusiasm:
“Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb” (Lk. 1:42). Elizabeth confessed herself quite unworthy to
receive such distinguished guests: “Why this honor to me that the
mother of my Lord should visit me?” (Lk. 1:43.)2β Then she dis­
closed the cause which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
brought her to tire recognition of this mystery: “For, lo! as the voice
of thy salutation reached my ears the babe leapt in my womb for
joy” (Lk. i 144). Since the Incarnation was in part due to the faith
of Mary, Elizabeth concluded by extolling this faith: “And blessed
art thou who hast believed, for tbe message of the Lord to thee shall
be fulfilled” (Lk. 1:45).
On this occasion Mary, too, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. She
improvised the poem known to us as the Magnificat,27 from the open­
ing word of its Latin version. It is charged with reminiscences of
the psalms and other writings of the Old Testament, showing that
Mary’s mind was steeped in Holy Writ. In the first strophe (Lk.
1:46-50), she meditates with restrained enthusiasm upon the mercy,
power, and holiness of God, who had chosen her for so great a
dignity. She explains in the second strophe (w. 51-53) that God is
wont to exalt the weak and depose the proud. In the third strophe
26 R. Râbanos, {De donde a mi esto, que la Madré de mi Seiior venga a mi?
(Lk. 1:43), in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 8, 1949, pp. 9-27.
27 Cf. J. De Kaulenaer, De Cantico "Magnificat," in Collectanea Mechliniensia,
Vol. 8, 1934, pp. 542-547; G. Fregentino, 11 Magnificat nei commenti dei Santi
Padri, Siena, 1939; P. Luis Suârez, Soteriologia del Magnificat, in Ephemerides
Mariologicae, Vol. 3, 1953, pp. 447-466.

9o

MARIOLOGY

(vv. 54-55), she praises God’s fidelity in fulfilling through His Son
the promises made to Abraham and his posterity.
The Gospel informs us that Mary stayed about three months with
Elizabeth (Lk. 1:56). She may, then, have assisted at the birth of
John. Her name is not mentioned in connection with the remarkable
happenings at John’s circumcision. Hence she may have returned
to Nazareth before this took place.

JOSEPH’S ORDEAL
St. Matthew relates the following crisis in the life of Joseph before
he took Mary to his house: “When Mary, his mother, had been
betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child from the Holy
Spirit” (1:18). We are not told when this discovery was made; it
certainly occurred after the Annunciation, and it may have happened
before or after the Visitation. We are, also, left in ignorance of the
person who made the discovery. Most probably it was Mary herself
who informed Joseph about her miraculous conception. Why should
she conceal so important a matter from her husband? Joseph’s reaction
to the discovery is described thus: “Joseph, her husband, being a just
man and unwilling to expose her, was minded to give her a private
release” (Mt. 1:19). The thought of being in such close proximity
to the deity may have terrified Joseph and impelled him to divorce
Mary. To make the divorce public would have exposed Mary to
obloquy, since many of her acquaintances would not have readily
believed in a conception wrought by the Holy Spirit. Being a just
man and reluctant to inflict an injury upon anyone, especially upon
a maiden of such sanctity, he was planning a secret divorce either
by giving her a bill of divorcement or by leaving the city.28
While he was in this agonized state of mind, “an angel of the
Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David,
fear not to take to thyself Mary, thy wife, for what is conceived in
her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall give birth to a Son, and thou
shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their
sins’” (Mt. 1:20-21).
Thus Mary’s statement about the origin of her child was confirmed
by a special revelation. Joseph then completed the second and final
stage of his marriage to Mary: he brought her to his dwelling, which
may have been situated on the site of the ancient Church of the
28 Cf. R. Bulbeck, The Doubt of St. Joseph, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
Vol. 10, 1948, pp. 296-309.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

91

Nutrition, now pointed out as the workshop of St. Joseph. According
to the Gospel, Joseph had no marital relations with Mary “until she
gave birth to her firstborn Son” (Mt. 1:25). The “until” in the
original does not signify that he knew her sexually afterward. It
merely states what happened up to a certain point without affirming
or negating anything about the subsequent period (cf. Is. 46:4 in
the Septuagint; 1 Cor. 15:25; Ps. 71:7; 109:1).
In fact, the Church’s belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary can
be traced back to the second century.28 It was impugned for the first
time by Helvidius, an obscure heretic apparently residing in Rome,
with an insignificant following. He was refuted by St. Jerome, whose
treatise on the subject has become a classic of Catholic theology.30
Nor does the appellation “firstborn” applied by the Evangelist to
Jesus imply other children. It was a technical term, showing that the
son in question was God’s property and had to be redeemed (Exod.
34:20; Num. 3:41; 18:16). In addition, the first-born was especially
esteemed because he was the first issue of a man’s strength (Deut.
21:17). After the decease of his father he was entitled to the leader­
ship of the family and to a double portion of the inheritance in case
there were brothers (Deut. 21:15-17). Lienee the brothers and sisters
of Jesus repeatedly mentioned in the New Testament (Mt. 12:46;
13:55-56; Mk. 3:31-32; 6:3; Lk. 8:19; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14; i Cor.
9:5; Gal. 1:19) were cousins or kinsfolk of Jesus since the Hebrew
and Aramaic words for brother and sister also have this broader sense.
St. Matthew stresses the fact that Mary’s conception is a fulfill­
ment of Isaias’ prophecy: “Behold the virgin shall be with child and
give birth to a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel” (Mt.
1:25). It seems probable that Mary and Joseph also adverted to the
accomplishment of this prophecy at this time.

BETHLEHEM
As the time of Mary’s pregnancy was drawing to a close, she and
her husband were faced with a new problem. An edict of the Emperor
Augustus was published ordering a census of all the inhabitants of
Herod’s kingdom. Similar enumerations had already been made in
other provinces of the Roman empire or were then in progress, so
that, popularly speaking, the whole world seemed to be in the process
of enrollment (Lk. 2:1). This registration required each citizen to
29 Hegesippus; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3, 11, 2; 4, 22, 4.
so St. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae adversus Helvidium. PL, 23,
185-206.

92

MARIOLOGY

repair to the home of his clan. Since Joseph was of Davidic lineage,
he had to go to Bethlehem, the birthplace of David and the center
of his clan. The supervision of the census was entrusted to Quirinius,
who was either governor of Syria at this time (i 1-8 b.c.) or acted as
deputy of Saturninus, the governor of Syria in 7 b.c.31
The journey to Bethlehem from Nazareth covered about ninety to
ninety-five miles and must have been arduous especially for an ex­
pectant mother. Mary accompanied Joseph either because women had
to be enrolled also or because she owned taxable land in Bethlehem
or because she wanted the companionship of Joseph in tire hour of
her destiny. Scripture does not enlighten us about the details of the
journey. The character of the persons involved suggests that it was
made without grumbling, with full trust in Divine Providence, and
with complete submission to the will of God. Their thoughts, as they
escorted the unborn Son of God, were too hallowed to be described
here.
On their arrival, they met with a new bitter disappointment: they
found that there was no place for them in the inn (Lk. 2:7). The
inn is usually thought to have been a caravansary. But the Greek
word translated “inn” does not necessarily have this meaning; it also
denotes a lodging, a guest room. Joseph may have expected to find this
in the house of a relative or friend, only to discover that all such
rooms had already been taken by others. Somebody, perhaps the
intended host, then showed them a series of caves outside the city.
Christian devotion has commemorated one of these caves as the birth­
place of Christ by converting it into a shrine and building the Basilica
of the Nativity over the site.
How long Mary resided here before Jesus was bom is not known.
His birth may have occurred on the very night of their arrival or
after some days. When the time of her delivery came, Mary retired
to the cave and gave birth to Jesus in utter solitude. It is an article
of the Catholic faith that she did so without suffering the usual
lesions of the tissues which occur in ordinary childbirth, so that she
remained a virgin physically even in parturition. The passage of the
child through her body has been compared to the transit of light
through crystal. Like all mothers of Palestine in ancient and modem
times, she wrapped her Babe in neat narrow bands of colorful mate­
rial. Then she laid Him diagonally on a square cloth and folded the
comers of the cloth over His hands and feet. Next she tied His
81 Cf. Lexikon für Théologie und Kirche, s.v.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

93

hands to his sides with bandages, which in this case were plain, since
only the rich could afford embroidered ones.32 These bands together
with the cloth and the bandages constituted the swaddling clothes to
which St. Luke refers (Lk. 2:7).
The cave must at one time have been a shelter for animals, for,
after swaddling the Babe, she laid Him in a manger, a stone eating
trough for domestic beasts set conveniently low on the floor. Before
placing the Child within it, she undoubtedly filled it with straw.33
Thus the divine Infant did not lack the essentials of child care re­
quired in the Near East from time immemorial, although the articles
used conformed in quality rather to the standards of a poor peasant
than to those of the middle and upper classes. The census was prob­
ably held in late summer, after the harvest, not in winter, as is
popularly supposed, when frequent rains and the cold make traveling
extremely difficult. Hence the child was not exposed to the inclem­
ency of the weather, although even in December the cave would
have afforded some protection against wintry blasts.
While Mary and Joseph gazed in adoration, praise, thanksgiving,
and supplication upon the Incarnate Son of God, they must have re­
flected with some sadness upon the bitter poverty and dereliction of
Israel’s king. Their sorrow was mitigated by the sudden advent of the
shepherds seeking to adore the Child wrapped in swaddling clothes
and laid in a manger. From their enthusiastic story they learned that
the birth of the Saviour was not without manifest splendor: a super­
natural radiance illuminated the nocturnal sky; an angelic herald pro­
claimed the joyous tidings about Christ, the Lord, bom in David’s
city; choirs of angels sang of peace and God’s benevolence to men
(Lk. 2:8-17). After leaving, the shepherds spread the news of Christ’s
nativity among their acquaintances, filling all their listeners with
wonderment (Lk. 2:18-21). It would be odd, indeed, if at least
some of these did not come to pay homage to the Child and His
Mother. We are told that Mary kept all these things in her heart,
pondering them (Lk. 2:19). She treasured them as precious testi­
monies to the dignity of her Son, compared them with previous rev­
elations that she had received, and so penetrated even more deeply
into the mystery of the Incarnation. The episode of the shepherds im­
pressed upon her that wealth, learning, or any form of earthly honor
32 Cf. Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, Encyclopedia of Bible Life (New
York, 1944), p. 60.
33 Ibid., pp. 26, 248; Ill. 21.

94

MARIOLOGY

were welcome to her Son only if accompanied by the strong faith
and moral integrity of the shepherds.
At the end of eight days, she rejoiced over the rite of circumcision,
which made Jesus a member of her own people (Lk. 2:21; Gen.
17:9-19). At the same time she may have reflected that this rite
had lost its prophetic meaning: the promises made to Abraham and
his posterity, of which it was a sign and a seal (Rom. 4:11), were
realized in her Son. On this occasion, Mary and Joseph named the
babe Jesus as they had been commanded (Mt. 1:21; Lk. 1:31). That
the task of saving her people intimated by the name Jesus would be
toilsome was suggested to Mary by the hardships of His infancy.

PRESENTATION AND PURIFICATION
The Mosaic Law decreed that a woman who had given birth to
a male child should be ritually unclean for forty days (Lev. 12:1 f.).
During this period, she was prohibited from touching anything
hallowed and from entering the Temple. After the forty days she
was obliged to go to the Temple and rid herself of her uncleanness
by certain prescribed sacrifices: a lamb a year old for a holocaust
and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. In case she
could not afford a lamb, she could substitute a young pigeon or a
turtledove. If the male child was her first-born, she was also obliged
to redeem him from the Lord, whose property he was, by the pay­
ment of five shekels to the priests (Exod. 13:13, 34:10; Num.
18:15, 16). Accordingly, Mary and Joseph, taking the Child, went
up to the Temple in Jerusalem from Bethlehem and carried out the
prescriptions of the Law, offering the sacrifices that were incumbent
upon the poor (Lk. 2:22-24).
As they were proceeding to the gate of Nicanor, the eastern gate
of the Court of the Women, where women to be purified were
required to assemble,34 they encountered a just and devout man
named Simeon, to whom the Holy Spirit had revealed that he
would not die before seeing the consolation of Israel, the Anointed
of the Lord, the Messias. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit
he recognized the long-awaited Saviour in Jesus. Attracted by his
manifest piety and emotion, Mary acceded to his desire and allowed
him to take Jesus in his arms. Swayed by prophetical inspiration,
he exclaimed: "Now thou dost release thy servant, O Lord, accord­
ing to thy word, in peace! Because my eyes have seen thy salvation,
34 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 129, note b.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

95

which thou hast prepared in the sight of all peoples —a light of
revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel” (Lk.
2:29-32).
This prophecy filled the parents with admiration: it brought
home to them the fact that the mission of Jesus would not be
confined to the Chosen People but would extend to the other
nations as well. This reminded them of the similar predictions of
Isaias concerning the Servant of the Lord (42:6; 49:6).
That this mission would entail suffering not only for the Saviour
but also for His Mother is evident from the words which Simeon
addressed to her after blessing her and Joseph: “Behold, this child
is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel and for a sign that
shall be contradicted, and a sword shall pierce through thy soul
also, that the thoughts may be laid bare in many hearts” (Lk.
2:34-3 5).36 Jesus will cause the spiritual downfall of many in
Israel and the rise of many others to a higher supernatural life. He
will be a sign, a manifestation of the divinity which will be opposed
by some. In consequence of this opposition, Mary, too, will suffer
anguish so intense that a great sword will seem to pierce her soul.
All this will bring to light the good or bad sentiments latent in
many hearts.
Mary was distracted from her forebodings of evil engendered by
this prophecy by the advent of Anna, a prophetess and a widow of
venerable age, who worshiped day and night with fasts and prayer,
never leaving the Temple. On this occasion, she praised the Lord
for His salvation. After meeting the Saviour, she spoke about the
Child repeatedly to those who looked forward to the deliverance
of Jerusalem (Lk. 2:36-38).
THE MAGI
A year or perhaps a year and a half after the Presentation of the
Child Jesus in the Temple, a stately caravan halted one evening
at the humble home of the Holy Family in Bethlehem. This home
is called a “house” by St. Matthew (2:11). Hence they may have
exchanged the cave for a more suitable dwelling, built perhaps by
the skill of Joseph. The leaders of the caravan explained that they
were Magi, members of a priestly caste from far-distant Media, who
35 Cf. J. Femândez, El encuentro de Simeon y Ana con Jesiis. Su testimonio,
in Cultura BÎhlica, Vol. 5, 1948, pp. 338-343; C. De Koninck, La prophétie de
Sintéon et la compassion de la Vierge Mere, in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 2 (Romae,
>95*), ΡΡ· 184-191·

96

MARIOLOGY

had seen the newly created star of the Messias in the East and had
been told by Herod that the prophet Micheas had predicted His
birth in Bethlehem of Juda (5:1-3). They pointed to the star,
which was sending down its rays upon the house of the Holy
Family. After appearing to them in their native land, it had van­
ished as they traveled to Judea to adore the messianic King of the
Jews. It had reappeared on their journey from Jerusalem to Bethle­
hem, filling them with exceeding great joy and guiding them to the
goal of their longings, the house of the infant Saviour.
Their story revealed such palpable evidence of divine intervention
and such extraordinary faith that their request to see the Child
and His Mother could not be denied. When they beheld Jesus in
His Mother’s arms, they prostrated themselves in silent adoration.
Then they offered gifts indicative of their faith: gold, frankincense,
and myrrh. These gifts suggest that they perceived in the Child
more than merely a human Messias: they were the kind of offerings
which men of that age presented to their gods. According to a
common interpretation, the gold was a tribute to His kingship; the
frankincense, to His divinity; tire myrrh, to Flis humanity.
Mary and Joseph recalled the prediction of Simeon that Jesus
would be a light of revelation to the Gentiles (Lk. 2:32) and the
prophetic words of the Psalmist concerning the homage of the
nations to the Messias: “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles
will render tribute; the kings of Sheba and Seba will bring gifts; all
kings will fall down before him, all nations serve him” (Ps. 71:1011). They remembered also the parallel prophecy from Isaias: “All
these from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and frankin­
cense” (60:6).
THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT
Mary and Joseph were not allowed to enjoy the triumph of the
Son of God for long. Herod was determined to slay this Child,
whom he falsely supposed to be an aspirant to his throne, and
hoped to discover His whereabouts through the Magi, whom he
had urged to return, simulating a pious desire to emulate their act
of worship. Soon, therefore, after their arrival in Bethlehem, per­
haps that very night, they were told in a dream not to return to
Herod but to take another road back to their own country. Joseph,
too, was warned in a dream about the murderous designs of Herod
and bidden to take the Child and Flis Mother and flee to Egypt
(Mt. 2:12, 13). He was to remain there until he was admonished

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

97

to return. Joseph may have chosen the road which leads by way
of Ascalon and Gaza along the sand dunes of tire Mediterranean
coast to Egypt. Or he may have taken the southern route by way
of Hebron and Beersheba across the northern part of the Sinai pen­
insula to the seacoast and into the Delta. Either way was laborious,
demanding about two weeks of exhausting travel. They were for­
tunate indeed if they owned a donkey or a camel upon which
Mary and the Child could ride at least at intervals.
On reaching Egypt, they most probably settled in some Jewish
colony. Their journey seems to have been without untoward inci­
dent, since nothing is recorded. But as they cast a retrospective
glance upon their past experiences, they must have realized that
the service of the messianic King could require heroic humility and
obedience. If the news of the slaughter of the Innocents reached
them in Egypt (Mt. 2:16-18), they perceived that martyrdom
might even be exacted from guiltless children.
They were, no doubt, nauseated by tire degrading idolatry of
Egypt; it was a striking proof of man’s crying need of a Saviour.
Isaias had consoled Egypt with the words: “And the Lord will
make himself known to the Egyptians and the Egyptians will know
the Lord” (19:21). That this hour might be accelerated was un­
doubtedly the theme of Mary’s prayer.

RETURN TO NAZARETH
When Herod I died in 4 b.c., an angel appeared in a dream to
Joseph and hade him to return to the land of Israel with Mary and
Jesus. In the course of his journey, he heard that Archelaus, Herod’s
older son by the Samaritan Malthace, had been appointed ethnarch
of Judea; he hesitated about going back to Bethlehem, fearing that
this monarch might persecute Jesus as ruthlessly as his father if he
learned His identity. He was freed from all anxiety by another
dream vision in which he was directed to go to Nazareth of Galilee,
which was ruled by Herod Antipas as tetrarch, a full brother of
Archelaus (Mt. 2:19-23). According to St. Matthew, who quotes
Osee 11:1, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their en­
trance into the Promised Land were a prophetic type of Jesus’
return to Israel (2:15). The same Evangelist likewise notes that the
Saviour took up His residence in Nazareth to fulfill the declaration
of the prophets that He would be called a Nazarene (2:23). It is
doubtful that these truths were apparent to Mary and Joseph.

98

MARIOLOGY

THE HIDDEN LIFE
Two sentences summarize the retired life of Jesus in Nazareth,
which endured until about His thirtieth year (Lk. 3:23). The
first states that He rendered submission to His parents (Lk. 2:51).
Since Mary and Joseph knew that He was the Son of God, they
were no doubt filled with wonder and awe at the profundity of
His abasement. The mainspring of His action was not the high
esteem which He felt for Mary and Joseph on account of the perfect
performance of their parental duties. His primary motive was the
will of His Heavenly Father whenever and wherever it was mani­
fest. Mary fully appreciated this motive since it governed her own
demeanor toward Joseph as the head of the household.
The second sentence about the hidden life declares: “And Jesus
increased in wisdom and in stature and in grace with God and
men” (Lk. 2:j2).3e It is easy to understand how He increased in
stature: this means simply that His physical development kept
pace with His age. How He advanced in wisdom is more difficult
to grasp. The knowledge which He possessed as the Divine Word
was infinite and not susceptible to change. But His human nature,
also, was gifted with knowledge, which was threefold in character:
(1) intuitive, the continuous and immediate vision of the divine
essence, (2) infused, comprising the species of objects and persons
impressed upon Flis intellect by God, (3) experimental, acquired by
the application of His senses and intellectual faculties. Obviously,
the last named alone could increase, for the first two were perfect
from the very first moment of His conception.
His advancement in knowledge, then, signifies that He gained
and displayed an experimental knowledge which was proportionate
to every stage of His age and growth. Since His senses were more
acute and His intellect more keen than those of any boy that ever
lived, His acquired knowledge must have surpassed that of any
youth with comparable opportunities. This mental development un­
questionably gave intense joy to Mary and Joseph; at the same time
His humble obedience in concealing His talents in an obscure
village like Nazareth must have aroused their unqualified
admiration.
It is possible that Fie also revealed an ever increasing amount of
Flis infused knowledge. The progressive manifestation of this
’o The Greek word translated “stature” means also “years,” "age.”

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

99

knowledge could also be termed an advancement of knowledge,
for so it would have appeared in the eyes of men. However, He
seems to have given no evidence of this supernatural knowledge
during the hidden life at Nazareth, at least outside the family
circle. For when He revisited Nazareth during His public life, its
citizens were struck with astonishment and said: “Where did this
man acquire this wisdom and these powers? Is He not the son of the
carpenter?” (Mt. 13:54; Mk. 6:1-6; Lk. 4:14-30.)
Since Jesus was full of grace from the first instant of His con­
ception, He could not increase in grace internally. As He advanced
in years, He performed acts of virtue in harmony with each period
of His life. Thus He progressed in grace with God, who was pleased
with His actions and with men, who noted His outward progress
with ever growing approval. The peerless beauty of Christ’s
demeanor, as it unfolded itself before them, must have been a
source of inspiration and delight to His parents. They were rooted
and grounded in the love of Jesus whose personality dominated
their work, their recreation, their prayer, their mutual regard, and
their attitude toward others.
THE CHILD JESUS IN THE TEMPLE
After completing his thirteenth year, every Jew was obliged to
appear in the sanctuary at Jerusalem on three major festivals of the
year: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Women were not
bound by this precept, although they could make these pilgrimages
if they so desired. Devout parents introduced and habituated
their sons to the observance of this law before the legally prescribed
age. Lienee we find Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the Passover
in His twelfth year. They may have done so on previous occasions,
but this is the only instance commemorated in the Gospels (Lk.
2:41-50)”
Having fulfilled their religious duties at the Passover, Mary and
Joseph joined one of the caravans returning to Galilee. At the first
stopping place, after a day’s journey, which may not have exceeded
thirteen miles,38 they noticed to their consternation that Jesus was
not with the caravan. Fearing that some mishap might have befallen
Him, they retraced their steps and combed the groups of acquaint­
ances and friends going back to Galilee. On reaching Jerusalem,
37 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 141-149.
88 Ibid., p. 149.

ΙΟΟ

MARIOLOGY

they searched all the localities where He might be tarrying. Finally
they found Him on the third day in the Temple listening to the
doctors of the Law and asking them questions. It was customary
at this time for scholars to surround themselves with disciples and
to encourage them to propose queries and to debate doctrinal and
moral problems. The circle which Jesus joined was assembled either
in one of the porticoes of the Temple or in the lecture hall of the
synagogue attached to the Temple. All those in attendance were
amazed by the intelligence of Jesus and by His responses.
When Mary saw Jesus thus occupied she, too, was astonished
not so much by His intellectual brilliance as by the fact that He
seemed oblivious of Plis parents and unconcerned about their
anguish. Accordingly, she asked Him: “My child, why hast thou
treated us so? Indeed, thy Father and I have been searching for
thee in great distress.” Jesus’ reply indicates that their fears for His
safety were unfounded: ‘Why did you search for me?” Then He
proposes the motive of His seemingly unfilial conduct: “Did you
not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Lk. 2:49.) “But
they did not comprehend what he said to them” (Lk. 2:5ο).39
They knew indeed that He must be in His Father’s house but
they did not understand that His Father’s call might involve the
abandonment of family ties even in boyhood, without permission of
the parents, without previous notification, and with the infliction
of much sorrow. We need not be surprised that Mary did not grasp
the mysteries of Christ’s life at once. Just as she grew in love and
grace, so could she increase in understanding. That she stored up
this and other incidents of tire hidden life in her memory for further
meditation is expressed by St. Luke as follows: “And his mother
kept all these incidents in her heart” (2:51).

CANA
We read nothing further about Mary until the beginning of
Our Lord’s public life. At that time Jesus, Mary, and some of His
disciples were invited to the wedding festivities of a young couple
in Cana of lower Galilee, situated, according to tradition, at Kefr
Kenna, three and a half miles northeast of Nazareth. Since nothing
is said about Joseph on this occasion, it is reasonably assumed that
he died during the hidden life at Nazareth (Jn. 2:1, 2).
39 Cf. J. M. Bover, Una nueva interpretaciôn de Lc. 2:50, in Estudios Biblicos,
Vol. 10 (seg. ép.), 1951, pp. 205-215.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

IOI

The newly wedded couple were expected to provide food and
drink for the invited guests, who streamed in from all sides in the
course of the week. Owing to their poverty or to an unexpectedly
large influx of visitors, the supply of wine intended for the enter­
tainment of the guests became exhausted prematurely. Failure to
provide this indispensable element of Jewish rejoicing would have
exposed the bride and bridegroom to humiliation. Mary learned of
their predicament and in the tactful kindness of her heart appealed to
Jesus for alleviation. Having unbounded confidence in His re­
sourcefulness, she merely stated the fact, without adding a plea:
“They have no wine.” “Woman,” Jesus answered her, “what is
there between me and thee?” (Jn. 2:3, 4.)
It is now recognized by scholars of all shades of thought that
“woman” as a vocative does not imply any rebuke or reproach, that
it may, in fact, denote the highest esteem.·10 Still it is puzzling that
Fie chose this form of address in preference to the more affectionate
“mother.” Perhaps Fie wished to convey the idea that her maternal
authority had ceased with the inception of the public life and that
His regard for her was dominated primarily by her spiritual merits
and not by the physical bonds of flesh and blood which united them.
The meaning of the question, “What is there between me and
thee?” has been laboriously investigated by scholars,41 but a solution
satisfactory to all has not been attained. It is used to deny a peti­
tion (2 Sam. 16:10; 19:23) and to protest against a hostile measure
(Judges 11:12; i Kings 17:18). It does not necessarily imply harsh­
ness of tone but may be friendly, as when David dissented from the
opinion of Abisai, his most ardent supporter (2 Sam. 16: io).42
Jesus, then, seems to have rejected the petition of His Mother,
giving as His reason: “My hour has not yet come.” The expression
“my hour” is obscure and has been the subject of exegetical argu­
ment.43 It seems to mean the time when He is to manifest His
messianic mission in some conspicuous manner.
40 Cf. Walter Bauer, Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1952), s.v.
41 See, for example, T. Gallus, "Quid mihi et tibi, mulier? Nondum venit hora
mea" (Jn. 2, 4): potestne intelligi tamquam allusio? in Verbum Domini, Vol. 22,
1942, pp. 41-50.
42 For an analysis of all the scriptural passages concerned, cf. Paul Gâchter,
Maria im Erdenleben (Innsbruck, 1953), pp. 171-177.
43 Cf., for example, F.-M. Braun, La Mère de Jésus dans l'oeuvre de saint Jean,
in Revue Thomiste, Vol. 50, 1950, pp. 429-479; Vol. 51, 1951, pp- 5-68; J. Leal,
La hora de Jesils, la hora de su Madré (Jo. 2, 4), in Estudios Eclesiasticos, Vol.
26, 1952, pp. 147-168.

102

MARIOLOGY

But if He rejected her request, how are we to explain her direc­
tions to the servants which denote consent: “Do whatever he bids
you” (Jn. 2:5)? The explanation seems to be that He denied her
prayer at first in order to afford her an opportunity to gain more
merit and greater glory by making her petition more intense. This
intensification of her supplication was not formulated in words but
occurred in the secrecy of her heart, where Jesus alone could read
it. She who knew her Son so perfectly read the affirmative answer
in the expression of His face, in the light of His eyes, in the
smile of His lips, perhaps even by the illumination of the Holy
Spirit.
Thus her intercession resulted in a stupendous miracle, the trans­
mutation of water into wine, possible only to the omnipotence of
God. She also revealed the kindness of her heart, which intervened
to save a relatively unimportant family of Galilee from a temporary
social embarrassment.

THE PUBLIC LIFE
St. John relates that Mary and the brethren of Jesus accompanied
Him and His disciples to Caphamaum (Jn. 2:12). This was for a
time the center of His messianic ministry and the starting point for
expeditions to other parts of Galilee. She may have settled down
there and so may have listened to His discourses and witnessed
some of His miracles. But she played no part in His public life.
She is not mentioned among the women who ministered to Him
and His Apostles in Galilee (Mk. 15:41). Only two incidents are
recounted in which she is referred to. On the first occasion, Jesus
was so besieged and importuned by a crowd of visitors in a house
which was presumably in Caphamaum that He could not take
necessary food. Then His brethren and His mother came to take
Him away, for some people even accused Him of being beside
Himself (Mk. 3:20). If His brethren shared this view, it cannot
be attributed to His Mother, whose presence was motivated solely
by solicitude for His welfare. When Jesus was informed that His
Mother and brethren were without, He replied: “Who are my
mother and my brethren?”44 “Looking round on those who sat
about him, he said: ‘Behold my mother and my brethren! For
whoever does the will of God, he is my brother, sister and mother* ”
·*■* Cf. O. Rodriguez, "Qui sunt fratres mei" (_Mt. 12, 48), in Verbum Domini,
Vol. 5, 1925, pp. 132-137.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

103

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

BENEATH THE CROSS
We do not encounter Mary again in the Gospels until we find
her standing beneath the cross together with John, the beloved
disciple, and the holy women (Jn. 19:25-27). Sorrow is in direct
proportion to our comprehension and love of the person over whom
we grieve. But Mary understood the prerogatives of Jesus and His
relationship to herself more keenly than any other human being;
the intensity of her love harmonized with this understanding.
Hence she was truly the Queen of martyrs: every insult, every
wound must have filled her with unparalleled anguish. She knew
that the consciousness of her grief increased the agony of her Son.
Still she suffered without flinching, in heroic silence, fully aware
that the passion of her Son together with her own sorrow were
necessary for the redemption of mankind.45
Amid the encircling gloom, which lasted from the sixth to the
ninth hour (Mt. 27:45; Mk. 15:30; Lk. 23:44), the voice of Jesus
was heard for the third time (Jn. 19:26-27). Addressing His
Mother, He said: “Woman, behold thy son,” thereby commending
John to Mary’s maternal solicitude. Then speaking to John in cor­
relative terms, He conferred the privileges and duties of sonship
upon him: “Behold thy mother.” The beloved disciple understood
the words in this sense. “From that hour,” we read, “the disciple
took her into his home” (v. 27).
Was John our representative on this occasion, so that Mary was
proclaimed our Mother also? Various opinions have been expressed
in this connection. Exegetes, in general, and a few theologians claim
Cf. R. Râbanos, La Corredenciôn de Maria en la Sagrada Escritura, in Estudios
Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, esp. pp. 51-59.

104

MARIOLOGY

that the text under discussion does not furnish any biblical proof
(either in the literal or the typical sense) for the doctrine of Mary’s
spiritual motherhood.46 Their main argument seems to be that the
Fathers of the Church do not interpret the text in this sense. How­
ever, the vast majority of theologians, and not a few exegetes,
appealing principally to tire teaching of recent pontiffs, consider the
Johannine passage a valid scriptural argument in favor of that doc­
trine. Of this group, some do not specify what biblical sense they
have in mind;47 others show their preference for a literal sense
(at least plenior),48 while still others favor a Marian typical sense,
expressed at times in equivalent terms.49
Our personal views on this matter may be summarized as fol­
lows: the doctrine of Mary’s spiritual motherhood is not expressed
in ]n. 19:26-27 according to the literal sense; the words themselves
do not suggest it. However, it is not excluded by the literal sense,
and certainly not by the typical or inclusive sense. If the declarations
of the popes in this connection60 are sufficient proof that this mean46 Cf., among others: J. Corluy, Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis (Gandavi,
1889), p. 511; J. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. ]oannem (Parisiis, 1898), pp.
546-547; A. Durand, Evangile selon Saint Jean (Paris, 1938), p. 493; W. Newton,
A Commentary on the New Testament (Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1942), p. 357; F. Ceuppens, De Mariologia Biblica, ed. 2 (Taurini, 1951), pp.
199-202; H. Lennerz, De Beata Virgine (Romae, 1939), p. 127.
47 Cf., for example, F. X. Maszl, Erklarung der hl. Schriften des Neuen Testamentes, Vol. 5 (Wien, 1841), pp. 433-435; Loch-Reischl, Die Heiligen Schriften
des N.T., Vol. 1 (Regensburg, 1899), p. 387; Lusseau-Collomb, Manuel d'Etudes
Bibliques, Vol. 4 (Paris, 1932), p. 851.
48 Cf. E. Legnani, De theologica certitudine Matemitatis B. M. Virginis quoad
fideles juxta Christi verba “Mulier, ecce filius tuus" (Veneriis, 1899), p. 27;
Hilary of St. Ahatha, Beatissimae Virginis Matemitas universalis in verbis Jesu
morientis: “Ecce filius tuus . . . ecce mater tua," in Teresianum, 1933, pp· 105-151;
1934, pp. 194-249; J. Prado, Praelectiones Biblicarum Compendium, Vol. 3
(Taurini, 1942), p. 446; R. Râbanos, La matemidad espiritual de Maria en el
Protoevangelio y San Juan, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 7, 1948, pp. 15-50; J·
Leal, Beata Virgo omnium spiritualis Mater ex Jn. 19, 26-27, in Verbum Domini,
Vol. 27, 1949, pp- 65-73; E. May, The Scriptural Basis for Mary's Spiritual
Maternity, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 125-130; G. M. Roschini, La
Madonna seconde la fede e la teologia, Vol. 2 (Roma, 1953), pp. 245-253.
49 J. M. Bover, Mulier, ecce filius tuus, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 4, 1924,
p. 340; D. Unger, in his review of Katholische Marienkunde, in The American
Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 125, 1951, pp. 239-240; P. Gâchter, Die geistige Mutterschaft Marias; ein Beitrag zur Erklarung von Jo 19, z6f., in Zeitschrift fur katholische
Théologie, Vol. 47, 1923, pp. 391-429; T. Gallus, "Mulier, ecce filius tuus," in
Verbum Domini, Vol. 21, 1941, pp. 289-297.
50 The various Papal references to this biblical passage may be found in the
exhaustive dissertation of G. W. Shea, The Teaching of the Magisterium on

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

105

ing is contained in ]n. 19:26—27, then, of course, it must be found
there. But it would seem to us that the various Papal utterances
relative to this point do not constitute true declarations of doctrine.*
51
Be that as it may, the truth of Mary’s spiritual motherhood is
deducible from other passages of the New Testament. Christ
speaks of His disciples as His brothers (Mt. 28:10). St. Paul
calls Him the first-born among many brethren (Rom. 7:22).
Therefore, the teaching of tradition that Mary is our Mother, to
which we must give credence, is not without scriptural foundation.

THE RISEN CHRIST
Scripture is silent about Mary’s participation in the burial of
Jesus. How she spent the days intervening before the Resurrection
is likewise left to our imagination. She did not accompany the
holy women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint
Him. Being so absolutely convinced of His Resurrection, she con­
sidered this expedition useless. Great saints and scholars consider
it almost self-evident that the Risen Christ appeared first to His
Mother, although no apparition of this kind is narrated in the
Gospels.52 The forty days preceding the Ascension must have been
a season of indescribable joy for other reasons also: Mary Magdalen,
the Aposdes, and others to whom Jesus appeared, must have given
her glorious accounts of the glory of her Son. After the Ascension
she is said to have been present in the upper room, persevering
unitedly in prayer with the Apostles, the holy women, and the
brethren of the Lord (Acts 1:13-14). Consequently, we may rea­
sonably infer that she accompanied her Son to Mount Olivet and
Mary's Spiritual Maternity, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 35—110, esp.
68-69, 92-93.
51 Others are o£ a different opinion. Cf., for example, Card. A. H. Lépicier,
Diatessaron, Vol. 4 (Roma, 1927), p. 177.
52 On this interesting controversy cf. F. Tallachini, Un silenzio nel Vangelo, in
Palestra del Clero, Vol. 19, 1940, p. 201; G. Gherardi, Per un silenzio nel Vangelo,
ibid., pp. 233—235; G. M. Roschini, Intomo all’apparizione di Gesu risorto alia
sua Ss. Madre, ibid., pp. 235—246; V. Buffon, A proposito di una recente con­
troversia mariologica, in Marianum, Vol. 2, 1940, pp. 410—424; U. Holzmeister,
Num Christus post resurrectionem suae Ss. Matri apparuerit, in Verbum Domini,
Vol. 22, 1942, pp. 97—ro2; id., Der Auferstandene und seine heiligste Mutter, in
Klerusblatt, Vol. 24, 1943, pp. 238—240; J. Blinzler, Der Auferstandene und seine
Mutter, ibid.,pp. 113—rr6; id., Nochmals zur Frage der Christophanie vor Maria,
ibid., p. 240 ff.; A. M. Schuhmaier, Controversia de Christophania B. M. Virgini
die resurrectionis concessa, in Marianum, Vol. 8, 1946, pp. 147-151.

ιο6

MARIOLOGY

witnessed the glory of the Ascension. The great joy which filled the
disciples on this occasion must have been hers also, even in greater
measure (Lk. 24:52). Since she was united in prayer with the
Apostles, she must have beheld the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
on the day of Pentecost and the other stirring events inaugurating
the promulgation of Christ’s Church (Acts 2:1; 3:26). Nothing
further is related about her in the Acts; the Epistles, too, are silent
about her. Nevertheless, by her prestige as the Mother of the Lord,
by her holy life, her prayers, and her encouragement, she must
have exerted an inestimable influence upon the nascent Church.
There is no direct allusion to her Assumption, which was the cul­
mination of her privileges and the reward of her labors.

THE WOMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE
In the Apocalypse St. John describes a woman whom he saw in
vision: she was clothed with the sun, the moon was beneath her
feet, and upon her head was a crown of stars. “And she was with
child and cried out in the pangs of birth and in pain to be de­
livered” (Apoc. 12:1, 2). The male Child to whom she gives birth
on earth, who is the Son of God, is caught up to God and His
throne (Apoc. 12:5). Then the dragon, or Satan, who was lying
in wait to kill the Child pursues the woman into the desert and
attempts to destroy her but she escapes with divine help and abides
securely for three and a half years (Apoc. 12:6-9).
Now at Bethlehem Mary did not bring forth her divine Child
in pain nor did she have to flee to the wilderness after the Ascen­
sion. Hence the woman before the birth of tire Child, most prob­
ably represents the Israel of the Old Testament, whose heroes and
heroines toiled to prepare the way for the Messias. After the birth
of the Child and His Ascension into heaven, the woman symbolizes
the Israel of the New Testament, the Church. Though periodically
persecuted, she will always be secure under God’s protection. Her
persecution is said to last three and a half years to indicate that
it will be relatively short when compared to the eternity of her
duration.
But Mary is also included in the symbolism of the woman. She
certainly is the most distinguished purely human person of the Old
Testament: by her prerogatives, her prayers, her good works, her
consent, she pre-eminently prepared the way for the Incarnation.
Moreover, she physically gave birth to the Saviour, though without

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

107

the pangs of childbirth. She is. also the brightest ornament of the
New Testament. If the sun, the moon, and the stars represent the
glories of the Old and New Testaments, then her singular privileges
and virtues must be included. Hence the woman of the Apocalypse
designates Mary in an inclusive and pre-eminent sense.53 Finally,
the woman’s symbolism exhibits a feature which is borrowed from
Mary’s personality; she virginally conceives and bears, which re­
minds us of Isaias’ celebrated prophecy about the virgin (7:14)
and the similar prediction of Micheas about the woman in labor
(5:3)·

SUMMARY
The main elements upon which our devotion to Mary is based
are contained in the New Testament: her fullness of grace, her
unique position among women, her virginity, her co-operation in
the Redemption, her divine motherhood, her power of intercession.
She is rarely introduced as speaking but when she does speak, she
charms us by her simplicity, her modesty, her prudence, her obedi­
ence, her love of God and Christ, her kindness to others. Despite
the fact that she is kept in the background, it is easy to perceive
that she shares in all the privations and triumphs of Christ’s infancy
53 The various opinions on this may he grouped as follows: (A) Those who
favor the exclusive ecclesiological interpretation, for example, J. Bonsirven, L’Apoca­
lypse de saint Jean, in Verbum Salutis, Vol. 16, 1951, pp. 213—221; J. S. Considine,
A Commentary on the New Testament (Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1942), p. 669; C. Rôsch, Mulier, draco et bestiae in Apoc. 12:13, in Verbum
Domini, Vol. 8, 1928, p. 271. (B) Those who claim that the "woman” is Mary
alone, for example, J.-F. Bonnefoy, Les interpretations ecclésiologiques du ch. XII de
I'Ap., in Marianum, Vol. 9, 1947, pp. 208—222; id., Le mystère de Marie selon le
Protévangile et l'Apocalypse (Paris, 1949); T. Gallus, Scholion ad "mulierem”
Apocalypseos (12, 1), in Verbum Domini, Vol. 30, 1952, pp. 332-340. (C) Those
who believe that the “woman” is both Our Lady and the Church in a literal sense,
aliter atque aliter. For example: E. B. Allo, Saint Jean — L’Apocalypse, ed. 3
(Paris, 1933), p. 194; G. Perrella, Senso mariologico dell’Apocalisse XII, in Divus
Thomas (Pl.\ Vol. 43, 1940, pp. 215—223; L. Di Fonzo, Intorno al senso
mariologico dell' Apocalisse, c. XII, in Marianum, Vol. 3, 1941, pp. 248-268; E.
May, The Scriptural Basis for Mary's Spiritual Maternity, in Marian Studies,
Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 131-135; A. Rivera, "Inimicitias ponas . . — "Signum magnum
apparuit. . ." (Gen. 3, 15; Apoc. 12, 1), in Verbum Domini, Vol. 21, 1941, pp.
113—122, 183-189; D. Unger, Did St. John See the Virgin Mary in Glory? in
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. it, 1949, pp. 248-262, 392—405; Vol. 12,
1950, pp. 74-83, 155-161, 292-300, 405-415 (a complete review of the patristic
exegesis of this passage); B. Le Frois, The Woman Clothed with the Sun, in
The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 126, March 1952, pp. 161-180. The
author has recently published an exhaustive book on the same subject: The
Woman Clothed with the Sun (Rome, 1954).

108

MARIOLOGY

and hidden life at Nazareth. Except at Cana, she is excluded from
active participation in the public life of Our Lord. But she suffers
with Him beneath the cross and tastes the joy of the Resurrection
and Ascension. Her gifts and the virtues which she practiced are
so extraordinary that they merit our most serious and loving study
in the special branch of Theology called Mariology.54
54 For further study on Our Lady in the New Testament the following authors
may be consulted with profit: Msgr. E. Florit, Maria nell'esegesi biblica contem­
poranea, in Studi Mariani, Vol. i, 1943, pp. 83—132; G. Hilion, La Sainte Vierge
dans le Nouveau Testament, in Maria. Études sur la Ste. Vierge (ed. H. du Manoir),
Vol. i (Paris, 1949), pp. 43-68; R. Knox, Our Lady in the New Testament, in
Our Blessed Lady (London: Cambridge Summer School Lectures for 1933, 1934),
pp. 48-67; C. Lattey, Our Lady’s Gospel, ibid., pp. 18-47; J. Leal, La Virgen en
el Evangelio, in Cultura Biblica, Vol. 9, 1952, pp. 115—116, 215—217; A. Merk,
Dos Marienbild des Neuen Bundles, in Katholische Marienkunde (ed. P. Strater),
Vol. r (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 44-84; M. Peinador, La Sagrada Escritura en la
Mariologia durante los ultimos veinticinco aüos. Problemas suscitados y avances
realizados, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. ix, 1951, pp. 17-58; M. Sânchez del Villar,
Maria segûn el Evangelio ... in Crônica Oficial del Congreso Mariano HispanoAmericano de Sevilla (Madrid, 1930), pp. 622-725; A Schafer, The Mother of
]esus in Holy Scripture (New York, 1913).

Mary in Western Patristic Thought
By WALTER J. BURGHARDT, SJ.

HE present essay is a theological enterprise. It is a theological
enterprise realized in a precise way, which consists in exploring
the data of one theological source, the Fathers of the Church, by
availing ourselves of aids proper to the historical discipline.
The enterprise is theological; therefore it will not lose sight of
the first principle of theological method, the achievement of truth
in the light of revelation. The precise way in which the investiga­
tion is conducted does not violate this fundamental theological law,
because the Church herself recognizes patristic consent as a valid
expression of revealed truth.
And yet, though our precise approach does not fail to be theo­
logical, it nonetheless uses conscientiously the tools of the historiog­
rapher. The historian has as his first task tire achievement of extant
data in the highest degree of philologie purity. This we too attempt
to do, and on this score the historian of any religious persuasion or
of none is in a position to accept our findings. The historian’s
second task is to construct the data achieved according to some
theory freely chosen. This tire theologian is not free to do, for in
his ultimate construction of the data he is led by the living magis­
terium, which does not conjecture but in faith claims to know the
doctrine taught by patristic consent.
Individual Fathers are not patristic consent. They may, in prin­
ciple, deviate from the consent. It is the function of philology to
discover whether they did. In the theologian’s use of philology, how­
ever, he supposes that the individual Father is thinking and writing
in the atmosphere of patristic consent. This will not lead him to
falsify the evidence, to put into a document what was never there;
but he will be prone to hear in ambiguous or obscure statements
a vague echo at least of the consent. Such an approach will not
necessarily endear itself to the naturalistic historian, who does not

T

109

no

MARIOLOGY

share the theologian’s supposition that patristic consent is directed
in some fashion by the Holy Spirit; but the supposition is, for the
theologian, basic.
The following pages will essay some initial insight into the
thought of the Western Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the
first seven centuries on five prerogatives linked inseparably to Our
Lady in contemporary Catholic theology: the Second Eve, Mary’s
perpetual virginity, her divine Maternity, her holiness, and the
corporeal Assumption. In each instance the fundamental task will
be to present the evidence in the light of philology; now and again,
inevitably, a construction will be imperative in the light of
revelation.
I
The primordial patristic insight with respect to the Mother of
Christ is the vision of Mary as the New Eve. John Henry New­
man framed the question at issue with his customary lucidity, then
answered it with startling brevity, in the Letter to Pusey: “What
is the great rudimental teaching of Antiquity from its earliest date
concerning her? I mean the primâ facie view of her person and
office, the broad outline laid down of her, the aspect under which
she comes to us, in the writings of the Fathers. She is the Second
Eve.”1
The earliest patristic testimonies to the Eve-Mary parallelism
stem from the West: from Rome, Lyons, and Carthage. The wit­
nesses are the three most significant figures on the Western literary
horizon in the latter half of the second century and at the dawning
of the third: Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.2 The dean of
second-century apologists, the martyr Justin (t c. 165), composes
a graphic overture to the Eve-Mary drama in his Dialogue with
Trypho. In the course of a labyrinthine treatment of Isa. 7:14, he
writes with respect to Christ, who proceeded from the Father before
all creatures:
1 J. H. Newman, A Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on His Recent
Eirenicon, 3 ed. (London, 1866), pp. 33-34.
2 For a brief treatment of the texts in question, cf. M. A. Nauwelaerts, De
Maria nova Heva doctrina -patrum antenicaenorum, in Divus Thomas (Piacenza),
Vol. 34, 1931, pp. 480-491; E. Neubert, Marie dans l'église anténicéenne (Paris,
1908), pp. 240-254; also the literature cited below, footnotes 17 and 18. For
background, and the atmosphere in which the usage of the Eve-Mary analogy
developed, cf. W. Staerk, Eva — Maria. Ein Beitrag zur Denk- und Sprechweise der
altkirchlichen Christologie, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,
Vol. 33, 1934, pp. 97-104·

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

111

[The Son of God] became man through the Virgin, that the dis­
obedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way
in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, con­
ceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth
disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith
and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings that the
Spirit of the Lord would come upon her . . . and she answered: “Be
it done unto me according to dry word.” And through her was He
born ... by whom God destroys both the serpent and the angels and
men who have become like the serpent, and delivers from death those
who repent of their wickedness and believe in Him.3

Justin does little more than trumpet the parallelism. He tells us
explicitly that, as designed by God, the pattern of man’s redemption
paralleled his fall: both were effected through the agency of a vir­
gin. He leaves us to conclude that for the human race the conse­
quences of Mary’s co-operation with God contrasted sharply with
the effects of Eve’s seduction by Satan: Mary’s issue, inferentially,
is obedience and life. He makes no effort to penetrate the nature
of her redemptive role; his gaze is fixed not on Mary but on Christ.
A score of years later, a pupil of Polycarp named Irenaeus (f
c. 202), perhaps the first theologian of the Virgin Mother, took hold
of the analogy and integrated it with his theology. At the root of
his Mariological thinking two principles lie. There is the principle
termed recapitulatio: the human dilemma, the paradoxical impera­
tive that fallen nature must be lifted to God by the nature that
had fallen, is resolved in the Word made flesh, who identifies Efimself with humanity by becoming its second head (caput).4 And
there is the complementary principle called recirculatio: the process
of restoration is fated to correspond inversely to that of the fall,
somewhat as a knot is untied —a complicated knot, fashioned of
Eve’s disobedience as well as the rebellion of Adam.5 In tire light
of this latter principle, Irenaeus has left a provocative passage:
3 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, cap. too; PG, 6, 709-712.
4 This is simply one aspect of Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation; cf. A. d’Alès,
La doctrine de la récapitulation en saint Irénée, in Recherches de science religieuse,
Vol. 6, 1916, pp. 185-211. For the Mariology of Irenaeus, cf. J. Garçon, La
mariologie de s. Irénée (Lyon, 1932); B. Przybylski, De mariologia s. Irenaei
L ugdunensis (Romae, 1937); N. F. Moholy, Saint Irenaeus: The Father of Mariol­
ogy, in Studia Mariana, Vol. 7: First Franciscan National Marian Congress in
Acclamation of the Dogma of the Assumption [1950] (Burlington, Wis., 1952),
pp. 129-187.
5 Cf. E. Druwé, La médiation universelle de Marie, in Maria. Etudes sur la
Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), p. 462.

112

MARIOLOGY

Just as Eve, wife of Adam yes, yet still a virgin . . . became by her
disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race,
so Mary too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause
of salvation for herself and the whole human race. And this is why
the Law calls her who was espoused to a man the wife of him who
had espoused her, though she was still a virgin: to show the cycle
that goes back (recirculationem) from Mary to Eve. The point is,
what is tied together cannot possibly be untied save by inversion of
the process whereby the bonds of union have arisen, so that the original
ties are loosed by the subsequent, and the subsequent set tire original
free. . . . And so it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed
by Mary’s obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her
refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief.®

This passage should be supplemented by another, equally im­
pressive, where the Eve-Mary parallelism is set side by side with
the Adam-Christ analogy:
... by the obedience that took place on a tree [the Lord] recapitulated
the disobedience that took place on a tree; and, to the destruction of
that seduction whereby the betrothed virgin Eve was evilly seduced,
the glad tidings of truth were happily brought by an angel to Mary,
virgin espoused. For, as Eve was seduced by the utterance of an angel
to flee God after disobeying His word, so Mary by the utterance of
an angel had the glad tidings brought to her, that she should bear
God in obedience to His word. And whereas Eve had disobeyed God,
Mary was persuaded to obey God, that the Virgin Mary might become
patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was
sentenced to death by means of a virgin, by means of a virgin is it
delivered (salvatur). A virgin’s disobedience is balanced by a virgin’s
obedience. For the sin of the first-formed was emended by the correc­
tion from the First-born; the guile of the serpent was overcome by the
simplicity of the dove; and we were set free from those chains by
which we had been bound to death.7

In Irenaeus’ eyes, Mary as the Second Eve has a distinctive func6 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, 1 (Massuet 3, 22, 4); ed. W. W.
Harvey (Cantabrigiae, 1857), Vol. 2, 123-124; PG, 7, 958-959.
7 Ibid., lib. 5, cap. 19, r, Harvey, 2, 375-376; PG, 7, 1175-1176. Essentially the
same idea is present in Irenaeus’ Demonstratio apostolicae praedicationis, cap. 33;
Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 12, 684-685; cf. the careful translation from the
Armenian by J. P. Smith, in Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 16 (Westminster,
Md., 1952), 69. This is significant, because the Demonstratio is not a polemical
but a catechetical work, which reveals how Christianity was presented to the
people of Lyons at the end of the second century; cf. A. Hamack, in Texte und
Untersuchungen, Vol. 31, n. 1 (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 65-66.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

113

tion in God’s design for man’s redemption. The co-operation of the
first Eve with Satan in effecting man’s spiritual death is matched
and outstripped by Mary’s co-operation with God in effecting man’s
return to life. The co-operation in question is not a sheerly negative
thing, as though the parallelism began and ended on the level of
virginity. It is not an exclusively physical thing, as though Mary’s
role opened and closed with the bare fact of divine motherhood.
Her co-operation involves activity of the moral order: she gave
Gabriel and God a free consent. Her obedience was not compelled;
with eyes open and will unfettered she placed herself at God’s
disposal for the accomplishment of His designs. That consent, more­
over, has a soteriological character: its term was not simply an
Incarnation, but an Incarnation recognized as redemptive. Mary
knew as well as Joseph that she would call Him Jesus because He
was to “save his people from their sins” (Mt. i:2i).8
The same essential ideas — virginity, disobedience, and death bal­
anced by virginity, obedience, and life —are discoverable about the
year 210 in the impetuous Carthaginian, Tertullian (t c. 220),
who uses the Eve-Mary parallelism as a secondary argument in
favor of the virginal conception of Christ, and emphasizes the act
of faith involved in each instance. “For into Eve, as yet a virgin,
had crept the devil’s word, the framer of death. Equally into a
virgin was to be introduced God’s Word, the builder of life, to the
end that what had been lost through one sex might by the same
sex be restored and saved. Eve had believed the serpent, Mary be­
lieved Gabriel. The fault which the one committed by believing,
the other by believing emended. . . . God, therefore, sent down
into the Virgin’s womb His Word, our good Brother, to blot out
the memory of that evil brother.”8
The insight of Justin, Tertullian, and especially Irenaeus will be
repeated, if not significantly furthered, after Nicaea. Not only in
the East,10 but in the West as well. In the eyes of Ambrose (f 397),
“it was through a man and a woman that flesh was cast from para­
dise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God.” Little
8 Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione beatae Virginis Mariae. Dis­
quisitio positiva (Civitas Vaticana, 1950), p. 38.
° Tertullian, De came Christi, cap. 17; C.S.E.L., 70, 233.
10 Cf., e.g., Ephraem, De diversis sermonibus, 3: De laudibus Dei genitricis
Mariae; Opera omnia syr. et lat., Vol. 3 (Romae, 1743), 607; Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catecheses, 12, 15; PG, 33, 741; Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 78, n. 18; G.C.S.,
37, 468-469; John Chrysostom, Expositio in ps. 44, n. 7; PG, 55, 193; John
Damascene, Horn. 1 in nativitatem beatae Virginis Mariae, n. 7; PG, 96, 672.

114

MARIOLOGY

wonder that “Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary
mother of salvation.”11 Jerome (+420) is splendidly epigrammatic:
“Deadr through Eve, life through Mary.”12 Augustine (t 43°)
impressed by “the profound mystery that, as death had befallen us
through a woman, through a woman life should be bom to us”;
he muses that “the liberation of both sexes would not have been a
proper punishment for the devil, were the liberation not effected
by the agency of both.”13 Peter Chrysologus (t c. 450) insists that
the reason “why Christ wanted to be born is this: that, just as death
came to all through Eve, so through Mary life might return to all.”11
And the poet Sedulius hymns the same theme in Latin dactyls:

As the tender rose from sharp thorns grows,
Knowing not how to wound, and fairer far than parent stem:
So from the stem that was Eve the hallowed Mary bloomed,
A spotless virgin new, to mend that ancient virgin’s fault.15
Perhaps the most urgent theological problem which derives from
the Eve-Mary parallelism is this: What role do the Fathers of the
Church assign Mary in the redemptive task of her Son?18 The
majority of Catholic scholars insist that the contemporary doctrine
of Coredemption, Mary’s immediate co-operation in the objective
Redemption, is inescapably affirmed in patristic literature.17 A
11 Ambrose, Epist. 63, n. 33; PL, 16, 1249-1250 (ed. 1866); Senn. 45, n. 4; PL,
17, 716 (ed. 1866); this latter text is taken from a sermon dubiously Ambrosian.
For the Mariological teaching of Ambrose, cf. A. Pagnamenta, La mariologia di S.
Ambrogio (Milano, 1932).
12 Jerome, Epist. 22, n. 21; PL, 22, 408. For the Marian doctrine of Jerome,
cf. J. Niessen, Die Mariologie des hl. Hieronymus (Miinster, t9i3).
13 Augustine, De agone christiano, n. 22 [24]; C.S.È.L., 41, 125. For the Mariology
of Augustine, cf. Ph. Friedrich, Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus (Kôln, 1907J.
11 Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 99; PL, 52, 479.
15 Sedulius, Paschale carmen, lib. 2, lines 28-31; C.S.E.L., ro. 46.
16 The coredemptive function of Mary is by no means the only aspect of
Marian theology which scholars have tried to trace to the Eve-Mary analogy of the
Fathers; cf., e.g., J. M. Bover, La mediaciôn universal de la "Segunda Eva" en la
tradicidn patristica, in Estudios eclesidsticos, Vol. 2, 1923, pp. 321-350; also Bover’s
detailed treatment of Ambrose, La mediaciôn universal de Maria segtin S. Ambrosio,
in Gregorianum, Vol. 5, 1924, pp. 25-45. Nor is the Eve-Mary parallelism the sole
patristic basis on which theologians rest the thesis of Coredemption. Among others,
there are the texts which seem to ascribe to Mary various effects of the Redemption;
cf. the classical, much-controverted passage from Ambrose on Mary’s compassion
beneath the cross: “Suscepit quidem [Christus] affectum parentis, sed non quae­
sivit alterius auxilium.” Epist. 63, n. no; PL, r6, r27i (ed. 1866); cf. Pagnamenta,
op. cit., pp. 369-370; Carol, op. cit., pn. Γ42-144.
17 Cf., e.g., J. Lebon, L'apostolicité de la doctrine de la médiation mariale, in
Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Vol. 2, 1930, p. 143; id., Comment

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

115

smaller group concludes, with comparable conviction, that the
Fathers have nothing to say with respect to a genuinely coredemptive function; the germ, indeed, is there, in what they have to say;
but the problem at issue had not presented itself, the Fathers
consequently made no attempt to solve it, and it was to take cen­
turies of doctrinal development before even the germ would be
recognizable as such.*
18
The evidence of Irenaeus is a focal point in the controversy and
may serve as a test case. The summary of his thought given above
incorporates a minimal exegesis difficult to dispute: Irenaeus attrib­
utes to Mary, not technically but equivalently, a positive, moral
co-operation in a specifically redemptive Incarnation. But this basic
agreement leaves the heart of the matter untouched: In what sense
is the Incarnation redemptive for Irenaeus?
As some scholars see it, Irenaeus does not limit Mary’s co-opera­
tion in man’s salvation to the production of the Redeemer, as to a
preparatory stage in the story of Redemption; he associates her
directly and immediately with the realization of the total effect.
True, he stresses her obedience to the angel, but that stress stems
from the fact that the Annunciation scene brings out so vividly
the Eve-Mary analogy. The redemptive program is divinely designed
to destroy a twin disobedience, Eve’s and Adam’s. Part of that
program is the obedience of Mary, an obedience especially in evi­
dence at the moment of the Incarnation. But, for Irenaeus, the
Incarnation is intrinsically orientated to the cross, and the cross is
the consummation of the Incarnation. Mary’s fiat corresponds to
her Son’s ecce venio (cf. Flebr. io:5ff.); each finds its culmination
on Calvary. Not that Irenaeus says this in so many words, but it
seems a legitimate deduction from the direct, immediate fashion
in which he links the efficacy of the Redemption to the obedience
je conçois, j’établie et je defends la doctrine de la médiation mariale, in Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 16, 1939, pp. 655-744; G. M. Roschini, De corredemptrice, in Marianum, Vol. 1, 1939, PP· 365—367; F. Sold, La corredenciôn de
Maria en la tradition patristica, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, p. 68.
18 Cf., e.g., W. Goossens, De cooperatione immediata Matris Redemptoris ad
redemptionem obiectivam (Parisiis, 1939), pp. 109-124; C. Dillenschneider, Marie
au service de notre rédemption (Haguenau, 1947), pp. 268-288; J. Rivière, Marie
"corédemptrice"? in Revue des sciences religieuses, Vol. 19, 1939, pp. 339-340;
L. J. Riley, Historical Conspectus of the Doctrine of Mary’s Co-Redemption, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, pp. 46-47. Cf. the unqualified rejection of any
patristic basis by H. Lennerz, De cooperatione b. Virginis in ipso opere redemp­
tionis, in Gregorianum, Vol. 29, 1948, p. 133.

116

MARIOLOGY

of Christ and of the Virgin. Briefly, in the architectonic of salva­
tion and in its realization the role of Mary is attuned to the role
of Christ is such wise that the total effect depends on a single total
principle fashioned of Christ the Redeemer and Mary the
Coredemptrix.19
Not quite true, others retort. For Irenaeus, the Incarnation is
redemptive, of course. “The Lord readmitted us to His friendship
by His Incarnation.”20 It is redemptive, however, not in the sense
that the hypostatic union and the objective redemption are co­
extensive concepts. The Incarnation is redemptive in the sense
that it is the beginning of salvation. In taking our nature Christ
“recapitulated” all men in Himself, became capable of effecting
man’s reconciliation by the theandric acts which followed in the
wake of the Incarnation. “He reconciled us to God by His pas­
sion.”21 Inasmuch as Mary co-operated, wide-eyed and free, in an
Incarnation integral to salvation, Irenaeus could justifiably speak of
her as “cause of salvation.”22 But the further conclusion, that above
and beyond this causality Mary was immediately associated with
her Son in the remainder of His redemptive activity, specifically
the Passion, goes beyond the thought of Irenaeus. The relationship
between Adam and Christ, between Eve and Mary, is of concern
to him; the redemptive relationship between Mary and Christ is
not. To prolong his thought so as to see in them one total principle
of Redemption is doubtless legitimate; but the prolongation is ours,
not his; and the developed thesis is the fruit of a long, complicated
doctrinal progression. The contemporary principle of redemptive
co-operation may well be unassailable; but to find more than a germ
of it, more than a basis for it, in the second century is to do
violence to the texts.23
19 Cf. Druwé, art. cit., pp. 464-465. Worth mentioning in this connection are
the two passages in which Irenaeus speaks of Mary as the Virgin who “regenerates”
us: Adversus haereses, lib. 4, cap. 52, 1 (Massuet, 4, 33, 4); lib. 4, cap. 55, 2
(Massuet, 4, 33, 11); Harvey, 2, 259, 266; PG, 7, 1074, 1080; cf. P. Galtier, La
vierge qui nous régénère, in Recherches de science religieuse, Vol. 5, 1914, pp.
136-145.
20 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 5, cap. 17, 1; Harvey, 2, 369; PG, 7, 959.
21 Irenaeus, op. cit., lib. 3, cap. 17, 9 (Massuet, 3, 16, 9); Harvey, 2, 91; PG,
7, 929.
22 Irenaeus, op. cit., lib. 3, cap. 32, i (Massuet, 3, 22, 4); Harvey, 2, 123-124;
PG, 7. 958.
23 Two splendidly sober treatments of the patristic aspect of this problem,
especially with reference to the thought of Irenaeus, are to be found in M. A.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

117

The conclusion of this latter band of scholars is confessedly
modest; it is, I submit, justified by the texts. As a convincing dem­
onstration of the thesis that Mary co-operated direcdy and imme­
diately in the objective redemption, the extant evidence from the
New Eve doctrine of the Fathers is somewhat inadequate. On the
other hand, if we suppose the doctrine otherwise established, then a
goodly number of patristic texts take on new meaning. We are
justified in discovering therein indications, valuable elements, in­
sights, which later ages would exploit and bring to a perfection
unsuspected in the days of the Fathers. For, as Druwé has pointed
out, from the death of Damascene in the middle of the eighth
century the witnesses to the Eve-Mary parallelism follow one an­
other in an endless wave, across the whole of the Latin Middle
Ages, down to our own time, when Pius XII, in the moving epi­
logue to Mystici corporis, portrays the New Eve at the foot of the
cross, offering her Son and herself to the Father for the sin-scarred
children of Adam.*
24
II
If the Eve-Mary analogy is the first genuine insight of the
patristic age with respect to Our Lady, the first problem that is
clearly posed in her regard is Mary’s virginity.25 Not that the ques­
tion springs up full-blown and unsuspected at a given point of
time; it gives the impression rather of gradual growth, gradual
awareness, from the first century to the fourth.
Historically, the investigation of her virginity has focused on
three phases of Our Lady’s life: the years before Bethlehem, the
moment of childbearing in the cave, and the period subsequent
to the birth of Jesus.26 The crux of the first phase may be epitomized
Genevois, La maternité universelle de Marie selon saint Irénée, in Revue thomiste,
Vol. 41, 1936, 26-51; and Carol, op. cit., pp. 128-150.
24 Cf. Druwé, art. cit., p. 468; Pope Pius XII, encyclical, Mystici corporis, June
29, 1943; A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, pp. 247-248.
26 Cf. [H. Rondet’s] unsigned Preface to the eighth edition of J.-B. Terrien,
La Mère de Dieu et la Mère des hommes, Part 2, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1950), (9). The
Preface is a fine condensation of Marian theology, especially in its historical
growth.
20 Cf. E. Dublanchy, Marie, in D.T.C., Vol. 9, Part 2, 2369-2382, for a brief
presentation of the patristic texts. Precious insights on this and other aspects of
early Western Mariology are given by H. Rahner, Die Marienkunde in der lateinischen Patristik, in Paul Strâter, ed., Katholische Marienkunde, Vol. 1, Maria in
der Offenharung (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 137-182.

118

MARIOLOGY

in two questions: Was Mary a virgin physically at the hour of
Gabriel’s visit? Was the conception of Christ a virginal conception,
effected independently of intercourse with man? On this twin
score there was no hesitation among the early Christians. There
could hardly be; Scripture was all too clear. The primitive Eastern
evidence offered by Ignatius’ of Antioch and Aristides of Athens27
is supplemented in the West by Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
Justin is anxious to forestall misunderstanding of Isa. 7:14 from
two quarters, pagan and Jewish. In the first place, he does not care
to have the pagan turn against him the accusation flung by Chris­
tians against the poets, to the effect that Jupiter approached women
with carnal lust in mind. “The words, ‘Behold, a virgin shall con­
ceive,’ therefore mean that the virgin shall conceive without inter­
course. For, if she had had intercourse with anyone at all, she was
then no longer a virgin. The fact is, the power of God descending
upon the virgin overshadowed her and caused her, while still a
virgin, to conceive. . . . And it was this Spirit who came upon
the virgin, overshadowed her, and brought it about that she
became pregnant, not by sexual intercourse, but by divine power.”28
Second, he accuses Trypho and his fellow Jews of an audacious
distortion of the Septuagint; in their polemic preoccupation they
have changed the original “virgin” (παρθένος) of Isa. 7:14 to “a
young girl” (veâvis), “as though something of extraordinary impor­
tance was signified by a woman conceiving after sexual intercourse,
as all young women, except the barren, can do.”29
Irenaeus sounds like an echo of Justin or of a common tradition.
He is aware that some, in the wake of Theodotion and Aquila, see
in the Isaian prophecy merely "a young woman,” and that the
Ebionites insist that Jesus was begotten of Joseph.30 Fie argues that
Isaias was pointing to “something unexpected” with respect to tire
generation of Christ; he was pointing to a sign. But, “what great
27 C£. Ignatius, Ad Ephesios, n. 19, 1; ed. K. Bihlmeyer, p. 87; id., Ad Smyrnaeos,
η. I, 1; Bihlmeyer, p. 106; Aristides, Apologia, n. 2; Texte und Ùntersuchungen,
Vol. 4, Part 3, p. 9.
28 Justin, Apologia 1, cap. 33; PG, 6, 381; cf. tr. by T. B. Falls, in The
Fathers of the Church: Saint Justin Martyr (New York, 1948), pp. 70-71. There
is a rather detailed treatment of early Western thought on the virginal conception
of Christ in E. Neubert, op. cit., pp. 57-120.
29 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, cap. 84; PG, 6, 673-676; tr. Falls, op. cit.,
p. 282; cf. Dial., cap. 100; PG, 6, 709-712.
30 Cf. Irenaeus, Âdversws haereses, lib. 3, cap. 23 (Massuet, 3, 21, 1); Harvey,
2, 110; PG, 7, 946.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

119

thing or what sign would there have been in a young woman bear­
ing a child through conception from a man? That happens to all
women who bear a child. But because an unexpected salvation
was to be initiated for men through God’s help, an unexpected
birth from a virgin was likewise accomplished. The sign was God­
given; the effect was not man-made.”31
Tertullian, too, asserts that the Word of God was brought down,
of the Father’s Spirit, “into the Virgin Mary, took flesh in her
womb. . . .”82 As God fashioned Adam of virgin earth, unfurrowed,
unsown, so the Second Adam was shaped by God “of a flesh not
yet unsealed to human generation.”33
Such is the personal belief of Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
More significantly still, Irenaeus and Tertullian declare unequivo­
cally that such is the belief of the Church. “The birth from a
virgin,” Irenaeus says, is a belief which, like the belief in God
the Creator, in tire Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, in the
passion, resurrection, and ascension, the universal Church “has
received from the apostles and their disciples.”34 In Tertullian’s
eyes, the virginal conception in a virgin’s womb is part and parcel
of “the rule of faith.”35 And this rule of faith Carthage has appar­
ently received from Rome;36 this rule of faith is common to the
apostolic Churches.37
The unwavering belief of the West in the physical virginity of
Mary before Bethlehem is summed up in the expression, “Virgin
Mary,” and is enshrined as early as the second century in the
Roman form of the Creed, as we find it, for example, in Hippoly­
tus: “I believe in God, the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus,
Son of God, who was born from the Holy Spirit of Mary the
Virgin (de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine). . . .”38 Tire problem
31 Ibid., lib. 3, cap. 26, 2 (Massuet, 3, 21, 6); Harvey, 2, 118; PG, 7, 953.
32 Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, cap. 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17-18. A.
d’Alès has a compendious section on Tertullian’s Mariology in La théologie de
Tertullien, 3 ed. (Paris, 1905), pp. 192-197.
33 Tertullian, De carne Christi, cap. 17; C.S.E.L., 70, 232—233.
34 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 1, cap. 2 (Massuet, I, 10, I?; Harvey, I,
90-91; PG, 7, 549.
33 Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, cap. 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17-18.
38 Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, cap. 36; C.S.E.L., 70, 45-46.
37 Cf. Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, cap. 20-21; C.S.E.L., 70, 23—25.
Tertullian proposes to prove that the rule of faith in question is derived from the
tradition of the Apostles; cf. cap. 22; C.S.E.L., 70, 25.
38 Cf. Hippolytus, Traditio apostolica, n. 73; ed. J. Quasten, Elorilegium patristicum, Vol. 7 (Bonnae, 1935), p. 31. On the textual problem, cf. R. H. Connolly,

120

MARIOLOGY

begins to take shape with the question: Did Mary remain a virgin
while giving birth to Jesus? On this score the historical tradition
is less clear and slower to solidify. Nor is this surprising. In the
first place, the manner in which Jesus emerged from Mary’s womb
was not a likely topic for widespread Christian discussion. Second,
it would not necessarily strike an early Christian as a problem in
virginity. Third, some of those who did recognize the problem
might well have been persuaded to silence with respect to the
miraculous element in the actual birth of Jesus, for fear of giving
aid and comfort to the Docetic enemy, to the heresy that Christ
was only apparently bom of Mary.30
It has been suggested that the very silence of the early authors
is expressive, especially if reset within the aura of mystery and
miracle which surrounds some contemporary accounts of Jesus’
birth.·*0 And it may well be that the unqualified title, “the Virgin,”
intimates that Our Lady’s virginity remained unimpaired in child­
bearing.*
41 In similar vein, the credal formula, “bom of a virgin,”
40
39
of which the West was so fond,42 perhaps involves the conclusion
later drawn by Augustine: “And if only in His birth her virginity
had been destroyed, from that moment He would not have been
bom of a virgin, and the whole Church would proclaim falsely,
which God forbid, that He was born of the Virgin Mary.”43
But all this, though plausible, is still conjecture. The one West­
ern author before Nicaea whose language on this score is unequivo­
cal denies flady that the virginity of Mary survived her child­
bearing. In his polemic against Docetists, Marcionites, and ValenOn the Text of the Baptismal Creed of Hippolytus, in Journal of Theological
Studies, Vol. 25, 1923-1924, pp. 131-139. Dom Connolly believed that the ex,
whether due to translator or subsequent scribe, should be corrected to et; cf. p. 137.
39 Cf. J. C. Plumpe, Some Little-Known Early Witnesses to Mary's Virginitas in
partu, in Theological Studies, Vol. 9, 1948, p. 568. Some Docetists held that
Christ had no genuine human body at all; others admitted a human body, but
insisted that He came with this body from heaven, that He was not bom ex
virgine but simply passed per virginem.
40 Cf., e.g., L. Kosters, Maria, die Mutter Jesu, in Lexikon für Théologie und
Kirche, Vol. 6, 1934, p. 890; Plumpe, art. cit., p. 567.
41 Cf., e.g., Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, cap. too; PG, 6, 712; Irenaeus,
Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, 1 (Massuet, 3, 22, 4); Harvey, 2, 123; PG,
7, 958; Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, cap. 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17.
42 Cf. J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 1 (Westminster, Md., 1950), p. 27.
43 Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 34 [al. cap. 10, n. 34]; PL, 40,
249; tr. L. A. Arand, in Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 3 (Westminster, Md.,
>947). P· 42·

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

121

tinians, Tertullian presents the birth of Christ as quite normal.
Revolting as parturition may be (and Tertullian takes a pathological
delight in assembling the less attractive details), “birth will not
be worse for Him than death. ... If Christ truly suffered all this,
to be bom was something less for Him.”44 In line with this brutal
realism he applies to Christ the primogenitus aperiens vulvam of
Exod. 13:2. “She did bear, because she produced offspring of her
own flesh; she did not bear, because she produced Him not of
a husband’s seed. She was a virgin, so far as her husband was con­
cerned; she was not a virgin, so far as her childbearing was con­
cerned. . . . She who gave birth, really gave birth; and if she was
a virgin when she conceived, in her childbearing she was a wife.
. . . The Virgin’s womb was especially opened, because it was
especially closed. In fact, she ought rather to be called not a virgin
than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, at it were, before being
a wife.”45
Tertullian is clear but vexing. He does not appeal for support
to a tradition or current opinion; but neither is he conscious of
contradicting official Church teaching. Is there an African tradition
on Mary’s virginity before Nicaea? Is this sheer polemics? Or Tertullian’s pique? Neither Cyprian nor Arnobius nor Lactantius will
help us settle that question. This much can be said: we are not
justified in deriving from Tertullian the conclusion that we have
here an echo of theological thought current in the Church of
Africa.48
With respect to Irenaeus, it can still be confidently urged, despite
the research and reasoning of H. Koch,47 that there is no text
■‘■‘Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, lib. 3, cap. 11; C.S.E.L., 47, 394; cf. Ad­
versus Marcionem, lib. 4, cap. 21; C.S.E.L., 47, 490—491.
■*5 Tertullian, De came Christi, cap. 23; C.S.E.L., 70, 246-247. A. d’Alès, La
théologie de Tertullien, p. 197, note 5, says simply that the virginity in childbirth
is “affirmed” in De virginibus velandis, cap. 6; PL, 2, 946 (ed. 1866). Tertullian’s
involved argumentation in this passage, however, does not seem to warrant d’Alés’
conclusion.
48 Cf. G. Jouassard, Marie à travers la patristique: Maternité divine, virginité,
sainteté, in Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris,
‘949)> pp· 77—78. This whole article, pp. 69-157, is crammed with information
and is unusually rich in discernment; cf. the annotated bibliography, pp. 154-157.
17 Cf. H. Koch, Adhuc virgo (Tübingen, 1929); id., Virgo Eva — Virgo Maria
(Berlin und Leipzig, 1937). These two small volumes provoked spirited reaction from
Catholic scholars; cf., e.g., O. Bardenhewer, Zur Mariologie des hl. Irenatis, in
Zeitschrift für katholische Théologie, Vol. 55, 1931, pp. 600-604; J· Lebon,
review in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, Vol. 34, 1938, pp. 336-345; B. Capelie,

122

MARIOLOGY

from his pen which clearly contradicts the virginity of Mary in
Bethlehem. The well-known adhuc virgo texts —in which, for ex­
ample, the birth of Christ from Mary, “who was as yet a virgin,”
is compared to the fashioning of Adam “from untilled and as yet
virgin soil,”'18 or Mary’s virginal obedience is contrasted with the
disobedience of Eve “while still a virgin”*
4950
48
*52
— reveal no interest on
Irenaeus’ part in any aspect of Mary’s virginity save the virginal
conception of Jesus. On the other hand, there may well be an
indication of her virginity in childbirth in Irenaeus’ paradoxical
phrase, purus pure puram aperiens vulvam (the stainless Word of
God opened His Mother’s stainless womb stainlessly) — if indeed,
as seems likely, it is the adverb and not the verb that merits the
stress.80 Even more strikingly, Irenaeus takes Isa. 66:7, where the
prophet foretells a remarkable repopulation of Jerusalem through
Mother Sion, and interprets it as messianic, as spoken of the Virgin
Mary who gave birth to a man child in unique fashion, without
birth pangs. “Also, concerning His birth, the same prophet [Isaias]
says in another place: ‘Before she who was in labour brought forth,
and before the pains of labour came, there came forth delivered a
man child; he proclaimed His unlooked-for and extraordinary birth
of the Virgin.”81 Irenaeus’ language is not limpid, but it scarcely
warrants the charge that he denied Mary a virginal childbearing.82
It is not until the second half of the fourth century that the
extant patristic evidence indicates a general awareness of the prob­
lem in tire West. Hilary of Poitiers (t 367), whose exile in the
"Adhuc virgo" chez saint Irénée, in Recherches de théologie ancienne et
médiévale, Vol. 2, 1930, pp. 388-395.
48 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 30 (Massuet, 3, 21, 10); Harvey, 2,
120; PG, 7, 954-955.
49 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, i (Massuet, 3, 22, 4); Harvey,
2, 123-124; PG, 7, 958-959.
50 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 4, cap. 55, 2 (Massuet, 4, 33, 11); Harvey,
2, 266; PG, 7, 1080; cf. Bardenhewer, art. cit., p. 604.
61 Irenaeus, Demonstratio apostolicae praedicationis, cap. 54; Patrologia orientalis,
Vol. 12, 701; tr. J. P. Smith, op. cit., p. 83; cf. Plumpe, art. cit., pp. 569-570.
52 It is regrettable that in tire second or third century the West offers nothing
comparable to the Eastern apocrypha: the Protevangelium lacohi, with its graphic
argument from sight and touch, and the suggestion that about 150 the question
of Mary’s virginity in childbearing was debated; the Ascensio Isaiae, with the
clear testimony that Mary has conceived her Child as a virgin, has borne Him
through a period of gestation as a virgin, and has given Him birth as a virgin;
and the Odes of Solomon, where the odist’s idea of Mary as Virgin Mother includes
painless childbirth without need of midwife. Cf. Plumpe, art. cit., pp. 570-577.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

123

East enriched his theology in general but not his Mariology, is
explicit only on Mary’s virginity before and after Bethlehem.03
There are one or two texts which in isolation might well be judged
unfavorable to the idea of a virginity in childbearing,04 while the
passages traditionally advanced to establish Hilary as a champion
of the doctrine are not very convincing under analysis.00 Not long
after, Marius Victorinus, that remarkable old man whose conver­
sion from Neoplatonism “stunned Rome and gladdened the
Church,”00 seems little aware of the idea.07 On the other hand, the
unknown author of the Consultationes Zacchaei uses the Virgin
Birth as a demonstration of Christ’s divinity and insists that in His
birth “He did not destroy the integrity of His Mother’s body.” Just
as His fashioning by the Spirit was incorruptible, so too was His
birth.08 And in the north of Italy, Zeno, Bishop of Verona Ct
c. 372), states emphatically that Mary “gave birth as a virgin.”09
She remained virgin after marriage, after conception, after
childbearing.00
A high-water mark appears about 389-390 with the excommuni­
cation of Jovinian by Pope Siricius, specifically for unorthodox utter­
ances on virginity and marriage. Siricius’ letter, Optarem, to the
Milanese Church proposed to acquaint Ambrose with the Jovinian
53 On the virginity before childbirth, cf. Hilary, De Trinitate, lib. 3, n. 19;
PL, 10, 87. For the virginity after childbirth, cf. Commentarius in Matthaeum,
cap. I, n. 3; PL, 9, 921—922.
54 Cf. Hilary, De Trinitate, lib. 2, nn. 24—27; PL, 10, 66—68; De Trinitate, lib.
10, n. 47; PL, 10, 380.
56 Cf. the well-known “perfectum ipsa de suis non imminuta generavit”; De
Trinitate, lib. 3, η. 19; PL, 10, 87. Dublanchy insists that we have here an
affirmation of the virginity in partu; cf. D.T.C., Vol. 9, Part 2, 2373. The passage
is not utterly clear, however, and Druwé argues that it is in the light of the texts
unfavorable to the doctrine (some of those he cites are not convincing) that
we must conclude that this particular passage is dealing with the virginal conception
alone; cf. Marie à travers la patristique, p. 102, note 7.
Ββ Augustine, Confessiones, lib. 8, cap. 2; C.S.E.L., 33, 173.
57 Cf. Marius Victorinus, In epist. Pauli ad Gal., lib. 2; PL, 8, 1176-1177. He
does affirm the virginal conception; cf. Adversus Arium, lib. 4, n. 32; PL, 8, 1136.
58 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii, lib. 1, cap. 11; ed. G. Morin, Florilegium
patristicum, Vol. 39 (Bonnae, 1935), p- 15. The virginal conception is likewise
asserted; cf. ibid., lib. 1, cap. 10; ed. Morin, p. 14. Morin’s ascription of the
Consultationes to Julius Firmicus Matemus has not won acceptance; cf. B. Altaner,
Patrologie, 3 ed. (Freiburg, 1951), p. 314. Altaner prefers to date the work about
the beginning of the fifth century.
58 Zeno, Tractatus, lib. 2, tr. 8, 2; PL, 11, 415.
60 Cf. Zeno, Tractatus, lib. 1, tr. 5, 3; PL, 11, 303; Tractatus, lib. 2, tr. 9, 1;
PL, ii, 417.

124

MARIOLOGY

problem and enlist his support.61 Ambrose and the Synod of Milan
(390) ratified the condemnation in their reply, Recognovimus, but
pointed out what Siricius had omitted to mention: Jovinian and
his followers denied the virginity of Mary, not indeed in her
conception but in her childbearing. Milan is one in rejecting the
thesis; and Milan argues from Scripture and tradition.

If they do not believe the teaching of the priests, let them believe the
words of Christ, let them believe the admonition of angels: ‘For with
God nothing is impossible* (Lk. 1:37). Let them believe the Symbol of
the Apostles, which the Roman Church ever guards and keeps in­
violate. . . . This is the Virgin who conceived in the womb, this the
Virgin who gave birth to a son. . . . For [Isaias] did not say that a
virgin would merely conceive; he said that a virgin would give birth
as well. Now, what is that gate of the sanctuary, that outer gate
looking to the East, which remains shut and no one, it says, shall
pass through it save the God of Israel alone (Ez. 44:2)? . . . This
gate is blessed Mary; of her it is written: “the Lord shall pass through
it,” and it shall be closed after childbearing, because a virgin con­
ceived and a virgin gave birth.62
This, Ambrose makes clear, is part and parcel of Catholic belief.
Did ecclesiastical circles at Rome openly profess the same thing?
In his answer to Siricius, Ambrose indicates that the pertinent
article of the Symbol espoused at Rome was interpreted, or at least
should be interpreted, not merely of a virginal conception but of a
virginal childbearing as well. And yet, only seven years before, in
Rome itself, Jerome had come to the defense of Mary’s perpetual
virginity against Helvidius, and had nonetheless expressed himself
with reference to Christ’s birth in terms that are a disconcerting
echo of Tertullian. Retail all the horrors of childbirth, he chal61 Siricius, Optarem; ed. W. Haller, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. 17,
Part 2 (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 68-72. Haller reproduces the text of J. D. Mansi,
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 3 (Florentiae, 1759), 663—
664, with the chapter division of Constant. It is found twice in Migne: among
the letters of Ambrose, PL, 16, 1169-1171 (ed. 1866); and with the letters of
Siricius, PL, 13, 1168-1172.
02 Ambrose, Epist. 42, n. 4; ed. Haller, op. cit., pp. 75-76. In Migne, PL,
16, 1174 (ed. 1866), the pertinent numbers are 5-6. Cf. also De institutione virginis,
cap. 8, n. 52: “. . . virginali fusus est partu, et genitalia virginitatis claustra non
solvit”; PL, 16, 334. Ambrose proposed the same doctrine to the people in his
sermons; cf. Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 2, n. 43; C.S.E.L., 32,
Part 4, 66; Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 2, n. 57; C.S.E.L., 32,
Part 4, 73. This latter passage is not clear, and reveals the influence of Origen:
"Hie ergo solus aperuit sibi vulvam . . . hic est qui aperuit matris suae vulvam, ut
immaculatus exiret.”

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

125

lenges; you will produce nothing more outrageous than the cross.®3
And still he can add: “That God was bom of a virgin we believe,
because we read it; that Mary became a wife after childbearing we
do not believe, because we do not read it.”®4 A decade later, writing
from Palestine against Jovinian, Jerome applies to Mary the words
of the Canticle, “A garden enclosed is my sister, my bride, a foun­
tain sealed” (4:12); but his language is so laconic that one wonders
whether or not he is being consciously ambiguous.®5 Shortly after­
ward, in a letter to the Roman senator, Pammachius, occasioned by
the shabby reception given at Rome to his attitude toward marriage
as expressed in Adversus lovinianum, he remarks:

Christ is a virgin, and the mother of our Virgin is herself ever a
virgin; she is mother and virgin. Although the doors were shut, Jesus
entered within; in the sepulchre that was Mary, which was new and
hewn in hardest rock, no one was laid before or after. . . . She is the
eastern gate whereof Ezechiel speaks, always shut and full of light,
which closing on itself brings forth from itself the Holy of Holies;
whereby the Sun of Justice . . . enters in and goes out. Let them tell
me how Jesus entered [the Cenacle] when the doors were shut . . .
and I will tell them how holy Mary is both mother and virgin, virgin
after childbirth and mother before marriage.”6®

Here we confront the same paradox which he will repeat in 415
against the Pelagians: “only Christ opened the closed gates of her
virginal womb, and yet the gates remained unfailingly closed.”®7
One is persuaded by the paradox to conclude that, in Jerome’s eyes,
Our Lord could somehow “open the womb” of Mary without
violating her virginity.
But if Jerome is at times obscure on this score, Augustine, Peter
Chrysologus, and Leo the Great are not. For Augustine, Mary is
virgin before and during wedlock, virgin in her pregnancy, virgin
in giving to Christ of her milk. In taking birth of her He did not
steal virginity from her.®8 Tersely, “she conceives and is a virgin;
63 Cf. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate adversus Helvidium, η. i8; PL, 23,
212-213 (ed. 1865).
64 Jerome, De perpetua virginitate adversus Helvidium, n. 19; PL, 23, 213.
65 Cf. Jerome, Adversus lovinianum, lib. 1, n. 31; PL, 23, 265.
66 Jerome, Epist. 49 [48], n. 21; C.S.E.L., 54, 386.
67 Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos, lib. 2, n. 4; PL, 23, 563. Cf. Comm, in
Isaiam, lib. 3, cap. 7; PL, 24, no (ed. 1865); Comm, in Ézechielem, lib. 13,
cap. 44; PL, 25, 449 (ed. 1865).
68 Augustine, Serm. 188, n. 4; PL, 38, 1004 (ed. 1865).

120

MARIOLOGY

she gives birth and is a virgin.”09 Peter Chrysologus sees Mary’s
integrity strengthened in childbirth;70 it is the crown of her vir­
ginity;71 Christ comes forth in such fashion that the virginal gate
does not swing open, and so Our Lady realizes in Bethlehem the
garden enclosed, the fountain sealed of the Canticle.72 Leo declares
that Mary’s womb is a mother’s womb, but the birth of Jesus is a
virgin birth;73 it is the incorruption of Christ that kept intact the
integrity of Mary.74 This is the tradition which will be ratified in
649 by the Lateran Council when it condemns anyone and every­
one who “does not confess, in harmony with the holy Fathers, that
. . . Mary . . . gave birth without corruption. ”75
A third phase of Mary’s virginity concerns her life after Bethle­
hem. Did Mary have conjugal relations after the birth of Jesus? To
point up the problem: Did Mary have any children besides Jesus?
It is the age-old problem of “the brethren of the Lord.”70 What rela­
tionship to Christ did early Christianity see in these “brothers and
sisters”? Were they perhaps children which Joseph had by Mary
after her “first-born” Son? Or were they offspring of Joseph by a
previous marriage? Or is the kinship a more distant thing?
If the extant evidence is typical, Western Christianity was slow
to face the problem. Here again it is Tertullian alone whose lan­
guage is unmistakable before Nicaea: and without hesitation Ter­
tullian regards the Mother of Jesus as mother of other children as
well. To begin with: “It was a virgin who gave birth to Christ
and she was to marry only once, after she brought Him forth (semel
nuptura post partum). The reason for this was that both types
of chastity might be exalted in the birth of Christ, born as He
was of a mother who was at once virginal and monogamous.”77
09 Augustine, Serm. 189, n. 2; PL, 38, 1005; cf. Serm. 191, n. 3—4; PL,
38, IOIO-IOII.
70 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 142; PL, 52, 581.
71 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 175; PL, 52, 658.
72 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 145; PL, 52, 589.
73 Cf. Leo, Serm. 24, cap. 1; PL, 54, 204.
74 Cf. Leo, Serm. 22, cap. 2; PL, 54, 196. Cf. Epist. 28, cap. 2; PL, 54, 759;
Birth from a virgin is included among the truths of faith universally believed. "He
was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of a virgin mother; just as she
conceived Him without loss of virginity, so without loss of virginity did she give
Him birth.”
79 Cf. Mansi, Vol. 10, 1151.
70 Cf. Mt. 13:55-56; Mlc. 6:3; Jn. 2:12; 7:3, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5;
Gal. 1:19.
77 Tertullian, De monogamia, cap. 8; PL, 2, 989 Ced. 1866); tr. W. Le Saint, in

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

127

After the birth of Jesus he can speak of her as virum passam, one
who has known a man, in explicit contrast to a virgin.*78 And when
he deals with “the brethren of Jesus,” he takes it for granted that
they are sons and daughters of the same mother as He.79
And that is almost all the evidence we have before Nicaea.80
It is a situation which calls, above all, for caution in deriving con­
clusions or fashioning reconstructions.81 On the one hand, it will
not do to dismiss Tertullian with the cavalier thrust of Jerome:
Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 13 (Westminster, Md., 1951), p. 86. A virginal
marriage with Joseph would satisfy the words semel nuptura post partum, but
only in the abstract; in other passages Tertullian supposes that Mary’s monogamy
was not virginal.
78 Tertullian, De virginibus velandis, cap. 6; PL, 2, 946.
79 Cf. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, lib. 3, cap. it; C.S.E.L., 47, 393;
Adversus Marcionem, lib. 4, cap. 19; C.S.E.L., 47, 482—483; De carne Christi,
cap. 7; C.S.E.L., 70, 208-212.
80 Helvidius later claimed as a witness against the virginity post partum not merely
Tertullian but also Victorious, bishop of the modem Pettau in Styria (-f- 304).
Jerome conceded Tertullian, but argued that Victorinus did no more than speak,
like the Evangelists, of “the Lord’s brethren”; he did not say they were Mary’s
children; cf. Adversus Helvidium, η. 17; PL, 23, 211. The pertinent texts of
Victorinus are lost. Around the same time, an unidentified versifier from the region
of Autun hinted at the perpetual virginity in certain Laudes Domini; PL, 19, 383:
“Ne tamen insignem res nulla ostenderet ortum,
Virgine concipieris: non sufficit esse pudicam,
Nec quae nupta queat Domino conjungere fratrem,
Ne procul ex utero contagio turpis abesset.”
81 For example, Hugo Koch, op. cit., has reconstructed the evolution of the
doctrine of Mary’s virginity from what he considers the primitive and historically
accurate belief to its ultimate, definitive forms in the fourth century. He dis­
tinguishes four stages. To begin with, Jesus was the eldest son of many children
bom to Mary and Joseph. Subsequently, the idea of a virginal conception was
introduced; the brothers and sisters of Jesus were regarded as born of the later
marriage of Mary and Joseph. Later still, the perpetual virginity of Mary being
admitted, the brethren of Jesus became the fruits of a previous marriage of Joseph.
A final stage was reached in the West alone: Joseph became a virgin in his
turn, and the brethren of the Lord became merely cousins. Koch’s unambiguous
point of departure is Tertullian. In rejecting Mary’s virginity in and after child­
bearing, he argues, Tertullian cannot be in opposition to a pre-existing tradition,
because he would be the last so to act. He must have drawn his opinion from a
good ecclesiastical source. This source can only be Irenaeus, on whom he depends
for his Christology and Soteriology, and who is well suited to this role by reason
of Iris Eve-Mary analogy. Tertullian and Irenaeus cannot have found a tradition
favoring perpetual virginity in Justin, Theophilus, or Melito, whose writings, now
lost, they read. The primitive tradition, therefore, had no room for perpetual virginity;
it knew nothing of brethren improperly so called, or of cousins of Jesus, etc. For
this summary, and the weakness of individual links in Koch’s chain, cf. J. Lebon, in
Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, Vol. 34, 1938, 341 ff.

128

MARIOLOGY

“he was not a man of the Church.”82 For, as Neubert has observed,
if the Catholic Tertullian had recognized the virginity of Mary
after Bethlehem as defined doctrine, the Montanist Tertullian
would hardly have rejected it.83 On the other hand, Tertullian’s
rejection is scarcely indicative of a traditional or official rejection.
We are not in a position to establish the source of his thesis, if any;
we do not know to what extent he is playing the polemist. It is
tempting to conjecture that Origen, who insisted between 226-229
that “no one whose mind on Mary is sound would claim that she
had any child save Jesus,”84 might well have found support for his
view when he went to Rome about 212 and met men of the
stature of Hippolytus. But conjecture is not evidence; the philo­
logical data at hand do not reveal that the Christian West at the
dawn of the fourth century was conscious of an obligation to
represent Mary as virgin save for the years before Bethlehem.85
A new phase in Marian theology opens in the West with the
publication of Hilary of Poitiers Commentary on Matthew before
his exile in 356. Hilary knows of more than one (plures) adver­
sary who believes that Mary had marital relations with Joseph
after Jesus’ birth; but these are “irreligious individuals, utterly di­
vorced from spiritual teaching.” He himself is aware that, when­
ever Scripture speaks of Mary and Joseph in the same breath,
Mary “is called ‘Mother of Christ,’ because that is what she was;
not ‘wife of Joseph,’ because she was not.” He knows that there
are people who insist that Jesus had many blood brothers; but these
are “extremely wicked” men. The brethren of Jesus were children
of Joseph by a former marriage; were that not so, Jesus would not
have been compelled to entrust His Mother to John from the cross.86
Hilary’s language is so strong that we are tempted to see in his
adversaries recognized heretics; but the conclusion is not apodictic.
At any rate, we find in Hilary, if not a convincing scriptural argu­
ment, a deep conviction with respect to the perpetual virginity of
Mary that is rooted in her dignity as Mother of the Saviour.82
82 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium, η. 17; PL, 23, 211.
83 E. Neubert, Marie dans l'église anténicéenne, p. 194. De virginibus velandis,
Adversus Marcionem, and De came Christi stem from Tertullian’s semi-Montanist
days; De monogamia is a product of the full-fledged Montanist.
81 Commentarius in loannem, lib. 1, cap. 4, n. 6; G.C.S., Origenes, Vol. 4, 8.
85 Cf. Jouassard, Marie à travers la patristique, pp. 83—84.
86 Cf. Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum, cap. 1, n. 3—4; PL, 9, 921-922.
87 Cf. Jouassard, art. cit., p. 101.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

129

In the second half of the fourth century the fascinating un­
known,88 Ambrosiaster, is likewise aware of the opinion that Mary
had other children besides Jesus. It is a thesis with which he has
little patience. The Lord’s brethren — specifically, James, “the Lord’s
brother” —are so called because their father is Joseph, and Joseph
is called the father of Jesus. Those who claim that the brethren
are genuine brethren of Jesus by birth from Mary are out of their
minds and their affirmation is impious; they would logically have
to regard Joseph as Jesus’ real father.89 Zeno of Verona offers a
remarkable formula, apparently in the face of an adversary: “O
marvelous mystery! Mary conceived as virgin incorrupt; after con­
ception she gave birth as a virgin; after childbirth she remained a
virgin.”90
Perhaps the most significant documents appear in the decade
between 383 and 392. The atmosphere, and the source of strife as
well, is the ascetieal yearning of the age. It is the consecrated
virgin who has succeeded the martyr as the witness without peer
of the Church’s holiness; and, understandably, the unequaled model
of virgins is the Virgin Mary.91 A reaction is inevitable, and the
villains of the piece are primarily Helvidius and Bonosus.
The approach of Helvidius was attractive. He did not make the
tactical blunder of affirming that virginity is inferior to marriage;
he did not attack the Virgin Mary. Lie asserted that marriage and
virginity are equal in honor, that Mary is doubly admirable for
having been, in turn, virgin and mother of a family: virgin until
the birth of Jesus, then mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus
spoken of in Scripture. The impression in Roman circles was pro­
found; even the elect among the ascetics were disturbed; and the
hierarchy did not intervene.
Jerome, lately come to Rome from Constantinople, reacted vigor­
88 The conclusion of C. Martini is that the author flourished at Rome during
the pontificate of Damasus (366-384), though he apparently had some connection
with the Milanese Church and with Spain; cf. Ambrosiaster: De auctore, operibus,
theologia (Romae, 1944), ρ· ι6ο.
88 Cf. Ambrosiaster, In epist. Pauli ad Galatas, cap. 1; PL, 17, 364 (ed. 1866).
About the same time, Marius Victorious does not combat the idea that James
was Jesus’ blood brother, though the opportunity knocks quite loudly; cf. In epist.
Pauli ad Galatas, lib. 1; PL, 8, 1155—1166.
90 Zeno, Tractatus, lib. 2, tr. 8, 2; PL, 11, 414-415; cf. Tractatus, lib. 1, tr. 5,
3; PL, it, 303.
91 For a brief insight into the ascetical movement of the time, and the influence
of Athanasius on Western asceticism, cf. Jouassard, art. cit., p. 103 if.

130

MARIOLOGY

ously. His pamphlet, Adversus Helvidium (383), develops the
thesis that virginity is superior to marriage; his palmary proof is
that Mary would never have dreamed of relations with any man,
no matter who.92 Tradition is summoned briefly to the stand:
Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin. But it is the scriptural diffi­
culties, since become classical, which form tire burden of his
presentation: “before they came together” (Mt. 1:18); Joseph’s
“wife” (1:24); “he did not know her till she had brought forth”
(1:25); “first-born” (1:25). The Lord’s brethren are children not
of Mary but of her sister. And there is a final touch: “You say
that Mary did not remain a virgin. I claim still more; I claim that
Joseph himself was a virgin for Mary’s sake, so that from a virgin
wedlock a virgin son might be born.”93
The argumentation is not consistently convincing, but it is
effective, linked as it is to a rare talent for the satirical. As
Jouassard has pointed out, it quickly restored the fortunes of
asceticism in Roman circles and accredited the virginity after child­
birth to such an extent that there is no evidence of its ever being
seriously contested there after that encounter.94
More bluntly, Bonosus, Bishop of Naissus (the modem Nish in
Yugoslavia), submitted that Mary had had more than one child.95*
The most significant literary reaction stemmed from Ambrose, who
cried sacrilege.98 Not only does he deal with several Old Testa­
ment symbols of Mary’s perpetual virginity (the “closed gate” of
Ezechiel, the “enclosed garden” and “sealed fountain” of the
Canticle); he explains the New Testament texts adduced by
Bonosus (Mt. i:i8ff.).97 The brethren of Jesus are not children
of Mary; they may have been Joseph’s; in any event, the term
“brother” need not be interpreted strictly.98 It is the perfect, per92 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium; PL, 23, 193-216 (ecl. 1865).
93 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium, η. 19; PL, 23, 213; cf. n. 17; PL, 23, 211: the
brethren are ‘‘fratres propinquitate, non natura.”
94 Cf. Jouassard, art. cit., p. 107.
95 This happened about 390. Ambrose intimates that Bonosus was not alone
in denying the permanence of Mary’s virginity; the reason for interrupting his
silence on this score is the presence of a bishop, Bonosus, in the enemy camp;
cf. De institutione virginis, cap. 5, n. 35; PL, 16, 328 (ed. 1866).
911 Cf. ibid.
97 Cf. De institutione virginis, cap. 5, n. 36 ff.; PL, 16, 329 If.
98 Cf. De institutione Virginis, cap. 6, n. 43; PL, 16, 331. Ambrose, too, argues
from the fact that Christ entrusted Mary to John on Calvary; cf. De institutione
virginis, cap. 7, nn. 46-48; PL, 16, 332-333.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

131

manent virginity of Mary that Ambrose time and again proposes
to virgins for their imitation.09
The condemnation of Bonosus by his fellow bishops of Illyricum
was approved in a celebrated letter whose author may be Pope
Siricius but is more probably Ambrose himself.100 The writer
assures Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, and through him the
bishops of Illyricum: “Surely we cannot deny that Your Reverence
was perfectly justified in rebuking him [i.e., Bonosus] on the score
of Mary’s children, and that you had good reason to be horrified at
the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal
womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the
Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if Fie 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. To assert such a view is to do nothing
less than to accept as a basis that Jewish falsehood which holds
that He could not have been bom of a virgin. And once the weight
of episcopal authority is gained for the view that Mary gave issue
to many children, they will strive with even greater zeal to attack
the truth of faith.”101
The condemnation of Bonosus and the unqualified rejection of
his thesis by episcopal authority may well have influenced the Greek
world; in the West it simply consolidated ground already won. As
the fourth century draws to a close it is Ambrose and his thesis that
emerge triumphant; it is his De institutione virginis that is the
theological chef d’oeuvre of the time.102 It is from this period that
99 Cf. De institutione virginis, cap. 5, n. 35; PL, 16, 328; cap. 16, n. 97 ff.; PL,
16, 343 if.; De virginibus, lib. 2, cap. 2, n. 7: ed. O. Faller, Florilegium patristicum,
Vol. 31 (Bonnae, 1933), p. 47; Exhortatio virginitatis, cap. 5, n. 31; PL, 16, 360.
100 De Bonoso; PL, 16, 1222-1224 (ed. 1866); also in PL, 13, 1176-1178, as
Siricius, Epist. 9, Ad Anysium Thessalonicensem aliosque Illyrici episcopos. Cf. X.
Le Bachelet, Bonose, in D.T.C., Vol. 2, col. 1027 ff.; E. Amann, Sirice (saint),
ibid., Vol. 14, Part I, 2173. The pertinent note in PL, 16 refuses to choose from
among the authors suggested; the monitum in PL 13 ascribes the letter to Siricius.
Jouassard assigns it to Ambrose; cf. Le problème de la sainteté de Marie chez les
Pères depuis les origines de la patristique jusqu'au concile d'Ephèse, in Etudes
Mariales, Bulletin de la Société française d’études mariales, 5e année, 1947, Sainteté
de Marie (Paris, 1948), p. 23, note 31. F. Homes Dudden believes that "the
style and the matter indicate Ambrosian authorship”; The Life and Times of St.
Ambrose (Oxford, 1935), Vol. 2, p. 402, note 4.
101 De Bonoso, n. 3; PL, 16, 1223—1224; 13, 1177.
102 Cf. Jouassard, Marie à travers la patristique, p. 113. For the dating of De
institutione virginis, whether in 392 with Palanque, or 393 at the earliest, cf. ibid.,
note 52.

132

MARIOLOGY

orthodoxy uncompromisingly involves belief in Mary’s perpetual
virginity, so much so that the manner of expression takes on a
monotonous dogmatic ring. Augustine tells us over and over that
Our Lady “conceived as a virgin, she gave birth as a virgin, she
remained a virgin.”103 Peter Chrysologus and Leo the Great echo the
phraseology of Augustine.104 In the light of this development the
definitive pronouncement of the Lateran Council (649) on Mary’s
“indissoluble virginity” will hardly come unawares on the West.100
Ill
A third problem in patristic Mariology is Mary’s Maternity.
Strangely enough, what was first denied to Mary was not the pre­
rogative, Mother of God, but what her contemporaries never dreamed
of denying, that she was Mother of Jesus (cf. Mk. 6:1-3). The
early crisis was Docetic —the affirmation that the Saviour simply
did not have a genuinely human body, or at any rate, as Tertullian
sums it up, that “He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin,
and in a womb, not of a womb,”100 without being fashioned of her
substance. But there was a complementary denial. Where the
Gnostics introduced a distinction between Jesus bom of Mary and
the Christ who descended into Jesus at baptism,101 they denied im­
plicitly that the Child of Mary was God.
The Christian reaction in the first three centuries is expressive.
Not that Our Lady is categorically denominated Mother of God;
there is no indisputable evidence for the title before the fourth
century.103 But, like Ignatius earlier in the East, Justin and Irenaeus
103 Augustine, Serm. 190, n. 2; PL, 38, 1008; cf. Serm. 196, n. 1: "Virgo con­
cepit, miramini; virgo peperit, plus miramini; post partum, virgo permansit’’; PL,
38, 1019.
104 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 98: “Virgo concipit, virgo parturit, virgo per­
manet”; PL, 52, 521. Cf. Leo, Serm. 22, cap. 2: “. . . divina potestate subnixum est,
quod virgo conceperit, quod virgo pepererit, et virgo permanserit”; PL, 54, 195.
>os Cf. Mansi, Vol. 10, 1151.
100 Tertullian, De carne Christi, cap. 20; C.S.E.L., 70, 238.
107 Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 17, 1 (Massuet, 3, 16, 2);
Harvey, 2, 83; PG, 7, 921.
108 On the antiquity of the title, cf. V. Schweitzer, Alter des Titels Ocotôkos, in
Der Katholik, Vol. 83, 1903, pp. 97-103; Jouassard, Marie à travers la patristique,
p. 86, note 2. Perhaps the most impressive modem advance in our knowledge on
this point is the discovery of a papyrus leaf preserving scraps of our Sub tuum
praesidium in Greek, with the word ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ clearly written; cf. C. H. Roberts,
ed., Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Vol. 3
(Cambridge, 1939), n. 470; F. Mercenier, L'antienne mariale grecque la plus
ancienne, in Muséon, Vol. 52, 1939, ρρ· 229-233; id., La plus ancienne prière

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

133

and Tertullian have a two-edged answer for the Gnostic position.
On the one hand, they use expressions that equivalently affirm the
divine Maternity. On the other, they propound the twin premises
for their conclusion: (a) Jesus was genuinely bom of Mary; and
(b) Jesus bom of Mary is God.
Justin declares that the Word of God, who “is also God,” the
same God who appeared to Moses and the other prophets in the form
of fire and the guise of an angel, “became man by a virgin”; He was
actually “bom” of her.*
109
What for Justin is sheer doctrinal affirmation, is in Irenaeus a
thesis defended at length.110 The New Testament (Mt. 1:20-23)
reveals two things clearly: “that the Son of God was bom of a
virgin, and that He is Himself the Saviour Christ, whom the
prophets proclaimed; not, as these men say, that Jesus is He who
was bom of Mary, while Christ is He who descended from above.”111
In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit points out in the Isaian
prophecy (Isa. yuoff.) “His birth, which is from a virgin, and His
essence, that He is God.”112 In his argumentation Irenaeus employs
several phrases strikingly indicative of the divine Maternity. Our
Lord "is the Word of the Father and the Son of Man”; ‘Word that
He is, He took birth of Mary”; the glad tidings were brought to
Mary “that she should bear God.”113 Apart from Scripture, the
à la sainte Vierge, in Questions liturgiques et paroissiales, Vol. 25, 1940, pp. 33-36.
The conservative dating of Roberts, not before the second half of the fourth
century, has been disputed by G. Vannucci, who prefers the opinion of Lobel,
based on sheerly paleographic grounds, that the document is not later than the
third century; cf. La più antica preghiera alla Madré di Dio, in Marianum, Vol.
3, 1941, pp. 97-ior. More recently, Otto Stegmüller has objected to Mercenier’s
restoration and substituted his own; paleographic, liturgical, patristic, and apocryphal
data persuade Stegmüller that the prayer, so significant in the story of Marian
veneration and invocation, ought not oe dated before the end of the fourth century;
cf. Sul· tuum praesidium: Bemerkungen zur altesten Vherlieferung, in Zeitschrift
fur katholische Théologie, Vol. 74, 1952, pp. 76-82.
109 Cf. Justin, Apologia 1, cap. 63; PG, 6, 425; Apologia 2, cap. 6; PG, 6, 453.
Regrettably, Justin’s work Adversus Marcionem, which Irenaeus used (cf. Adv.
haer., lib. 4, cap. 11, 2; Massuet, 4, 6, 2) and Eusebius mentions (Hist. eccl., lib.
4, cap. ri, 8ff.), has been lost.
110 Cf. E. Dublanchy, Marie, in D.T.C., Vol. 9, Part 2, col. 2350.
111 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 17, 1 (Massuet, 3, 16, 2); Harvey,
2, 83; PG, 7, 921.
112 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 25, 2 (Massuet, 3, 21, 4); Harvey, 2,
116; PG, 7, 951.
113 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 20, 3 (Massuet, 3, 19, 3); Harvey,
2, 104; PG, 7, 941; lib. 3, cap. 30 (Massuet, 3, 21, 10); Harvey, 2, 120; PG,
7· 955; lib· 5, cap. 19, 1; Harvey, 2, 376; PG, 7, 1175.

134

MARIOLOGY

proof of his predilection is drawn from the economy of Redemption.
If man was to be saved, God had to become man, had to derive His
human nature from the nature that had fallen. If His birth from
Mary is unreal, our redemption is equally unreal.11'1
Tertullian, too, has Gnostics in view; he makes the same points
as Irenaeus; and his belief with respect to Mary’s motherhood does
not change with his checkered career. In his Catholic days he has
no doubt that the Son of God became flesh in Mary’s womb; in
His birth we find one who is “man and God united.”115 In fact,
His being enfleshed in her womb and His birth of her is a truth
which the rule of faith obliges us to believe.116 The palpable model
of divine patience is God’s Son, who endured to be bom in a
mother’s womb.111 Dallying with Montanism does not prevent Ter­
tullian from propounding an authentic Incarnation, e.g., in his works
On the Flesh of Christ and Against Marcion. The novelty of Christ’s
birth does not lie in this (as the Gnostics claim), “that as the Word
of God became flesh without a human father’s seed, so there should
be no flesh of the Virgin Mother”; it rests in this, “that His flesh,
though not born of seed, still proceeded from flesh.”118 If Mary is
not His Mother, then Scripture lies; if she is His Mother, He was
in her womb. But “no flesh can speak of a mother’s womb save that
which is itself the offspring of that womb. . . .”119
It has not been established incontrovertibly that Hippolytus, the
first antipope, who died a martyr in 235, actually called Mary
“Mother of God”;120 what is indisputable is that, for Hippolytus,
Mary was literally pregnant with the Word of God, with God’s
”> Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 31, 1 (Massuet, 3, 22, 1); Harvey,
2, 121; PG, 7, 956.
ns Tertullian, Apologeticum, cap. 21, n. 13-14; C.S.E.L., 69, 55-56.
ne Cf. Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, cap. 13; C.S.E.L., 70, 17-18.
’17 Cf. Tertullian, De patientia, cap. 3; C.S.E.L., 47, 3.
us Tertullian, De came Christi, cap. 21; C.S.E.L., 70, 241-242.
’1° Tertullian, De carne Christi, cap. 21; C.S.E.L., 70, 243.
i20 The crucial passage occurs in De benedictionibus lacob, cap. 1; “. . . Joseph
betroths Mary to himself and becomes a trustworthy witness to the Mother of God
(Θεοτόκου)”; Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. 38, Part I (Leipzig, 1911), p. 13.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Georgian translation to correspond to it;
only the Greek has it; cf. Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. 26, Part 1 (Leipzig,
1904), p. 3. Hugo Rahner has made a laudable effort to accredit the Greek text,
and concludes that Hippolytus, about 220, attests the title, Mother of God; cf.
Hippolyt von Rom als Zeuge für den Ausdruck θ€οτόκο$, in Zeitschrift für katholische
Théologie, Vol. 59, 1935, pp. 73-81. Jouassard is not convinced; cf. Marie à
travers la patristique, p. 86, note 2.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

BS

Son.121 Another Roman priest, Novatian, who occupied a leading
position among the clergy of Rome about 250 and later fell into
schism, is subordinationist in his Logos doctrine, but emphatic on
two points: Christ is bom of Mary, and Christ is God and Man.122
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (t 258), in the second book of his
Testimonies, written perhaps before 249 and “containing the mys­
tery of Christ,” includes the truth “that a sign of His birth would
be this, that of a virgin He would be born man and God, Son of
man and of God.” His scriptural texts are Isa. y.ioS. and Gen.
3:i4-i5·123
With the fourth century the title “Mother of God” is quite com­
mon and its theological basis comes into view rather clearly. True,
the development is more dramatic in the East —from the moment
(c. 319) when Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, in announcing to
his colleagues the deposition of Arius, made the first indisputable use
of Theotokos,124 through Julian the Apostate’s querulous charge
against the Christians, “You never stop calling Mary Mother of
God,”125 to the celebrated anathema of Cyril and Ephesus: “If any121 Cf. De benedictionibus lacob, cap. 27; Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. 38,
Part I, p. 41; De antichristo, cap. 45; G.C.S., Hippolytus, Vol. 1, Part 2, 28;
Contra Noetum, cap. 4; PG, 10, 809. The last Christian author at Rome to express
himself in Greek, Hippolytus may well have been a disciple of Irenaeus; at any
rate, his Soteriology is Irenaean, revolving about the concept of recapitulation; cf.
Philosophumena, lib. io, cap. 33, 15; G.C.S., Hippolytus, Vol. 3, 291. His under­
standing of Mary’s Maternity is unmistakable: “Let us therefore believe, brethren
blessed, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down
from heaven into the holy Virgin Mary, with this in mind, that enfleshed of her,
assuming a human (I mean rational) soul, become all that man is save for sin,
He might save fallen man and offer immortality to those who believe in His name.
... As it was proclaimed, so was it done: He showed Himself in person of a
virgin and the Holy Spirit, become a new man . . . not by phantasy or alteration . . .
but man in all reality.” Contra Noetum, cap. 17; PG, 10, 825-828; cf. Contra
Noetum, cap. 15; PG, 10, 824-825.
122 Cf. Novatian, De Trinitate, cap. 9 ff.; PL, 3, 927 ff. The expressions he
uses in this second section (cap. 9—29) to show the unity of the two natures in
Christ are significant for the divine Maternity and were of unusual influence on
Latin theology; cf. H. Rahner, Die Marienkunde in der lateinischen Patristik,
p. 144.
123 Cyprian, Ad Quirinum testimonia, lib. 2, cap. 9; C.S.E.L., 3, 73; cf. Ad
Quirinum testimonia, praef.; C.S.E.L., 3, 35. For the date, cf. J. Quasten, Patrology,
Vol. 2 (Westminster, Md., 1953), p. 363.
124 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Epist. ad Alexandrum Constant., n. 12; PG,
18, 568. The offhand use of the term, with no apparent need to justify it, arouses
the suspicion that Alexander is inspired by an established custom; cf. Dublanchy,
art. cit., col. 2351.
125 Quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, Contra lulianum, lib. 8; PG, 76, 901.

i36

MARIOLOGY

one does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and that
consequently the holy Virgin is Mother of God (for she gave birth
after the flesh to the Word of God made flesh), let him be
anathema!”120 Nevertheless, the West, if more prosaic, is no less
uncompromising.
Hilary of Poitiers may well speak for Gaul when he states so
simply that Mary “was Mother of Our Lord according to the flesh”;127
He remains the God that He was, and is bom of a virgin’s womb.128
Equally simple and precious is a hidden half sentence: Mary exer­
cised, in regard of “the second man from heaven” (i Cor. 15:47),
the role of a mother; she gave Him, in His conception and birth,
what any mother gives to the child of her womb.129
Ambrose uses the title “Mother of God” in several places with
no hint of novelty or embarrassment.130 In opening his defense of
Mary’s abiding virginity against Helvidius, Jerome invokes “God
the Father, to show that the Mother of His Son was a virgin after
childbirth, she who was mother before marriage.”131 Augustine does
not use the title, but his mind is transparent. Though Elizabeth con­
ceived a man, and Mary a man, still “Elizabeth conceived only a
man, Mary God and man.”132 Christ was anointed with the spirit
not at Flis baptism but “when the Word of God was made flesh,
i.e., when human nature . . . was linked to God the Word in the
womb of a virgin, so as to form one person with Him. For this reason
we confess Him born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.”133
The Lord our God, he says, “without birth by woman is the only Son
of the Father; without embrace of man His Mother bore Him as
her only Son.”134
Three years after Ephesus, Vincent of Lerins (145°) devoted a
whole chapter of his Commonitories to Mary’s divine motherhood.
128 Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. 17, n. 12; ed. E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum
oecumenicorum, Tom. 1, Vol. 1, Part 1 (Berolini et Lipsiae, 1927-1930), 40;
PG, 77, 120.
127 Hilary, Tractatus in ps. 131, n. 8; C.S.E.L., 22, 668.
128 Cf. Hilary, Tractatus in ps. 126, n. 16; C.S.E.L., 22, 624.
129 Hilary, De Trinitate, lib. 10, n. 17: ", . . quae officio usa matemo, sexus
sui naturam in conceptu et partu hominis exsecuta est”; PL, 10, 356.
130 Cf. Ambrose, De virginibus, lib. 2, cap. 2, n. 7; ed. Faller, p. 47; Exameron,
lib. 5, cap. 20, n. 65; C.S.E.L., 32, Part 1, 188-189; Expositio evangelii secundum
Lucam, lib. 2, n. 26; C.S.E.L., 32, Part 4, 55.
131 Jerome, Adversus Helvidium, n. 2; PL, 23, 194.
132 Augustine, Serm. 289, n. 2; PL, 38, 1308.
133 Augustine, De Trinitate, lib. 15, cap. 26, n. 46; PL, 42, 1093-1094.
134 Augustine, Serm. 195, n. 2; PL, 38, 1018.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

B?

It is by reason of the unicity of person in Christ that it is Catholic
to believe, and godless to deny, that the Word of God, and not
merely His flesh, was bom of the Virgin. “God forbid, therefore,
that anyone should try to cheat holy Mary of her privileges of
divine grace and of her special glory. For by a unique favor of Him
who is our Lord and God, but her Son, she is to be confessed
Theotokos in the truest and most blessed way possible. But she is
not Theotokos in the way a certain impious heresy supposes. To
believe this heresy, she is to be called Mother of God in name only,
because she gave birth to a human being who later became God­
as we speak of the mother of a priest or the mother of a bishop; not
that she gave birth to a priest or a bishop, but because she pro­
duced the human being who later became priest or bishop. Not thus,
I say, is holy Mary Theotôkos, but rather because ... in her sacred
womb was accomplished this sacrosanct mystery, that by reason of a
certain matchless, unique unity of person, even as the Word in
flesh is flesh, so the Man in God is God.”138
And that, in brief, is the Western tradition. Little wonder that
Leo the Great, in his Letter to Flavian, observed that Eutyches might
have learned what he was obliged to believe on the Incarnation, if
he had “listened to that common and universal confession in which
the whole body of the faithful acknowledges its belief in . . . Jesus
Christ, [God’s] only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was bom of the
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. . . .”13e
IV
One of the most perplexing problems in patristic Mariology re­
volves about Mary’s holiness. The issue becomes complex in that it
involves an aspect of Mary’s sanctity acute for the contemporary
Christian: the state of Mary’s soul at the moment of her conception.
From the close of the Apostolic Age to the Council of Nicaea the
literary heritage of Western Christianity contains so remarkably little
on the theme of Our Lady’s holiness that a pointed question is
inevitable. Was the pre-Nicene West even conscious of the problem?
Several facts are not without significance. In the first place,
Jewish and pagan circles in the second half of the second century,
as a flanking attack on Christ, taxed His Mother with being a
135 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium 1, cap. 15; PL, 50, 658.
130 Leo, Epist. 28, cap. 2; PL, 54, 757. Cf. Serm. 2.4, cap. 3: ". . . Creator . . .
electa sibi matre, quam fecerat, quae salva integritate virginea, corporeae esset
tantum ministra substantiae . .
PL, 54, 205.

i38

MARIOLOGY

prostitute.137 The reaction of the Christian West would make fasci­
nating reading, but it is nowhere in evidence. It is not unreasonable,
however, to conjecture that Christians who recognized in Mary the
counterpart of Eve, whose rule of faith involved the virginity of
Mary before Gabriel, must have reacted as strongly, if not as
mordantly, as Tertullian was to do somewhat later.138 This much
will stand the test of criticism: for tire orthodox Christian, Mary
was not a woman of evil reputation.
Second, the Eve-Mary analogy is relevant here. Our Lady’s con­
sent to the redemptive program implicit in the Incarnation was
recognized by Irenaeus as constituting an act not simply of singular
significance but even of exceptional moral value; it was an act of
obedience.139 Regrettably, Irenaeus’ insight into the Second Eve is
not paralleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the
state of her soul prior to her fiat. Did the ante-Nicene Fathers glimpse
a further consequence from the analogy, an indication of Mary’s
sanctity? Le Bachelet, for one, surrenders such investigation: “Who
could possibly give a certain answer, one way or the other?”140
Third, the adjective “holy” is prefixed to “Virgin.” Not often;
still, it is used. Hippolytus, for example, states, without explanation,
that “God the Word descended into the holy Virgin Mary.”141 The
difficulty is, such a usage is ill-defined. The word sanctus or âyios
has not always been able to boast of a clearly delimited meaning in
ecclesiastical use.142 Does Hippolytus use Syios as a rather vague lauda­
tory epithet, or as a title of dignity, or to imply moral excellence, or to
signify the respect reserved for one who is segregated from profane
137 Cf. Tertullian, De spectaculis, cap. 30; C.S.E.L., 20, 29. The same story
was peddled in the East by Celsus; cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, Eh. 1, cap. 28 ff.;
G.C.S., Origenes, Vol. 1, 79 ff.
138 Cf. Tertullian, De spectaculis, cap. 30. Tertullian’s reaction was prompted not
so much by the insult to the Mother as by the assault on her Son.
130 Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 32, 1 (Massuet, 3, 22, 4);
Harvey, 2, 123—124; PG, 7, 958-959.
140 X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée conception, in D.T.C., Vol. 27, col. 874; he grants,
however, that the principles of solution are there. For Le Bachelet’s treatment of
the Western Fathers, cf. col. 872-893, 979-983. It is argued that, in Justin’s
description of Eve as "virgin incorrupt,” there is question of Eve exempt from all
corruption, and so the parallelism demands a similar exemption for Mary. The
argumentation is not convincing. The seeds of future development with respect to
Mary’s sanctity are contained in the patristic Eve-Mary analogy; but they are
seeds and not the full flower.
141 Hippolytus, Contra Noctum, cap. 17; PG, to, 825.
142 Cf. H. Delehaye, Sanctus, in Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 28, 1909, pp.
145-200.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

139

things and belongs to God by some sort of consecration? The answer
must, in the state of the evidence, be a confession of ignorance.
Fourth, there is testimony which attaches more intimately to
Mary’s holiness. If we can trust a fragment on Ps. 22 attributed to
Hippolytus, the Roman exegete wrote: “Tire ark which was made
of incorruptible timber (cf. Exod. 15:10) was the Saviour. The ark
symbolized the tabernacle of His body, which was impervious to
decay and engendered no sinful corruption. . . . The Lord was
sinless, because in His humanity He was fashioned out of incor­
ruptible wood, that is to say, out of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit,
lined within and without as with the purest gold of the Word of
God.”143 The author’s direct purpose is to reveal the sinlessness of
Christ; but his reasoning shows that in his eyes the Virgin, incor­
ruptible wood of which the humanity of Jesus was fashioned, is
likewise all-pure, all-holy. The meaning is substantially clear; what
fails to emerge is the precise nature of her purity, her incorruptibility.
The extant evidence, therefore, if meager, indicates sufficiently
that for some of the ante-Nicene writers in the West the idea of
holiness and purity did attach to the person of Mary. It does not
justify us in concluding with certainty to the nature of this holiness,
or in picturing them as carriers of an historical tradition, or in
attributing to them a formal belief in an Immaculate Conception.
It is in this era that we confront a current of drought unfavorable
to a thesis of Marian sinlessness. In its general form it is die prin­
ciple that Christ alone is without sin, and it is unmistakably formu­
lated by Tertullian. “Thus, some men are good, others, bad, yet
their souls all belong to the same class. There is some good in the
worst of us, and the best of us harbor some evil within us. God
alone is without sin, and the only sinless man is Christ, since He
is God.”144 In this general form there is no inescapable implicit
which would rule out an utterly sinless existence for Mary. There
is a sinlessness which is the fruit of nature; such sinlessness has
always been, in orthodox Christian thinking, the exclusive preroga­
tive of God. And there is a sinlessness which is the fruit of grace;
it is theoretically compatible with human living. Did Tertullian
deny such God-given sinlessness in the concrete order of things?
143 Hippolytus, In ps. 22; quoted by Theodoret, Dialogus 1; PG, 10, 610,
864—865.
144 Tertullian, De anima, cap. 41, n. 3; ed. J. Waszink (Amsterdam, 1947), p.
57; tr. E. Λ. Quain, in Fathers of the Church, Vol. 10 (New York, 1950), p. 2.73.

140

MARIOLOGY

One phrase suggests it strongly: “the best of us harbor some evil
within us.”
However that may be, the stumbling block looms larger when
specific defects are mentioned. If we credit Tertullian, Christ pub­
licly denounced His Mother for her disbelief when He asked:
“Who is my mother and who are my brethren?”115 According to the
Carthaginian, Mary apparently kept aloof from Jesus while Martha
and others were in constant contact with Him. In standing outside
she was guilty of disbelief (incredulitas); in calling Him away
from His work she was importunate. And if we believe Irenaeus,
whose Marian theology is otherwise so reverential, Jesus checked
Mary’s “untimely haste” at Cana, her yearning to quicken the
miracle of the water made wine.146
The objection from Irenaeus is scarcely momentous. The Bishop
of Lyons finds Mary’s request inopportune, untimely; he does not
hint that it was sinful. Tertullian, on the contrary, is harsh and
unambiguous. And if his accusation is explicable in the light of his
fiery polemic, so heedless of consequences, it remains nonetheless a
candid accusation. Though he was flirting with Montanism at the
moment, he still gives no indication that he is aware of a contrary
belief or official teaching.1·17 If it is unjustifiable to conclude that
Tertullian is representative of a widespread tradition, it remains true
that in Africa at the outset of the third century moral deficiencies
were apparently not regarded as incompatible with the dignity of
God’s Mother.148
A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of
the West does not occur until 377, with the publication of Ambrose’s
three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. The
inspiration for his portrait of Mary is not purely local, the contem145 Cf. Tertullian, De came Christi, cap. 7; C.S.E.L., 70, 210-212. In the same
chapter Tertullian adds another interpretation: “In the mother abjured there is
a figure of the Synagogue, and in the disbelieving brethren a figure of the Jews.”
Cf. also Jesus’ alleged indignation and His disavowal of mother and brethren in
Adversus Marcionem, lib. 4, cap. 19; C.S.E.L., 47, 483.
ne Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, lib. 3, cap. 17, 7 (Massuet, 3, 16, 7);
Harvey, 2, 88; PG, 7, 926.
147 The problem becomes more acute when we reflect that in the East a score
of years later Origen could preach to the people of Caesarea that the sword of
sorrow is Mary’s experience of scandal at the Passion of her Son, a sword of
unbelief, of uncertainty. Even more startling is his theological reasoning: "If she
did not experience scandal at the Lord’s passion, Jesus did not die for her sins.”
In Luc. horn. 17; G.C.S., Origenes, Vol. 9, 116-118.
148 Cf. Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté, p. 18.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

141

porary aristocratic virgin vowed to Christian asceticism; it is more
specifically Eastern, a work of Athanasius on virginity.149
The influence of Athanasius was fortunate, if only because the
ideas of the fourth-century West on Mary’s sanctity were so slender.
In Gaul, for example, Hilary of Poitiers can somehow reconcile a
profound reverence for Mary’s virginity with a tortuous passage in
which she seems destined to undergo the scrutiny of God's judg­
ment.150 He insists, too, that Our Lord alone is sinless, and this in
virtue of His exceptional birth.151 In Rome, Marius Victorinus ex­
tends specifically to Mary the imperfection which he attributes to
the very idea of woman, while Ambrosiaster understands Simeon’s
sword of sorrow as Mary’s doubting at the death of the Lord —
a doubt removed only by the Resurrection.152 In Africa, Bishop
Optatus of Mileve (t before 400) sees the flesh of Christ alone as
sinless, because of His unique conception; only Christ is perfectly
holy, the rest of us are “half perfect”; every man, even if of Christian
parents, is born with an unclean spirit.153 Near Granada in Spain,
Bishop Gregory of Elvira seems to number Mary among the an­
cestors who would have transmitted to the Redeemer a body soiled
and open to sin.154
And yet, the climate of thought and feeling promised the ideas
of Ambrose an enthusiastic welcome, especially in his own North
Italy, where the influence of asceticism and the personal sojourn
149 It is reasonably certain that we have this important production in a Coptic
translation discovered and edited by L. Th. Lefort, S. Athanase: Sur la virginité, in
Muséon, Vol. 42, 1929, pp. 197—275. For the influence of this work on Ambrose,
cf. Lefort, Athanase, Ambroise et Chenoute "Sur la virginité," in Muséon, Vol.
48, 1935. ΡΡ· 55-73·
150 Cf. Hilary, Tractatus in ps. 118, Gimel, n. 12; C.S.E.L., 22, 384. Jouassard
believes there may be question here of faults that are slight; cf. Marie à travers la
patristique, p. 102, note 6. The note in PL, 9, 523, recalls the marginal jotting of
Erasmus: “Aliud sentiunt, qui liberant eam a peccato originis.”
151 Cf. Hilary, op. cit., Vau, η. 6; C.S.E.L., 22, 414; ibid., Nun, n. 8; C.S.E.L.,
22, 478; De Trinitate, lib. 10, cap. 25; PL, 10, 364—366. There is no insuperable
problem in Hilary’s belief that Mary was sanctified at the hour of the Annunciation,
and that the Holy Spirit strengthened her (apparently bodily) weakness; cf. De
Trinitate, lib. 2, cap. 26; PL, 10, 67-68.
152 Cf. Marius Victorinus, In epist. Pauli ad Galatas, lib. 2; PL, 8, 1176-1177;
Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, cap. 76, η. 2; C.S.E.L.,
5°> 131·
153 Cf. Optatus, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, lib. 1, cap. 8; C.S.E.L., 26,
9—10; ibid., lib. 4, cap. 7; C.S.E.L., 26, 112; Optatus, lib. 2, cap. 20; C.S.E.L.,
26, 55-56; ibid., lib. 4, cap. 6; C.S.E.L., 26, 110.
184 Cf. Gregory of Elvira, Hom. in Cant, canticorum; text established by D.
Wilmart, in Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, Vol. 7, 1906, pp. 252-254.

142

MARIOLOGY

of Athanasius had paved the way. Thus, Zeno of Verona implies
that Mary, like the virgins he is addressing, was “holy in body and
spirit,” and claims that she had “deserved” to carry the Saviour of
souls.155 But the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something
novel in Latin literature. Mary was virgin not in body alone, but
in mind as well. She is the unattainable model of all virtues; she
has lived them to perfection. Not the slightest shadow mars his
portrait of her, no smallest imperfection.150 It is a vision of Mary
which will inspire Ambrose all his days and lead him to still further
insights. A decade later he can attribute to Mary a fullness of grace
whose foundation is tire divine Maternity: “For Mary alone was
this greeting [full of grace] reserved; for she is well said to be
alone full of grace, who alone obtained the grace which no one else
had gained, to be filled with the Author of grace.”157 It may be
drat Ambrose is simply equating “full of grace” and “Mother of
God”; the construction bears that exegesis. But about the same time,
in a sermon on Ps. 118, he speaks of Mary as “a virgin free by
grace from all stain of sin.”158 It is a text frequently invoked by
defenders of the Immaculate Conception, who feel that to under­
stand the phrase of actual or personal sins alone is to restrict arbi­
trarily the indefinite, unlimited assertion.158 On the other hand,
Ambrose does not seem aware of the implications in his phrase. In
any event, the germ of future development is indisputably there,
especially since, to his way of thinking, if you are to appreciate
what Mary is, you must reckon with what is fitting in such a
mother.100
At the beginning of the fifth century the Spanish poet, Pruden155 Zeno, Tractatus, lib. I, tr. 5, 3; lib. 2, tr. 8, 2; PL, 11, 303, 414. In lib. 1,
tr. 13, 10 Zeno seems to see in Mary moral faults which had to be cut away
before the Incarnation, or simultaneously with it; PL, 11, 352.
156 Cf. Ambrose, De virginibus, lib. 2, cap. 2, n. 6-18; ed. Faller, pp. 47—52.
For a picture of fourth-century ascetical life and virginity, and Ambrose’s place
therein, cf. F. Homes Dudden, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 144-159.
167 Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 3, n. 9; C.S.E.L., 32, Part
4, 45-46.
158 Ambrose, Expositio in ps. 118, Serin. 22, n. 30; PL, 15, 1599 (ed. 1866).
159 Cf. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 882.
100 Cf. Ambrose, Epist. 63, n. no; PL, 16, 1270—1271. Jerome is rather vague
on Mary’s holiness. Mary is Ezechiel’s gate to the East, a figure of her perpetual
virginity; this gate is “always closed and full of light”; Epist. 4g, n. 21; C.S.E.L.,
54, 386. The idea is taken up and accentuated elsewhere: Mary is a cloud that is
never in darkness but "always in the light”; Hom. in psalmos; ed. G. Morin,
Anecdota Maredsolana, Vol. 3, 65.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

143

tins (t after 405), alluding to Mary’s role as New Eve, represents
the serpent trampled beneath the feet of Our Lady, who has merited
to become Mother of God and consequently has remained immune
to all poison.181 Once again, the text, as it stands, is susceptible of
an interpretation excluding from Mary all possibility of sin from
the initial moment of her existence. Once again, the sole lingering
doubt is whether Prudentius had so comprehensive, so all-inclusive
a concept of sin.
It is actually with Augustine and the Pelagians that the issues
involved take on some measure of clarity. Here there are two sig­
nificant moments. In the first (415) Augustine confronts Pelagius
on the issue of Mary’s personal holiness, her freedom from actual
sin; in the second (c. 428) he confronts Julian of Eclanum on the
score of her conception, her freedom from original sin.
Pelagius was not content to deny original sin; he ascribed to
Adam’s progeny the power to observe the whole moral law on their
own, a native ability to live lives of justice. To bolster his belief,
he cited a number of individuals — men and women, Old Law and
New —who actually realized this program of sinlessness. The names
range from Abel through Abraham to Joseph and John, from Debbora to Elizabeth, “and in fact the Mother of our Lord and Saviour
too, whom piety must needs confess free from sin.” Ambrose had
found no imperfection in Mary; Pelagius asserted on principle that
none could be found.
Augustine’s response is a two-edged denial. Only Mary is free
from sin, and her sinlessness is a triumph not of nature but of grace;
its foundation is the divine Maternity. “With the exception, there­
fore, of the holy Virgin Mary, in whose case, out of respect for the
Lord, I would have no question raised when there is talk of sin —
for how do we know what further grace was conferred on her for
absolute victory over sin, she who deserved to conceive and bear
Him who obviously bad no sin? —with the exception, then, of this
Virgin, could we but gather together in their lifetime all those
saints, men and women, and ask them whether they were free from
sin, what in our opinion would have been their answer? . . . No
matter how remarkable their holiness in this body . . . they would
have cried out with one voice: ‘If we should say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 Jn. 1:8).”182
101 Cf. Prudentius, Liber cathemerinon, 3, lines 146-155; C.S.E.L., 61, 18.
i°2 Augustine, De natura et gratia, cap. 36, n. 42; C.S.E.L., 60, 263-264.

144

MARIOLOGY

It might be argued that Augustine simply prefers not to discuss the
case of Mary. It is far more probable that his question is not really
a question at all, that it conveys his own conviction of the incom­
patibility of actual sin with divine motherhood, that consequently
it constitutes a landmark in the development of the Western
Church’s consciousness of Mary’s sinlessness.183
Julian of Eclanum, a deposed bishop, lifted the discussion to the
level of original sin. In his view, every man is born sinless; a
unique proof of his position, he feels, is Mary. To attack the
doctrine of original sin in its implications, he establishes a parallel
between his enemy Augustine and the heresiarch Jovinian, to the
advantage of the latter: “ille virginitatem Mariae partus conditione
dissolvit; tu ipsam Mariam diabolo nascendi conditione tran­
scribis.”163
164 Jovinian, says Julian, sacrificed Mary’s virginity by sub­
mitting her to the usual circumstances of human childbearing;
Augustine surrenders the very person of Mary to the devil by
asserting that original sin is inseparable from human generation.
Augustine’s retort ranks among the most passionately disputed
sentences in Christian literature: “Non transcribimus diabolo Ma­
riam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia
renascendi.”165 The disagreements in detail among interpreters of
this sentence are too many to be retailed here, but basically scholars
divide into two camps. Both agree on one point: Augustine denies
that his doctrine of original sin surrenders Mary to the devil by
the circumstances of her birth. But, for one group, no surrender
is involved because the grace of regeneration subsequently annuls
this condition by making it disappear. Conditio nascendi is synony­
mous with birth in original sin. Gratia renascendi necessarily in­
volves a transition from sin to justification subsequent to birth, a
spiritual rebirth unintelligible without a prior spiritual death. And
Augustine’s doctrine on the universality of original sin and on the
method of its propagation precludes any exception in Mary’s case.
163 Some theologians argue that the text indirectly or implicitly excludes original
sin as well. In the context, they admit, Augustine is speaking of actual sin; but
he asserts without reservation that she is free from all sin. The honor of Christ, on
which his conclusion is based, is no less incompatible with the hypothesis of
original sin than with the affirmation of actual sin; cf. Le Bachelet, art. cit.,
col. 883.
184 Augustine, Opus imperfectum contra lulianum, lib. 4, cap. 122; PL, 45,
1417. Augustine quotes this objection from the fourth book of Julian’s Ad Florum,
written about 421, but no longer extant as such.
iss Augustine, Opus imperfectum contra lulianum, lib. 4, cap. 122; PL, 45, 1418.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

MJ

This interpretation, unfavorable to an immaculate conception, was
the accepted exegesis of Augustine for centuries; right or wrong,
it exercised a vigorous influence on the West; even after Ineffa­
bilis Deus it remains an exegesis championed by scholars of
distinction.1ββ
The opposing school denies that this interpretation is apodictic.
For them, no surrender to the devil is involved because the grace
of regeneration simply annuls the condition of birth (original sin)
by preventing its realization in Mary. Conditio nascendi is not so
much a fact as a law. Gratia renascendi does not necessarily involve,
of itself or in Augustine, the removal of sin already contracted.
Augustine’s doctrine on original sin and the manner of its trans­
mission is not an insuperable obstacle to a privilege in favor of God’s
Mother, because Mary’s immunity from original sin is not to be
regarded as of native right; it is sheer gift. In the other hypothesis,
Augustine would actually have enslaved, surrendered Our Lady to
the devil, despite his protestation to the contrary.187
Whatever the truth of the matter, Latin speculation on Mary’s
holiness derived a twofold orientation from Augustine. With respect
to actual sins, the West would thereafter have little difficulty recog106 Cf. Ph. Friedrich, Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus, pp. 183-233; L. Saltet,
Saint Augustin et l'Immaculée-Conception, in Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique,
Vol. ii, 1910, pp. 161-166; B. Capelle, La pensée de saint Augustin sur l'immaculée
Conception, in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Vol. 4, 1932, pp.
361-370; J. Gôtz, Augustin und die Immaculata Conceptio, in Théologie und
Glauie, Vol. 25, 1933, pp. 739—744; A. Dufourcq, Comment s’éveilla la foi à
l’Immaculée-Conception et à l'Assomption aux Ve et VIe siècles (Paris, 1946),
pp. 12-15; Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté, p. 25; B. Altaner, Patrologie,
3 ed. (Freiburg, 1951), p. 389.
167 Cf. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 884—885, 889-890. A more detailed defense
of this interpretation is offered by F. S. Mueller, Augustinus amicus an adversarius
Immaculatae Conceptionis? in Miscellanea Agostiniana (Romae, 1931), Vol. 2,
pp. 885-914. Charles Boyer’s answer to Capelle is typical and pointed: (a)
Mary’s flesh-of-sin demands only that she have an obligation of being conceived
with sin unless God’s grace intervenes; (b) the excepta itaque Maria text is
directly concerned with actual sin, but the affirmation is so general and the
reason given so fundamental that they outstrip the limited problem envisaged;
(c) the transcribimus text involves Augustine unjustifiably in contradiction unless
gratia renascendi signifies a preservative grace, only conceptually posterior to Mary’s
conception; cf. Bulletin augustinien, in Gregorianum, Vol. 14, 1933, pp. 93-96.
Of some relevance is a sermon delivered by Augustine in 413 on the birth of
the Baptist. He refuses to except John from the universality proclaimed in Rom.
5:12 ff., but it is his reasoning that is significant: “Invenisti plane praeter peccatum
natum, quem invenis praeter Adam natum. . . . Nam ille qui voluit ab ea
[sententia] esse separatus, per virginem est venire dignatus”; Serm. 223, n. 12;
PL, 38, 1335.

i46

MARIOLOGY

nizing in Mary a perfection unblemished. On the score of her debt
to Adam, it was to be centuries before the West could free itself
from the myopia induced by anti-Pelagian concentration and by its
interpretation of five individually intelligible words: ipsa conditio
solvitur gratia renascendi.
Post-Augustinian patristic thought on the perfection of Mary
reveals two conflicting currents. There is a negative, unfavorable
trend rooted in Augustine’s anti-Pelagianism; it accentuates the uni­
versality of original sin and articulates the connection between
inherited sin and any conception consequent upon sinful
concupiscence. The root idea is summed up by Leo the Great:
“Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was bom
innocent, because alone conceived without the pollution of carnal con­
cupiscence.”188 The same concept is discoverable in St. Fulgentius,
Bishop of Ruspe in Africa (t 533), the most significant theologian
of his time; in Pope Gregory the Great (f 604) at the end of the
sixth century; and a century later in Venerable Bede, a scholar
renowned throughout England.109 At best, this manner of speaking
is ambiguous; it opened the door to the grave controversies to come;
and it was not of a nature to foster the development of belief in the
Immaculate Conception.
Concurrently, however, there is a positive, more favorable cur­
rent of thought. It is not simply that Mary is still the Second Eve,
instrument of our salvation,170 or that the merits she acquires lift
her above the angels, to divinity’s throne.171 More pointedly, Peter
Chrysologus declares that Our Lady was pledged to Christ in the
womb at the moment of her fashioning, while Maximus of Turin,
contemporary of Leo I, finds Mary a suitable lodging for Christ,
apparently not so much because of her physical virginity as in
virtue of some primal grace which he does not specify.172 The poets,
168 Leo, Serm. 25, cap. 5; PL, 54, 211.
109 Cf. Fulgentius, De veritate praedestinationis et gratiae Dei, lib. 2, cap. 2,
n. 5; PL, 65, 605; Gregory, Moralia in lol·, lib. 18, cap. 52, n. 84; PL, 76, 89;
Bede, Hom. gen., lib. 1, hom. 2, In festo annuntiationis; PL, 94, 13. It is a concept
which leads to the thesis that Mary’s flesh is a flesh-of-sin, because conceived in
iniquity; cf. Fulgentius, Epist. 17, cap. 6, n. 13; PL, 65, 458. It leads likewise to
the theory of a necessary purification of Mary at the hour of the Annunciation;
cf. Leo, Semi. 22, cap. 3; PL, 54, 196; Bede, op. cit.; PL, 94, 12.
170 Cf. Maximus of Turin, Hom. 15; PL, 57, 254.
171 Cf. Gregory the Great, In 1 Regum expositiones, lib. 1, cap. 1, n. 5; Pl ,
79, 25·
172 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 140; PL, 52, 576; Maximus, Hom. 6; PL,
57, 235. On the argumentation of Dufourcq, op. cit., from Maximus and some

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

’47

Sedulius and Venantius Fortunatus, sing of Mary in language which
leaves no room for sin and is indefinite enough to provoke wonder­
ment with respect to the state of her soul at conception.*
173
Historically, the strides taken by the West in advance of the East
on the holiness of Mary —due primarily to Ambrose and Augustine
— were slowed by the barrier which the West felt had been placed
by Augustine in the way of an immaculate conception —a barrier
not confronted by the East.
Theologically, we must face up to an evolution. From the extant
philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of
Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as
Catholic doctrine in the patristic West.174 However, the work of
elaboration evident in that era, certain fundamental and general
principles baldly stated but scarcely fathomed, initial insights into
the implications of divine Maternity and perfect virginity and
Second Eve, all this will help legitimize the conclusion of a later
theology that Mary’s utter sinlessness from the first instant of her
existence is a truth implicitly revealed by God and implicitly trans­
mitted by the early Church.175*
V
As with the first moment of Our Lady’s earthly existence, so
with the last, theology’s quest of patristic data is initially hampered
by the state of the evidence. For a discouragingly long period the
problem is not that the Assumption is denied; it is rather that the
final lot of Mary is apparently not discussed. In consequence, schol­
ars have come to speak of the silence,178 even the ignorance,177 of
acta martyrum, cf. the critique of B. Capelle, in Bulletin de théologie ancienne et
médiévale, Vol. 5, 1946-1947, pp. 255-256.
173 Cf. Sedulius, Paschale carmen, lib. 2, lines 28-31; C.S.E.L., 10, 46; Fortuna­
tus, Miscellanea, lib. 8, cap. 7; PL, 88, 277, 281.
174 Cf. Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté, pp. 26-27.
175 On the difficult problem of the patristic exegesis of Gen. 3:15, cf. L. Drewniak,
Die mariologische Deutung von Gen. Ill, is in der Vaterzeit (Breslau, 1934);
also the controversy between H. Lennerz and G. M. Roschini, in Gregorianum,
Vol. 24, 1943, pp. 347-366; Vol. 27, 1946, pp. 300-318; Marianum, Vol. 7, 1944,
pp. 76-96; Vol. 8, 1946, pp. 293-299. Roschini’s position is that there is a genuine
patristic consent on a Mariological interpretation of the protoevangelium, and that
Pius IX affirmed this consent in Ineffabilis Deus; Lennerz enters a denial on both
counts. Cf. also Dominic J. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The First-Gospel, Genesis 3, 15
(St. Bonaventure, N. Y., 1954), pp. 90-235.
170 M. Jugie, e.g., in his monumental La mort et l'Assomption de la sainte Vierge
1 Città de! Vaticano, 1944), not only states that there is no patristic testimony on
the Assumption before Nicaea, but insists that in the first five centuries there is no

i48

MARIOLOGY

the first three centuries with respect to Mary’s end. In reaction,
others have retorted that the silence is sheeny relative, a surface
silence which was inevitable and is actually eloquent.*
178179
177
In point of fact, both claims are justified. The early Church is
silent on the destiny of Mary, in the sense that no extant document
deals explicitly with that destiny until a half century after Nicaea.
And if in the East we must wait until 377 before Epiphanius offers
his three hypotheses on the manner of Mary’s departure from this
world,170 the awakening of the West is a slower process still. Even
when popular faith has been quickened, there is little evidence in
the West of a theological movement to rival the homiletic pro­
ductions of the East. If only because it is so surprisingly slender,
the explicit witness of the West deserves to be detailed.
Explicit statements or conjectures on the final lot of Mary begin
with the last quarter of the fourth century —contemporary, there­
fore, with Epiphanius. But the witnesses touch the problem ever so
lightly, with evident uncertainty. Tychonius, a lay theologian
among the Donatists, independent enough to be excommunicated
by his own sect, seems to have identified Mary with the woman of
Apoc. 12, and to have spoken of a “great mystery” in her regard.180
Ambrose is more specific but equally unsatisfactory. Discussing
Simeon’s sword of sorrow, he dismisses the idea that Our Lady
died a violent death; such a thesis has no warrant in Scripture or
history.181 But Ambrose does not tell us just how Mary did leave
absolutely clear and explicit witness to the glorious Assumption as understood in
Catholic theology today; cf. pp. 56, 101. This conclusion was approved by B. Altaner,
Zur Frage der Definibilitiit der Assumptio B.V.M., in Theologische Revue, Vol. 45,
1949, p. 135. Cf. also Enrico Recla, II silenzio e la dottrina dei Padri sull'Assunzione,
in Atti del Congresso Nazionale Mariano [1947] dei Frati Minori d’Italia (Roma,
1948), pp. 33-72.
177 Cf. G. Jouassard, L’Assomption corporelle de la sainte Vierge et la patristique,
in Assomption de Marie: Bulletin de la Société française d’études mariales, 1948
(publ. Paris, 1949), p. 102.
178 Cf. O. Faller, De priorum saeculorum silentio circa Assumptionem b. Mariae
Virginis (Romae, 1946), p. 129.
179 Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 78, cap. 23: ‘‘For either the holy Virgin died
and was buried ... or she was killed ... or she remained alive . . .”; G.C.S., 37,
474. On the silence of Scripture, and the “extraordinary nature of the prodigy,”
cf. Panarion, haer. 78, cap. ro-n; G.C.S., 37, 461-462. For the problems involved
in recapturing the thought of Epiphanius, cf. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 77-81; Faller, op.
cit., pp. 33-43; Altaner, in Theologische Revue, Vol. 44, 1948, pp. 131-133.
180 Tychonius’ view is transmitted by Cassiodorus, Complexiones in Apocalypsin,
n. 16; PL, 70, 1411.
781 Cf. Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 2, n. 61; C.S.E.L., 32,
Part 4, 74.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

149

this life. In a remarkable passage he presents, as one hypothesis, the
yearning of Mary to rise with Jesus in case she was fated to die
with Him.182 There may be an insinuation here that the desire was
not frustrated; against this conclusion is the flat statement elsewhere
that Christ alone has risen once and for all.183
Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Italy (+431), is anxious to learn
Augustine’s mind on the exegesis of Simeon’s prophecy; he himself,
like Ambrose, is aware of no document reporting Mary’s death by
violence.184 In his reply, Augustine mentions a previous letter of
his own on the Lucan text; it is, regrettably, lost to us; but he does
tell Paulinus that their views on the scriptural passage coincide.185
Elsewhere, in several striking phrases, he makes it clear that Mary
did die: she died after her Son; she died a virgin; she died, like
Adam, in consequence of sin.188
Finally, however his silence may be explained, the fact remains
that Jerome, who knew the local traditions of the Holy Land as
well as Epiphanius, gives no indication that he is aware of any
historical tradition with reference to the death of Our Lady, her
grave, or an assumption.187 Briefly, between Nicaea and Ephesus the
allusions to Mary’s destiny are rare and insignificant.
The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption
comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus beatae Mariae
of Pseudo-Melito, which may stem from the middle of the sixth
century.188 This account is significant, in the first instance, because
182 Cf. Ambrose, De institutione virginis, cap. 7, n. 49; PL, 16, 333.
183 Cf. Ambrose, De interpellatione lob et David, lib. 1, cap. 7, n. 25; C.S.E.L.,
32, Part 2, 227.
184 Cf. Paulinus, Epist. 50, n. 17-18; C.S.E.L., 29, 419-423. The same letter is
contained among the letters of Augustine, Epist. 121, n. 17-18; C.S.E.L., 34, Part
2, 737-742·
185 Cf. Augustine, Epist. 14g, n. 33; C.S.E.L., 44, 378—379.
186 Cf. Augustine, In evangelium loannis, tr. 8, n. 9; PL, 35, 1456; De catechizandis rudibus, cap. 22, n. 40; PL, 40, 339; Enarratio in ps. 34, Serm. 2, n. 3;
PL, 36, 335·
187 Cf. Altaner, in Theologische Revue, Vol. 44, 1948, pp. 133-134. The thesis
of J. Niessen, Die Mariologie des hl. Hieronymus (Munster, 1913), that Jerome
denies the anticipated resurrection of Mary in three passages (.Adv. Rufinum, lib. 2,
n. 5; PL, 23, 447; Contra loannem Hieros., n. 31; PL, 23, 399; Epist. 75, n. 2; PL,
22, 687), is by no means convincing; cf. Jugie, op. cit., p. 65 and note 2.
188 The Transitus Mariae literature attempts to fill up the lacunae of the canonical
books on the life, death, and final lot of Mary. Perhaps the oldest is a fifth-century
Syriac Transitus, which made its way into the West, probably in a Latin translation,
and caused such scandal that it was listed in the books proscribed by the Decretum
Gelasianum at the beginning of the sixth century; cf. A. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum
Pontificum genuinae, Vol. i (Brunsbergae, 1868), p. 465. Pseudo-Melito, posing

150

MARIOLOGY

it affirms unequivocally the death and burial of Mary, the reunion
of her soul and body without delay, and her assumption into heaven
in soul and body. It is significant, in tire second place, for the
developed Assumption theology which links this privilege causally
with Mary’s Maternity and virginity, and stresses the parallelism
which ought to exist between Christ and His Mother in victory
over death.189 The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the
Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an histori­
cal report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that
aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical dis­
taste. But the account is priceless nonetheless — historically and
theologically. Historically, because it witnesses indisputably to the
feeling of the faithful for Mary, a growing awareness of her dignity,
even though we are unable to specify the full range of this aware­
ness geographically or even to indicate its dawning. Theologically,
because it postulates the Assumption on grounds that are valid not
simply for piety but for scientific theology as well.
The next witness in the West is Gregory, Bishop of Tours in
Gaul; the year, 590. Borrowing in all probability not from PseudoMelito but from a Syriac Transitus of the fifth century, Gregory
states very artlessly:

After this, the apostles scattered through different countries to preach
the word of God. Subsequently blessed Mary finished tire course of
this life and was summoned from the world; and all the apostles were
gathered together, each from his own area, at her home. On hearing
that she was to be taken up (assumenda') from the world, they kept
watch with her. All at once her Lord came with angels, took her soul,
delivered it to Michael the Archangel, and disappeared. At daybreak,
however, the apostles lifted up the body together with the funeral-bed,
placed it in a tomb, and kept watch over it, in readiness for the Lord’s
coming. And again, all at once the Lord stood by them and ordered
the holy body taken up and carried on a cloud to paradise. There, re­
as a disciple of St. John, proposes to furnish an expurgated, decorous version; cf.
A. C. Rush, Assumption Theology in the Transitus Mariae, in The American Eccle­
siastical Review, Vol. 123, 1950, pp. 93-110, esp. 101. Jugie would date it about
550, while Faller argues for the fourth century. For the text, cf. C. Tischendorf,
Apocalypses apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 124-136; an English translation is
given by M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), pp.
209-216.
180 Cf. Pseudo-Melito, Transitus beatae Mariae, cap. 15, η. 2 ff.; Tischendorf,
p. 134®·

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

151

united with the soul, it rejoices with His elect and enjoys eternity’s
blessings which will never end.190
In brief, Gregory affirms in sober fashion the death and burial
of Our Lady, the assumption of her body into paradise with little
delay, the reunion there of body with soul, and Mary’s unending
blessedness. He proposes no reasons for the privilege; the only ink­
ling in that direction is the vague reference to the holiness of her
body, and a later statement that she who was assumed into heaven
was the Mother of Christ, virgin before and after His birth.191 A
formal connection, therefore, between Assumption and virginal
motherhood is not made, but the suggestion seems to be there,
especially if read in the light of similar apocryphal accounts. At
any rate, Gregory’s account influenced the development of popular
belief in an anticipated resurrection of the Virgin, though it made
little impression on the theologian because of the jaundiced eye
which he cast on its apocryphal source. Jouassard is inclined to find
Gregory’s influence in some of the old Gallican Missals of the sev­
enth and eighth centuries, e.g., the Bobbio Missal and especially
the Missale Gothicum.192 Moreover, a friend of Gregory, St. For­
tunatus, a native of Treviso who became Bishop of Poitiers in
Gaul about 595, celebrated Mary’s queenship in verse; her triumph
in glory is clear; not so her glorious Assumption in body as well
as soul.103
180 Gregory of Tours, Lib. i miraculorum: In gloria martyrum, cap. 4; PL, 71,
708. For the date, cf. W. C. McDermott, Gregory of Tours: Selections from the
Minor Works (Philadelphia, 1949), p. 9. For the extant epilogue of the fifth­
century Syriac Transitus, which Jugie regards as the oldest of the accounts, cf. W.
Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament (Lon­
don, 1865), p. 46 f. Jugie and Altaner both believe it likely that Gregory borrowed
from this work, in an early Latin translation.
191 Cf. Gregory, op. cit., cap. 9; PL, 71, 713.
192 Cf. Jouassard, L'Assomption corporelle, pp. nr—112.
193 “Cuius honore sacro, genitrix, transcendis Olympum,
Et super astrigeros erigis ora polos.

Conderis in solio felix regina superbo,
Cingeris et niveis lactea virgo choris.
Nobile nobilior circumsistente senatu,
Consulibus celsis celsior ipsa sedes.

Sic iuxta genitum regem regina perennem,
Ornata ex partu, mater opima, tuo.”
The lines are found in Miscellanea, lib. 3, cap. 7; PL, 88, 282; the poem belongs to

152

MARIOLOGY

In the seventh century, only Isidore, Archbishop of Seville in
Spain (f 636), breaks the silence, but simply to attest our profound
ignorance on the way Mary left this earth. "Some affirm that she
quit this life by suffering a cruel, violent death. Their reason is that
Simeon . . . said: ‘And thy own soul a sword shall pierce.’ As a
matter of fact, we do not know whether he was speaking of a
material sword or of God’s word that is powerful and keener than
any two-edged sword (Hebr. 4:12). The point is, however, that
no narrative informs us that Mary was slain by the punishment
of the sword, seeing that nowhere is there an account even of her
death. Some do say, though, that her tomb is to be found in the
Valley of Josaphat.”194 Isidore echoes Ambrose: we have no evidence
that Mary died a martyr. He echoes Epiphanius too: we have no
information at all about her death. We learn from Isidore that the
thesis of Mary’s martyrdom still persists; we leam, too, of the Jeru­
salem tradition on her tomb —a tradition which leaves him quite
unmoved. We leam nothing about the Assumption.
A century later, the English Bede confesses his ignorance of the
final disposition of Mary’s body. He has read the account given
by Adamnam, Iona’s Abbot, of the pilgrimage undertaken by the
French Bishop, Arculf, between 670 and 685.195* He reproduces
therefrom the data on the reputed death of Mary on Mt. Sion, and
the empty tomb in the Valley of Josaphat, “in which holy Mary is
said to have rested for a while; but who took her away, or when,
we do not know.’’198 Bede shows no awareness of an anticipated
resurrection. He may well have heard of it; after all, he was familiar
with Pseudo-Melito. But he attacks this apocryphal work in sharp
tones. Not, it is true, on the score of the Assumption; but his general
criticism could hardly have encouraged in his readers any sort of
confidence in Pseudo-Melito, even on the theological level.197
With this patristic background it will not be surprising to find
the series of those written before 576; there is some doubt whether these lines
were really composed by Fortunatus, but cf. H. Weisweiler, in Scholastik, Vol. 28,
>953. P· 520·
104 Isidore, De ortu et obitu patrum, cap. 67, n. lia; PL, 83, 148-149· A later re­
daction presents the existence of the Jerusalem tomb as absolutely certain; cf. PL,
83, 1285-1286.
195 Cf. Adamnan, De locis sacris, lib. 1, cap. 12; C.S.E.L., 39, 240-241.
199 Cf. Bede, Liber de locis sanctis, cap. 2 and 5; C.S.E.L., 39, 306, 309-310.
197 Cf. Bede, Liber retractationis in Actus apostolorum, cap. 8; PL, 92, 10141015. On the three Marian homilies falsely attributed to Bede, cf. Jugie, op. cit., p.
272, note 2.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT

153

die first orators of the feast of August 15 in the West —Paul the
Deacon, for example — consistently wary of pronouncing on Mary’s
corporeal resurrection; a far cry from Pseudo-Modestus of Jerusa­
lem, Germanus of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John of
Damascus.198 It will not be surprising to find in Spain, at the close
of the eighth century, some Asturians direcdy denying Mary’s
Assumption — the first to do so, as far as the evidence goes.199 It
will not be surprising to see develop in the ninth century, beside
the tradition favorable to the Assumption represented by Pseudo­
Augustine, another current of thought represented by Pseudo­
Jerome and hostile, if not to the doctrine, at least to an unequivocal
affirmation of the doctrine as somehow binding.200 For the silence
of the first three centuries has been broken in the West only by
unambiguous affirmations which have the disadvantage of being
tagged as apocryphal, or by genuinely patristic affirmations which
reveal a regrettable indifference, uncertainty, or ignorance.
On the other hand, the silence is a relative thing and rather elo­
quent. Faller has undertaken to show that the early reticence is
perfectly understandable, seeing that several more fundamental
facets of Christian belief, such as the Trinity and Christology,
had first to be confronted, before Mariology could claim attention.201
Cayré, too, has indicated how the initial silence with respect to
Mary is normal rather than surprising, for it goes back to her role
in the early Church: “Fier vocation was not to command, but to
love and to pray, two functions that call for silence. . . .”202 The
silence in question, theologians insist, does not reflect an absence
of life; the life, the doctrine, is there in germ. The seed is discov­
erable in the patristic thesis of recapitulation, the Eve-Mary paral­
lelism proposed by Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ambrose, the
108 Cf. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 272—274.
199 Cf. the correspondence between Bishop Ascarius and his friend, Tuscaredus;
PL, 99, 1233, 1235. The Asturians in question insisted that Mary had died like
anyone else, and that her body was still in the tomb awaiting the glorious resurrec­
tion. The thesis scandalized Ascarius; Tuscaredus replied that we have no evidence
of a violent death, or of any death for that matter. It would seem that Tuscaredus
believed in Mary’s glorious immortality.
200 Cf. Pseudo-Jerome, Epist. 9: Ad Paulam et Eustochium de assumptione B.M.V.,
n. 2; PL, 30, 127—128; Pseudo-Augustine, De assumptione B.M.V., n. 2-9; PL,
40, 1143—1148. On the problem of authorship, cf. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 278, 290-291.
201 Cf. Faller, op. cit., pp. 69-76.
202 Cf. F. Cayré, L’Assomption aux quatre premiers siècles: Etat embryonnaire de
la doctrine, in Studia Mariana, Vol. 4: Vers le dogme de l'Assomption (Montréal,
1948). p· 135 ff·

’54

MARIOLOGY

analogy which associates the New Eve with the New Adam in a
total triumph over Satan.203 The seed is there in the twin privileges
of divine motherhood and deathless virginity. Insight into these
mysteries would lead to increasing reverence for the sacredness of
the body which knew only God, to a realization that this body
could not fittingly know corruption.204
These and other seeds of an Assumption doctrine are discoverable
in Western patristic thought, but it would be sheer unsupported
theorizing to suppose that the patristic West recognized the seeds
for what they were. As the age of the Fathers draws to a close, the
West is on the point of confronting the problem of Mary’s destiny
on theological grounds. On this score the task of theological elabora­
tion has not kept pace with the Eastern development. What Jouassard has concluded of the patristic world as a whole, must surely
be said of the West:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought — as some
theologians still do today under one form or another — to transmit to
us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the
beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an
attitude would not fit the facts. . . . Patristic thought has not, in this
instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission; rather
has it been the precious agent of a task that has enlisted the cooperation
of all manner of people — authentic theologians, and individuals too
who cannot claim that title. Both have played their part in harmony
with the capacity of each; they will continue to play it in the years
to come. . . .20S
203 Cf. C. F. De Vine, The Fathers of the Church and the Assumption, in Vers le
dogme de l’Assomption, pp. 408-410.
204 Faller has developed these and other principles at length; cf. op. cit., pp.
77-128.
205 Jouassard, L'Assomption corporelle, pp. 115-116. A word of caution is not
impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the his­
torian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical
tradition on Mary’s corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The con­
clusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be
touched. The historian’s mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from
tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor
is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition. Cf. W. J. Burghardt,
The Catholic Concept of Tradition in the Light of Modern Theological Thought,
in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention (Catholic Theological Society of
America, 1951), pp· 73-75· It is not true to say, with V. Bennett, that tradition "is
but another name for the historical evidence of what the Church taught and believed
in other ages”; The Assumption: A Postscript, in Theology, Vol. 54, 1951, p. 410.

MARY IN WESTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT
*

*

155

¥

Not a few aspects of Marian theology with seeds in the early
Christian West have inevitably been omitted from these pages.
There is, for example, the complex, intriguing problem of the rela­
tionship between Mary and the Church; here it is Justin and
Irenaeus and Tertullian, Ambrose and Augustine, who have had
the initial significant insights.209 There is the lovely concept of
Mary’s Queenship, exercised not by jurisdiction but by interces­
sion.207 There is the idea of Mary’s universal Mediation, rooted in
her function as Second Eve and suggested so vividly by Ambrose.208
There is much more, but perhaps enough has been said in this
study to insinuate that the treasures of patristic Mariology are not
the legitimate plaything of aprioristic speculation, nor will they
reveal themselves in their totality to unaided historical analysis. The
thought of the Fathers on Our Lady will be mined in its purity
only by theologians with a feeling for philology, and by philologists
deeply rooted in theology.
200 C£. A. Müller, Ecclesia-Maria: Die Einheit Marias und der Kirche (Fribourg,
1951); G. Montague, The Concept of Mary and the Church in the Fathers, in The
American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 123, 1950, pp. 331-337; K. Delehaye, Maria,
Typus der Kirche, in Wissenschaft und Weisheit, Vol. 12, 1949, pp. 79-92.
20T Cf. H. Barré, La royauté de Marie pendant les neuf premiers siècles, in Re­
cherches de science religieuse, Vol. 29, 1939, 129-162, 303-334; A. Luis, La realeza
de Maria (Madrid, 1942); M. J. Donnelly, The Queenship of Mary during the
Patristic Period, in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 82-108.
208 Cf. the articles of Bover cited in footnote 16.

Mary in tke Apocrypha of tlie
New Testament
By ALFRED C. RUSH, C.SS.R., S.T.D.

N THIS section on Mary in the Apocrypha of the New Testa­
ment no attempt will be made to mention every single reference
to Mary; rather, sufficient references will be gathered that indicate
a trend. These trends in Mariology will be high-lighted. It is with
the Mariology of the Apocrypha that these pages are primarily
concerned. In other words, no attempt will be made to reconstruct
the series of events of Mary’s life as given in these documents.
Only those events will be given that are necessary background for
understanding the Mariological principles and truths stressed in
these works.
The Mariology of the Apocrypha is a most fitting theme, espe­
cially when one considers the nature of the Apocrypha. The
Apocrypha of the New Testament are works which attempt to
supply added information regarding the lives of Christ, Mary, and
the Apostles. To enlarge on the information contained in the
canonical Scriptures, to supply information not given there, and to
edify their readers, the authors of these works give free play to
their imaginations. These writings abound in accounts of the
miraculous that are frequently fantastic. At times, these works
were used by heretics, especially the Gnostics, as vehicles for their
tenets. To lend weight to their accounts, the writers pose as Apostles
or as people closely associated with the Apostles. Thus, side by
side with the canonical writings, there grew up apocryphal Gospels,
Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses.
Although, generally speaking, these works are of little historical
value, in the sense of being reliable accounts of the historical events
narrated, they are of tremendous value along other lines. They fur­
nish a deep insight into the mentality of the times in which they
were written. They show the tendencies and customs, and attest

I

156

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

157

to the beliefs of early Christian times. Hence, they are of importance
for the theologian and the historian of dogma. Specifically, they
are of great value for the study of Mariology. With this information,
we can now proceed to the subject of the Mariology in the
Apocrypha.1

EXCEPTIONAL BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS OF MARY
Any mention of Mary and the Apocrypha will have to begin
with the Protoevangelium of James, a work that purports to be
written by James the Less, the first bishop of Jerusalem. In its
original form it dates from about the middle of the second century
and was probably written by a Christian of Jewish origin who
lived outside of Palestine.2 This work shows the great part that Mary
occupied in popular piety at this early date. The aim of the author
is the glorification of Mary, Virgin and Mother, and this is the first
in a long line of works down through the ages that have set
out to proclaim the glories of Mary.3
Already in the second century, attacks were made against Christ
by attacking His Mother. Christ, it was charged, was born of a
poor country girl who obtained her livelihood by spinning. Sent
away by her spouse who was a carpenter on the charge of adultery,
she gave birth to Jesus, the son of a soldier by the name of Pantherus.4 Living in a milieu where such charges were made, Pseudo­
James shows his indignation. In the Bible he saw that there were
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in the birth of people
whom God destined for great work. To cite one, mention can be
made of the extraordinary events surrounding the conception and
birth of St. John the Baptist.5 Mary, who was to be the Mother of
Christ, was not less favored. She received not only the same favors
1 For information on the Apocrypha, cf. J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. i (West­
minster, Md., 1950), pp. 106-157; A. Robert and A. Tricot, Guide to the Bible,
English translation prepared under the direction of E. Arbez and M. McGuire,
Vol. I (Westminster, Md., 1951), pp. 61-69; B· Altaner, Patrologie (Freiburg
i/Br., 1950), pp. 45-67; E. Amann, Apocryphes du nouveau testament, in Diction­
naire de la bible, supplément, Vol. 1 (1928), cols. 460-533.
2 J. Quasten, op. cit., pp. 119-121. The term Protoevangelium is the usual desig­
nation for this Gospel of James. This is the name given to the work by Postel in
15523 E. Amann, Le protoévangile de Jacques et ses remaniements latins (Paris, 1910),
pp. vii, to.
* Origen, Contra Celsum, 1. 32 (G.C.S., Vol. 1, 1899, p. 83, ed. Koetachau;
PL, il, 720 f.).
5 Lk. i : 5-25, 57-80.

i58

MARIOLOGY

as John and other saints of the Old Testament, but she received
these blessings in a more excellent manner.
Pseudo-James then states that Mary was the child of Joachim
and Anna, a child who was given by God to this elderly couple
who had prayed to Him to remove the curse of sterility and bless
them with offspring.6 The exceptional element in the birth of Mary
is that she was a child obtained by prayer, that she was bom of a
woman advanced in years and sterile. The author, however, ob­
viously thought that the conception of Mary took place by the
normal union of husband and wife, and was not a miraculous virginal
conception. Thus, he writes of Joachim: “The angel of the Lord
came down to him saying: Joachim, Joachim, the Lord God has
heard your prayer. Go down from here for your wife Anna will
conceive in her womb.” When Joachim came, Anna ran up to
meet him and exclaimed: “Now I know that the Lord my God
has blessed me exceedingly. For behold the widow is no longer a
widow. I who was without child shall conceive.”7 In all probability
the original text uses the future, that is, “your wife will conceive”
and “I shall conceive.” Some versions and recensions use the past
tense and postulate that Mary was conceived by a virginal
conception.8
When Mary was three years old she was presented in the Tem­
ple.8 There she lived as a model of purity until the time came when
she was presented to Joseph. This part will be taken up under the
Virginity of Mary.

THE VIRGINITY OF MARY
If the Protoevangelium set out to glorify Mary by reason of her
birth, it aimed to glorify her all the more by proclaiming and
defending her absolute and perpetual virginity. The author aims
to leave no doubt that Mary was a virgin ante partum, in partu,
and post partum.™
6 Protoevangelium Jacobi, 1-6 (Amann, pp. 178-198). The text can also be
found in C. Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha (Leipzig, 1876), pp. 1-50; C. Michel,
Evangiles apocryphes, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1911), pp. 2-50.
7 Protoevangelium, 4. 2-4 (Amann, pp. 192-194).
8 E. Amann, op. cit., pp. 17-22; X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in Dic­
tionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. 7, 1927, cols. 875-877.
0 On the feast of the Presentation of Mary, cf. Sr. M. J. Kishpaugh, The Feast
of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple. An Historical and Literary
Study (Washington, D. C., 1941).
10 J· Quasten, op. cit., p. 121.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

159

The Gospel proclaims the exceptional birth of Christ from
Mary.11 From early times the virginity of Mary was part of Catho­
lic belief, and the expression, natus ex Maria virgine, was part of
the Christian catechesis and contained in the various symbols of
faith.12 In Catholic thought it was taken for granted that the word
“virgin” when applied to Mary meant absolute and perpetual vir­
ginity. There was no need of going into specific details. However,
the second century saw attacks on the virginity of Mary. The
general attitude is summed up in the charge that Jesus invented
the story of His virgin birth, that he was bom of fornication.13 It is
against such a background that the author of the Protoevangelium
rallied to the defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity.14
According to the Protoevangelium, Mary was consecrated to God
by the vow of her mother who exclaimed: “As the Lord my God
lives, if I bring forth either a boy or a girl, I will bring it as a
gift to the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering to Him all the
days of its life.”15 By this act Mary was vowed to the service of God
by perpetual virginity. In this account, however, Mary is regarded
almost as a purely physical agent in the work of the Redemption.
Tire author accentuates a purity in Mary that can be described as a
legal or exterior purity, and he overlooks the freedom of will on
Mary’s part in all this work. Flence, when the general theme of the
Protoevangelium appeared in the Western aprocryphon of Pseudo­
Matthew there was a reaction against such an attitude. In this we
see that it is Mary who, of her own free will, resolves to remain
a virgin. Pseudo-Matthew relates that the priest Abiathar wanted
to take Mary as a wife for his son, and then he goes on with the
following account: “Mary forbade them to do this and said: It
cannot happen that I know a man or that a man knows me. Then
the priests and all her relatives said to her: God is honored by
children and He is adored by descendants. It has always been such
in Israel. Mary answering them said: God is honored first of all by
chastity. . . . This is what I have learned in the temple of God
11 Mt. 1:18-25; Lie. 1:26-38; Jn. 1:13.
12 E. Dublanchy, S.M., Marie: Enseignement néo-testamentaire sur la virginité
de Marie, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, cols. 2341-2349;
Enseignement traditionnel concernant la virginité de la Mère de Dieu, ibid., cols.
2369-2373.
13 Origen, Contra Celsum, 1. 32; Acta Pilati, 2. 3 (Tischendorf, p. 224).
11 E. Amann, Le 'protoévangile de Jacques, pp. 10—15.
16 Protoevangelium Jacobi, 4. 1 (Amann, p. 192).

i6o

MARIOLOGY

since my youth, namely, that a virgin can be dear to God. This is
why I have resolved in my heart never to know man.”16 Interpreting
the Protoevangelium in this way, Pseudo-Matthew, who wrote in
the sixth century, is merely reflecting the thought of previous writers
who saw in Mary a model of virginity and one who consecrated
herself to God by a vow of virginity.17
In the Protoevangelium, then, Mary is vowed to God as a virgin
to whom marriage was excluded. This poses an acute problem for
the author of the Protoevangelium with regard to the relationship
between Mary and Joseph. On the one hand he must admit a
conjugal bond because of the testimony of the New Testament;
on the other hand he must hold to the virginity of Mary. It is
because of this that his language and his descriptions of the rela­
tionship between the two is somewhat obscure and vacillating.
Stressing the virginity of Mary ante partum, he concentrates more
on the fact that Mary was given to Joseph as a charge; she was
given to Joseph who, by reason of his age, could guard her intact.18
Going on to give further proof that Mary was a virgin ante parturn, the Protoevangelium insists, in the language of the New Testa­
ment, that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he
represents both Joseph and Mary as submitting to the trial of drink­
ing the bitter waters to show their complete innocence of all guilt
in the matter of Mary’s pregnancy.18
Mary was not only a virgin ante partum, but also a virgin in par­
tu. The virginity of Mary in partu is really the "idée capitale" of
the Protoevangelium. To give proof of his belief in this aspect of
Mary’s virginity, the author of the account has the condition of
Mary attested to by a midwife. By these minute physical details
the author emphasizes not only the virginity of Mary but also the
actuality and reality of Christ who took flesh ex Maria.20
18 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Beatae Mariae et infantia Salvatoris, 7 (Amann,
pp. 300-304). The text is also found in C. Tischendorf, Evangelic apocrypha, pp.
51—112; C. Michel, Evangiles apocryphes, Vol. 1, pp. 54-158.
17 E. Dublanchy, Marie: Le voue de virginité émis par Marie, in Dictionnaire de
théologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, col. 2386.
18 On this problem, cf. È. Amann, op. cit., pp. 24-27.
19 Protoevangelium, 13-17 (Amann, pp. 230-242). The author accommodates
here to suit his own purpose the trial of drinking the bitter water mentioned in Num.
5: 12 ff.
20 Protoevangelium, 19-20 (Amann, pp. 250-256). The virginity of Mary in
partu is also mentioned in such early apocrypha as the Ascension of Isaias, 11:
2-11; Odes of Solomon, 19: 6-10. On these documents, cf. J. Plumpe, Some Littleknown Early Witnesses to Mary's Virginitas in Partu, in Theological Studies, Vol.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

161

In the Protoevangelium Mary was not only a virgin ante partum
and in partu; she also remained a virgin post partum. Her consecra­
tion and dedication to God demanded this. However, to leave no
room for doubt in this matter and to show his belief in this fact,
the author portrays St. Joseph as an old man, as a widower, who
had children by his first wife and not by Mary.*
21 Incidentally, it is
in this way that he solves the problem of the brethren of Jesus.22
There are ever so many documents in which the events described
in the Protoevangelium are utilized and recalled, and which empha­
size the above-mentioned virtues of Mary. It would take us too far
afield to go into them, but at least some of the main ones can be
mentioned. There are, of course, tire various versions of the Proto­
evangelium in Syriac,23 Ethiopie,24 and Armenian.25*
27There are no
direct Latin translations, but there are Latin elaboration as seen in
the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew from the sixth century28* and the
work on the infancy of Mary from the Carolingian period.21 Addi­
tional matter is found in the Coptic lives of the Virgin28 and the
history of St. Joseph.28 To these may be added the various Infancy
Gospels.30
Once the virginity of Mary had been so vigorously defended and
emphasized in the Protoevangelium and its allied documents, we
find that later Apocrypha speak of Mary’s virginity in the celebrated
9, 1948, pp. 567—577. For the testimony of the Epistola Apostolorum, 3, c£. J.
Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I, p. 151.
21 Protoevangelium, 9: 2—3 (Amann, pp. 216-218).
22 E. Amann, op. cit., pp. 36-39.
23 A. Lewis, Apocrypha syriaca: Protoevangelium, in Studia sinaitica, Vol. 11,
1902, pp. 1-12.
21 M. Chaîne, Apocrypha de B. Maria Virgine: Liber nativitatis Mariae, in Corpus
scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, set. 1, Vol. 7, 1909, pp. 1-16.
25 F. Conybeare, Protoevangelium Mariae, in American Journal of Theology, Vol.
1, 1897, pp. 424-442.
20 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Beatae Mariae et infantia Salvatoris (Amann,
pp. 272-339).
27 De nativitate Mariae (Amann, pp. 340-365). The text can also be found in
C. Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, pp. 113—121. Dom Lambert (Revue Bénédic­
tine, Vol. 46, 1934, pp. 275-282) argues that this is a work of Paschasius Radbertus.
28 F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Sahidic Fragments of the Life of the
Virgin, in Texts and Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1896, pp. 1-41.
20 F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Bohairic Accounts of the Death of
Joseph, with Sahidic Fragments, ibid., pp. 130-185; P. Peeters, Histoire de Joseph
le charpentier, in Evangiles apocryphes, Vol. 1, pp. 193-245. Cf. S. Morenz, Die
Geschichte von Joseph dem Zimmerman, iibersetzt, erlautert und untersucht (Texte
und Untersuchungen, Vol. 56) (Berlin, 1951).
30 P. Peeters, Evangiles apocryphes, Vol. 2, L'évangile de l'enfance (Paris, 1914).

ι6ζ

MARIOLOGY

phrase “ever-Virgin.” This is very noticeable in the literature known
as the Transitus Mariae.31 To the Latin writer, Pseudo-Melito,
Mary is beata semper virgo Maria.32 The Greek writer, Pseudo-John,
speaks of Mary as one who was ever a virgin. To him she is
αειπάρθενος.33
Mary, who was always a virgin, was a virgin both in body and
soul. The Coptic account of Theodosius, speaking of the reunion
of the body and soul of Mary in heavenly glory, refers to Ps. 44:15,
which speaks of the virgins who will be brought to the King. With
this as his background he goes on to say: “Then we understood
that today there were brought to the King virgins, even the soul
and body which were united.”3'1
In this literature the virginity of Mary is regarded as a postulate
for her Assumption and for the privilege of not undergoing the
corruption of the grave. Thus, in the work of Pseudo-Melito, when
Christ came to raise Mary from the dead, He is pictured as saying:
“Arise, my love and my kinswoman, thou who didst not suffer
corruption by carnal intercourse, thou shalt not suffer corruption
in the sepulchre.”35
MARY’S DIVINE MATERNITY
With regard to Mary’s divine Maternity there is a parallel be­
tween the presentation of this doctrine in the Apocrypha and in
the patristic tradition. Although this truth is not explicitly affirmed
in the New Testament, it is manifestly contained in the truth that
Mary conceived and brought forth Jesus, that Mary is the Mother
of Jesus who is the Verbum, the Second Person of the Blessed
Trinity, and that everything that concerns Jesus must be attributed
to the Person of the Word who is true God.36 Furthermore, the
period up to the fourth century is characterized by an evident
affirmation of the fact of the divine Maternity, even though the
31 Pertinent data on the Transitus Mariae literature will be given below when they
are studied in connection with the death and Assumption of Mary.
32 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, prolog. (C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses
apocryphae [Leipzig, 1866], p. 124, note). In the edition of Tischendorf this pro­
logue is given as a note; in other editions it is given as Chapter 1. This accounts for
the difference in the number of chapters.
33 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae, i (Tischendorf, p. 95).
34 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 9. 14 (Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal
Gospels, p. 127).
35 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 16. i (Tischendorf, p. 135).
30 E. Dublanchy, Marie: Enseignement néo-testamentaire sur la maternité divine,
in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, col. 2340.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

163

expression “Mother of God” was not formally employed. In the
second and third centuries the traditional teaching was directed
against the erroneous tenet that attributed to Jesus an apparent body
or a body that was not material like ours. To combat this, it was
asserted that Jesus was born ex Maria, and that Jesus, natus ex
Maria, is God.37 In this early period, also, the doctrine of the divine
Maternity is found in the formulas of the creed, such as, “born of
the Virgin,” “born of Mary,” and “born of the Holy Spirit and of
die Virgin Mary.” In the fourth and fifth centuries we have the
use of the explicit term Theotokos, and an investigation of the theo­
logical principle on which this truth rests.38 With the Council of
Ephesus and the definition of Mary’s divine Maternity, this doctrine
is the focal point in Mariology. Prior to this time there was more
emphasis on the virginity of Mary, and on the concept of Mary as
the New Eve; now she is pre-eminently the Theotokos and there is a
constant emphasis on the Mater Dei theme.
The early apocryphal literature, e.g., the Protoevangelium and
its allied documents, stressed, as was seen, the virginity of Mary. In
keeping with the parallel literature of the patristic tradition, there is
no explicit emphasis on the divine Maternity. Here the divine
Maternity is expressed merely by repeating the expressions in the
Gospels on which this truth is based. Here it should be noted that
the emphasis on the virginity of Mary in these documents is at
the same time a recognition of her divine Maternity. In the phrase,
natus ex Virgine, they stressed the virgo element; the recognition
of motherhood, as is evident, is found in the first part of the phrase
a .
ff
natus ex.
In some of these documents that appeared after the Theotokos
theme became current, there is an emphasis on the divine Maternity.
This is especially noticeable in the Coptic lives of the Virgin.39 The
second Sahidic fragment, after stating that the angel was sent to
give the good tidings to the Virgin, goes out of its way to repeat
the same idea by saying that the angel was sent to the Mother of
87 G. Bareille, Docétisme, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. 4 (1939),
cols. 1484-1501.
38 E. Dublanchy, Marie: Enseignement patristique ou théologique concernant la
maternité divine, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, cols. 23492351; V. Schweitzer, Alter des Titels Theotokos, in Katholik, ser. 3, Vol. 17, 1903,
pp. 97-113; G. Jouassard, Marie à travers la patristique: Maternité divine, virginité,
sainteté, in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), pp. 71—157.
'"F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, pp. 1-41.

i64

MARIOLOGY

God to proclaim to her the great good tidings.40 In these documents
there are many expressions describing the divine Maternity. The
one that merits special attention is the phrase “the holy God­
bearer.” It is as succinct and emphatic as “Sancta Dei Genetrix,”
or our English phrase “Holy Mother of God.”41
It is especially in the Transitus Mariae literature that we find
constant emphasis on the theme of the divine Maternity. This is
only normal in literature that developed after the definition of this
doctrine, when the divine Maternity became the focal point of
Mariology. Just as in the patristic literature, so also in this litera­
ture, Mary is predominantly the Theotokos. The Transitus Mariae
literature high-lights Mary’s divine Maternity in a threefold man­
ner: it constantly calls her the Mother of God; it contains scenes in
which an act of explicit belief is made in Mary’s divine Maternity,
and it exalts Mary’s divine Maternity by proclaiming her Assump­
tion as postulated by this extraordinary privilege.
It would be tedious and repetitious to cite every passage in which
Mary is called the Mother of God. One from the more important
early accounts must suffice. In the complete Syriac version, the
angel appears to Mary and announces: “Hail to thee, Mother of
God! Thy prayer has been accepted in heaven before thy Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ.”42 The sixth-century Coptic account of Theo­
dosius is written in honor of the “Lady of us all, the holy God­
bearer Mary.”43 The account of Pseudo-Melito speaks of the de­
parture of the “Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God.”44
To Pseudo-John, Mary is the “all-holy glorious Mother of God.”45
The constant repetition of this title is like a growing crescendo.
Actually, one would have to read these documents personally to
see how they are pervaded with the theme of Mary’s divine Mater­
nity. A faint idea can be had of this when it is realized that in the
account of Pseudo-John, which takes up about nine pages of
actual text in the edition of Tischendorf, there are at least fifty
references stating outrightly or equivalently that Mary is the
Mother of God.
40 Sahidic Fragment 2, B (Robinson, p. 17).
41 Sahidic Fragment, 4 (Robinson, p. 39).
42 Transitus Mariae, i (Lewis, Apocrypha syriaca, p. 21).
43 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary (Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gos­
pels, p. 91).
44 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, Prolog (Tischendorf, Apocalypses
apocryphae, p. 124, note).
45 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae, I (Tischendorf, p. 95).

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

165

These documents also high-light Mary’s divine Maternity by
portraying scenes in which individuals make an express profession
of faith in Mary as the Mother of God. In the Greek account of
Pseudo-John, as in many others, there is the story of Jephonias who
tried to harm the body of Mary as it was being brought to burial.
As he did this an angel cut his two hands from off his body and
left them hanging in the air about the bed. When the people saw
this they cried out: “Truly, He is the true God who was bom of
thee, Mary, Mother of God, ever-Virgin.” Jephonias himself ex­
claimed: “Holy Mary, thou didst bear Christ who is God, have
mercy on me.”46 The complete Syriac account pictures the same
person, who is here called Yuphanya, as setting out to proclaim Mary
among the Jews. When the Jews were astonished at his message
he explained how he had been cured and then he goes on to say:
“I have become a disciple of Jesus the Son of the glorious God,
and of Mary His Mother who bore him. . . . And I believe in her
that she is the Mother of God.”47
It must be recalled that the Transitus Mariae is a type of popular
literature. In literature of this kind, such cases in which people
were won over and made explicit professions of faith in Mary as
the Mother of God was the type of proof that would have a natural
appeal to the popular mind. This is the closest that this literature
comes to the tendency in patristic literature of pointing out the
theological principle that justifies the use of the expression
Theotokos.**
Finally, these documents stress the divine Maternity of Mary by
postulating a special glorification for her after her death, precisely
because she is the Mother of God. Thus, in die Latin account of
Pseudo-Melito, Peter and the Apostles say to Christ: “If therefore
it might be brought about by the power of Thy grace it has seemed
right to us Thy servants that as Thou, having overcome death,
reignest in glory, so Thou shouldst raise up the body of Thy
Mother and take her with Thee rejoicing in heaven.”49
The Coptic account of Theodosius has a similar emphasis. When
Christ came to raise up the body of Mary and glorify her in body
and soul, He is portrayed as standing over the coffin and saying:
1,1 Pseudo-John. Liber de dormitione Mariae, 47 (Tischendorf, p. 110).
Transitus Mariae, 3 (Lewis, p. 51).
48 E. Dublanchy, Marie: Enseignement patristique au IV et au commencement
du V siècle, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, cols. 2351—2355.
4« Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 15. 3 (Tischendorf, p. 135).

166

MARIOLOGY

"Arise from thy sleep, O thou holy body, which was to Me a temple.
. . . Arise. Why sleepest thou yet in the earth? Array thyself with
thy soul, and come to the heavens with Me, unto My good Father
and the Holy Spirit; for they long for thee. Arise, O thou holy
body, from which I built Me My flesh in a manner incompre­
hensible; wear thy soul which was to Me a dwelling place. . . .
Arise, O thou holy body; be joined to the blessed soul. Receive from
Me thy resurrection before the whole creation.”50

THE DEATH OF MARY
The death of Mary, together with her final lot after death, is
treated in the apocryphal literature known as the Transitus Mariae.
The Transitus attempts to give information on these matters and
thus supply for the silence of the canonical Scripture on these
points. There is a great deal of controversy with regard to the
locality and the time in which this literature developed. It seems
that this type of literature developed in Syria in the fifth century
after the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus had given
a great impetus to the development of Mariology.51 The Transitus
was an extremely popular type of literature as seen from the
accounts in Syriac, Latin, Greek, Coptic, and other languages.52
Before discussing the treatment of Mary’s death, something must
be said about the nature of these documents and Mary’s outlook
on death. With regard to the nature of these documents, it can
be said that the authors of these works, with their attention riveted
on the glories of Mary, the Theotokos, began to write about the
marvels and miracles that were associated with Mary’s last days on
earth and with her passing from this earth. The writers surcharge
their accounts with descriptions of the miraculous that are utterly
fantastic, and which manifest bad taste not only theologically but
artistically. With regard to this specific aspect of the nature and
style of these works, B. Altaner offers a valid explanation. There is
a certain parallel between the Transitus literature and the legendary
Acts of the Martyrs insofar as fictitious episodes are introduced and
extraordinary miracles are multiplied. There was a keen disappoint50 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 8. io ff. (Robinson, pp. 121-123).
51 M. Jugie, A.A., La mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge (Studi e testi,
Vol. 114) (Vatican City, 1924), pp. 108, 169.
52 C. Bali<$, O.F.M., Testimonia de Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis. Pars
prior (Rome, 1948), pp. 14-65, 137-153; M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 103-171; A. C.
Rush, The Assumption in the Apocrypha, in The American Ecclesiastical Review,
Vol. 116, 1947, pp. 5-31.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

167

ment in Christian circles over tire fact that the genuine data on so
many outstanding personages of the early centuries was unknown.
Consequently, writers gave free rein to their imagination in writing
up the acts of the martyrs and lives of the saints; the period from
the fourth to the sixth century was noted for such legendary works
and it is within the limits of this period that the Transitus devel­
oped, furnishing fictionalized episodes of Mary’s last days on earth
and multiplying miracles at will.53
Regarding Mary’s outlook on death, it can be said that these
documents are notorious for playing up the horrors of the exitus
animae, that is, the horror of the devil at death and the many foes
that the soul encounters in its journey to eternity.54 Some docu­
ments have the bad taste to submit Mary to such a mentality of
fear, and this is very probably one of the reasons why the Transitus
literature met with disfavor and was rejected by the decree known
as the Decretum Gelasianum.56 Actually, what these authors are
doing is projecting a very popular eschatological mentality into
Mary. It is impossible for them to write about death without
stressing the ever popular theme, the exitus animae. As versions
63 B. Altaner, Zur Frage der Definibilitat der Assumptio B.M.V., in Theologische
Revue, Vol. 44, 1948, p. 136. In this and the corresponding articles in the Theo­
logische Revue, Vol. 45, 1949, pp. 129-142, and Vol. 46, 1950, pp. 5-20, Altaner
placed too much emphasis on historical tradition; he tried to discover the teaching
of the Church’s dogmatic tradition by a sheerly historical method. Cf. W. Burg­
hardt, S.J., The Catholic Concept of Tradition in the Light of Modern Theological
Thought, in The Catholic Theological Society of America, Proceedings of the Sixth
Annual Convention (1951), p. 73; J. Temus, Zur historisch-theologischen Tradition
der Himmelfahrt Martens, in Scholastik, Vol. 25, 1950, pp. 321—360.
64 For the exitus animae theme in ancient Christian writers, cf. J. Quasten, Die
Grabinschrift des Beratius Nikatoras, in Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen
Instituts, Rômische Abteilung, Vol. 53, 1938, pp. 50-69; A. C. Rush, C.SS.R.,
Death and Burial in Christian Antiquity (Studies in Christian Antiquity, Vol. 1,
Washington, D. C., 1941), 32-35. In the Transitus Mariae literature the terror
of the exitus animae is portrayed very graphically in the Coptic accounts. Inci­
dentally, this was a favorite theme with such early Egyptian writers as Origen,
Homilia 23 in Lucam (G.C.S., Vol. 9, p. 154, ed. Rauer): Athanasius, Vita S.
Antonii, 65 (PG, 26, 933); Cyril of Alexandria, Hamilia 14: De exitu animi (PG,
77, 1073)· When a Latin version of the Transitus mentions (even though more
moderately) a description of the exitus animae, it does this not simply as something
borrowed from and patterned on the Eastern Transitus theme, but as something
that played a part in Western culture as well. Cf. A. C. Rush, An Echo of Christian
Antiquity in St. Gregory the Great: Death a Struggle with the Devil in Traditio,
Vol. 3, 1945, pp. 369-380.
88 On the Decretum Gelasianum, cf. B. Altaner, Patrologie, p. 414; G. Bardy,
Gelase, decret de, in Dictionnaire de la bible, Supplément, Vol. 3, 1938, cols. 579590.

ι68

MARIOLOGY

of the Transitus multiplied and were written more in keeping with
true Catholic sense, this aspect was decidedly toned down, e.g., in
the account of Pseudo-Melito. Even in documents where this
mentality is highly pronounced, there are indications that Mary
was not entirely dominated by it.56
Turning now to the question of Mary’s death, the Transitus
literature portrays Mary's departure from this world as a departure
by death, the common lot of mankind. It excludes both martyrdom
and immortality. To these authors the most obvious solution was
that she died a natural death. The Greek account of Pseudo-John
is actually a discourse on the Falling Asleep of Mary, κοίμησή being
an accepted Christian expression to designate the sleep of death.57
Pseudo-Melito speaks of Mary’s death as the departure of the
Blessed Mary ever Virgin, the Mother of God. This departure took
place by the ordinary process of the soul being taken out of the
body.58 Mary was to be subject to death, the universal law for man;
she, however, would meet it in victory. Thus, when Mary prayed
to Christ to be delivered from the power of darkness, and asked
that she see not the ugly spirits coming to meet her, Christ says
to her: “When I was sent by My Father for the salvation of the
world and was hung on the Cross, the prince of darkness came
to Me. But because he was unable to find any vestige of his work
in Me, he departed conquered and crushed. When thou shalt see
him, thou shalt see him in virtue of the common law of mankind,
whereby death is allotted to thee. However, he cannot harm thee,
because I am with thee to help thee. Come, without fear, for the
heavenly hosts await thee to bring thee into the joys of paradise.”58
It is not necessary to use all these documents that mention the
fact that Mary died a natural death. Greater attention, however,
will be given to some of the Coptic accounts because it is especially
in these that there is a more detailed theological speculation on the
death of Mary. In tire sixth-century sermon, written by Theodosius,
56 A. C. Rush, Scriptural Texts and the Assumption in the Transitus Mariae, in
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1950, p. 373.
57 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae (Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae,
pp. 95-112). Jugie (La mort et l’Assomption, p. 117) believes that this dates from
the sixth century in the period between 550 and 580. On the Christian concept of
death as a sleep, cf. A. C. Rush, Death and Burial in Christian Antiquity, pp. 1-22.
68 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 2. i (Tischendorf, p. 125). Jugie
(op. cit., p. in) believes that this is a Catholic adaptation of the work rejected by
the Decretum Gelasianum and that it is to be dated about 550.
00 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, y. 2 (Tischendorf, p. 129).

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

169

the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria,60 when the Apostles were
grieved on hearing that Mary was going to die, she said to them:
“My sons, wherefore do you weep and grieve my spirit? Is it not
written that all flesh must needs taste death? I also must needs
return to the earth, as all the inhabitants of the earth.”61 Theo­
dosius again repeats the fact of Mary’s death by pointing to the
universal law of death and by showing that her death makes her
conformable to Christ. This is seen in the words of Christ addressed
to Mary: Ό My beautiful mother, when Adam transgressed My
commandment I passed upon him a sentence, saying, Adam, thou
art earth and thou shalt return unto the earth again. For also I,
the Life of all men, tasted death in the flesh which I took from
thee, in the flesh of Adam, thy forefather. Yet since My Godhead
was one with it, therefore I raised it from the dead.”62 In the
foregoing words emphasis is placed on the fact that Christ took
flesh from Mary. This is to prove the reality of Christ and is at
the same time a refutation of Docetism. On the same score, Mary’s
death is necessary to show that she was truly human, and conse­
quently to show that Christ and His work were actualities. Thus,
after Christ told Mary that He raised up His flesh because of the
Godhead that was in it, He goes on to say: “I did not wish to
suffer thee to taste death, but to translate thee up to the heavens
as Enoch and Elias. But these also, even they must needs taste
death at last. And if this happens to thee, wicked men will think
concerning thee, that thou art a power (angelic spirit) which came
down from heaven; and that this dispensation took place in appear­
ance. I know the heart of all men, and understand their thoughts.”63
The account of Pseudo-Evodius, who represents himself as a
disciple of St. Peter and his successor at Rome, is very similar to
that of Theodosius in the treatment of Mary’s death.64 When Peter
00 E. Amann, Théodose d'Alexandrie, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique,
Vol. 15, 1946, pp. 325-328. The text is given by F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal
Gospels: Bohairic Accounts of the Falling Asleep of Mary, in Texts and Studies,
Vol. 4, Part 2, 1896, pp. 90-126, and also by M. Chaîne, Sermon de Théodose,
patriarche d'Alexandrie, sur la dormition et l'Assomption de la Vierge, in Revue de
l'Orient Chrétien, Vol. 29, 1933—1934, pp. 272-314. Chaîne gives the long intro­
duction and the conclusion which Robinson omits.
61 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 4—5 (Robinson, p. 107).
02 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 15—18 (Robinson, p. 107 f.).
03 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 18-21 (Robinson, p. 109).
»·> There is an Evodius who is mentioned as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch.
Cf. R. Devresse, Le patriarcat d'Antioche (Paris, 1945), p. 115; F. Robinson,
Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, p. 207. On the problem of the episcopal succession at

i7o

MARIOLOGY

and the rest of the disciples asked Christ if it were not possible
that Mary should never die, this answer is given: “I wonder at
you, O My holy apostles, for this word which you have spoken now.
Can the word which I spoke from the first prove a lie? Nay, God
forbid. But I pronounced a sentence of death from the first upon
all flesh, that they must needs taste death. Because of the flesh which
I took, I also tasted death, I who am the Lord of all men, that I
might loose the pangs of death.”65 When this answer was given
on the certainty of Mary’s deadr, Peter asked Christ if it were not
possible that Mary be allowed to remain with them a while longer.
To this Christ answered: Ό My chosen Peter, knowest thou not
that there is an appointed time laid down for each man to accom­
plish in the world; and when it is fulfilled, it is not possible for him
to stay for a single hour. Now therefore the appointed time of
My mother is fulfilled today. Therefore she must needs lay down
her body, and I will take her up to the heavens with Me in glory.”66
The Transitus Mariae literature, then, takes for granted that
Mary died. It also adduces reasons for her death. Among these
reasons we find the universality of death, the conformity of Mary
to Christ, and the reality of Mary with the consequent reality of
the redemptive work of Christ.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
The Assumption of Mary is a theme that is found in the Transi­
tus Mariae. Important as are the statements on the glorification of
Mary as contained in these documents, it must be kept in mind
that the Transitus is concerned primarily with the death of Mary
and with the miraculous happenings surrounding it. Then, in a
somewhat brief manner, it treats of the final lot of Mary after
death.67 As was noted, this literature developed after the definition
of Ephesus had resulted in an intense awareness of the Theotokos.
Accounts were written of her death and then writers speculated
on the lot of Mary after death. Once there was an actual confrontaAntioch, cf. C. Karalevskij, Antioche: Les origines chrétiennes jusqu’au concile de
Nicéa, in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, Vol. 3, 1924, col.
567.
05 Pseudo-Evodius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 8. 10-13 (Robinson, p. 55).
CG The Falling Asleep of Mary, 8. 16 (Robinson, p. 55).
07 H. Jiirgens, Die kirchliche Ueherlieferung von der leiblichen Aufnahme der
seligsten Gottesmutter in den Himmel, in Zeitschrift für katholische Théologie, Vol.
4, 1890, p. 602.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

171

tion of the death of Mary, this latter problem had to be faced also.
When this took place, the Christian sense of the writers of these
accounts revolted against the idea that one so glorious as Mary
suffered the corruption of the grave; hence, they postulate a glori­
fication of Mary. She who was extraordinary in life, they claim,
was extraordinary in death.
Except for the account which states that the body of Mary will
be hidden in the earth and preserved incorruptible,68 these accounts
postulate a glorification for Mary in body and soul. It is not easy
to pass a definitive judgment on the nature of this glorification due,
in part, to the very involved eschatology of these documents. At any
event, there is no doubt that, in some versions, this glorification is a
genuine assumption, comprising death, the glorification of the soul,
the resurrection of the body, and the reunion of soul and body in
everlasting glory. Others, e.g., the Greek account of Pseudo-John
and derived documents, seem to draw a distinction between the
glorification of the soul and that of the body. According to this,
Mary’s soul is in the heavens, in the treasuries of the Father; her
body is transplanted to an earthly paradise where it is preserved
incorrupt.69
The Syriac fragment from the end of the fifth century, which
Jugie regards as the oldest Transitus,70 in simple language describes
the resurrection of Mary and tire reunion of the body and soul in
paradise. While the Apostles were gathered before the sepulcher of
Mary, Christ appeared with Michael and a host of angels. At the
bidding of Christ, the body of Mary was placed upon the clouds
which then went to the gates of paradise. On entering paradise,
the body of Mary was set down by the tree of life; then her soul
was brought and placed in her body.71
In the Latin account of Pseudo-Melito, which was a quasi-official
version in the Latin Church,72 Christ appeared to the Apostles who
68 Sahidic Fragment of the Life of the Virgin, 4. 82-82 (Robinson, Coptic Apoc­
ryphal Gospels, p. 35). Cf. M. Jugie, La mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge,
p. 126; C. Balié, Testimonia de assumptione, p. 39.
09 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae, 39 (Tischendorf, Apocalypses apo­
cryphae, p. 107!.). On this point, cf. M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 117-126, and the
argumentation of C. Balié, op. cit., pp. 15-23.
70 M. Jugie, op. cit,, p. 108.
71 W. Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament
(London, 1865), p. 46. This fragment is entitled: Obsequies of the Holy Virgin.
72 A. Wilmart, L'ancien récit latin de l’Assomption, in Studi e testi, Vol. 59.
>933· P· 323- In the light °f Ac text here edited by Wilmart, J. Rivière brought

172

MARIOLOGY

were gathered at the sepulcher after burying Mary. Christ said
to them: "Before I ascended to My Father, I promised you saying,
that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the
Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His majesty, you also shall
sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. I
have chosen this woman out of the tribes of Israel by the command
of My Father to be My dwelling place. What, then, do you wish
that I should do with her.” On hearing this, Peter and the Apostles
immediately answered: "Lord, Thou hast chosen this Thy hand­
maid to become Thy immaculate chamber, and us Thy Apostles
for the ministry. Before the ages Thou hast foreknown all things
with the Father, with Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit there
is one equal divinity and infinite power. If, therefore, it might be
brought about by the power of Thy grace, it has seemed right to
us Thy servants that as Thou, having overcome death, reignest in
glory, so Thou shouldst raise up the body of Thy mother and take
her with Thee rejoicing in heaven.”*
73 At once Christ commanded
Michael to bring on the soul of Mary to have it ready to re-enter
her body. In the words of Pseudo-Melito, the resurrection is de­
scribed as follows: “The Lord said: Arise, My love and My kins­
woman, thou who didst not suffer corruption by carnal intercourse,
thou shalt not suffer corruption in the sepulcher. And at once
Mary rose from the tomb, blessed the Lord, and threw herself at
the Lord’s feet, adoring Him and saying: I am not able to offer
Thee fitting thanks, O Lord, for Thy immense benefits, which
Thou hast deigned to confer upon me, Thy handmaid. May Thy
name, O Redeemer of the world, and God of Israel be blessed for
ever.”74 After the Lord had kissed her, Mary was taken up to the
paradise of God together with Christ and the angels.75
The theme of a genuine Assumption is equally clear and em­
phatic in the Coptic account of Theodosius. The mind of Theo­
dosius on the extraordinary glorification of Mary after death is
seen in the threefold announcement of what is going to happen
to Mary. Addressing words of consolation to Peter and John who
forth a study, entitled Le plus vieux Transitus latin et son dérivé grec, in Recherches
de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Vol. 8, 1936, pp. 5—23. Jugie (op. cit., pp.
no, n. i, 150-154) argues that this is an abbreviated Latin version of the Greek
account by John of Thessalonica.
73 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 15. 2—3 (Tischendorf, p. 134).
74 Transitus Beatae Mariae, 16 (Tischendorf, p. 135).
75 Transitus Beatae Mariae, 17 (Tischendorf, p. 135 f.).

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

173

were grieving over the news of Mary’s departure, Christ said: “Be
of good cheer, My friends and Apostles. I will not suffer her to be
long away from you, but she shall appear to you quickly. There
are two hundred and six days from her death until her holy
assumption. I will bring her unto you arrayed in this body again,
even as this body also, as you see her now, whilst she is with you.
And I will translate her up to the heavens to be with My Father
and the Holy Spirit, that she may continue praying for you all.”76
The same promise is made as soon as Mary died.77 As the body of
Mary was being brought to burial, Theodosius pictures a Galilean
as saying under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “This corpse
that is borne, this is the body of Mary, the daughter of Joachim and
Anne, who bore the Messias, who is Christ. He it was who healed
your sick, and gave light to your eyes, and raised your dead. We
believe that as He raised your dead, He will raise His Mother
also, and will take her to the heavens with Him.”78
When the time for the actual Assumption arrived, Christ came
down from heaven and ordered the body to rise. This is the beau­
tiful passage “Arise from thy sleep, O thou holy body” which has
already been quoted in the section on the divine Maternity of Mary.
Describing what then took place, Theodosius goes on to relate:
“When the Lord had said these things over the coffin of stone,
straightway it opened; for it was shut even as the ark of Noah
aforetime, which no man could open save God, who shut it afore­
time. Forthwith the body of the honorable Virgin arose, and
embraced its own soul, even as two brothers who are come from a
strange country, and they were united one with another.”79 Giving
us a final glimpse of Mary, Theodosius states: “She also, at once
Our Lady and our Succorer, blessed us; and we saw them no more.
But the voice of the powers that sang hymns before them was
sounding in our ears, saying: Alleluia. Bring to the Lord glory and
honor; bring to the Lord honor to His holy name. Alleluia. Bring
to the Lord the sons of God, and sing glory in His holy temple.
Alleluia. Then we understood that today there were brought unto
70 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 23-28 (Robinson, Coptic Apocry­
phal Gospels, p. 109). For a study of the belief in the Assumption among the
Copts, cf. A. van Lantschoot, L'Assomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes, in
Gregorianum, Vol. 27, 1946, pp. 493—526.
77 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 6. 13 (Robinson, p. it 3).
78 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 7. 7—10 (Robinson, p. 117).
78 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 9. 1—3 (Robinson, p. 125).

174

MARIOLOGY

the King virgins, even the soul and the body which were united.”80
These are but a few of the many testimonies to Mary’s Assump­
tion in the Apocrypha.81 These apocryphal accounts are extremely
important and interesting, because it is in them that we have the
first testimonies in writing to Mary’s Assumption. This poses a very
weighty and involved problem, namely, the origin of this belief.
This problem is seen to be all the more acute when it is borne in
mind that there is no explicit statement in Scripture regarding
Mary’s Assumption, and that, prior to the Transitus Mariae litera­
ture, there is no patristic tradition on this matter. These facts argue
to the nonexistence of an oral tradition of apostolic origin on tire
final lot of Mary.82
The glorification of Mary after death and the Assumption theme
in the Transitus Mariae, then, demand an explanation. It is
impossible to regard these accounts as reliable historical reports
of the events described. On the other hand, they are not merely
the product of imaginations allowed to run wild. Altaner’s explana­
tion for the bizarre style of these documents, as noted above,83 is
a very valid explanation. However, this does not explain the As­
sumption theme introduced into these documents. For the explana­
tion of this, other factors were at work.
These are accounts that proclaim the glories of Mary. Although
previous to these writings there were no testimonies to Mary’s
Assumption, there was in Sacred Scripture and tradition a definite
corpus Marianum. Mary was revered as the Mother of God, as the
Virgin ante, in, and post partum; she was the New Eve associated
with Christ, the New Adam, in the work of the Redemption. She
was hailed as a creature of unique holiness. Consequently, when
these authors consciously confronted the problem of Mary’s final
lot, their Christian piety revolted against the idea that one so
exceptional underwent the corruption of the grave; they postulated
for her a glorification in body and soul. To them, this glorification
was based on and flowed from the above-mentioned Mariological
80 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 9. 10—15 (Robinson, p. 127).
81 For other accounts of the Assumption, cf. M. Jugie, La mort et l'Assomption,
pp. 103—171; C. Balié, Testimonia de Assumptione, pp. 14-65, 137—153; A. C.
Rush, The Assumption in the Apocrypha, in The American Ecclesiastical Review,
Vol. 116, 1947, pp. 5-31.
82 M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 168-171, 585-589, 609-612.
83 B. Altaner, Zur Frage der Definihilitat der Assumptio B. Μ. V., in Theologische
Revue, Vol. 44, 1948, p. 136.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

175

truths and principles. Hence, in these Apocrypha we have the
origin of the movement to approach the Assumption of Mary from
a theological viewpoint.84 This trend gained tempo with the pass­
ing of the ages. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the
protection of Christ, the Church came to a greater insight into the
deposit of revelation; the Assumption of Mary was a truth believed
and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and was
solemnly declared a dogma of faith by Pope Pius XII on the first
of November, 1950.85
THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY
Explicit testimonies to the Queenship of Mary did not appear
before the fifth century.80 Prior to this time, however, there were
implicit manifestations of this belief.87 The Mater Domini of the
New Testament, where the word Dominus definitely connotes roy­
alty and sovereignty,88 led to the use of the word Domina.89
Similarly, there was the evolution from the concept “Mother of
Christ who is King” to “Mother of the King” and then the explicit
use of the word “Queen.”90
It would not advance the proof in any noticeable way to quote
the passages from the Protoevangelium of James and its allied
documents that repeat the Gospel scenes of the Annunciation, Na­
tivity, and the Visitation which form the basis of this truth. In
the Protoevangelium of James, however, there is a passage that
should be noted. The priests of the Temple decided to have a veil
spun for the temple from various kinds of thread. To make this
veil, young girls were chosen who were virgins and of the tribe of
David. Lots were cast to determine who would weave the gold,
84 A. C. Rush, Assumption Theology in the Transitus Mariae, in The American
Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 123, 1950, pp. 93-110. J. M. Bover, S.J., Los apôcrifos
y la tradicién asuncionista, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 6, 1947, pp. 99-118.
85 Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, in Acta Apostolocae Sedis, Vol. 42, 1950,
ΡΡ· 753-777·
88 Η. Barré, La royauté de Marie pendant les neuf premiers siècles, in Recherches
de science religieuse, Vol. 29, 1939, p. 145.
87 A. Luis, C.SS.R., La realeza de Maria, (Madrid, 1942), p. 34.
88 L. Cerfaux, Le titre Kyrios et la dignité royale de Jésus, in Revue de sciences
philosophiques et théologiques, Vol. 11, 1922, pp. 40-71.
88 A good brief summary of the history and theology of Mary’s Queenship is
given by A. Santonicola, C.SS.R., La royauté de Marie (Nicolet, Quebec, Canada,
»95«)·
80 M. Donnelly, S.J., The Queenship of Mary during the Patristic Period, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 86-91. This entire issue of Marian Studies is
given over to articles on the Queenship of Mary.

176

MARIOLOGY

linen, etc. It fell to Mary’s lot to weave the true purple and scarlet.91
Purple, the color of royalty, was allotted to Mary, to one who was
the offspring of a royal line and who was destined for a royalty
higher than all the dignities of earth.92 The author does no more
than state that the purple was allotted to Mary. In the Latin version
of Pseudo-Matthew, Mary likewise received the purple. When this
happened, the other virgins were jealous and explained it by saying
that she received the purple because she was the youngest. Then in
a sarcastic manner they began to call her, “Queen of virgins.”
No sooner had they referred to Mary as the Queen of virgins, when
an angel of the Lord appeared in their midst and said to them:
“This word will not be a word spoken in sarcasm, but it will be a
true prophecy.”93
Referring to this designation of Mary in Pseudo-Matthew,
Amann remarks that the author has understood perfectly the
thought of the Protoevangelium when this document assigned to
Mary the task of weaving the purple.94 In connection with the
appellation of Mary as Queen in Pseudo-Matthew, it is interesting
to note that the author makes a very significant change in the
Annunciation scene. In this document, the angel is represented as
saying to Mary: “Fear not, Mary, thou hast found favor with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a King who will
rule not only on earth but also in heaven, and He shall reign for
ever and ever.”95
Tire explicit title of “Queen” in Pseudo-Matthew is a far ad­
vance on the Protoevangelium. This, however, is not surprising
in a work that comes from the sixth century. It is a good illustration
showing how later recensions of a specific theme, such as that of
the Protoevangelium, can mirror explicit and developed viewpoints
cunent in their own time.
In a similar way, late Infancy Gospels clearly portray Mary as
Queen. This is particularly noticeable in the Arabic Gospel of the
91 Protoevangelium Jacobi, 10 (Amann, Le Protoévangile, pp. 218-220).
82 E. Amann, op. cit., p. 220, note.
83 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Beatae Mariae et infantia Salvatoris, 8. 5
(Amann, p. 310).
84 E. Amann, op. cit., p. 311, note.
95 Pseudo-Matthew, Liber de ortu Mariae, 9. 2 (Amann, p. 312). Amann sees
in this change the dependence of Pseudo-Matthew on Sedulius who writes in
his well-known hymn: Salve sancta parens, enixa puerpera regem.

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

i77

Infancy, where Mary has a very predominant role.88 Here Mary is
constantly referred to as “Queen.” The title Domina, applied to
Mary, is always linked with the title Dominus, applied to Christ.
Christ is Herus, Dominus; Mary is Hera, Domina. Mary is Domina
nostra, the Mother of Christ the King. Because of this, she is
Domina nostra.97
Since explicit testimonies to Mary as Queen date from the fifth
century and are linked so closely with her divine Maternity, the
richest source of this doctrine is the Transitus Mariae literature. In
proclaiming the glories of the Mother of God and in describing
her triumphant entrance into paradise, they hail her as a glorious
queen. The testimonies to this doctrine are somewhat subdued in
the early Greek accounts and very effusive in the Syriac and
Coptic versions.
In Pseudo-Melito there is no direct statement that Mary is a
queen. Two points, however, are stressed, namely, the Kingship of
Christ and Mary’s divine Maternity. Mary, therefore, is the Mother
of the King of Glory. It is to Christ as the King of glory that Mary
addresses her prayers.88 This is as much as can be drawn from
Pseudo-Melito on the royalty of Mary. Mary is the Mother of the
King; and this phrase represents a fact, and also one of the stages
of development or evolution of the Queenship of Mary.
The Greek discourse by Pseudo-John frequently refers to Mary
as the “Mother of the Lord.” The Lord is both God and King. The
Mother of the Lord, then, is both Mother of God and Mother of
one who is King. In this term, Mother of the Lord, there is con­
veyed the idea of royalty and sovereignty. Pseudo-John, moreover,
explicitly proclaims the Queenship of Mary when he uses δέσποινα,
a word that conveys the meaning of “Sovereign Lady” or “Queen.”88
This is seen when he states: “The Apostles, therefore, rose up
86 E. Amann, Apocryphes du nouveau testament, in Dictionnaire de la bible,
Supplément, Vol. I, col. 485.
87 Evangelium infantiae Salvatoris arabicum, 3, 6, 11, 16, 21 (Tischendorf,
Evangelia apocrypha, pp. 182, 183, 185, 188, 191). In studying the Mariology in the
Apocrypha and in the Christian tradition, we must not overlook the part that
Maty plays in Islamic thought which was greatly influenced hy the Apocrypha. A
good survey on Mary in Islamic culture is given hy J-M. Ahd-el-Jalil, Marie et
l'Islam (Etudes sur l'histoire des religions') (Paris, 1951).
88 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 2, 3; 7. i (Tischendorf, Apocalypses
apocryphae, pp. 126, 129).
88 H. Lidiiel and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (New York, 1929), Vol. I,
P· 334·

i78

MARIOLOGY

immediately and went from the house carrying the bed of the
Sovereign Lady, the Mother of God.”100
In the Syriac Transitus Mariae101 Mary is referred to again and
again as “Lady Mary.”102 She is “Lady Mary, the Mistress of the
world.” This Lady Mary is the one who bore Him who is the
Governor of the heaven and of the world.103 This Governor of the
world is Christ the King who came down from heaven to be
beside the Lady Mary in death.104 Throughout, the royalty of Mary
is linked with the Kingship of Christ, the Son of God whom she
bore. Not only does He proclaim her Queenship, but He proclaims
her as a very special queen, for she is the Mistress of the world.
Tire Coptic account of Theodosius is a panegyric on the “Lady
of us all, the holy God-bearer Mary.”105 Mary is the Lady of us all
because she brought forth Him who bears the universe.100 The
concept of the royalty of Mary is brought out in the words which
Christ addressed to the Father when He took the soul of Mary to
heaven after she died. To Him He says: “Receive from Me, O My
good Father, the bush which received the fire of the Godhead and
was not burnt. I offer Thee, O My Father, a royal gift today, even
the soul of My virgin mother.”107 Mary, in truth, is a royal gift
because she is the Queen whom Christ called from the grief,
trouble, and groaning of this life that she might receive everlasting
joy and gladness.108
Even more enthusiastic are the testimonies to the Queenship of
Mary in the account of Pseudo-Evodius. Like Theodosius, he also
sets out to proclaim the glory of the “Lady of us all, the holy God­
bearer Mary.”109 For him the day on which Mary died was the
day on which "the Queen of all women, Mary the Virgin, the
io® Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae, 32 (Tischendorf, p. 105).
101A. Lewis, Apocrypha syriaca: Transitus Mariae, in Studia sinaitica, Vol. 11,
pp. 12-69. An edition of this from a slightly later manuscript is given by W.
Wright, The Departure of my Lady Mary from the World, in Journal of Sacred
Literature and Biblical Record, fourth ser., Vol. 6, January, 1865, pp. 417-449;
Vol. 7, April, 1865, 110-160 pp.
102 Transitus Mariae, 1, 3 (Lewis, pp. 14, 18, 38, 39).
103 Transitus Mariae, 2, 3 (Lewis, pp. 24, 32, 34).
104 Transitus Mariae, 4 (Lewis, p. 55).
105 Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, prolog. (Robinson, Coptic Apocry­
phal Gospels, p. 92).
106 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 3. 13 (Robinson, p. 101).
107 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 6. 18 (Robinson, p. 113).
108 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 30 (Robinson, p. nr).
100 Pseudo-Evodius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, prolog (Robinson, p. 44).

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

179

Mother of the King of kings was to go unto her beloved Son, our
Lord, Jesus Christ.”110 Mary the Queen, the Mother of the King
of kings is the heavenly Queen who takes her stand at the right
hand of her Son. Thus, when Christ came to call Mary in death
and take her to heaven, He said to the Apostles: “O My glorious
members, whom I chose out of all the world, this is the day that
the prophecy of My father David has been fulfilled, ‘The Queen
stood at thy right hand.’ ”111 David himself is portrayed as a witness
to Mary’s Queenship. When Mary died “David the holy singer
struck his spiritual harp, and cried out, saying: Precious before the
Lord is the death of His holy ones. Be glad, O Mary, thou mother
of Christ, the King of kings. This is the day that the prophecies
are fulfilled which I spoke concerning thee, thou true Queen.”112
The foregoing testimonies are sufficient to show the thought and
trend of these documents on the Queenship of Mary. They clearly
show that the Mother of the Lord is Domina, and that the Mother
of Christ the King is Regina. These documents glory in hailing and
proclaiming Mary as a queen. In popular and homiletical literature
of this type, however, there is little theological speculation on the
nature and basis of this Queenship. There are, it is true, many
indications of why Mary is a queen, and it is with deep regret
that these, due to lack of space, cannot be handled here at the
present time. One obvious conclusion, however, stands out most
clearly, namely, that the divine Maternity of Mary and her Queen­
ship are always linked together.

THE INTERCESSION OF MARY
In the New Testament we see Mary as the means by which
Christ, the Source of all blessings, came to man. We also see Mary
using her power of intercession with her Son in favor of the
married couple at Cana.113
Regarding the invocation of Mary and her intercession, there is
110 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 10. 1 (Robinson, p. 56).
111 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 7. 6 (Robinson, p. 53).
112 The Falling Asleep of Mary, 12. 15 (Robinson, p. 60).
113 On the mediation and intercession of Mary, cf. E. Dublanchy, Marie:
Médiation universelle de Marie en vertu de sa maternité divine, in Dictionnaire de
théologie catholique, Vol. 9, 1927, cols. 2389-2405; Marie: Toute-puissance d'intercéssion de Marie au ciel, cols. 2435—2439; J. Bittremieux, De mediatione
universali B. Mariae quoad grattas (Bruges, 1926); J. Carol, O.F.M., The Theologi­
cal Concept of Mediation and Coredemption, in Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses,
Vol. 14, 1937, pp. 642-650.

ι8ο

MARIOLOGY

not a word in the Protoevangelium of James. On the other hand,
in Pseudo-Matthew, the sixth-century Latin elaboration of this
work, there are scenes in which people have recourse to Mary.
Describing Mary’s life in the Temple, he says that if any sick
people touched her they were immediately cured of their malady.114
When the virgins who sarcastically referred to Mary as queen were
rebuked by the angel, they at once asked Mary to pardon them and
pray for them.115 When the people made rash judgments about
Mary’s pregnant condition, and Mary proved them to be wrong,
they implored her to have compassion on them and to pardon
them.118
Such a theme, introduced into this sixth-century version of the
Protoevangelium, is not at all surprising, for this work is the
product of an age where Mary was hailed as the Dispensatrix of
all graces, the Hope of the sick, the Help of the afflicted, and the
Refuge of sinners.117 This same mentality is especially pronounced
in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy where Mary plays a very domi­
nant role and is the Mediatrix of all blessings bestowed by the
Infant.118 This document is replete with scenes in which people
come to Mary in their needs and are then helped by Mary and the
Child whom she bore.119
The Transitus Mariae literature which proclaims the glories of
Mary and which proclaims Mary’s Assumption and Queenship be­
cause she is the Mother of God also high-lights the invocation
and intercession of one who, as the Mother of God, can obtain all
graces and blessings from her Son. To show the trend of these
documents on this point, these few following testimonies must
suffice.
In the Syriac Transitus, many people came to Mary in their
needs with pleas for help on their lips. Describing one of these
scenes, the Transitus states: “And persons without number went
forth and went to Bethlehem; and they knocked at the door of the
114 Pseudo-Matthew, Liter de ortu Mariae et infantia Salvatoris, 6. 3 (Amann,
Le Protoévangile, p. 300).
115 Liber de ortu Mariae, 8. 5 (Amann, p. 310).
116 Liber de ortu Mariae, 12. 5 (Amann, p. 322).
117 E. Amann, Le Protoévangile, p. 40.
118 E. Amann, Apocryphes du nouveau testament, in Dictionnaire de la bible,
Supplément, Vol. 1, col. 485.
118 For two such illustrations, cf. Evangelium infantiae arabicum, 14, 27 (Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, pp. 187, 194).

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

181

Blessed one’s upper chamber. And the Apostles did not open the
door to them. And when they did not open the door to them, they
implored, saying: O Lady Mary, Mother of God, have mercy on us.
And the Lady Mary heard the voice of the persons who were
crying to her, and she prayed and said: My Master the Christ,
whom I have in heaven, harken to the voice of these afflicted souls.
And straightway great strength and help went forth from the
Blessed one to all these sick people, and they were cured.”120 From
the lips of the Governor who was won over to Mary’s cause, we
hear these beautiful words: “The earth on which thou walkest
becomes heaven. The heaven that beholds thee gives a blessing to
the creatures who believe in thee. The healthy who behold thee
receive gladness. To the sick who come unto thee thou givest
health. I worship thee, Lady Mary. Stretch out thy right hand and
bless me, and this my only child.”121 The angel who came to Mary
to announce to her that she was to leave the world hails her with
this greeting: "Hail to thee, Mother of God! Thy prayer hath
been accepted in heaven before thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
And therefore thou shalt depart from this world unto life ever­
lasting. For thus I have been sent to tell thee and to cause thee to
know that at the time when thou didst pray on earth, at once thou
wast answered in heaven; and whatsoever thou dost seek from the
Christ, thy Son who is in heaven on the right hand of God, thou
shalt have both in earth and in heaven, and thy will is done.”122
The power of Mary to help those in need is brought out very
graphically by Pseudo-Melito when he tells the story of the Jewish
priest who tried to overturn the body of Mary and whose arms
were cut off from his shoulders and clung to the bier. It is at this
point that the author goes on to say: “Then Peter made the bier
stand still and said to him: If thou wilt believe with thy whole
heart in the Lord Jesus Christ, thy hands will be loosed from the
bier. And when he had said this, immediately his hands were
loosed from the bier and he began to stand on his feet; his arms,
however, were still withered and the pain did not leave him. Then
Peter said to him: Go up to the body, kiss the bed and say: I
believe in God, and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom this
120 Transitus Mariae, 3 (Lewis, Apocrypha syriaca, p. 35).
121 Transitus Mariae, 3 (Lewis, p. 46).
122 Transitus Mariae, 2 (Lewis, p. 21).

I 82

MARIOLOGY

woman bore, and I believe all things whatever Peter, the Apostle
of God, has told me. Then coming near he kissed the bed, and at
once all pain left him and his hands were healed.”123
Pseudo-John gives the name of Jephonias to the person who tried
to overturn the body of Mary. When Jephonias was punished for
this rash act and was in excruciating pain, he cried out: “Holy
Mary, thou didst bear Christ, who is God, have mercy on me.”'M
This calling upon Mary is most helpful because her power of inter­
cession is so great. This idea is brought out very graphically in these
words which Christ addresses to Mary: “Let thy heart be glad and
rejoice, for every grace and every gift has been given thee of My
Father who is in heaven and of Me and of the Holy Spirit. Every
soul that calls upon thee shall not be put to shame, but shall find
mercy and consolation and help and confidence both in this world
and in the world to come before My Father who is in heaven.”125
The power of Mary to obtain for us not only the needs of the
present life, but also the help necessary to attain eternal life is also
stressed by the author when he says: “By the prayer and inter­
cession of Mary may we all be accounted worthy to come under
her protection and help and guardianship both in this world and
in the world to come.”126
In these writings it is brought out that the intercession of Mary
was great while she was living here on earth and also equally great
when she was taken to heaven. Mary the Queen, assumed into
heaven, is there beside her Son to intercede for us. In the sermon
of Theodosius, this role of Mary, the Queen of heaven, receives
great prominence. When Christ came to call Mary to heaven,
Theodosius portrays Christ as saying to Peter and John: "And I
will translate her up to the heavens to be with My Father and the
Holy Spirit, that she may continue praying for you all.”127
CONCLUSION
The foregoing pages show that there are ample testimonies to
Mary in the Apocrypha of the New Testament. Ample as these
123 Pseudo-Melito, Transitus Beatae Mariae, 13. 2 (Tischendorf, Apocalypses
apocryphae, p. 133).
124 Pseudo-John, Liber de dormitione Mariae, 47 (Tischendorf, p. no).
125 Liber de dormitione Mariae, 43 (Tischendorf, p. 109).
123 Liber de dormitione Mariae, 50 (Tischendorf, p. 112).
12T Theodosius, The Falling Asleep of Mary, 5. 27 (Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal
Gospels, p. 109).

MARY IN THE APOCRYPHA

183

testimonies are, it must not be forgotten that the testimonies men­
tioned are selective. At the same time, the testimonies selected are
representative of the Marian trends in these writings.
Aside from individual works like the Ascension of Isaias, the
Odes of Solomon, and the like, there are two main Marian sources
in the Apocrypha. For the earlier period (second century on) there
is the Protoevangelium of James, together with its various versions
and allied documents. For the later period (fifth century on) there
is the Transitus Mariae literature. The Protoevangelium literature
is concerned primarily with the exceptional birth and the virginity
of Mary; the Transitus Mariae literature is a glorification of Mary
as the Theotokos and is a witness to her death and Assumption.
It must not be imagined that these two Marian sources are parallel
sources in the sense that they run parallel and never meet. Thus,
later versions of the Protoevangelium and later allied documents
can and do reflect teachings current in their own age, teachings
which are normally given greater emphasis in the Transitus Mariae
literature. To illustrate, the Latin account of Pseudo-Matthew and
the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy witness to the Queenship of Mary
and the power of her intercession, themes normally found in the
Transitus Mariae as a glorification of the Theotokos. Conversely,
accounts of the Transitus Mariae (e.g., that by Pseudo-Evodius)
utilize the theme of the Protoevangelium.
The various testimonies adduced in these pages show that there
is a very definite and sublime corpus of Mariology in these docu­
ments. Four observations are called for regarding this Mariology.
Sublime as the Mariology of these documents is, it is hoped that
this has not given a one-sided view of these documents and por­
trayed them in too favorable a light. This Mariology is often given
against a bizarre and fantastic background of fabricated legends
and miracles. The wheat of these documents, that is, their teaching
on Mary, has been gathered and used; the chaff, that is, the fan­
tastic background has been rejected except when absolutely neces­
sary for continuity. Second, with regard to the Mariology of the
Apocrypha, the writer was very happy to find so many and clear
testimonies. The texts were clear and spoke for themselves; they
did not have to be read into or twisted to form a corpus of Mariol­
ogy. Third, the sublime Mariology in these works is a priceless
witness to the fundamentally sound Christian feeling of the faith­
ful for Mary. This points up the basic importance of these accounts

184

MARIOLOGY

for the theologian and the historian of dogma; as witnesses to tra­
dition they are of great value. Finally, as witnesses to tradition, it
should be remarked that very often there is a close parallel between
the development and the explicitation of a doctrine in the apocry­
phal teaching and the patristic praedicatio.

Mary in tke Eastern Liturgies
By VERY REV. CUTHBERT GUMBINGER,
O.F.M.Cap., S.T.D.

INTRODUCTION

HE cult of the Mother of God began in the East with the early
Church. Christ confided His Mother to the care of St. John,
the beloved disciple. She was the joy and consolation of the Apostles
and the other early followers of Christ. With her they received the
Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday. From her they learned many facts
of Christ’s early history, which were then incorporated into the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Some of the Apostles, or at least
John, knew of her glorious Assumption into heaven.
From these facts we can understand how the early Church revered
the Mother of God. But the persecutions and strenuous missionary
work of the early times prevented the Church from insisting on
Mary’s glories and privileges as she would have liked to do. None­
theless, Mary had a place in the liturgy even before the Council of
Ephesus.1 But it is difficult, if not impossible, to say just when devo­
tion to the Mother of God found a place in tire liturgical cult of
the Church. We know that some of the Apostolic Fathers wrote
about Mary’s Virginal Conception of Christ and her divine Ma-

T

1 Cf. Otto Menzinger, Mariologisches aus der vorephesinischen Liturgie (Regens­
burg, 1932), p. 181. In the West there was no liturgical cult of Mary until
the fifth century. Cf. B. Capelie, O.S.B., La liturgie mariale en Occident, in
Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge (ed. H. du Manoir, S.J.), Vol. 1 (Paris,
>949), pp· 217-245; M. Jugie, A.A., La première fête mariale en Orient, in
Echos d'Orient, Vol. 22, 1923, pp. 129-153. The first feast was celebrated on
December 26 and was called the Commemoration of St. Mary. It honored espe­
cially her divine Maternity and her Virginal Conception of Christ. Cf. M.
Doumith, Marie dans la liturgie syro-maronite, in Maria. Études sur la Sainte
Vierge (ed. H. du Manoir), Vol. 1, pp. 329-351. The Assumption was cele­
brated in Jerusalem from about the year 450. Cf. S. Salaville, Marie dans la
liturgie byzantine ou grec-slav, in H. du Manoir’s set, Vol. 1, pp. 249—326. For
the origin of the Marian cult in Ethiopia, cf. Samuel A. B. Mercer, The
Ethiopie Liturgy (1915).
>85

186

MARIOLOGY

ternity.2 Thus, SS. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Justin, and
Aristides affirm the Virginal Conception of Christ.3 Justin and
Irenaeus compare Mary to Eve.4 From the year 190 until the year
325 various ecclesiastical writers treat of Mary, especially Tertullian,
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria.5 After the Council of Nice
(325) there are more references to Mary not only in the East but
also in the West, due to the Christological controversies and here­
sies.5 It was precisely the defense of Catholic doctrine regarding the
divinity of Christ that brought out the glory of Mary in her divine
Maternity. This increased love and devotion to both Christ and His
Blessed Mother and gave her a more prominent place in the liturgy
especially after the Council of Ephesus (431).7
Christ and Mary are of the East. Their cult arose in the East. We
do well to study the Eastern liturgies, therefore, to see in what manner
the Christian devotion of the East honors Christ and His immaculate
Virgin Mother. The wealth and beauty of the Eastern hymns, odes,
and prayers to Our Lady are truly amazing. This is especially seen
in die Byzantine, Ethiopian, and Syrian liturgies.8 The Byzantines
have hundreds of kontaks and thousands of canons in varied forms
and in the eight tones in honor of Mary. These verses fill some
twenty huge volumes, while those inedited and lost would fill many
more.9 Three fourths of die Byzantine Office consists of hymns, and
perhaps the best and greater part of them is in honor of Mary’s
privileges and offices.10 It is somewhat similar in the Ethiopian and
Syrian liturgies. But in all the Eastern liturgies Mary has a promi­
nent place.
The theological foundation of Eastern devotion to Mary is her
divine Maternity. Although the term hyperdulia is generally not
used among the Eastern writers, yet the entire body of Eastern
2 Cf. Jouassard, Marie à travers la patristique, in H. du Manoir’s set, Vol. 1,
pp· 71-157·
3 Ibid., pp. 72—77. Cf. P. R. Botz, Die Jungfrauschaft Martens in N. T. und
in der nachapostolischen Zeit. Eine dogmatisch-biblische Studie (Bottrop in
Westphalen, 1935).
·* Jouassard, art. cit., p. 73.
5 Ibid., pp. 73-85.
6 Ibid., pp. 85-100.
7 Cf. Salaville, art. cit., p. 249.
3 Cf. G. Giovanelli, Il culto della Madre di Dio nell'iconografia bizantina, in
Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 5, fasc. 2 (Romae, 1952), pp. 16-28. On the various
Eastern liturgies, see the subsequent sections of our paper.
0 Ibid., p. 24.
ll· Ibid.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

187

Christians actually give her this special cult, for they agree (except
the Nestorians) that Mary has a dignity above that of every other
creature and above all other creatures, because she is the Mother of
God.” Thus, the cult of Mary in the East is identical with that in
the West, which we call hyperdulia, even though the East, for lack
of theological analysis in this matter, does not use this term. In
fact, an Orthodox theologian, Mihalcescu, calls Mariology “Papist
theology.”12
In the following pages we attempt to review briefly the place
that Mary has in the Eastern liturgies; but it is impossible here to
give a full idea of the beauty and wealth of doctrine that they con­
tain. The true Church both in the East and the West will never
cease to praise the all-holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God,
to multiply hymns, feasts, and practices in her honor; for in doing
so the Church glorifies God with Mary and begs her, who is allpowerful with her divine Son, to grant us mercy, peace, and grace.
This is well expressed in the following prayer of the Byzantine
liturgy:

Whilst we sing the glories of thy Son, we praise thee, too, O Mother of
God, living Temple of the Godhead. . . . O purest One, do not despise
the petitions of the sinner; for He who deigned to suffer for us will
also be merciful towards us and save us. O Christ, behold Thy Mother,
she who conceived Thee in her womb, without the loss of her virginity,
and who after she had given Thee birth remained a stainless Virgin.
We present her to Thee that she may be our Advocate, O Thou who art
all mercy, Thou who dost grant pardon to those who say to Thee
from their hearts: Be mindful of me, O Lord, when Thou art come
into Thy kingdom.13

In fine, it is devotion to the Mother of God even among the
Dissident Eastern Christians that gives us hope for the reunion of
Churches. She, the Mother of the Good Shepherd, we hope, will
lead back to the true flock those countless souls who, for so long have
been without a shepherd. By knowing the Eastern liturgies better
we can grow in love for the East, and thus hasten the day when
there will be a united Christendom ruled by the Vicar of Christ.
11 Cf. M. Gordillo, S.J., Fondamento teologico del culto della Vergine Madre
di Dio presso gli orientali, in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 5, fasc. 2, PP· x-16,
csp. pp. 13 and 15.
12 Gordillo, art. cit., p. 15.
13 Cf. I. Card. Schuster, O.S.B., The Sacramentary (trans, by A. LevelisMarke), 5 vols. (London, 1927), Parts 5 and 6, Euchological Appendix, p. 442.

MARIOLOGY

188

I. MARY IN THE BYZANTINE LITURGY
The richest of all the Eastern rites in Marian praises is that of
Byzantium, or Constantinople. Even before the Council of Ephesus
in 431 Our Lady had a noble place in the Eastern rites.14 From that
time on there was a marvelous development.15 The Byzantine rite
glories in its liturgical devotion to the all-holy Mother of God.
The Byzantine rite is used by Catholics and Orthodox who hold
Constantinople as their liturgical mother. They are the most nu­
merous of the Eastern Christians and can be found from Poland to
Japan, and from the Sudan to the White Sea. There are numerous
colonies of them in western Europe especially since World War II,
as well as in North and South America and even in Australia.18
Various nations follow this rite and it uses various languages (more
among the Orthodox than among the Catholics). The rite is used by
Greeks, Slavs of Russia and the Balkans, Italo-Greeks of Sicily and
Calabria, Melkites of Syria and Egypt, Ukrainians, PodcarpathoRusins, some Hungarians and Rumanians.17
There are some minor differences in the liturgical books of these
various nations and languages, but essentially the rite is the same.
The same is true of the vestments used. The chant differs quite a bit
among the various nations.
The Marian cult among the Byzantines is rich and profound in
doctrine. They seem to have no end in praising her, who is above
all praise. They use an enormous number of titles and figures for
her taken from Sacred Scripture, and from her various offices and
privileges. Then, too, they give her names taken from the animals,
plants, flowers, stars, and other material things. Archbishop Assaf of
Petra, Philadelphia, and the Transjordan has counted up no less
than 197 titles of Mary in the Byzantine liturgical books.18 Here we
shall treat first of the Marian Year, then of Mary in the Divine
Office, and finally of Mary in the Divine Liturgy.
Mary in the Byzantine Calendar
During the liturgical year which begins with the first of Sepi.

14 Cf. Menzinger, op. cit., p. 181.
15 Cf. Salaville, art. cit., p. 249; Jugie, art. cit., pp. 129-153.
16 Sacra Congregazione Orientale, Statistica con cenni storici della gerarchia e
dei fedeli di rito orientale (Tip. Pol. Vaticana, 1932), p. 93.
17 Cf. Salaville, art. cit., p. 249.
18 Cf. M. Assaf, Culte de la Vierge Marie dans le rite byzantin, in Marie,
Sept.-Oct., 1953, pp. 20-29.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

189

tember, there are various feasts of Mary embellished with beautiful
antiphons, tropars, and kondiaks in her honor. Of old the civil year
in Byzantium began with the first of September and the faithful of
the Byzantine rite have ever kept this for the liturgical year as well.
Among the twelve greater feasts in this rite eight are in honor of
Christ (two of them partly in honor of Mary, namely Christmas
and the Purification of Mary) and four are in honor of Mary, namely
her Nativity, her Presentation in the Temple, the Annunciation, and
the Falling Asleep (Assumption) of Mary. From October 1 to 14
there is commemorated the Protection (Intercession) of Mary.19
September: On the first of this month there is the Commemoration
(Synaxis) of Our Lady of Miasenes in honor of her manifestation at
the monastery of that place in 864. In the Office for that day we read:

Hail, Mother of God, Virgin full of grace, Refuge and Protection of
the human race; for it is from thee that the Redeemer of the world
has taken flesh. Thou alone art at one and the same time Mother
and Virgin, blessed and glorified forever. Pray to Christ, Our God, to
grant peace to the world.20

This is the type of prayer used so often in the Byzantine rite.
Mary’s intercession with her divine Son is stressed in many forms in
the Office and the Divine Liturgy. In Byzantine art this theme is
called the Deists (intercession) and Christ is represented between
Our Lady and St. John the Baptist, who are interceding with Him.21
The vigil of Our Lady’s Nativity has this prayer in the Office:
. . . The Daughter of God, Mary, is sent into the world. Heaven and
earth rejoice. . . . Hail, O Virgin, glory of Christians.22

The feast of Our Lady’s Nativity, September 8: This is a great
feast, which has lost some of its solemnity in the West, and which is
still held as a day of obligation in many parts of the East. The
following prayer is used even in the Latin Liturgy:
19 For Slavs and Rumanians, cf. Salaville, art. cit., pp. 251, 252. Isabel
Florence Hapgood, Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church,
revised edition (New York: Association Press, 1922), pp. xv, xvi. Cf. F. E.
Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), pp.
Ixxxi-xcvi, 309-411. D. C. McPherson, The Divine Office in the Byzantine Bite,
in Eastern Churches Quarterly (St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate), Vol. 7, Nos.
3. 5. 7·
20 Salaville, art. cit., p. 250.
21 Ibid. Cf. Ch. Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, 2 ed. (Paris, 1926), 2 vols.
22 Salaville, art. cit., p. 251.

190

MARIOLOGY

Thy Nativity, O Mother of God, has announced joy to the whole
world; for from thee there has risen the Sun of Justice, Christ, our
God, who breaking the curse, has given blessing, and confounding
death, has given us life everlasting.23

Some other prayers for this feast are:

Today the barren gates are opened, and the Divine Virginal Gate
advances. Today is devoted to Fruit-bearing, its grace manifesting the
Mother of God to the world; by her the earthly is united to the
heavenly, for the salvation of our souls.
Today the joy of the whole world has its beginnings; today the breezes
blow messengers of salvation; the barrenness of our nature is destroyed;
for the Virgin Mother is manifested, who was a Virgin after the Birth
of the Creator, by whom that which was estranged, was reconciled to
the Nature of God, and salvation was accomplished for the wanderers
in the flesh, Christ, the Lover of man and Redeemer of our souls.
Today the barren Anna bringeth forth a blessed Child, the fore­
ordained from all generations to be the dwelling of the King and
Creator, Christ our God, for the working of the divine Plan, through
which we, the earth-born, are re-established and renewed from corrup­
tion to the eternal life.24

At Thy Nativity, O Immaculate, Joachim and Anna were delivered from
the opprobrium of sterility; Adam and Eve from corruption and death.
Thy people also celebrate this Nativity, for they are freed from the
bondage of sin and cry out: She who was sterile gave birth to the
Mother of God, who nourishes our spiritual life.25
October: The Slavs and Rumanians have the commemoration of
the Protection of the Virgin from the first to the fourteenth of this
month. This is taken from the feast of the Mantle of the Virgin, still
celebrated on July 2 in the Church of Constantinople. Among the
Greeks this feast honored first the mantle itself and then Mary’s pro­
tection, as seen in the Office (similar to that of Our Lady’s Cincture
on August 31). Among the Slavs the feast is that of Mary’s protec­
tion, even though icons of the Prokov (covering) show either Mary
or the angels spreading her mantle over the faithful.26
23 Ibid.
24 The Office for the Lord's Day as Prescribed by the Orthodox Greek Church
(London: Hayes, 1880), p. 161.
25 Salaville, loc. cit.
,
20 Ibid., pp. 251, 252, 277, 278. Cf. Alma Socia Christi, Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani, Romae Anno Sancto MCML celebrati, Vol. 5, fasc. 2, De B. V. Maria

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

191

The Slavic and Rumanian Offices have this prayer:
Today, we the faithful people . . . contemplating thy pure image,
cry out in all humility: Cover us with thy precious patronage and
deliver us from all evil, praying thy Son, Christ our God, to save
our souls.*
27

Today the Virgin intercedes in the Church, and with the invincible
armies of saints, prays to God for us; angels and pontiffs prostrate them­
selves; apostles and prophets rejoice, for the Mother of God prays
the eternal God for us.28

On the Sunday between October 11 and 17 there is the feast of
the Second Council of Nice (787) but it really commemorates the
first seven General Councils. In the liturgy for this feast we have
the following prayer:
O Lord of all goodness, by the intercession of Thy Mother, and of
the Fathers assembled in the seven Councils, strengthen Thy Church,
fortify the faith, and grant us a part in the Kingdom of Heaven, when
Thou comest on earth to judge every creature.29

November: On November 15 the Slavs celebrate the feast of Our
Lady of Compassion. This title responds to the Greek Theotokos
Eleousa, given to many Byzantine icons of Mary.30
On the vigil of Our Lady’s Presentation in the Temple we read:
[She is] truly the Temple of the Divine Word. The whole world, fille/
with joy, cries out: The Virgin is a heavenly Tabernacle.31
The feast of Our Lady’s Presentation in the Temple on November
21 is one of the twelve principal feasts of the year, and ranks higher
in the East than in the West.
Today we, the faithful, rejoice in psalms and hymns, singing unto the
Lord, honoring also His sanctified Tabernacle, the living Ark, the
Container of the Uncontainable Word; for she, being marvellously
brought forth in the flesh, is offered to God; and the great High
Priest Zachary receives her, gladdened, as the Dwelling Place of God.
penes Ecclesias Orientis (Romae: Officium Libri Catholici, 1952); David Lathaud,
A.A., Le thème iconographique du Prokov de la Mère de Dieu; Origene, Variantes,
pp. 54-68.
27 Salaville, art. cit., p. 252.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Cf. J. Martinov, Annus ecclesiasticus graeco-slavicus, in Acta Sanctorum of
the Bollandists, October, Vol. 77 (Paris, 1870), p. 281.
81 Salaville, art. cit., p. 252.

igz

MARIOLOGY

Today the living Temple of the holy glory of Christ our God, the
only-hlessed Undefiled One among women, is offered in the legal
Temple, to dwell in the holy places; and Joachim and Anna rejoice in
spirit, and virginal choirs sing unto the Lord in melodious psalms, and
honor His Mother.

O Virgin Mother of God, thou art the Proclamation of the Prophets, the
Glory of the Apostles, and Boast of the Martyrs, the Renewal of the
earth-born; by thee we are reconciled to God. Wherefore we honor
thy entrance into the Temple of the Lord, and with the Angels we
cry aloud in psalms: Hail to thee, the all-august, being saved by Thy
intercession.32
Today is the prelude of the blessing of God, and the announcement
of the salvation of men. The Virgin is presented in the Temple of
the Lord, and she announces Christ beforehand to all. Let us also
cry to her with a loud voice: Hail, thou who art the fulfillment of
the plan of the Creator.

She who is the most pure Temple of the Saviour, She who is at one
and the same time a Virgin and a nuptial chamber of great price, the
true Treasure of the Glory of God, enters today into the house
of the Lord, bringing with her the grace of the Divine Spirit. The
Angels of God sing hymns to her. She is the heavenly Tabernacle.33

December: The Immaculate Conception is considered in an active
sense, namely the conception of Mary by Anna. This is the title for
the feast found in modern liturgical books, “Feast of the Conception
of Anna.” But in the Middle Ages the other title was frequently
used, “Feast of the Conception of the Mother of God.” The hymnographers have ever celebrated the fact of Mary’s conception, and
paid little attention to the miraculous or legendary circumstances
surrounding it. These writers treat of the special intervention of the
Blessed Trinity in preparing the palace of the Word made Flesh.
This gives the hymnographers an occasion to honor the perpetual
sanctity of Our Lady. The feast of the Immaculate Conception was
not developed in the East under the influence of theological contro­
versies as in the West. The feast expressed the initial holiness of Our
Lady, whom God prepared in a special way to be the Mother of
His Son. A kontakion reads:
32 The Office of the Lord's Day, p. 163.
’3 Salaville, art. cit., p. 254.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

193

Today the whole world celebrates the Conception of Anna, which is
the work of God; for she has brought forth into the world her, who,
in an ineffable manner, has begotten the Word made Flesh.34

Again :
Today are burst the bonds of barrenness, for God, hearing the desire
of Joachim and Anna for children, clearly promised them a holy
Daughter, from whom shall be bom He, who is Uncontainable, who
shall become a Mortal by the summons of the Angel crying aloud to
her: Hail, O full of grace, the Lord is with thee.35*
From December 18 to 24 the following antiphons are read:

O Virgin, the living Palace of God, He, whom the Heavens cannot
contain, found place in Thee: who in the cave was brought forth
above thought, taking part in poverty and flesh, that He might deify
me, and enrich poverty, weakness and bitter hunger.

The All-Holy and Blameless One, perceiving the ordinances of nature
renovated by the incomprehensible Birth cried out to the Son: O much
desired Child, I am amazed at the great mystery, how, remaining a
Virgin, I also brought forth by Thy Power, who madest all things
by Thy Will.33
Today the Virgin begets the Supersubstantial One,
The earth offers the shelter of the cave to the Inaccessible One,
The Angels chant the Glory of God with the shepherds,
The Magi walk with the star,
For there is bom for us,
The new Infant, God before all ages.37

On Christmas Day Mary is honored with these prayers:
. . . For He, the unchangeable Image of the Father, the Impress of
His eternity, hath taken the form of a servant, coming forth from His
virginal Mother, but unchanged; for what He was, that He still re­
mained, True God; and what He was not, He assumed, through Love
for men becoming Man. To Him we cry aloud: O God, who wast
born of a Virgin, have mercy upon us.38
34 Ibid.
33 The Office of the Lord’s Day, p. 191.
33 Ibid., p. 164.
37 Salaville, art. cit., p. 255.
33 The Office of the Lord's Day, p. 164.

194

MARIOLOGY

From the Hymn of Anatolius:
When Jesus the Lord was bom of the Holy Virgin, all things were
enlightened. . . . O God who art, and wast before, and shinest forth
from the Virgin, have mercy upon us.

From the Hymn of Casia:

When Augustus reigned alone upon the earth, the many rulers of men
ceased; and when Thou becamest Man of the Pure One, the many
godheads of the idols fell.38
After the Consecration in the Divine Liturgy, Mary is praised
with this hymn:

It is easy, O Virgin, to love thee in silence, without having anything
to fear; but it is difficult to chant hymns to thee as we would like,
well suited to thy love. At least, O Mother, grant us to do so according
to our desire.40
On December 26 there is celebrated the Synaxis or Commemora­
tion of Mary, which is really the feast of her divine Maternity and
was the first feast in honor of Mary. A kontakion for this day reads:

He, who before the dawn was begotten of the Father without having
a Mother, took flesh today in thy womb without having a father.
Therefore the star announces His Birth to the Magi and the Angels
sing of thy virginal childbearing with the shepherds, O thou full
of grace.41

On the Sunday after Christmas there is a commemoration of St.
Joseph, Spouse of Mary, of David the Prophet, and of James the
Lord’s cousin, to show the messianic descent of Joseph and the
relationship of James. The tropar at Vespers declares:

O Joseph, announce to David that thou hast seen a Virgin with
child, and that, informed by the angel, thou hast glorified God with
the shepherds, whom thou hast adored with the Magi. Beg Christ
our God to save our souls.42

In the Christmas Office there are many tropars and kondiaks in
honor of Mary, e.g.:
38 Ihid., p. 265.
40 Salaville, art. cit., p. 255.
41 Ibid., p. 256.
43 Ibid.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

195

The dew-shedding fiery furnace imaged forth the type of a marvellous
wonder: for its flames scorched not the Holy Children whom it had
received, even as the fire of the Godhead scorched not the Virgin when
it entered into her womb.43
Magnify, O my soul, the Virgin, the all-pure Birth-giver of God,
more honorable and more glorious than the hosts on high.
A mystery strange and most glorious I behold. The cavern, Heaven;
the Cherubic Throne a Virgin; the manger, the receptacle wherein
lieth Christ, our God, whom nothing can contain. Him, therefore, do
we magnify, praising Him in song.44
January: Although there is no special Marian feast in this month,
the Office of the Circumcision is filled with the idea of the divine
Maternity of Mary. So, too, in the Latin Office for this feast the
antiphons for Vespers and Lauds are obviously taken from the Byzan­
tine Office (O admirabile commercium, etc.). A Byzantine theotokion
reads:

Who could worthily celebrate the supernatural mystery of the con­
ception wrought in thy womb? For thou hast begotten in the flesh,
O All-Holy One, God who has manifested Himself to us the Saviour
of men.
The bush of Sinai, in contact with the fire without being consumed,
prefigured thee, O Mother ever Virgin, Mary, O most chaste Mother
of God.45
Although the feast of Epiphany is mainly to honor tire Lord’s
Baptism, it does not forget His Mother. These strophes of Matins are
in her honor:
Every tongue finds it hard to praise Thee worthily. The heavenly
spirits themselves exult to praise thee, O Mother of God. Nonetheless
in thy goodness, accept our faith, for thou knowest our desire. Thou art
the Protectress of Christians; we glorify thee.

O incomprehensible wonder of Thy child-bearing! Virgin all-pure,
blessed Mother, by whom we have received complete salvation. O thou,
our Benefactress, we present to thee the worthy homage of our grati­
tude.48
43 Haygood, op. cit., p. 179.
45 Salaville, art. cit., pp. 256, 257.
48 Ibid., p. 257.

i96

MARIOLOGY

This latter prayer is used also during the Divine Liturgy.
February: On the vigil of Mary’s Purification we find tliis strophe:
The heavenly choir of the angels of God, prostrate on the earth, sees
arriving at the Temple a tiny Infant earned in the arms of a Virginal
Mother, the First-born of all creation. In their joy mixed with fear,
the angels sing with us the hymn of preparation for the feast.47

The Presentation of Christ in tire Temple, or Purification of Mary,
is one of the twelve great feasts of the Byzantine rite and is generally
a holyday of obligation. Γη the Office we find the following tropars:
Hail, O virgin Birth-giver of God; for from thee hath shone forth the
Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God, who giveth light to those who
are in darkness. . . .
We magnify Thee, O life-giving Christ, and we do homage to Thy
Mother most pure, by whom Thou hast now been brought into the
Temple of the Lord, according to the Law.

O Virgin Birth-giver of God, the Hope of Christians, protect, guard
and save thou those who put their trust in thee.

Incomprehensible unto Angels and unto men is that which is wrought
with thee, O Virgin Mother Pure.
A pure Dove, a spotless Lamb bringeth into the Church the Lamb and
the Shepherd.48
The response "Adorna thalamum tuum Sion," used in the Latin
chants for the procession on this feast, is a translation of a Byzantine
tropar for Vespers on this feast. The Latin version is a bit changed.
The Byzantine reads:

Adorn thy nuptial chamber, O Sion, and receive Christ thy King.
Receive Mary with love, who is the heavenly Gate; she has been
made the Cherubic Throne and the Gate of the King of Glory. The
Virgin is the luminous Cloud, who bears in her arms her Son begotten
before the dawn. Simeon, receiving Him in his arms, has proclaimed
to the peoples that He is the Master of life and death and the Saviour
of the world.49

March-April: For the vigil of the feast of the Annunciation there
is this kontakion:
47 Ibid.
48 Hapgood, op. cit., pp. 198-200.
40 Salaville, art. cit., p. 258.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

197

Today, let us celebrate with joy the prelude of universal exultation.
Behold, Gabriel approaches, bringing to the Virgin with admiration
and respect the glad tidings: Hail, O Full of Grace, the Lord is with
thee.’0

The feast of the Annunciation is one of the twelve great feasts of
the Byzantine rite, and is generally a holyday of obligation. The
divine message of the feast and its importance are repeated in various
ways in the Divine Office for this feast, together with praise of
Mary and prayers to her.
Today is the beginning of our salvation, and the manifestation of that
mystery which is from everlasting; the Son of God becometh the Son
of a Virgin, and Gabriel announceth the glad tidings of grace. Where­
fore, let us also cry aloud with him unto the Birth-giver of God; Hail,
thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
O Birth-giver of God, Fountain living and inexhaustible! Spiritually
establish thou those who hymn thee, convoked in a choir, and vouch­
safe unto them crowns in thy heavenly glory.

The Akathistos Hymn: This long hymn in honor of the Annuncia­
tion is very old, but it is uncertain just when it was composed.50
51 Its
name means the “not seated,” for it is sung standing as a sign of
joy in praise of the Virgin for her victories in favor of the people.
This hymn is sung in its entirety on the fifth Saturday of Lent in
Byzantine churches, i.e., it is anticipated on Friday evenings. It is
in such favor that a fourth of it is sung on the four preceding Friday
evenings.52 Tire hymn has 24 oikoi or strophes, each beginning with
a letter of the Greek alphabet. There are also an introductory strophe
and a concluding invocation. The hymn fills about thirty pages in
the Greek version of Grottaferrata (1949) in ordinary pamphlet size.
After speaking of the Archangel Gabriel announcing the glad tidings
to Mary the hymn breaks forth in jubilation which sets the tone for
the whole hymn:

I will open my mouth and it shall be filled with the Spirit; I will
break forth into a hymn to the Queen Mother and with joy I will
present myself to honor her and I will sing her privileges with
exultation.”
50 Ibid., p. 259.
61 Ibid. Cf. McPherson, art. cit., April-June, 1949. PP· ’28, 129. — Officio del
Inno Akathistos in onore della SS. Madre di Dio (Grottaferrata, 1949).
82 Salaville, art. cit., p. 259.
83 Officio del Inno Akathistos, p. 10.

i98

MARIOLOGY

The hymn then goes on to salute and praise the Mother of God
under the most diverse titles in true Eastern style and with a rare
sense of fitness. It is a rich and magnificent hymn breathing forth
love and admiration for the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and
Dawn of Salvation. Some of the titles given to her are:
Hail, O Virgin Divine Spouse, Rehabilitation of Adam, Destruction
of Hell!
Hail, Brilliant Throne of the Almighty, who hast brought forth the
incorruptible Rose!
Hail, O Perfume of the Universal King, purest Virgin, Salvation of
the World!
Hail, O Lady, fragrant Lily, that perfumes the faithful, sweet-smelling
Thyme, precious Ointment!
Hail, O Mother of God, living and copious Fountain, confirm thy
devoted ones!
Hail, O Splendid Dawn, that has brought us the Sun who is Christ!
Hail, O unique Gate, through which only the Word passed!
Hail, O inaccessible Height of human intelligences, O inscrutable
Profundity even to the eyes of the Angels!
Hail, thou Throne of the King! Hail, who earnest Him who sustains all!
Hail, O heavenly Ladder whereby God came down to earth!
Hail, O Bridge that brings mortals from earth to Heaven!
Hail, thou pleasing Incense of intercession!

During the singing of this hymn the celebrant incenses the icon of
Mary several times and kisses it. At last he prostrates himself before
the icon, incenses it again, and kisses it. He then goes to the sanctuarv to finish the Office of the day.54
The Compassion of Mary: Although the general Byzantine rite
has no special feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, there are special tropars
in honor of her compassion in every Lenten Office. These tropars are
called Stavrotheotokia, because addressed to Our Lady at the foot of
the cross, and are used especially on Lenten Sundays, Wednesdays,
and Fridays. The following are some of these tropars:
In contemplating Thee, Divine Lamb, crucified on the Wood with
two thieves, O generous Logos, and on seeing Thy Side pierced with
a lance, Mary uttered these maternal lamentations: What is this
strange and awful mystery, O my Jesus? How canst Thou go to be
covered by the tomb, Thou who art the infinite God? O unspeakable
84 Salaville, art. cit., pp. 262-265.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

199

spectacle! Do not leave me alone, Thou whom I have begotten, O
my sweetest Son.58
The purest Virgin Mother contemplating Him on the Cross cried
out with sighs: Alas, my Son! What hast Thou done? Thou, tire most
beautiful of the children of men, Thou appearest without breath and
without beauty. . . . Alas! O my Light, I cannot bear to see Thee
sleep; I am wounded to the core of my being, and a cruel sword
transfixes my heart. I glorify Thy Passion, I adore Thy Compassion and
Thy Mercy, O magnanimous Saviour, glory be to Thee!56

On Good Friday at Matins the following antiphons are read:

In seeing Thee suspended on the Cross, O Christ, she who begot Thee
cried out: What a strange mystery do I see, O my Son? How dost
Thou die on the Cross, Thou who art the Head and the Dispenser
of life.57
With dramatic insistence the following antiphon cries out:
Mary, with the other women, followed Him consumed with sorrow
and crying out: Whither goest Thou, my Son! Why dost Thou hasten
Thy step! Is there another marriage at Cana, where Thou wouldst
undertake to change water into wine for them! Would that I could
come with Thee, my Son! Or rather that I could remain with Thee!
Give me a word, O Logos; do not pass me up in silence, Thou who
hast preserved me a Virgin. For Thou art my Son and my God.58

Again:

Today the Virgin undefiled, beholding Thee, the Word, uplifted upon
the Cross, weeping with the tender love of a mother, was sore
wounded in heart, and moaned grievously from the depths of her
soul, wiping her face with her hair. Wherefore also beating her hands,
she cried piteously: Woe is me, O my Son divine! Woe is me, O
Light of the World! Why hast Thou departed from mine eyes, O
Lamb of God? For which cause also the host of bodiless Powers were
seized with trembling, and said: O Lord ineffable, glory to Thee!59

On Holy Saturday there is this antiphon:
. . . When she beheld Him hanging on the Cross, she cried with
55 Ibid., p. 266.
58 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
08 Ibid.
59 Hapgood, op. cit., p. 218.

200

MARIOLOGY

weeping, and with maternal feeling exclaimed: Woe is me, my Son!
Woe is me, my Light, and the Beloved of my bosom! that which was
foretold in the Temple by Simeon today hath come to pass! A sword
shall pierce my heart, but into the joy of the Resurrection lament shall
be changed. . . .eo
Again :

Lament not for me, O Mother, when Thou beholdest in the tomb the
Son whom, without seed, Thou didst conceive in Thy womb; for I
will rise again and glorify Myself; and in that I am God, I will
raise in glory that hath no ending those who with faidi and love
magnify Thee.81
Mary and the Resurrection of Christ: The Byzantine rite is similar
to the others in joining Mary to the joy of Christ’s Resurrection.
Romanos the hymnographer sang: “Have confidence, O Mother, for
Thou shalt be the first to see me rise from the tomb.”60
*62
At Matins an ode reads:

The angel cried addressing the One Full of grace: Rejoice, O Virgin,
again I say, rejoice! Thy Son is risen from the tomb the third day.63

At every hour of the Office during Paschal week there is read this
antiphon in honor of Mary, the Cause of our joy:
Rejoice thou, who art the divine Tabernacle of the Most High; for it
is through thee, O Mother of God, that there has been given the
joy to repeat to thee: Thou art blessed among women, O Immaculate
Queen.64

On Easter there is this tropar in the Divine Office:
O Christ, who did not break the Virgin’s gate by Thy birth, Thou
didst rise from the dead, having kept intact the seals; and Thou hast
opened unto us the gates of Paradise.65
Again :
Rejoice thou, O pure Birth-giver of God, in the rising again of Him
whom thou didst bear.66
60 Ibid., p. 223.
el Ibid., p. 224.
62 Salaville, art. cit., p. 271.
ea Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Hapgood, op. cit., p. 230.
00 Ibid., p. 232.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

201

Rejoice, O Virgin! Rejoice, O Blessed One! Rejoice O greatly Glorified
One! For thy Son is risen from His three days’ sojourn in the tomb.87

May: On May 11 there is the feast of the dedication of the City
of Constantinople, which the Byzantine rite considers an act of
homage to Mary. Even the Slavs, the Melchites, and the Rumanians
have this feast. The very first tropar at Vespers shows the Marian
character of this feast:
The Queen of Cities dedicated her foundation to the Queen of
creation; for it is in her that she finds her support. Hence she cries
out: It is thou, O Virgin, who art the support of the crown, the
scepter and the rulers.88

July-August-October: On July 2 there is the feast of the Mantle
of the Mother of God at Blakhernes, on August 31 the feast of the
Cincture of the Mother of God, and on October 1 that of the Pro­
tection or Patronage of the Mother of God. On all of these feasts
we see the doctrine of Mary’s intercession clearly expressed, as stated
previously for the feast of October 1.8e
August 15: The feast of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Virgin, or
the Assumption. This is the most solemn Marian feast in the Byzan­
tine rite. It is preceded by a small fast of two weeks and a vigil. The
feast is a holyday of obligation.
There are three kinds of texts in the Byzantine liturgy for this
great feast. The first is quite explicit regarding the Resurrection and
Assumption of Mary. The second speaks only of the Assumption of
her soul and the incorruption of her body. The third category is
ambiguous in the sense that the texts speak either of the Assumption
of her soul. or of her departure without defining just how.70 The
clearest texts telling of Mary’s Assumption to heaven body and soul
are generally those of St. John Damascene, St. Cosmas, Bishop of
Maiouma (both of the eighth century) and St. Theophane Graptos,
Bishop of Nice (in the ninth century).
The heavenly tabernacles, O all-Pure One, have received thee worthily
as a living Heaven; thou hast presented thyself to our King and God
in all the splendor of beauty, as a Spouse entirely immaculate.
87 Ibid., p. 233. For "Our Lady of the Living Source,” on Friday after Easter, see
Salaville, art. cit., pp. 272—275.
88 Salaville, art. cit., p. 276.
eo Ibid., pp. 277-281.
70 M. Jugie, La Mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge, Étude historicodoctrinale (Rome, 1944), p. 188.

202

MARIOLOGY

It was a marvel to contemplate the living Heaven of the King of
the Universe, elevated above the earthly places. How admirable are
Thy works! Glory to Thy Power, O Lord!
In bringing forth God, O Immaculate One, thou hast gained the palm
of victory over nature. Nonetheless, after the example of thy Creator,
who is also thy Son, thou hast yielded supematurally to the laws of
nature; therefore dying with thy Son, thou hast arisen for eternity.

The tomb and death could not retain in their power the Mother of
God, whose intercession never ceases, and whose protection con­
stitutes our firm hope; her title Mother of Life has entitled her to
pass to life by the power of Him, who has dwelt in her virginal womb.71

Others read as follows:

O marvel wonderful! The Source of life is laid in a grave, and the
tomb becometh the ladder unto Heaven. Rejoice, O Gethsemane, thou
holy abode of the Mother of God.

Sing, O ye people, sing to the Mother of our God; for today she
doth yield up her all-radiant soul into the hands most pure of Him,
who, without seed, was incarnate of her; whom, also, she doth un­
ceasingly entreat that He will give unto the world peace and great
mercy.
In giving birth, thou didst preserve thy virginity; in thy Falling-asleep
thou hast not forsaken the world, O Mother of God. Thou hast
passed into life, thou who art the Mother of God, and through thine
intercession dost deliver our souls from death.
When the holy Angels beheld thine Assumption, they marvelled how a
Virgin should ascend from earth to Heaven.
The laws of nature were conquered in thee, O Virgin pure; for in
giving birth was virginity preserved, and with death is life conjoined.
Thou who, after giving birth didst remain a Virgin, though dead, art
yet alive, Birth-giver of God, and savest always thine inheritance.72

August is Mary’s month with the Byzantines. The first half is
devoted to the fast in preparation for the feast of the Assumption.
Then there is the feast itself, and then its prolongation until August
23. It was Emperor Andronicus II Paleologus of Constantinople who
issued the decree in 1297 that the entire month of August be dedi­
cated to the Mother of God. Until the city fell to the Turks in
71 Salaville, art. cit., pp. 281-285.
72 Hapgood, op. cit., pp. 263-265.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

203

1453 the month of August was celebrated with solemnity in honor of
Mary. The festivities began at the Church of Our Lady of Hodeges
and was continued at the different churches throughout the month.
On the fifteenth the services were held at Santa Sophia and on the
thirty-first at Blakhemes, the Byzantine Lourdes, “Our Lady of the
Living Source.”73 The custom spread in the lands of the Byzantine
rite with some variations. Today every evening during the first two
weeks of August they sing the votive office of Our Lady known as
the Paraklisis.74

2. Mary in the Divine Office
The praises of Mary occur every day in the Divine Office. The
following are examples taken from various parts of the Office:
O most Glorious and Blessed Mother of God, ever Virgin, present
our prayer to thy Son, our God, and beg Him to save our souls
through Thee.

... I place all my hope in thee, O Mother of God, protect me in
thy care.
On Sundays:
O purest Virgin, in seeing thy Son divinely risen again from the
dead, the whole world was filled with ineffable joy, in glorifying Him
and in venerating thee.

Hail, O Venerable One, thou who hast brought forth God in the
flesh, thou through whom the human race has found salvation. For
through thee we shall find Paradise, O Virgin pure and blessed.

O Christ, who art the Light, enlighten me with Thyself, by the in­
tercession of the Mother of God, O Saviour, and save me.

On Wednesdays and Saturdays we find this tropar:
Standing at the foot of the Cross, she, who brought Thee forth vir73 Salaville, art. cit., pp. 285, 286. Archdale A. King, The Assumption of Our
Lady in the Oriental Liturgies, in Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. 8, Nos. 3 and
4; for Byzantine rite, No. 4, October-December, 1949, pp. 228, 229. See also Vol.
9, No. 2, Summer, 1951, Michael Gavrilof, The Dormition and Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin in Slav Iconography, pp. 113-119, with 14 illustrations; Dom
Edmund M. Jones, O.S.B., The Iconography of the Falling Asleep of the Mother
of God in Byzantine Tradition, pp. 101-112; Atanasio G. Weîykyj, O.S.B.M.,
L’Assunzione della B. V. Maria Deipara nella Liturgia Bizantina, in Alma Soda
Christi, Vol. 5, fasc. 2, pp. 36-53; M. Jugie, A.A., La fête Byzantine de la Con­
ception de Sainte Anne, in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 5, fasc. 2, pp. 29-35.
74 Salaville, art. cit., p. 287.

204

MARIOLOGY

ginally, sighed and said: Alas! O my sweetest Son, how hast Thou
passed from my eyes, how hast Thou been counted among the dead?

On Thursdays there is this prayer, in which we see a fine declara­
tion of Mary’s relation to the three Divine Persons:
Mary, the purest Golden Censer, has become the Tabernacle of the
Trinity, whom nothing can contain. With this Tabernacle, the Father
is pleased, tire Son has dwelt therein, and the Holy Spirit, O Virgin,
covering thee with His shadow, has made thee Mother of God.

On Saturdays:
We glory in thee, O Mother of God, and we have thee for Protectress
before God; extend thine invincible arm and destroy our enemies;
send down to thy servants aid from on high.

On Sundays:

Thou art blessed above all, O Virgin Mother of God; for it is through
Him, who took flesh of thee, that hell has been made captive, that
Adam has been freed, that the curse was destroyed, that Eve has been
delivered, that death has been sent to death, and that life has been
restored to ourselves. Therefore we sing: Blessed be Christ our God.
At the Little Hours these tropars occur:

Let us glorify without respite, with heart and mouth, the most
glorious Mother of God, holier than the angels, and proclaim her
Birth-giver of God, for she has really brought forth God Incarnate,
and that she should intercede for our souls.

At Prime and before the Divine Liturgy:
Open to us the door of mercy, Blessed Mother of God. Hoping in thee,
may we not be confounded. Through thee may we be delivered from
all dangers, for thou art the Hope of Christians.
At Tierce:
O Birth-Giver of God, thou art the true Vine that has produced the
Fruit of life. We beg of thee, intercede, O Queen, with the Apostles
and all the saints, so that our souls will receive mercy.

At Sext:

Thou art the Source of mercy, deign to show us thy compassion, O
Birth-giver of God; cast an eye on this sinful people, show it, as

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

205

ever, thy power. Filled with hope in thee, we repeat to thee the
salutation, which the Archangel Gabriel brought to thee of old.76

It is monastic custom to have the midday meal between Sext and
None. During the meal, in monasteries and in many Christian
families, an icon of Mary, hung in a prominent place, receives spe­
cial honor. This ceremony is called the Exaltation of the Panagia
(All-Holy). Some bread in the form of a triangle is placed before
her icon. At the end of the meal, one of the community or family
incenses this bread and raising it before all says: “Great is the
Name of the Trinity! Most Holy Mother of God, protect us.” The
others answer: “In virtue of her prayers, O God, have mercy on us,
and save us." Then the bread is cut and all present take a piece which
is called the panagia. This ceremony is explained in the following
manner in the Horologion:
After Christ’s Resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit
Our Lady and the Apostles lived together. At meals there was a
vacant place at table where a piece of bread was placed in honor of
Christ. After the meal the diners recited praise to the three Persons
of the Blessed Trinity. On the third day after the burial of Our Lady
the Apostles came together to dine, and when they began the prayer
in honor of the Blessed Trinity, Our Lady appeared to them and
told them to rejoice, for she would be ever with them. The Apostles
begged her aid. Then they went to her tomb and found it empty,
and they understood that she had arisen like her Son on the third
day after her death. Hence in this custom of raising an icon of Mary
at table and of blessing the bread and praising the Blessed Trinity
we find the belief in Mary’s Assumption.76
At None:
Come, let us all praise Him who has been crucified for us. Mary saw
Him on the wood of the Cross and said: Although Thou sufferest the
Cross, Thou art my Son and my God.

At Vespers:
Often during Lent, and on certain other ferial days, there are two
tropars in honor of Mary:
O Virgin Birth-giver of God, Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the Fruit of
thy womb; for thou hast brought forth the Saviour of our souls.
” Ibid., pp. 289-293.
70 Ibid., pp. 293, 294.

2o6

MARIOLOGY

We have recourse to thy mercy, O Birth-giver of God, do not thou
disdain our supplications in our necessities, but deliver us from
dangers, O thou who art alone pure and alone blessed.

The evening table prayers have these words:

Thy womb, O Mother of God, has become the sacred table bearing the
heavenly Bread, Christ our God, who promises immortality to whom­
soever eats it, according to the word of Him who is the universal
Provider.
O Virgin Birth-giver of God, make us worthy of thy gifts, forget our
sins, and give us the spiritual remedies, we who receive thy blessing
with faith, O Immaculate One.

At Compline:

Having confidence in thee that will never be confounded, I shall be
saved. Assured of thy protection, O Immaculate One, I shall fear
nothing; I shall pursue my enemies and destroy them, having thy
help as my only shield. So, too, imploring thy assistance, I cry to
thee: O Queen, save me by thy intercession and make me to come
forth from dark sleep to sing thy praises, by the power of God, thy
Son, who took flesh from thee.”
This part of the Office ends with an unusually long prayer attrib­
uted to the monk Paul (f 1054), founder of the Monastery of Our
Lady of Evergate.78 These tropars, antiphons, and odes are only some
examples of the rich Theotokia in the Byzantine Office. Many more
are used especially on certain feasts at Matins and Vespers. Besides
that, the Byzantine rite also has some Votive Offices. The Akathistos
Hymn is often used that way. Others are called the Small Canon of
Supplication and the Great Canon of Supplication to the All-Holy
Birth-Giver of God.™
3. Mary in the Divine Liturgy
The icons of Christ and the all-holy Mother of God are present at
every Divine Liturgy. They are incensed at various times by the
celebrant or deacon. On opening the royal door, the celebrant recites
the prayer given above beginning with the words: "Open to us the
door of mercy.” Before Mary’s icon he says:
77 Ibid., pp. 295-298.
78 Ibid., pp. 297, 298.
70 Ibid., pp. 312-324.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

207

Thou art the Font of mercy, O Mother of God, vouchsafe us thy
compassion. Look down upon a sinful people, show thy power as
always. Hoping in thee, we cry to thee: Hail, as did once Gabriel,
the Captain of the angels.80
Placing a piece of bread on the paten in honor of Mary the cele­
brant says:
In honor and in memory of our most blessed and glorious Lady, Mother
of God, and ever-Virgin Mary, through whose intercession do Thou,
O Lord, receive this sacrifice on Thy heavenly altar. The Queen stood
at Thy right hand, clothed in a robe of gold and many colors.81

During the Divine Liturgy the Mother of God is invoked various
times, e.g.:
By the intercession of the Mother of God, O Saviour, save us.
May Christ our God, by the prayers of His Immaculate Mother . . .
and of all the saints, have mercy on us and save us, for He is the
gracious Lover of men.82

Remembering our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady,
the Mother of God, and ever-Virgin Mary, and all the saints, let
us commend ourselves, each other, and all our life to Christ our God.83
O only-begotten Son and Word of God, who being immortal didst
vouchsafe to take flesh for our salvation of the Holy Birth-giver of
God, and ever Virgin Mary; Thou who without change didst become
man and wast crucified, O Christ our God, by death trampling down
death; Thou who wast Thyself one of the Holy Trinity, who art
glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.84

In this prayer we hear the echoes of the early Councils of the
Church crying down the ages that Christ is true God and true Man,
and Mary is truly the Mother of God. The great Eastern Doctors of
those ages speak to us in this prayer, and in others of this rite, they
who proclaimed these doctrines with such force and clarity. Mary
80 Ibid., p. 303. Cf. Cuthbert Gumbinger, O.F.M.Cap., The Cult of the Mother
of God in Byzantine Liturgy, in Franciscan Studies (St. Bonaventure, N. Y.),
Vol. 22; New Series, Vol. i, No. 3, September, 1941, pp. 49-61.
81 Dom Placid De Meester, O.S.B., The Divine Liturgy of our Father among the
Saints, John Chrysostom (Greek text with Introduction and Notes) (London: Bums,
Oates and Washboume, 1926), p. 13.
82 Ibid., p. 27.
8:1 Ibid., p. 29.
84 Ibid., p. 31.

2o8

MARIOLOGY

is commemorated several times in shorter prayers. Then after the
Consecration, the priest incenses the Sacred Species and praises Mary,
immaculate, all-holy, and ever Virgin. The choir sings the megalynarion (which varies on certain feasts):

Meet indeed it is to bless thee, Mother of God, ever blessed and most
sinless Mother of our God. Honored above the Cherubim, infinitely
more glorious than the Seraphim, who didst bear God the Word with­
out stain. Mother of God in truth, we magnify thee.85
86

On Mary’s feasts the tropars and antiphons multiply in her honor,
e.g.:
Thy mysteries are above understanding and most glorious, O Mother
of God, for, spotless and a virgin, thou art acknowledged a true Mother,
who hast borne the true God; pray to Him that He save our souls.

Hail, thou Gate of the Lord! Hail, Bulwark and Protection of those
who fly to thee! Hail, untroubled Haven and Virgin, who hast borne in
flesh thy Creator and God! Do not cease to pray for those who laud
and reverence thy child-bearing.

As the treasure of our resurrection, do thou, O universally celebrated
Virgin, raise up those hoping in thee from the pit and depth of sin;
for thou hast saved the repentent from sin, having borne our Salvation,
and wast a Virgin before bearing child, a Virgin in bearing, and after
bearing hast ever remained a Virgin.86
From these excerpts of the Byzantine liturgical texts we see how
profound and how tender is the Marian doctrine of the Byzantines.
They are justly proud of it. We do well to study these prayers to
increase our own devotion to the all-holy and immaculate Virgin
Mother of God. When we consider that the Orthodox use these
same prayers, we are consoled to think that Mary, in her merciful
goodness, will eventually lead them back to the one true Church
of Christ, over whom He had appointed Peter and his successors
to rule and teach infallibly for all ages. With all the Byzantines we
ask the Mediatrix of All Graces

For the peace of the whole world, for the good estate of all the holy
churches of God, and for the union of all.87
85 Ibid., p. 69.
88 Théophile A. Zatkovich, The Bread of Life, Prayer Book for Catholics of the
Old Slavonic Rite (Homestead, Pa., 1935), PP· too, lox, 106, no. Cf. Salaville,
art. cit., pp. 302-304.
87 De Meester, op. cit., p. 25.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

209

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Attwater, Donald, The Christian Churches of the East, 2 vols. (Milwau­
kee: Bruce, 1946, 1947).
------- Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London: Bums, Oates and
Washbourne, 1931).
Brian-Chaninov, Nicolas, The Russian Church, translated from the French
by Warre B. Wells (New York: Macmillan, 1930).
Fortescue, Adrian, The Uniate Eastern Churches, The Byzantine Rite in
Italy, Sicily, Syria and Egypt (London: Burns, Oates and Washboume,
i923>
Gordillo, Mauritius, S.L, Compendium Theologiae Orientalis (Romae:
Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1950).
King, Archdale A., The Rites of Eastern Christendom, 2 vols. (Rome:
Catholic Book Agency, 1948), Vol. 2, Byzantine Rite with Variants,
pp. 1-250.
Kirsch, Johann Peter, Die Kirche in der Griechisch-Roemischen Kulturwelt (Kirchengeschichte 1) (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1930).
Larsson, Raymond, E. F., Saints at Prayer (New York, Coward-McCann,
1942). Many Eastern prayers to Mary are here given.
Raes, Alphonsus, S.L, Introductio in Liturgiam Orientalem (Romae: Pont.
Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1947).
For Byzantine anaphoras see Aleksyei Maltzev, Die Goettlichen Liturgien
unserer heiligen Vaeter Johannes Chrysostomus, Basilios des Grossen
und Gregorios Diologos (Berlin, 1890). Also Migne, Patrologia Graeca,
Vol. 63, col. 90 et seq.

210

MARIOLOGY

II. MARY IN THE ALEXANDRIAN AND
ETHIOPIAN LITURGIES

i. The Alexandrian Liturgy
The Church of St. Mark at Alexandria and its faithful use the
Alexandrian liturgy. After the Council of Chalcedon Egypt fell into
Monophysism, when the Patriarch Dioscoros of Alexandria was de­
posed by the Council. Nearly all the clergy and faithful of Egypt,
and many also in Syria, refused to accept the definitions of this
Council. Politics, too, played a part in this, and for the next century
Alexandria had sometimes Catholic, sometimes Monophysite, patri­
archs. By 567 two lines of patriarchs were established, one Catholic
and one Monophysite. The Catholics were in a minority. Both Cath­
olic and Monophysite Egyptians are called Copts. This condition
remains to the present day. Various attempts at reunion have taken
place in recent centuries, but with little effect. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII
granted the Catholic Copts a patriarch in the person of Cyril Maka­
rios. Since then they have increased in numbers and power. Yet even
Makarios went into schism for a time. The present patriarch is Mark
II Khouzam, appointed by Pope Pius XII, August 10, 1947.1
The splendid Alexandrian liturgy gives great praise to Mary and
is used by both the Catholic and the Monophysite Copts. This liturgy
is a form of the early Greek liturgy of Alexandria and it has three
anaphoras, namely of St. Basil for Sundays and ordinary days; of St.
Mark and St. Cyril, used on the feasts of these saints and at the
consecration of a bishop; and of St. Gregory Nazianzen for great
feasts. This last anaphora is addressed to Our Lord. The language
used is Coptic, a language derived from the old Egyptian and mixed
with some Greek.2
The Ethiopian liturgy is derived from the Alexandrian, translated
from the Coptic and Arabic in the course of centuries, without much
1 D. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1946),
pp. 132-141, 132, 134. Ibid., Vol. II, for Dissidents (Milwaukee, 1947), pp.
199-211. Annuario Pontificio (Città del Vaticano, 1953), p. 90.
2 Attwater, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 137. A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom
Vol. I (Rome, 1947), pp. 387, 393. S. Congregazione Orientale, Statistica con cenni
storici della gerarchia e aei fedeli di rito orientale (Roma, 1932), pp. 33—40. Ο. H. E.
Hadji-Burmester, The Rites and Ceremonies of the Coptic Church, in Eastern
Churches Quarterly (Ramsgate), Vol. 7, April-June, 1948, pp. 373-403; Vol. 8,
January-March, 1949, pp. 1-39; Spring, 1950, pp. 291-316; Vol. 9, Spring, 1951,
pp. 1-27.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

211

order. It is being re-edited at present.3 The Alexandrian liturgy mani­
fests a tender and abiding devotion to the Mother of God. It was
this devotion of the Egyptians, as well as that of the Syrians and
Persians that so impressed the Mohammedan conquerors that even
they honor Mary as full of grace, as the noblest of women and the
chosen one of God.4

i. The Mass
Mary is honored in the Alexandrian liturgy at Mass by being
named first among the saints, and before the Lord’s Prayer at the
breaking of the Host. At the Commemoration Mary is named as “she
who is full of glory, that is a virgin unto all time, holy Mary, the
holy Mother of God.”8 A little later the intercession of Mary is asked:
“Exalt the horn of the orthodox Christians through the power of the
life-giving cross . . . through the prayers and supplications which
our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, holy Mary,
doth at all times make for us all.”6
At the incensation of Mary’s icon the priest says:
Hail to thee, the faithful Dove, which hath borne for us God the Word.
We give thee salutation with the Angel Gabriel, saying, Hail, thou
art full of grace; the Lord is with thee.
Hail to thee, O Virgin, the very and true Queen; hail, glory of our
race. Thou hast borne for us Emmanuel.

We pray thee, remember us, O thou our faithful Advocate with our
Lord Jesus Christ, that he may forgive us our sins.7
3 S. Congregazione Orientale, op. cit., pp. 41—47. King, op. cit., pp. 337—495.
Λ. J. Butler, The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt (Oxford, 1884), 2 vols.
R. M. Woolley (translator), The Coptic Offices (New York, 1930). D. Attwater,
Vhe Liturgy of the Copts, in Orate Fratres (Collegeville), April-May, 1942.
Anonymous, Some Notes on the Egyptian Christians, in Eastern Churches Quarterly,
Vol. 7, April-June, 1948, pp. 412-425.
For Ethiopian rite see: King, op. cit., pp. 497-658; G. Nicollet, Le Culte de
Marie en Ethiopie in H. du Manoir, S.J., Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge,
Vol. i (Paris, 1949), pp. 365-413; A. A. King, The New Ethiopie Missal, in
Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. 6, October—December, 1946, pp. 496—501.
1 Amba Alexander, Devotion to Our Lady in the Coptic Rite, in Eastern Churches
Quarterly, Vol. 7, April-June, 1948, pp. 404-408. FI. Belloc, The Great Heresies
(New York, 1938), p. 79. A. Arce, O.F.M., Culte islamique au tombeau de la
Vierge, in Atti dei Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951), pp.
175-194·
» King, op. cit., p. 464.
" Ibid., p. 466.
7 Ibid., pp. 438, 439.

212

MARIOLOGY

During the incensation the faithful sing these touching words:
The golden thurible of Aaron, the priest, is the Virgin; the sweet
fragrance which it exhales is the Saviour. She bore Him and He
saved us. O Mary, thou art the pure censer containing the blessed and
Holy fire.8

When the priest unveils the oblation at the Preface the people
chant:
By the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary who bore for us the
Saviour of the world, grant us, O Lord, pardon for our sins.9
On Marian feasts there are special praises in her honor.
2. The Divine Office
It is in the Divine Office that we find rich and precious doctrine
about the glory and privileges and power of the Mother of God.
According to this liturgy, Mary must be commemorated and invoked
at every ceremony, at every Office. Hence we cannot give all these
texts. Mary is honored in a special way as the Queen and Mother of
the priest. She is invoked as such at every canonical hour:
Hail Mary! We beseech thee, holy one, full of glory, ever Mother of
God, Mother of Christ, lift up our prayers to thy beloved Son, that
He may forgive us our sins. Hail, holy Virgin, who didst mother the
true Light, Christ our God. Intercede for us with the Lord, that he
may show pity on our souls and pardon us our sins. O Virgin Mary!
Mother of God, faithful Advocate of the human race, supplicate for
us Christ whom thou didst mother, that we may obtain forgiveness of
our sins. Hail to thee, O Virgin Queen, truly righteous! Hail, the
honor of our race, who didst give birth to Emmanuel; be mindful of
us we implore thee, O faithful Advocate with Our Lord Jesus Christ,
that he may pardon us our sins.10

In tire prayer before the Creed at Matins and Compline Mary is
thus honored :
We glorify thee, O Mother of the true Light; we venerate thee,
O Holy Mother of God, for thou didst give birth to the Redeemer of
the world. . . ,11
8 Amba Alexander, op. cit., p. 407.
8 Ibid., p. 408.
10 Ibid., pp. 406, 407.
11 Ibid., p. 407.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

213

The following prayer is recited at the end of Tierce:

O Mother of God, thou art the true vine hearing the Grape of Life.
In union with the Apostles we beseech thee, O full of grace, obtain
for us the salvation of our souls. Blessed be die Lord our God. May
the God of our salvation prepare our way before us. O Mother of God,
thou Portal of heaven, open to us the gates of mercy.12

At None:
When the Mother of the Lamb and Good Shepherd saw the world’s
Redeemer hanging on the Cross, she said through her tears: “The
world rejoices because it has received salvation; but my heart is broken
at witnessing this crucifixion which Thou dost suffer for all man­
kind, O my Son and my God.”18

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

During Holy Week the following invocation is used morning and
night: "Hail to thee, O spotless Dove, Spouse of the Holy Spirit,
we pray thee to be mindful of us before thy Son.” All blessings and
favors are asked of God in all the ceremonies through the interces­
sion of the Mother of God.15
As among other rites of the Christian East Mary’s image or icon
has special honor in tire church and is incensed during the sacred
functions. The Alexandrian Church always portrays Mary with the
divine Child. Pictures of her alone are not in favor, for she is ever
honored as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. The Alexandrians
learned this love for God’s all-holy Mother from the Council of
Ephesus and from St. Cyril of Alexandria, its hero. Therefore Mary
is almost always present in the Alexandrian liturgy, despite age-long
schism and heresy, even among the Monophysites. Her light shines
upon all who use this liturgy. The Catholics pray that some day this
light of Mary and love for her will bring the dissidents back to the
true Church.16
« Ibid.
13 Ibid.
“ Ibid.
” Ibid., p. 408.
>· Ibid.

214

MARIOLOGY

Marian Feasts and Privileges
The Marian feasts in this liturgy are thirty-two and in this the
Ethiopians imitate them. But not all these feasts are observed every­
where. The three major Marian feasts are her Nativity, her Presenta­
tion in the Temple, and her Assumption. As the Alexandrians honor
Mary’s divine Maternity, so, too, they honor her Assumption as her
greatest feast. This is celebrated on August 22 and is preceded by a
strict abstinence for a fortnight, when the diet consists of fruit and
uncooked food. It is a little Lent, when the solemnization of marriage
is forbidden, and it is a time of prayer.17
Some feasts of Christ are also feasts of Mary, e.g., the Annuncia­
tion, Christmas, the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, and the
Entry Into Egypt.18 Besides these, other Marian feasts are, e.g., that
of the Holy Family, the Immaculate Conception (two feasts, July 31
and December 9), Death of Mary (January 16) —but among the
Catholics this day commemorates the consecration of the first church
dedicated to Our Lady —the Divine Motherhood, the Commemora­
tion of the Council of Ephesus, and the days of the dedication of
Marian churches at Atrib, Heliopolis, Philipponis, and Itib.19
Mary’s privileges and power of intercession are clearly stated in
the liturgy and hymns of the faithful. Egypt glories in the Mother of
God, so much so that even tire Mohammedans had been influenced
by this devotion. Mary’s purity is unsullied; she is compared to the
burning bush that was not consumed. Her Immaculate Conception,
her perpetual virginity, her plenitude of grace, her painless childbear­
ing, her power of intercession, and her heavenly glory in body and
soul —all these privileges and graces of Mary are stated explicitly
many times in this rich and splendid liturgy.20 Father Gabriel Giamberardini, O.F.M., gives excellent testimony to the Marian devotion of
the Coptic Church in his fine work on the assumptionist theology of
that church.21 From this we see that Coptic love and devotion to the
Mother of God, handed on to them from St. Cyril of Alexandria

3.

17 King, op. cit., p. 398; Amba Alexander, op. cit., p. 406.
18 King, op. cit., pp. 397, 398.
19 Ibid., pp. 398, 399; Amba Alexander, loc. cit.
20 A. Van Lantschoot, O.Praem., Le culte de la Sainte Vierge chez les coptes, in
Alma Socia Christi, Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani Romae Anno Sancto
MCML celebrati, Vol. 5, fasc. 11 (Romae, 1952), De B. V. Maria penes Ecclesias
Orientis, pp. 103—108.
21 G. Giamberardini, La teologia assunzionistica nella Chiesa Egiziana, in Atti
dei Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951), pp. 41-174.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

215

and the Council of Ephesus, has never grown weak, but has con­
tinued strong and glorious through the centuries.
Honorable titles and attributes generously applied to Our Lady
prove this devotion of the Alexandrian liturgy. Some of these titles
and attributes are:
David’s Daughter, Ark of the Covenant robed in purest gold, Flower
of Jesse, who draws down the Saviour, Garden enclosed where dwells
the Godhead, the Father’s Chariot radiant with divine light, Ladder
to heaven seen by the Patriarch Jacob, having the Spirit of God at its
summit, Silver Censer enclosing burning coals, Lantern resplendent,
Light of Paradise, Strength of Samson, Rod of Aaron blossoming
unwatered, Bush of myrrh which Moses saw crowned with flame on
Mount Tor, Vase of alabaster, Precious Treasure, Tower of Ivory,
Dome of Moses, Fruitful Vineyard, Throne of God which Daniel the
Prophet saw above the Seraphim, Sacred Altar which God inhabits,
and Immaculate Virgin betrothed to the Spouse.22
2. The Ethiopic Liturgy

In modern times revisions of the Ethiopic liturgy have taken place.
In 1945 the Vatican Press completed the printing of the revised
missal, called the Book of the Oblation. This missal is based on old
manuscripts and on that of Diredawa in Ethiopia. The book contains
the Ordinary of the Mass, the Anaphora of the Apostles and seven­
teen others. The liturgical language is Ge’ez, a Semitic language
used in Ethiopia until the seventeenth century.23
i. The Mass
Mary is mentioned at the beginning of the liturgy of the
Catechumens:

Blessed be the only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made man of
Mary, the holy Virgin, for our salvation.24

While incensing the image of Mary the priest says:
Thou art the golden censer which didst bear the live Coal of fire.
Blessed is he who receiveth out of the sanctuary him that forgiveth
sin and blotteth out error, who is God’s Word, who was made man
of thee, who offered himself to his Father for incense and an accept­
able offering. We worship thee, Christ, with thy good heavenly
22 Amba Alexander, loc. cit.
23 King, op. cit., pp. 562-566; cf. note 3 of this paper.
21 Ibid., p. 591.

MARIOLOGY

2i6

Father and thine Holy Spirit, the life-giver, for thou didst come and
save us.25

After the incensation of the altar the priest recites the Hail Mary
alternately with the people.2® After the epistle there is another incen­
sation of the altar when the priest prays:

Hail, O thou of whom we ask salvation, O holy praiseful ever-virgin
Parent of God, Mother of Christ: offer up our prayer on high to thy
beloved Son that He forgive us our sins. Hail, O thou who barest for
us the very Light of Righteousness, even Christ our God. O Virgin
pure, plead for us unto the Lord, that he show mercy unto our souls
and forgive us our sins. Hail, O Virgin pure, Mary, holy Parent of
God, very pleader for the race of mankind, plead for us before Christ
thy Son, that he vouchsafe us remission of our sins. Hail, O Virgin
pure, very Queen; hail, O Pride of our kind. Hail, O thou that barest
for us Emmanuel. We pray thee that thou remember us, O very
Mediatrix, before our Lord, Jesus Christ, that He forgive us our sins.27
Going outside the veil the priest says:
This is the time of blessing, this is the time of choice incense, the
time of the praise of our Saviour, lover of men, Christ. The censer
is Mary; the incense is Lie who was in her womb which is fragrant;
the incense is He whom she bare; He came and saved us, the fragrant
ointment, Jesus Christ. . . . To Michael was given mercy, and glad
tidings to Gabriel and a heavenly gift to Mary, the Virgin. . . . The
fragrant ointment is Mary: for He that was in her womb, who is
more fragrant than all incense, came and was made flesh of her. In
Mary Virgin pure the Father was well pleased and He decked her for
a tabernacle for the habitation of His well-beloved Son. . . .28
At the Trisagion the priest says: “Holy God, holy mighty, holy
living immortal, who was born of Mary the holy Virgin, have mercy
on us, O Lord.”29 The Catholics leave out the interpolation.
After the Preface the deacon recites a litany wherein Mary is
named first among the saints.30 A little later the priest says:

Thou who sendest Thy Son from heaven into the bosom of the
25 Ibid., p. 594.
20 Ibid., pp. 596, 597.
2T Ibid., p. 600.
28 Ibid., p. 601.
29 Ibid., p. 602.
30 Ibid., p. 616.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

217

Virgin, He was carried in the womb, was made flesh, and His birth
was revealed of the Holy Ghost.31

Mary is mentioned again shortly before the words of Consecration.32
She is named again, in a prayer before Communion.33 She is again
mentioned at the end of a prayer when the priest puts a particle of
the Host into the chalice.34 Toward the end of the liturgy there is
a long prayer, wherein Mary is named as the Mother of God and
immaculate.35 After that she is mentioned in another prayer as
“immaculate in virginity, pure for ever and ever.”3® Among the
many anaphoras of this rite there is one entitled "Of our Lady, Mary
the Virgin.” The first part of it praises Our Lady, who is typified
in the lives of Old Testament characters, and who is the source of
all Christian graces.37
The Divine Office and Marian Hymns
The Divine Office in this rite needed revision as did the other
liturgical books. The psalter, lessons, and office of Our Lady were
published for the Catholics in I926.3S The definitive Ethiopie bre­
viary will soon appear in its revised edition. The Ethiopie hymnology
and prayers to Mary are rich and numerous. Mary is given many
splendid titles, many feasts honor her, and in all the liturgical texts
we see the wealth of oriental imagery used to glorify her, who is
above all praise. Genevieve Nicollet states that it is well-nigh impos­
sible to gather all the Marian hymns. They have a plain chant all
their own and go back to early centuries.39 There was a renaissance
of Marian hymnography in the fifteenth century during the reigns
of the Ethiopian kings Zara-Yaqob, his son Baeda-Maryam, and
Naod. These kings also ordered the ancient hymns to be collected.
At this time many new ones were composed as well.40
2.

31 Ibid., p. 619.
32 Ibid., p. 620.
33 Ibid., p. 632.
34 Ibid., p. 633.
35 Ibid., p. 643.
36 Ibid., p. 645.
37 Ibid., pp. 646-648; Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 376-379.
38 King, op. cit., p. 566.
30 Nicollet, op. cit., p. 395; A Grohmann, Aethiopische Marienhymnen (Leipzig,
1919). Three great Marian hymns are here translated with a rich philological
commentary.
40 Nicollet, loc. cit.

2l8

MARIOLOGY

The Marian hymns are a study in themselves, for in them we
see so many influences both native and foreign, that they are a
literary problem. Above all, they prove tire ceaseless ardor of the
Ethiopians to praise the all-holy Mother of God, to enrich the treasure
of her hymns, and to multiply her glorious praises. There are so
many of these hymns for every feast, even for every day of the
week, that it seems the authors must have vied with one another in
composing them. And even if all the hymns are not original and
native to the land, yet their superabundance manifests the pro­
foundly Ethiopian sentiment of absolute confidence in Mary.41
Many of these Marian hymns are in the liturgical collections,
others are for popular use. In the Deggua, a book of plain chant for
the days of the year, there are several Marian hymns. For example,
one hymn glorifies the birth of Christ, another compares Our Lady
to the golden candlestick seen by the Prophet Zachary in a vision
(Zach. 4:2). This latter hymn is filled with scriptural allusions to
Mary from the Old Testament. Another hymn compares Mary to the
burning bush seen by Moses (Exod. 3:4). Still another one likens
her to a dove, or to the Tabernacle of the Chosen People.42
In the Meeraf, a book composed probably in the second half of
the fifteenth century, we find other Marian hymns. This book is
really a guide for the chanted offices. Here one hymn calls Mary the
“golden table,” while there are other hymns in honor of Mary’s
Nativity, the Annunciation, and one where she is styled “Mother
of God and the Saviour,” and another where she has the names of
“Vine and Vase filled with manna.” Finally there is a hymn in
honor of her Assumption.43 Other liturgical books containing Marian
hymns are Mawaseet (an antiphonary); Zemmare (hymns for Easter,
Pentecost, and Epiphany); Matshafa Kidana Mehrat (Book of the
Pact of Mercy); Weddase Maryam (Praises of Mary); Argonona
Dengel by George the Armenian; Enzira Sebhat (Harp of Glory);
Weddase wa-genay la-emma Adonay (Praises and humble thanks to
the Mother of Adonai); Weddase em-qala nabiyat (Praises taken
from the words of the Prophets); and the Laba Maryam (Lamenta­
tions of Mary). Tire Mazmura Dengel (Psalter of Mary) has 105
strophes of four verses each. The religious sentiment is predominant
in all these works. There we see the profound and childlike love of
41 Ibid., p. 396.
« Ifcid.
43
PP· 396, 397.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

219

the Ethiopians for the Mother of God.'1·* A good number of other
Marian hymns are used occasionally also in the liturgy.45
3. Marian Feasts and Privileges

From the important place Mary has in the Ethiopian liturgy we see
that even though the Ethiopians, as well as the Egyptians and
Syrians, have erred in the past in regard to the dogmatic explanation
of the mystery of the Incarnation, they have, nevertheless, retained
intact the privilege of the divine Maternity of Mary —and this
despite all their trials and persecutions through the centuries.46
Echoes of tire Council of Ephesus, proclaiming Mary’s divine Ma­
ternity are heard in all the liturgies, and in a special way in those
of Alexandria and Ethiopia. Even the Dissidents retain this great
devotion to Mary and manifest it in their liturgy and devotions.
In the Chronicles of King Zara-Yaqob (1431—1468) of Ethiopia
we read that after he had conquered and killed with his own hand
the terrible Mohammedan chief Arwe Badlay, an order was given
that tire “thirty-two feasts of Our Lady should be celebrated like
Sundays with the greatest punctuality . . . under pain of excom­
munication.”47 Later he commanded that every church should have
a tabot (altar) dedicated to the holy Virgin. These customs are still
in use and the Ethiopians have never failed in their love and devo­
tion to the Mother of God.48 Even Job Ludolf, a German Protestant
scholar of the seventeenth century, famous for his works on Ethiopia,
had to admit that the Ethiopians honor Mary much more than all
the other saints.49 It is impossible to give an exact list of the Marian
feasts celebrated in the Dissident Ethiopian liturgy today, because
their number differs in various places. Some Ethiopian Marian feasts
celebrate some famous Marian sanctuary, others some miracle
wrought at Mary’s intercession. Nearly one third of the year, the
Ethiopian calendar has feasts on which work is forbidden.50 The
Coptic calendar is the foundation for that of Ethiopia. Often the
same feast is celebrated many times in the year. For example, Christ44 Ibid., pp. 397, 398, 405; translations into French.
45 Ibid., pp. 406-413.
40 Van Lantschoot, op. cit., p. 103.
47 Nicollet, op. cit., p. 379.
48 Ibid., p. 380.
49 Ibid.; I. Ludolf, Commentarius ad historiam aethiopicam, 1691, p. 361.
80 King, op. cit., p. 546. Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 379-395·

220

MARIOLOGY

mas is commemorated on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of every
month except March.51
The principal Catholic Marian feasts are the Immaculate Concep­
tion (December 9), the Death of Mary (January 16), the Assump­
tion (August 22), the Nativity of Mary (September 8). Other feasts
are the Presentation of Mary in the Temple (November 29), and
the Annunciation (December 18 and every twenty-second day of other
months and March 25 which is also the feast of the Incarnation).52
From these feasts we see that the Ethiopians admit Mary’s great
graces and privdeges, as well as her power of intercession with her
divine Son. The Assumption is the greatest Marian feast. It is com­
memorated every month. Some texts for the feast are:

I salute the Assumption of thy Body which the human heart can
never conceive. Doubly surrounded with grace and clothed in a like
glory, O Mary, thy flesh was like to a pearl, and death itself was
shamed when with wonder it saw thee ascending resplendent through
the clouds to heaven.53

I salute tire Assumption of thy Body truly worthy to be praised, which
outshines in beauty the splendor of the sun and the glory of the moon.
Except thee, O Virgin, and thy first-born Son of Joy, there is no one
who has loosened the bonds of death and has awakened the dead from
Sheol.54
I salute the resurrection of thy flesh, twin of the resurrection of
Christ, who hid himself alive in thee. Clothe me, O Mary, Dove of
Ephrate, and shelter me under thy wings in the day of judgment,
when the earth will give back those whom she had taken into her
keeping.554
*

4. Mary in Popular Ethiopian Devotion
It is true the Ethiopians have mixed a bit of superstition with
their devotion to Mary. This is a souvenir of ancient African beliefs,
such as all races have, but the fact remains that the Ethiopian faith
51 King, op. cit., pp. 546, 547.
52 Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 384-395.
53 King, op. cit., p. 542.
54 Ihid.
55 Ibid., D. Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945); H. Engberding, Maria in der Froemmigkeit der Oestlichen Liturgien, in P. Straeter, Maria in
der Offenbarung (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 119-136; De Lacy, O’Leary, The Daily
Office and Theotokia of the Coptic Church (London, 1911); id., The Coptic
Theotokia (London, 1923).

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

221

in Mary is strong and sound, and that they have a tender love for
her and an absolute trust in her all-powerful intercession.58 Ethiopia
received the Faith from Alexandria and with it a great love and
devotion to the Mother of God. With Alexandria, Ethiopia, too, fell
into Monophysism, probably without fully realizing what this doc­
trine implied. But Ethiopia has no body of doctrine in the true
theological sense as we have in the West. Hence they have no full
body of doctrine regarding the Mother of God, except that they
follow the Fathers of Alexandria. Haymanota Ahaw, the Faith of the
Fathers, is what they call the collection of truths which forms their
belief. St. Cyril of Alexandria plays a great part in this doctrine,
as well as other Fathers of the East and the decrees of the Council
of Ephesus. Hence with this Council and St. Cyril of Alexandria the
Ethiopians believe in the Mother of God, the Waladita Malak, the
Theotokos. Even the Dissidents appeal to St. Cyril of Alexandria,
and consider him one of their Doctors.56
57 In their liturgy and hymns
the Ethiopians have expressed the true faith in Mary as Mother of
God, and they echo tire words of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the
definition of the Council of Ephesus. The Dissident Ethiopians still
honor Alexandria as their spiritual mother, receive their spiritual
directives from Alexandria, and until lately received their Ahuna or
metropolitan from there. The Catholic Ethiopians are united to
Alexandria spiritually and historically, but their bishops are appointed
by the Pope.58
The Ethiopians speak of heretics as “Enemies of Mary.” The
great Ethiopian devotion to Our Lady can explain to a certain degree
why some historians wanted to see nothing in the Ethiopian liturgy
but a confusion between the cult due to God and that due to Mary.59
The truth, however, is that the Ethiopians, both Catholic and Dissi­
dent, have correct doctrine regarding Mary, her privileges and power,
and this they manifest in their practices and hymns as well as in
their liturgy.
In conclusion it is well to see some of the titles the Ethiopians
give Mary, and thus prove their sound doctrine about her:

Permanent Temple, Sacerdotal Vestibule, Chosen Column, Verdant
Tree, Garden of the Heavenly Son, Lamp of the Universe, Light of
56 Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 366, 367; King, op. cit., p. 541.
87 Nicollet, op. cit., pp. 369, 370.
88 Ibid., pp. 368, 369.
80 Ibid., p. 396, note 63.

222

MARIOLOGY

the Stars, Unbreakable Wall, Extension of Heaven, Veil of Fine Linen,
City of Jewels, Spouse of Heaven, Golden Censer of the Seraphs,
Harvest of Prophecies, Mother of Justice, Doctrine of Peace, Vine of
Sweet Grapes, Mother of the Glorious Sun, Book of Life, Vessel of
Our Riches, Superabundance of the time of Fruit and Compensation
for the Years of Famine, Satiety of Those Who Hunger, Queen of
Love, Gate of Paradise, and Help of Sinners.60

Conclusion
Egyptian devotion to Mary as Mother of God is deep-rooted in
all the faithful. Their love for Mary prompts them to abstain for
two weeks before the feast of her Assumption. This practice is so
ancient that even the Mohammedans of the country observe it in
great numbers down to the present day.61 Another sign of this Egyp­
tian devotion to Mary is seen in the many temples dedicated to her
throughout Egypt. In the eighth century there were twenty-two
Marian shrines in Lipper Egypt and seven in Lower Egypt. Two of
these are still dedicated to Mary’s Assumption. They are centers of
pilgrimage and great Marian festivities are held there by the Dissi­
dents on the feast of the Assumption.62
Egypt was sanctified by the presence of the Holy Family. Tire
Egyptians are proud of this great honor and wish to be second to
none in their love for Christ and His all-holy Mother. May she lead
the Dissident back to the true Church of her divine Son and may
she protect all the faithful of the Alexandrian and Ethiopian rites
who are so devoted to her who is the Mother of God, ever Virgin
Immaculate, and all-powerful with her divine Son.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Black, G. F., Aethiopica and Amharica, A List of Works in the New
York Public Library, 1928.
Budge, E. A. Wallis, The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin and the Life of
Hanna, 1910.
De Vries, G., S.I., Oriente Cristiano leri e Oggi (Roma, 1949).
Etiopia in Vol. 14 of the Enciclopedia Italiana (Milano, 1935).
Fortescue, A., The Lesser Eastern Churches (London, 1913).
80 Ibid., p. 365 et passim.
81 Amba Alexander, The Assumption of Mary in the Liturgy of the Church
of Alexandria, in Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. 9, Summer, 1951, pp. 93—101,
p. 95. (He mentions two traditions in regard to Mary’s Assumption.)
82 Ibid., p. 99. The places are Haret Zouela and Deir Dronka or Adronka.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

223

Grebaut, S., and Tisserant, E., Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices
aethiopici, Vaticani et Borgiani, 1936.
Harden, J. M., The Anaphoras of the Ethiopie Liturgy, 1928.
Jones and Monroe, Abyssinia (Oxford, 1935).
Macaire, Histoire de l’Eglise d’Alexandrie (Cairo, 1894).
Matshafa Qeddasê (Ethiopian missal) (Città del Vaticano: Tipografia
Poliglotta Vaticana, 1945).
Mercer, S. A. B., The Ethiopie Liturgy, 1915.
O’Leary, The Saints of Egypt (London, 1938).
Pollera, A., Lo Stato etiopico e la sua Chiesa, 1926.
Rossini, C. Conti, Liber Axumae, 1910.
Strothman, Die Koptische Kirche in der Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1932).

224

MARIOLOGY
III. MARY IN THE ANTIOCHENE LITURGY

The liturgy of Antioch is one of the most ancient liturgies. It was
modified for use in Jerusalem and then this form supplanted the
older form at Antioch itself. This liturgy is the source of the Arme­
nian, Byzantine, and Maronite liturgies, and perhaps also of that used
by the Chaldeans. After the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) many
of the Syrians followed the Monophysites and refused to accept the
decrees of that Council, mostly for political reasons. Tire Monophysite
Syrians are called Jacobites from their organizer in the sixth century,
Jacob al-Baradai. The Syrians who remained Catholics formed that
branch of the Byzantine rite known as the Melkites. In the course of
centuries a goodly number of the Jacobites have returned to the
true Church. At various times these Catholics have had bishops con­
firmed by Rome, and in 1801 Michael Jarweh became the first
patriarch of Antioch of the Catholic Syrians. These faithful are
mostly in the old Turkish Empire and Egypt, but there are also
several thousands in the United States, the Argentine, Chile, Aus­
tralia, and Paris.1
i. The Mass
The Antiochene liturgy is the richest of all because it has so many
anaphoras. The Catholics ordinarily use that of St. James. They
also use at times the anaphoras of St. John the Evangelist, of St.
Eustace of Antioch, of St. Basil of Caesarea, and of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem. There are sixty-four Syrian anaphoras, of which the
Catholics use only seven. Brightman gives the list of those used by
the Jacobites.2 He also gives the translations of those of the Apostolic
Constitutions and of St. James.3
The liturgical texts are very ancient. Those used by the Catholics
received their definitive form in the eighth century under James of
Edessa.4 In the liturgy of St. James, Mary is commemorated in the
preparation of the gifts, and in the beginning of the liturgy of the
Catechumens followed by an incensation with the words: “With
1 D. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Vol. I (Milwaukee, 1946),
pp. 104, 152-164. Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945).
2 F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), pp. xlviii-lxiii.
3 Ibid., pp. I—109.
4 E. Rahal, L'Assomption de la T. Ste. Vierge au ciel selon le rite syrien
d'Antioche, in Atti dei Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951),
pp. 225-237.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

«5

the smoke of spices be there a remembrance to the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God.” Again incensing the gifts: “Let Mary who brought
thee forth, and John who baptized thee be suppliants unto thee in
our behalf.” Mary is again named before the Trisagion, and in the
beginning of the Gospel reading. After the Consecration and prayers
for various classes of persons, the commemoration of the saints begins
with that of the Mother of God by the deacon:

Again then we commemorate her who is to be called blessed and
glorified of all generations of the earth, holy and blessed, and ever
Virgin, blessed Mother of God, Mary.
After the priest breaks the Host and recites a silent prayer, the
deacon prays:

My blessed Lady Mary, beseech with thine only Begotten that he be
appeased through thy prayers and perform mercy on us all.5*
The Maronite liturgy is merely the ordinary part of the Syrian
liturgy of St. James and at times some other anaphora is inserted.®
After the Anamnesis the Maronites have these prayers to Mary:
Especially then and firstly we remember tire holy and glorious and
ever Virgin Mother of God, Mary, Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ;
intercede for me with the only begotten Son who was born of thee
that he forgive me my offenses and sins and receive from my vile and
sinful hands this sacrifice which my abjectness offereth upon this altar,
by thine intercessions for me, O holy Mother.

The deacon says:

Remember her, O Lord God, and by her pure and holy prayers be
propitious and have mercy and hear us.7
After Communion the priest says:

May the prayer of the blessed one be a wall to us, Halleluia, her
prayer be with us. Bless, O my Lord. The ladder which Jacob saw
5 Brightman, op. cit., pp. 73—76, 92, 93, 98. Missale Syriacum iuxta ritum Ecclesiae
Antiochenae syrorum (Romae, 1843).
e D. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Vol. I, pp. 174, 175; G.
Gorayet, The Maronite Liturgy (Buffalo, 1915); P. Sfeir, The Maronite Liturgy,
(Detroit, 1936); Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945).
7 H. W. Codrington, The Maronite Liturgy in Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol.
II (Ramsgate), January, 1937, pp. 27-37. Sacra Congregazione Orientale, Statistica
con Cenni Storici della Gerarchia e dei Fedeli di Rito Orientale (Romae, 1932),
ΡΡ· 54-63·

220

MARIOLOGY

was a figure of thee, O Virgin Mother of God, for on thee God, the
hope of all of us, came down to afford hope to the hopeless.8*
When the Malabar Jacobites of India began to enter the Church in
1930 with Bishop Mar Ivanios and his suffragan Bishop Mar The­
ophilus, Pope Pius XI permitted them to keep their Antiochene lit­
urgy and customs. More bishops, priests, and lay people have since re­
turned to the true Church.® Their liturgy is the West Syrian rite
(Antiochene) without most of the modifications which the Syrian
Catholics have introduced. This Malabar liturgy, and the faithful
who follow it, are called Malankarese. Most of the prayers are in
tire vernacular Malayalam; the priest’s secret prayers are in Syriac.10

2. The Divine Office
The Antiochene Office is rich and complicated. Mary is honored
with prayers and hymns, especially on her feast days. At Sunday
Sext we find this prayer:

By the prayer of Thy Mother and of all the saints, pardon us, O our
Lord, and rest the departed. The memorial of Mary be for our blessing
and her prayer be a wall to our souls. . . . Glory to Him who hath
magnified the memorial of His Mother, and may He make the saints
resplendent and rest the departed. By the prayer of Thy Mother and
of all Thy saints, pardon us, O our Lxtrd, and rest the departed.11
One of the ordinary anthems to Mary reads:

O holy virgin Mother of God, Mary, pray thine only Son to make
TIis tranquillity to dwell in His creation. Watchers and angels, lo!
they rejoice on the day of the memorial of the Virgin Mary who bore
the Son of God.12
Wednesday is dedicated to Mary in this liturgy. A prayer to her
at Matins reads:

Peace to thee, who didst bear in the flesh the Word most high, Virgin
Mother, maiden pure and holy, Mary Mother of Christ, full of mercies
and grace. Peace to thee, who wast a second heaven to the eternal
8 Codrington, op. cit., p. 36.
3 Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Vol. I, p. 179.
10 Ibid., p. 180.
11 H. W. Codrington, The Syrian Liturgy, in Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. I,
January-October, 1936, pp. 135—148.
>2 Ibid.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

227

Word of the Father. Peace to thee, who wast the small cloud to the
Creator of all creation. But, O holy one, we implore of thee, pray thine
only Son, God above all, to grant tranquillity to the creation for the
sake of die abundance of His mercifulness.13
Regarding devotion to Mary in the Antiochene liturgy, Chore­
piscopos Paul Hindo writes:

Besides the solemn proclamation in the liturgy the Syrian Church
commemorates the Mother of God at the Offertory, at the ceremony
of incensation, at the breaking of bread, at the distribution of Com­
munion, and at the end of Mass. The canonical Office, both ferial
and festive, contains a great number of chants and hymns in honor of
the Virgin, notably 1) at Vespers, Lauds and Prime every day; 2) at
Matins, and precisely at the first nocturn, with the exception of
Fridays, from Easter to Advent; Fridays are consecrated to the Holy
Cross; 3) at the end of Matins, the Magnificat is recited daily with
special Marian praises called Mawerbe, that is of die Magnificat;
4) the Wednesday Office is specially consecrated to the Floly Virgin,
above all at Vespers, Lauds, Prime and Tierce. According to Syrian
tradition, Wednesday is the day of Mary’s birth and death.14

In the liturgy of the Maronites, Mary is also frequently invoked.
Before Mass every day a prayer in the form of a litany is addressed
to Christ through the intercession of Mary. Praises, after the man­
ner of St. Ephrem, are dedicated to her on Wednesdays and on her
feasts. She is also commemorated at other times with hymns, espe­
cially at the Gospel procession. All the anaphoras mention Mary
between the Anamnesis and the Epiclesis. On her feast days she
has hymns in her honor, especially when the gifts are brought to
the altar.15
3. Marian Feasts and Privileges
The Marian feasts in the Antiochene liturgy are of two kinds,
movable and fixed. The movable Marian feasts are in preparation
for Christmas. In ancient times this liturgy celebrated two feasts
during Advent, that of St. John the Baptist and that of the Virgin
13 Ibid., pp. 138, 139.
1* P. Hindo, Disciplina Antiochena Antica —Siri IV (Roma, 1943), p. 307, n. 1,
in Codificazione Canonica Orientale — Fonti, serie 11, Fasciculo XXVIII, Sacra
Congregazione per la Chiesa Orientale.
>■’’ M. Doumith, Marie dans la liturgie syro-maronite, in H. du Manoir, S.J., Maria.
Études sur la Sainte Vierge (Paris, 1949), pp. 329-340.

228

MARIOLOGY

(divine Maternity and Immaculate Conception). The feast of the
Virgin goes back to the year 428. The Nestorians who separated from
the true Church in the fifth century have the same tradition as the
Catholics of this liturgy and call Advent Subara or Annunciation.
At the time of their separation the feast of the Virgin was called the
Salutation of the All-Holy Mother of God. James of Saroug (451521) has left us homilies for the time of Advent, on the Annuncia­
tion of Zachary, the Annunciation of Mary, the Visitation of Mary
to Elizabeth, and the Nativity of our Lord. By the seventh century
the five Sundays before Christmas were dedicated to the Annuncia­
tion of the birth of the Precursor, the Annunciation of Mary, the
Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, the Revelation of the conception of
Christ to St. Joseph, and finally the Genealogy of Christ. The Nes­
torians have the same feasts as the Syrians and Maronites to this
day.10
The fixed feasts of Mary in this rite are the Immaculate Concep­
tion, the Nativity of Mary, the Presentation of Mary in the Temple,
the Annunciation (second feast), the Praises or Felicitations to the
Mother of God (December 26), the Presentation of Christ in the
Temple, and the Assumption of Mary. For the latter feast there is a
preparation of a fast lasting two weeks. Besides these feasts both the
Syrians and Maronites have added others of a more local character.
Thus the Syrians have added the Marian feasts of January 15, May
15, and June 15. The Maronites also have that of May 15 to bless
the harvest. The Maronites have also added a fixed feast of the
Visitation (besides the one in Advent) on July 2, the feasts of
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel on July 16, the Marriage of Mary and
Joseph on September 30; and a movable feast of Our Lady of the
Rosary on the first Sunday of October.17
On September 9, after the feast of Mary’s Nativity, the Antiochene
liturgy celebrates the commemoration of her parents, Joachim and
Anna. Such commemorations are made also after the feasts of Christ
to honor certain persons connected with the mystery of Christ’s life
just celebrated.18
Except for the feast in the cycle of Christmas and the Nativity,
the feast of the Assumption is the only Marian feast celebrated in
every Eastern rite. This shows the universality of the belief of these
18 Doumith, op. cit., pp. 331, 332.
17 Ibid., p. 332.
18 Ibid.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

229

ancient churches. The Dissidents have the same belief in Mary’s
Assumption.’9
The faithful of the Antiochene rite have ever had definite doc­
trine in regard to Mary’s death and burial, her corporal incorrupti­
bility, her bodily Assumption into heaven, and her universal Queen­
ship over heaven and earth.20 St. Ephrem, the Syrian, Doctor of
Mary’s Immaculate Conception and other glories, is also the Doctor
of her Assumption.21 The Antiochene Office testifies to Mary’s death
and burial:
The Lord has chosen thee for his Mother and has glorified the day
of thy memorial. He has caused thee to pass from life through the
portal of death, so that thou mayest rejoice in the heavenly kingdom.22
This tomb was the ladder that brought thee to heaven, next to thy
Lord, thy Son and thy God.23

The Office gives testimony to Mary’s corporal incorruptibility
after death: “The [burning] bush is a symbol of thy holy Body.”24
Her body is compared to the Ark of the Covenant, made of incor­
ruptible wood.25
Mary’s corporal Assumption is clearly and firmly stated in this
liturgy:

Although thy Body was placed in a tomb according to the law of
mortals, nonetheless it is not like the body of Moses . . . which was
hidden from the Hebrews by God. . . . For thy immaculate Body was
taken to heaven by the Lord, and there he placed it in the blessed
dwellings. There thou standest next to the throne of thy Son. Pray
for us to thy Son Jesus.28
Mary’s bodily Assumption is a consequence of her Immaculate
Conception and the divine Maternity:
19 A. A. King, The Assumption of Our Lady in the Oriental Liturgies, in Eastern
Churches Quarterly, Vol. 8, October—December, 1949, pp. 225-231.
20 Rahal, op. cit., p. 226. M. Maldouf, La doctrine de l’Assomption dans la rite
maronite, in Atti del Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme, 1951),
pp. 197-212.
21 Rahal, op. cit., p. 226; Lamy, Sancti Ephremi Syri Hymni et Sermones
(Mechliniae, 1882—1902), Vol. 2, col. 584.
22 Rahal, op. cit., p. 227; G. Shelhot and J. David, Fenqitho (Bréviaire festival),
7 vols. (Mosul, 1886-1896), Vol. 7, col. 379a.
23 Rahal, op. cit., p. 227; Shelhot and David, op. cit., Vol. 7, col. 405b.
24 Rahal, op. cit., p. 231; Rahmani, Shihimo (Bréviaire ferial) (Charfet, 1902),
p. 118.
25 Rahal, op. cit., p. 231; Rahmani, op. cit., pp. 77, 244, 245.
28 Rahal, op. cit., p. 232.

23o

MARIOLOGY

By the Holy Spirit she was freed from the curse of the first mother,
for she never opened the door to sin. So her passing is the admiration
of the whole world.27
Blessed be thou, O Justice, who wast never contaminated, O Eve who
hast brought forth Emmanuel.2829
Mary rules as Queen of heaven and earth:

As thou, O Lord, hast rejoiced the heavenly armies, on this day,
whereon thou hast raised up Mary, thy Mother, to heaven in body
and soul, and where thou hast made her to sit on a throne elevated
over all the choirs of angels, and where thou hast made her Queen
of the heavenly spirits and of those who dwell on earth, we likewise
rejoice, with spiritual joy, free from all human passion; grant us to
feel at every moment the effect of the prayers which she makes for us
and help her that she will favor us, so that we will be protected and
can imitate her pure and divine life and merit to rejoice, after her
example, on the day of our parting from this world, through thy
grace and that of thy Father and thy Spirit, Amen.20
It was the Emperor Maurice (582-603) who extended the feast
of the Assumption to the whole Byzantine Empire. This feast on
August 15 is the most popular feast of the Mother of God in all
the Eastern rites.30 At an incensation the priest prays:

O Messias, our God . . . Thou who hast glorified the memory of the
Assumption of thy Mother, the Immaculate Virgin, accept the per­
fume of our incense. . . . Grant that this may be in honor of thy
Mother, Queen of Angels and Empress of Saints.31

Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her utter sinlessness, her perpet­
ual virginity, her suffering with Christ, her power of universal inter­
cession are also celebrated in the various prayers of the Antiochene
rite.
The Maronite liturgy has this hymn to Mary:
Hail, Mary, ever Virgin, Mother of the Almighty who fills both the
heavens and the earth.
Hail, Mary, ever virgin, Mother of the Ancient of Days whose name
was before the sun was created.
27 Ibid.,
28 Ibid.,
29 Ibid.,
30 Ibid.,
31 Ibid.,

p. 233.
p. 234.
pp. 234, 235.
p. 235.
p. 236.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

23i

Hail, Mary, ever virgin, Mother of Him who made Adam from tire
mold of the earth.
Hail, Mary, ever virgin, Mother of Him who formed Eve and gave
her to Adam.
Blessed art thou, Mary, the Mother of Him who gave righteousness
and virtue to the sons of Levi.
Blessed art thou, Mary, for within thee dwelt the Only-Begotten, the
Light of the Father, the Child of the Godhead.
Blessed art thou, Mary, for thou hast nourished Him who giveth to
all creatures to eat.
Blessed art thou, Mary, who hast carried in thy lap and arms the
Son of the Most High whom the powers of heaven acclaim.
All generations bless thy maidenhood, for He who is born of thee
hath driven the curse of fear from the earth. We too bless thee, O holy
Virgin, here kneeling before thee. Intercede with the Lord who was
born of thee that He may bestow His graces on all people and ever
have pity on us. Praise to Thee, O Lord, bom of a Virgin, who
became man, uniting two natures and two wills in one person.
Glory be to Thee, to Thy Father, and to Thine Holy Spirit, three
persons in one undivided God. Amen.32

A Syrian prayer to Mary:

How can I praise thee duly, O most chaste Virgin? For thou alone
among men art all holy, and thou givest to all the help and grace
they need. All we who are on earth put our hope in thee: strengthen
our faith, shine through the dimness of this world, while we, chil­
dren of the Church, sing thy praise. Throne of the cherubim art thou
and Gate of Heaven; pray without ceasing for us, that we may be saved
in the day of dread. Amen.33
A Maronite prayer to Mary:

Let thine intercession be with us, O Mother most pure, and come to
us in our need as is thy wont. We are exiles on this earth, with our
end before our eyes, and even now many of us perish; help us by thy
prayers, O merciful Maiden, and be always our Advocate lest we be
lost through our own ill will. Blessed and most holy one, plead for us
before God, who was carried in thy womb, that He may be pitiful
to us through thine asking. Amen.34
Both the Antiochene and Chaldean liturgies glory in the splendid
writings of their illustrious Doctor, St. Ephrem of Edessa and Nisihis.
32 D. Attwater, Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London, 1931), pp· i7> 18·
83 Ibid., p. 20.
8‘ Ibid.

232

MARIOLOGY

It is especially in his poems and sermons on the glories and power
of the Mother of God that he is famous in the whole Church. One
of his prayers to Mary is used on the feast of Mary, Mediatress of
All Graces in the Roman Seraphic Breviary:
O my Queen, most holy Mother of God, full of grace, endless sea of
divine and secret gifts and graces . . . Queen of all after the Trinity,
another Consoler after the Paraclete, and Mediatress of the whole
world after the Mediator, see my faith and my desire divinely
given. . . . Mother of God. . . . Thou hast taken away all tears from
the face of the earth, thou hast filled creation with every kind of
benefice, thou hast brought joy to those in heaven, thou hast saved
those on earth. Through thee we hold a most certain guarantee of our
resurrection; through thee we hope to gain the heavenly kingdom;
through thee all glory, honor and holiness, O only immaculate one,
has been derived, are derived and will be derived from Adam to the
consummation of the world for the Apostles, Prophets, the just and
humble of heart; and every creature rejoices in thee, O thou full of
grace.35

A prayer of St. Ephrem to Mary Immaculate:
O pure and immaculate and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the
sinless Mother of thy Son, the Mighty Lord of the universe, thou who
art inviolate and altogether holy, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as
full of grace, thou who didst bear the God-man; we all bow low
before thee; we invoke thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, O
holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us
and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and
advocate at the hour of death and judgment: deliver us from the fire
that is not extinguished and from the outer darkness; make us worthy
of the glory of thy Son, O dearest and most clement Virgin Mother.
Thou indeed art our only hope most sure and sacred in God’s sight,
to whom be honor and glory, majesty and dominion for ever and ever
world without end. Amen.3®

Tirus tire Antiochene liturgy in its various forms and parts gives
magnificent testimony to the faith of the Syrians, Maronites, and
Malankarese in all the glories, privileges and power of the all-holy
and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
ss Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum (Romae, 1943), Pars Verna, 31 Maii, II Noct,
so The Baccolta of Prayers and Devotions (edited by J. P. Christopher and C.
E. Spence: New York, 1944). No. 339, PP· 252, 253· Cf. G. De Vries, S.I.,
Oriente Cristiano leri e Oggi (Roma, 1949), PP· 339-350. A. A. King, The Bites
of Eastern Christendom, Vol. 1, pp· 61-336.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

233

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

The Armenian liturgy is basically the Greek liturgy of St. Basil,
translated into classical Armenian, and then modified in the course
of time by Syrian, Constantinopolitan, and finally Latin influences.
Thus it is unique among all the liturgies. It is a rich and splendid
liturgy and is marked by constantly uniting Christ and Mary in
the divine cult. The first invocation to Mary is at the beginning of
Mass. There is another on her feasts. After the Trisagion her inter­
cession is again invoked. In the Preface she is called the “Instrument
of the Divine Economy.” In the context the Incarnation is recalled
and Mary is named the “Mother of God and the Holy Virgin Mary.”
She is again invoked shortly after the Consecration.1
2. The Ritual
Mary is constantly invoked in the administration of both the sac­
raments and sacramentals. She is the companion of all human joys
and sorrows. In the blessing of a betrothal we read:

Today tire ineffable mystery, hidden to the nations and to the tepid,
1 V. Tekeyan, La Mère de Dieu dans la liturgie arménienne in H. du Manoir,
S.J., Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge, Vol. i (Paris, 1949), pp. 355-361.

234

MARIOLOGY

has been revealed by the Annunciation of the Archangel to the Virgin
Mary, our Advocate with the Lord.

For Holy Viaticum:
By the intercession of the ever Virgin Mother of God, save me from
the snare of the invisible enemy.
For Benediction:

Thou who wert inflamed by the sun like the bush, and wert not
consumed, but hast given to men the Bread of Life, intercede with
Christ that He blot out our sins.
In the blessing for grapes, on the feast of the Assumption, Mary
is again honored.

When Thou hast willed finally to manifest Thy paternal love for men,
Thou hast sent Thy only Son, making a branch come forth from the
root of Jesse and an admirable and perfumed Flower to come forth
from the Immaculate Virgin Mary.2
3. Divine Office
At Matins, Mary is invoked daily. On Sundays she is named ten
times at Matins and still oftener on her feasts. She is also named on
feasts of saints and on days of abstinence. An example:
O Lord, who lovest men, by the intercession of Thy Holy and
Immaculate Virgin Mother and by Thy precious Cross, hear our
prayers and save us.

After the Magnificat there are three strophes in honor of Mary. She
is called “Holy Mother of Admirable Light.” One strophe reads:

Pray for us to God, who took flesh of thee so that He would unite
His Holy Church built on the foundation of the Apostles and the
Prophets, and that He would preserve it immaculate to the day of
His second coming, we beg thee, Holy Mother, intercede for us.
After the Trisagion there is another prayer to Mary beginning
with the words: “Holy Mary, Mother of Christ, our God” attributed
to St. Thomas the Apostle. On Wednesday, dedicated to the An­
nunciation, the final hymn is dedicated to Mary:
O Spouse offered by earth to heaven, we raise our hearts to thee.
Pray that on the day on which thou hast received the annunciation
2 Ibid., pp. 355, 356.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

235

of the Incarnation, we may be worthy to hear from thy only Son
this other message, Come ye blessed of my Father.
The final hymn of None is dedicated to Mary. At Compline:
We prostrate before thee, Mother of God, and we beg thee unchange­
able Virgin, to intercede for us and pray thy only Son that He would
save us from temptation, and from all dangers.3

4. Marian Feasts
In the hymns used for Marian feasts we see the great love and
devotion of the Armenians to the Mother of God. There are six
classical Marian feasts, Christmas, Epiphany, Purification, Annun­
ciation, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception. The names and
invocations used for these feasts are similar to those found in the
Litany of Loreto, or those used by other Eastern liturgies. Thus Mary
is called “Throne of Salvation,” “Dawn of Peace,” “Orient of the
Sun of Justice,” “Daughter of Light,” “Altar of the Holy Spirit,”
“Tree of Life for the Fruit of Immortality,” “Peace of the Afflicted,”
“Foundation of the Church,” “Mediatress Between God and the
Human Race,” “Joy of the World.”4
The Armenian liturgy does not go far in the development of
Marian doctrine. But it insists on the great dignity of Mary in vari­
ous offices and titles. Some examples will suffice:
Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity
Mary is styled “Holy Mother of Admirable Light”; “Mother of
the Only Begotten”; “She who brought forth the Word”; “Mother
of Life”; “Mother of the Spouse of the Church”; “Abode of the
Incarnation.” On the Assumption she is addressed thus:

More sublime than the Seraphs and the Cherubs with multiple eyes,
O Mother of the Saviour, Holy Virgin, Ark of the Covenant, Vessel
of Gold, Mysterious Altar of the Word of the Father, the Churches
of the world today keep festive day with hymn of benediction for the
solemnity of thy birth [entrance into heaven].

On the third day of the octave of Epiphany:
O Mother and Virgin, Servant of Christ, who art ever the Advocate
of the world, all nations bless Thee. Pure dove, heavenly Spouse,
Mary, Temple and Throne of God the Word, all nations bless thee.
3 Ibid., pp. 356-357.
4 Ik'-'!·. PP· 357-358·

23 6

MARIOLOGY

Mother and Virgin —these two grand privileges of Mary are ever
united in the liturgical prayers:

Three tremendous mysteries are manifested in thee, O Mother of
God: Virginal Conception, immaculate childbirth, and virginity after
childbirth.

Mary is called: “Delight of the Word’”; “Mother of Virgins”; “Un­
consumed Bush”; “Lily of the Valleys”; "Rock cut without the aid
of human hands”; “Sealed Fountain”; “Fleece of Gedeon”; “Sealed
Door”; “Incorruptible Treasure.”
The divine Maternity is always the grand theme in these liturgi­
cal prayers. Mary is the final preparation for Christ, as the branch
bears the fruit. She is the “Rising of the Sun of Justice” (Assump­
tion); the “Spiritual Orient”; the “Tree of life planted in the Gar­
den of Eden, who has given its fruit to men, namely the Son”
(Epiphany). “Joachim and Anna have given us the Fleece that
contains the heavenly Rose” (Nativity of Mary). She is the “Temple
of the Creator” (Octave of the Assumption); the “Temple of the
King of tire Fleavens” (ibid.); the “Abode of the Holy Spirit”
(Assumption); the “House and Temple of the Spirit” (Octave of
the Assumption).
The holiness of Mary is not much developed in this liturgy. At
times it is affirmed in strong terms: Mary has received the sevenfold
grace; she is entirely blessed. Fier holiness is understood in connec­
tion with her divine Maternity.®
Mary, Our Mediatrix

The Armenian liturgy often treats of the advantages we have
from God through the intercession of Mary. She is our Mediatrix,
the Patroness of the Church, the Queen of the World, the Hope
and Refuge of Christians. Owing to the many persecutions of the
Armenians, they learned to hope and trust in the Mother of God
to help them, and deliver them from all their enemies. Mary is
"She who has born Him who delivers us from the bonds of death”;
Mary is the “Salvation of the human race”; Mary is the "Tree of
life, who has given the fruit of immortality to the first mother Eve,
delivering her from the sorrows of death”; “Thou art the Glory of
human Virginity, the Joy of Angels, thou, the one who liberates from
malediction.” Through Mary we have access to the Tree of Life.
8 H>id., pp. 358-359·

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

237

“Rejoice, O Mother of God, Throne of salvation and Hope of the
human race, Mediatrix of Law and of Grace.”®

Mary, Patroness of the Church
This title is dear to the Armenian people and has been in their
liturgy for ages. “May Christ protect His Church, by the intercession
of the Mother of God.” Mary is the “Foundation of the Church and
the Altar of the Holy Spirit.” “By the intercession of the all-holy
Virgin, fortify the foundations of Thy Church, for Thou art the
unique Sovereign Lord of the World.” “The Church of thy Son
acknowledges thee, Mother of God.” “The Church confesses the
I loly Virgin Immaculate.” “Today the Spouse, Holy Church, cele­
brates with joy, in company with the heavenly spirits, the solemnity
of the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God.”T

Mary, Queen of the Universe
Mary is the Queen of the Universe. She “carried in her arms Him
before whom the celestial spirits tremble.” “Before her the Powers
are prostrate.” “The Legions of Heavens exalt the Immaculate
Temple of the Word of God.” “We, the human race, we glorify thee,
Mother of God, whom the angelic powers honor.” “Mother of God,
when thou takest thy place, radiant Light, at the right hand of thy
Son, call upon Him then, that Lie save us from the horrible flame.”8

Mary, Hope and Refuge of Christians
There are many invocations that show the confidence of the
faithful in Mary’s power as the Hope and Refuge of Christians.
“Mother of God, our Refuge and our Hope, pray to thy only Son,
that He save us from the fire of hell and grant us the Kingdom of
1 leaven.” “Never cease to pray for us, O Blessed among all women.”
"We have placed our hope in thee; thou, who art brighter than the
sun, do not cease to intercede for us, Mother of Christ, our God.”
“We take refuge in thee, O most Holy One, Sublime, Admirable
One, and distributor of graces; thou art a fountain for the thirsty,
rest for the afflicted, thou who hast born the Word Divine.”9
0 Ibid., p. 359.
T Ibid., pp. 359, 360.
8 Ibid., p. 360.
» Ibid.

238

MARIOLOGY
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary

Although the Armenian liturgy has no theological formula of the
Immaculate Conception, the terms it uses for Mary’s sinlessness must
be understood in the most absolute sense. Mary “alone is blessed
among all women”; she is the “Daughter of Light”; she has “lifted
the curse”; she is “The one who frees from the sin of Eve.”
The feast of Mary’s Assumption is the greatest Marian feast among
the Armenians. It is preceded by a week of abstinence and celebrated
with an octave. This feast is rooted in the most ancient traditions
of the Armenian Church. The liturgical prayers are explicit in regard
to the bodily Assumption of Mary:

Today the heavenly spirits bring to heaven the Abode of the Holy
Spirit, making her enter into the heavenly Jerusalem, to the immacu­
late tabernacle, to us inaccessible, close to the Holy Trinity.
Today the celestial spirits have carried to heaven tire immaculate
body of the Virgin Mother of God, placing it among the angels to
share in delights beyond our telling. Therefore Holy Church sings
to thee exultingly a new hymn of praise.

Having lived in this body an immaculate life, thou art brought by
the Divine Will to the Kingdom of thy Son, our God; pray for us.10
An Armenian hymn to Mary:

Mother of God, gateway of Heaven to men, with a divine voice the
angel declared: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. He who
sitteth with the Father above the cherubim, was pleased to dwell
within thy maiden body; Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
He who dwelt amid the flaming seraphim was seen among men in
a woman’s arms; Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.11
Tire many prayers to Mary and the titles the Armenians give her
prove their ancient and ardent devotion to the Mother of God. They
honor her with a sublime cult, and ask her to bring the Dissident
back to the true Church.
10 Ibid., pp. 360-361. Ritual, Mashdotz (Vienna, 1902). Hymnodium (Charagnotz, Venezia, 1898).
11 D. Attwater, Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London, 1931), pp. 16, 17.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

239

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Attwater, D., Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945).
Brightman, F. E., Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), pp.
412-457.
Isserverdentz, J., The Armenian Ritual (Venice, 1876).
------- Armenia and the Armenians (Venice, 1886).
King, A. A., The Rites of Eastern Christendom, Vol. 11 (Rome, 1948),
pp. 521-646.
Talatinian, B., O.F.M., L’Assunta nella liturgia e teologia della Chiesa
Armena, in Atti del Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale (Gerusalemme,
I951), PP· 17-30·
Weber, Die Katholische Kirche in Arménien (Freiburg i/Br., 1903).

MARIOLOGY

240

V. MARY IN THE CHALDEAN LITURGY
This liturgy is used by the Christians of Mesopotamia, Persia, and
Malabar, and derives from the primitive liturgy in an East Syrian
form. In ancient times Edessa was its center. In the fifth century
this portion of the Church lapsed into Nestorianism. Many members
of this rite are still Nestorians. Others, since 1551, have become
Catholics and are known as Chaldeans in Mesopotamia and Persia,
and as Malabarese on the Malabar coast of India. Both Catholics
and Dissidents of this rite use the liturgy of SS. Addai and Mari.
All, except the Malabarese, use also two other anaphoras on Sundays
and feasts from Advent until Palm Sunday and five other days of
the year.
1. The Mass

Mary is honored in the Holy Sacrifice in the litany before the
Offertory:
For the memorial of the blessed Lady Mary the holy Virgin, Mother
of Christ our Saviour and Lifegiver, let us pray. Amen. That the Holy
Ghost who dwelt in her, sanctify us by His grace and perfect His will
in us and seal in us His truth all the days of our life.
She is mentioned again by the deacon at the Offertory:

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. On the
holy altar let there be a memorial of the Virgin Mother of Christ.
From everlasting to everlasting world without end.1
2. The Divine Office
In the Office Mary is given a great place. In the hymns three
times a week, Mary is invoked after the invocation to God or to
Christ. She it is “who gave birth to the Remedy which vivifies the
children of Adam.” She is "the holy Virgin, the Mother of Jesus,
the Saviour.” She is “the Mother of the King of Kings.” She is
invoked for “mercy for sinners, peace for the whole world, protection
for the Church from the wicked; for the end of wars and for blessing
on the seasons of the year; and (finally) for entrance into the King­
dom.” Wednesday is dedicated to her. She is honored with a special
couplet twice that day, and at evening the priest prays:
1 F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), pp. 264, 268.

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

241

O Lord, our God, defend us with solid and invincible arms, by the
prayers of the holy Mother, the blessed Virgin Mary, and give us with
her a portion of heavenly glory.

Another Wednesday prayer has this splendid praise of Mary:
Mary has glorified the Word, the Son, with a great glory in her
bosom, and she has become the Mother and Servant of Jesus, the
Saviour of all. Therefore all creatures rejoice on her feast and are
invited to the luminous reunion for the joy that will have no end;
and all of us, with all generations, we call her blessed, and we give
glory to Him, who has chosen her for the habitation of His glorious
Image.

The following prayer is similar to the Latin "Sub tuum ‘praesidium’
in affirming Mary’s universal intercession:
We take refuge at every hour, chaste Mary, under the protection of
thy prayers; they defend us at all times, and through them we shall
find mercy and pity on the day of judgment.

Every day in the Office, morning and evening, in the hymns for
the martyrs, there is a strophe in honor of Mary, just before the
doxology. Thus, e.g., on Thursday evening:

Blessed art thou, holy Virgin; blessed art thou, Mother of God; blessed
art thou, for all generations call thee blessed. Blessed art thou, for the
Father has been in thee, the First-Born has dwelt in thee, and the
Holy Spirit has glorified thy name in the world.2

3. Feasts in Honor of Mary
Mary is not invoked especially on Sundays, but she has various
special feasts in the course of the year. First there are three ancient
feasts that testify to the devotion of the Chaldeans to Mary. They
have a peculiar Eastern charm.
The Feast of the Congratulation of the Holy Virgin. This is cele­
brated the day after Christmas. Its purpose is to felicitate Mary on
the birth of Christ. It is known in the whole East as a Marian feast,
but the Chaldeans have beautiful hymns for the day. These were
composed by George Warda in the thirteenth century, and apply
figures of the Old Testament to the Mother of God. The Chaldeans
delight in these hymns. These thoughts occur in one of them:
■' Λ. M. Massonat, O.P., Marie dans la Liturgie Chaldéenne, in H. du Manoir,
S.J., Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge (Paris, 1949), Vol. I, pp. 343-351·

242

MARIOLOGY

The Church says to Mary: Come and we will go together to pray
the Son of the Lord for the sins of the world. Pray thou to Him because
thou hast nourished Him; I shall pray to Him for He has mingled
His blood with my nuptials. Pray thou to Him as a Mother, and I as
a spouse; He will hear His Mother, He will answer His bride.

The Feast of Our Lady, Guardian of the Harvest is a popular local
feast in Mesopotamia, and is celebrated on May 15, to ask Mary’s
blessing on the harvest, which begins at that time. There is no men­
tion of this special intention in the Office, but the powerful inter­
cession of Our Lady is brought out in the prayers:
O Christ, who has heard the prayers of Thy Mother while she was
on earth, and who now hears and helps at all times those who have
recourse to her and call upon Thee for her mediation, have mercy on us.

Mary is the source of help and the refuge of the afflicted in all creation.
And he who celebrates the feasts of Mary will be helped by her
prayers. Glory to Thee, O Lord, Son of God, who hast honored Mary,
Thy Mother.

The Assumption of Mary, August 15, is the greatest Marian feast
for the Chaldeans. They fast for five days before it; the Nestorians
for seven days. The traditional Chaldean idea is that the Apostles,
the Prophets, and the angels were present with Our Lady on the
day of her death. This is based on the Eastern custom of people com­
ing together when a person is dying. Some of the Apostles rose from
the dead for this occasion; so, too, did the Prophets and Patriarchs,
says this liturgy.
We thank Thee and glorify Thee, O Christ, our Saviour, that it
pleased Thy majesty to transfer the Mothers of life from the terrestrial
world to places full of joy, so that she can rejoice eternally with the
legions of spirits and the heavenly powers. In Thy mercy, O Lord,
render us worthy of rejoicing with her in life that will have no end.3

Since the Chaldeans have returned to the Catholic Church, four
other Marian feasts have been added to their calendar, namely the
Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity of Our Lady, and the
Immaculate Conception. For the Annunciation the liturgy has merely
3 Ibid., pp. 344-346. H. W. Codrington, The Chaldaean Liturgy, in Eastern
Churches Quarterly (Ramsgate), Vol. it, April, July, October, 1937. M. Kyriakos,
L'Assomption chez les Chaldéens, in Atti del Congresso Assunzionistico Orientale
(Gerusalemme, 1951), pp. 33-37. O. Mensinger, Mariologisches aus der vorephesinischen Liturgie (Regensburg, 1932).

MARY IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES

243

prayers composed by the Patriarch Joseph Audo at the time of
Pius IX, and certain texts of the Advent liturgy from the Gospels.
For the feast of the Visitation (June 21) there are also prayers of the
Patriarch Audo and commentaries on the Gospel narrative of the
Visitation. The feast of the Nativity of Our Lady has prayers like­
wise of the Patriarch Audo and a hymn from the works of George
Warda.
The prayers for the feast of the Immaculate Conception contain
excellent doctrine. They are the work of Damian, a priest of the
monastery of Alkosh.
Glory to the Highest, who has done great things in Mary the Virgin,
for from the bosom of His Mother, He has brought it to pass that she
has none like to her among the angels.

O Christ, who hast freed Mary from the sin of Adam by the merits
of Thy blood, and hast effected her redemption in a manner far superior
to that of all the children of Adam, by not allowing her, for even a
second, to be under the rule of the Evil One, have mercy on us.
A beautiful flower, without equal, has appeared this day on the
barren earth, full of thorns and thistles: Mary, of the race of the
unfortunate Adam and daughter of Eve, who killed the serpent, was
conceived by the power of the Lord without original sin. It is an
astonishing and incomprehensible thing which no words can describe.
Glory to the power divine!
O Queen of Queens, all rich, enrich with benefits thy servants, O
Mother of the Most High! For He has made thee the Dispensatrix of
His treasures, and universal Queen, for it has pleased the King of
Kings to place Thee over all. By thy goodness, pour out on all the
gifts they need, so that the whole world can prepare for thee a crown
of thanks.
How beautiful art thou, O Virgin Spouse, for the glorious Spouse,
the Divine Word! It is in thy bosom that He has placed His treasures,
and in thee He has gathered together graces as in a sea, and Fie has
made thee the source of life for mortals. . . . O Merciful One in needs,
come to the help of all the children of the Church, now and at the
hour of death.4

4. Mary in Popular Chaldean Devotion
When we recall the important role the liturgy played in the daily
life of the Chaldean people, and how its texts and hymns strength4 Massonat, op. cit., pp. 348-350.

244

MARIOLOGY

ened and developed their spiritual life, we can well understand the
great love and devotion they have ever had for the Mother of God,
who is so highly praised in their liturgy. Some of their important
churches are dedicated to her. Thus at Mosul, the city of the Patri­
arch, there is the Church of The Pure, where the liturgy was
developed. Nearby is the Monastery of the Virgin, the largest monas­
tery of the Chaldean monks of the Congregation of Rabban Hormez.
Our Lady of the Harvest extends her maternal care to the young
priests, who are generally ordained on that feast day, May 15. Many
of the faithful bear the name of Mary or of Our Lady of the
Assumption. A frequent exclamation in time of danger, or after
long work, is “la Mariam,” “O Mary.” Many persons make a vow to
fast on Saturday in honor of Our Lady; or to celebrate the months
of May and October by reading lectures on Mary added to the
Marian Offices, or by reciting the Rosary publicly. In many churches
in Mesopotamia some women take turns reciting the Rosary during
the day. This they do in the language of Christ and Mary.
Thus the liturgy of the Chaldeans agrees with the other Catholic
liturgies in praising the Mother of God and asking her all-powerful
intercession. The Catholics of this rite were once very numerous
and their liturgy is very ancient. In fact it is claimed that their Office
is the most ancient public prayer of the Church.5 The Chaldeans
brought the true Faith to the East as far as China, Mongolia, and
India. They glory in many saints and martyrs, but especially in
St. Ephrem the Deacon, Doctor of the Church, who is called the
Lyre of the Holy Spirit. Fie is justly famous for his great poems on
the Mother of God, and his defense of her Immaculate Conception.
Chaldean devotion to the Blessed Virgin impresses the heretics and
even the Mohammedans, and it should help them to enter the true
Church of Christ.
5 Kyriakos, op. cit., p. 34. Tfinkji, L'Eglise chaldéene (Paris, 1913). Rabban, La
Messa caldea detta "Degli Apostoli" (Roma, 1935). D. Attwater, The Christian
Churches of the East, Vol. I, pp. 198-209; ibid., Vol. II, pp. 185-198. D. Attwater,
Eastern Catholic Worship (New York, 1945). A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern
Christendom, Vol. xi, pp. 251—520.

Mary in the Western Liturgy
By SIMEON DALY, O.S.B.

INTRODUCTION
F ANYONE is tempted to feel that devotion to Mary is a pre­
rogative of our own age, he need only look to the sacred liturgy
to realize that this devotion is a part of the very structure of Catholic
worship. Mary’s life and privileges are completely summarized in
the cycle of the Church year.1
Among the feasts honoring the memory of her early life are the
Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, and the Presentation. The
hallowed activities of her adult life are recalled in such feasts as
the Annunciation, the Espousals with St. Joseph, the Visitation, the
Maternity, the Holy Family, the Seven Sorrows, and the Assump­
tion. In the temporal cycle of the liturgical year she frequently holds
a place of veneration in the feasts of Our Lord, such as Christmas,
Epiphany, and the Presentation. Hence, to be ignorant of her place
of honor in Catholic life is to miss not only an essential doctrine but
the very key to the area of Catholic worship which is so thoroughly
permeated with veneration of her.
This study is concerned with Mary’s place in the Western liturgy.
Specifically, the main objective will be to find reflected in the West­
ern liturgy evidence of the dogmatic truths we profess concerning
Our Lady. One should find here the answer to the question: How
does the worship of the Christian society, which is the Church,
reflect a vital realization of the dogmas concerning the Blessed
Mother?
Our field of investigation is limited to the Western liturgies and
even here limited primarily to the Roman liturgy. This is not a

I

1 Henry Lawrence Janssens, O.S.B., De cyclo liturgico mariali, in Ephemerides
I iturgicae, Vol. 38, 1924, pp. 157-161. Cf. P. Oppenheim, O.S.B., Maria nella
liturgia cattolica (Roma, 1944); Maria in der lateinischen Liturgie, in Katholische
Marienkunde, ed. P. Strater, Vol. 1 (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 183—267.
245

246

MARIOLOGY

structural or an historical study of the individual feasts, but rather
a factual investigation of the relation between dogma and prayer in
Mariology.
The method of procedure briefly will be as follows: a few remarks
on the liturgy in relation to faith; a résumé of the facts concerning
the initial traces of honor paid to Mary in the liturgy; a study of the
main doctrines of Mariology: Maternity, Sanctity, Virginity, Queen­
ship, and Mediation, as reflected in the Marian feasts; the presenta­
tion of a few feasts and devotions not included in the above; and,
finally, a brief conclusion to the whole study.
The term liturgy may be taken in its primary meaning, which is
the active work of redemption that Christ continues to carry on and
to apply through the Church in the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacra­
ments, or it may apply to the concrete records of the Church’s tra­
dition which form the basic guide or norm for current practice, such
as the texts themselves of the official books of the liturgy. It is the
latter meaning of the word that we shall use in this paper.2
The sacred liturgy is the life of the Church. Through it she con­
tinues the divine mysteries of the life of Christ and applies their
saving graces to men. Through it she offers worthy praise and
thanksgiving night and day throughout the world; through it she
offers expiation and satisfaction for sin and pleads with God for all
the individual needs of this society; through it she reconsecrates to
God persons and things, as it were, lost to Him by Adam’s sin. By
means of the liturgy, then, we are drawn into bonds of closest union
with the saints in heaven.
Our study of the texts of this liturgy will take us to the Missal,
the Breviary, the Pontifical, and the Ritual, which are the official
source books in the Roman Church for sacrifice, prayer, and blessings.
Getting closer to the heart of our study, we must first see the
important relationship between faith and worship, between our be­
lieving and our praying, between dogma and cult.
LITURGY IN RELATION TO FAITH
There are two fundamental principles that must be considered in
this regard, namely, that what is to be found in the liturgy must
have its foundation in the canons of the Faith, and that not all the
2 For the other meaning cf. C. Howell, S.J., The Blessed Virgin in the liturgy, in
Orate Fratres, Vol. 24, 1949, pp. 1-8. Also published as Marian Reprint, No. 17
(Dayton, Ohio, Marian Library, 1953).

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

247

doctrines of faith are necessarily reflected in the liturgy. The latter
is important in the discussion of our particular paper because we
know that at least in the Western liturgy, there is no trace of
Marian cult before the fifth century, yet we know that devotion and
doctrine concerning Our Blessed Lady did exist right from the time
of the Apostles. There is no necessary demand that what be of faith
be also in the liturgy. The other principle, however, namely, that
what is in the liturgy must have its foundation in faith, will concern
us more directly in this study.
Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter, Mediator
Dei, points up the importance of the interrelationship between faith
and prayer, and specifically liturgical prayer. Fie quotes the timehonored maxim or principle, Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi3
(let the law of prayer determine the rule for belief). He stresses the
importance of this statement and yet warns against its false interpre­
tation. He says:
On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with
which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the
error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the
sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of
faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a
doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and
sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy and to reject it other­
wise. . . . But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The
worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous pro­
fession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and
charity. . . . The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic Faith for its
content, inasmuch as it bears public witnesss to the faith of the
Church. . . .
The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine inde­
pendently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since
the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths and subject as such to
the Supreme Teaching Authority of the Church, it can supply proofs
and testimony, quite clearly of no little value, towards the determination
of a particular point of Christian doctrine.4
3 Denzinger, 139. De gratia Dei "Indiculus" until recently attributed to Pope
St. Celestine I. It was probably written by St. Prosper of Aquitaine. Cf. M. Cappuyns, O.S.B., Revue Bénédictine, Vol. 41, 1929, p. 156®.
♦ Pius ΧΠ, Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pius XII, on Sacred Liturgy
(Vatican library translation) (Washington 5, D. C.: N.C.W.C. [n.d.]), pp. 20-21.
The official text of the encyclical, Mediator Dei, will be found in A.A.S., Vol.
39. '947. PP· 521-595·

248

MARIOLOGY

We see here that there is an interrelationship or interdependence
one upon another, so that if we find something in the liturgy, it
should also have its foundation in Catholic faith. This formula,
a specific instance, against the Pelagian heresy, pointing out that the
sacraments and prayers of the liturgy as expressed in the liturgy were
an argument for the true doctrine of grace. Though originally ap­
plied only to a specific problem, it was gradually taken up as a for­
mula of universal extent until by the time of St. Thomas it was
accepted as a general axiom or law. St. Thomas himself considered
the liturgy as a prime source for doctrine, practically equating it at
times with Scripture.5
It follows then that if we find reflected in the liturgy these doc­
trines regarding Mary’s life and prerogatives, we have a very definite
witness to their having been clearly the belief of the Church
throughout the ages.
MATERNITY
Devotion to Mary must be reduced to the practical application of
the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Because this doctrine is
not contained explicitly in the Apostles’ Creed, there is no ground
for surprise if we do not find any clear traces of the cult of the
Blessed X^irgin in the first Christian centuries.® In fact, at present it
is impossible to determine the first manifestation of cult shown to
the Virgin before the peace of the Church in the year 312. Cata­
comb monuments, frescoes, and the like, picture her with Our Lord,
but without particularly indicating that homage was offered to her.’
However, one might justly suppose that, granting the fact of the
universal recognition of her prerogatives,8 men would extend to her
a place of veneration at least equivalent to that of the martyrs.
5 P. Oppenheim, O.S.B., Institutiones systematico-historicae in sacrant liturgiam,
Vol. 7, Principia theologiae liturgicae (Torino, Marietti, 1947), pp. 98-106. Oppen­
heim cites forty passages where St. Thomas appealed to liturgical usage or
liturgical texts to establish his doctrine.
β H. Thurston, S.J., Virgin Mary, Devotion to the Blessed, in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, p. 459.
7 H. Leclercq, O.S.B., Marie, Mère de Dieu; culte liturgique, in DACL, Vol.
io2, c. 2035. Cf.: M. Armellini, Notizie storiche intomo all'antichità del culto di
Maria Vergine (Roma, 1888).
8 Primum factum [cultus venerationis] est Christianorum fides relate ad principales
praerogativas et praecipue privilegia B. M. Virginis, videlicet: Eius divina maternitas,
eius virginitas, eius universalis mediatio prout clare apparet ex frequenti antithesi
inter Evam et Mariam. In symbolo (saltem inde a saeculo II in Occidente) habe-

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

249

By the second half of the fourth century, however, we have definite
indication of the recognition of the legitimacy, even the urgency of
this cult in Epiphanius.89
The real turning point for this veneration comes with the Council
of Ephesus in 431. The history of this third ecumenical council of
the Church reads like the pages of a novel, not only because of its
complications, but also because of the great concern of the people
for the accurate definition of Mary’s motherhood.10 From this time
on, honor toward Mary was expressed in one way or another —
through the dedication of churches, through the composition of
prayers to her, and eventually in the seventh century (in the West)
through the introduction of definite feasts.
That Marian cult developed from or was a sequel to the cult of
angels is an opinion held among scholars, but without implying that
it is anything more than a theory11 and likewise without implying
that there were insufficient doctrinal grounds for the cult to give
rise to itself. It is a fact that in many of the ancient litanies the
Archangels Michael and Gabriel are invoked after the Persons of
the Trinity and immediately before the Blessed Virgin.1213
At any rate the devotion to and veneration of Mary took root in
the period of a few centuries following the Council of Ephesus and
expressed itself by liturgical prayer and liturgical feasts. While it is
difficult to give precise dates for the introduction of the various
feasts, it can be said with certainty that the feasts of the Assumption,
the Annunciation, the Nativity, and the Purification can be traced
to this period.18
The first prerogative of Mary that we turn to is her Maternity
because it seems to be the final cause of all her other privileges.14*
bantur verba: "natus ex Maria Virgine”; ex quo apparet B. Virginis privilegia nedum
Patribus et Doctoribus sed etiam fidelibus a quibus symbolum recitabatur, et quibus
antequam baptizarentur exponebatur, habitualiter nota esse. G. Roscbini, O.S.M.,
Compendium Mariologiae (Romae: Scientia Catholica, 1946), pp. 487-488.
9 Haeres, 79. PG, 41, 749-751.
19 Cf. M. Barret, O.S.B., Our Lady in the liturgy, considerations on certain feasts
of the Mother of God (London: Sands & Co.; St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder, 1912),
pp. 11-15. For the history of the Council see C. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles . . .
(Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907 — )> v°l. 21, 1908, pp. 219-422.
” H. Thurston, Virgin Mary, p. 459.
12 M. Hasset, Angels, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 486a.
13 H. Thurston, Virgin Mary, p. 462.
14 A theory recently proposed merits consideration, namely, that the fullness of
grace is the basic principle of Mariology. Alois Miiller, The basic principles of
Mariology, in Theology Digest, Vol. 1, 1953, pp. 139-144. This article is a con-

25o

MARIOLOGY

We look to the liturgy for a living, practical, poetical expression
of the doctrine that Mary is truly the Mother of Christ, the GodMan, and further that she exercises spiritual motherhood over all
men, especially over the Christians.
The first place that we naturally go to for reflections of the doc­
trine of the Maternity in the liturgy is the feast of the divine Ma­
ternity itself (October n). Only in 1931 was this feast raised to
the rank of a double of the second class for the universal Church
by Pope Pius XI at the time of the fifteenth centenary of the Council
of Ephesus.*
1516
*Before that time, this doctrine which is reflected in all
the Marian feasts was especially emphasized in the Advent and
Christmas seasons, as I shall try to indicate later. The privilege of
observing the feast of the Maternity was first granted to the King of
Portugal in 1751 and was assigned to the first Sunday in May.18
In the Mass for this feast we find the following passages:
“Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Introit).
“O God who didst will that thy Word should take flesh at the message
of an angel in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, grant unto us thy
suppliants that we who believe her to be indeed the Mother of God
may be aided by her intercession with thee” (Collect).

“There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse: and a flower
shall rise up out of his root” (Gradual).
“Virgin Mother of God, He whom the whole world cannot hold,
enclosed Himself in thy womb, being made man” (Alleluia).

The Gospel speaks of “his parents.”
‘When his Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, she was found with
child of the Holy Ghost” (Offertory).
densation of one that appeared in Divus Thomas (Freiburg), Vol. 29, 1951, pp·
385-401, which in turn was the summary of the results of nis patristic study as a
doctoral thesis: Ecclesia-Maria: Die Einheit Marias und der Kirche (Freibourg,
195»)·
_
15 Pius XI, Lux veritatis, in A.A.S., Vol. 23, 1931, pp. 493-517· In this
encyclical Pope Pius XI ordered that a new Office and Mass be prepared, p. 517·
They did not officially appear until the following year: A.A.S., Vol. 24, 1932,
pp. 151-159.
16 F. Holweck, Calendarium liturgicum festorum Dei et Matris Mariae (Phila­
delphia: The American Ecclesiastical Review, The Dolphin Press, 1925), p. 148 and
passim. Cf. also his article on the Maternity in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.
10, p. 40d.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

251

“Through thy mercy, O Lord, and by the intercession of the Blessed
Mary ever Virgin, Mother of Thy Only-begotten Son, may this obla­
tion secure for us present and perpetual prosperity and peace” (Secret).

"Blessed is the womb of the Virgin Mary, which bore the Son of the
Eternal Father” (Communion).
“May this communion, O Lord, cleanse us from guilt, and by the
intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, make us
partakers of the heavenly remedy” (Postcommunion).
These passages give an opportunity to point out once for all the
sources for the texts applied to Mary in the liturgical books.17 Pri­
marily, Sacred Scripture is the fount. Some passages of the Old
Testament have their literal18 fulfillment in Mary, e.g., “A virgin
shall conceive." Some of the prophetic, messianic psalms, such as
Psalm 44, seem to have direct application to her. Some texts are
used in an accommodated sense, as, for example, the Canticle of
Canticles, Wisdom literature, and the Book of Judith. In each of
these the literal sense is some other more obvious fact, but for some
extrinsic reasons they are applied to Mary. This gives rise to the
mystical aura that pervades some of her feasts. The interpretation
of the applied texts comes only from a knowledge of the Scrip­
ture background, knowledge of the Marian doctrines, and quiet
contemplation.
Besides Scripture, texts from the Fathers are used, or even texts
composed specifically for some feast or occasion. Thus, tire beautiful
Communion verse above is of ecclesiastical origin and is used quite
frequently throughout the Missal and Breviary. It might be well to
point out that many of these passages quoted in this paper for one
or the other feast or doctrine frequently occur in other parts of the
Breviary or Missal.
I remarked previously that this doctrine of the Maternity was
clearly expressed and even emphasized in the liturgy long before
Pope Pius XI promulgated the feast for the universal Church. The
season of Advent, in fact, very dramatically and delicately makes
17 B. Capelie, O.S.B., La liturgie Mariale en occident, in Maria. Études sur la
Sainte Vierge, edited by Hubert du Manoir, SJ. (Paris, Beauchesne, 1949), Vol. 1,
pp. 236-237.
18 For the full signification of the literal sense cf. M.-D. Philippe, O.P., Re­
marques sur les signes divins, in Laval théologique et philosophique, Vol. 5, 1949,
pp. tu-118.

252

mariology

constant reference to the Maternity of Our Lady1® though always in
reference to her future Maternity. Hence on days of temporal office
in Advent, the doxology ]esu, tibi sit gloria, Qui natus es de Virgine
in the Breviary must be omitted because of its reference to an already
completed Maternity. The second Collect for ferial Masses in this
season is the proper oration of the Blessed Virgin, which is identical
with the one quoted above for the feast of the Maternity. While the
words definitely affirm the Maternity of Mary as completed, there is
also the "message of the angel” to give it an “annunciation” tone.20
The prophecy, “Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son”
(Isa. 7:10), which comes in the Scripture lesson of the Saturday
within the first week of Advent, the seventh responsory of the first
Sunday of Advent, and the Communion antiphon of Ember Wednes­
day, keeps this privilege of Mary before our minds.
Gabriel’s message to Mary threads its way in and out of the Divine
Office and the Mass in the fourth week. Ember Wednesday and
Friday, in fact, seem to be Marian feasts, always, however, main­
taining the prophetic tone.21
The first Sunday of Advent, the vigil of Christmas, and the first
Mass of Christmas are celebrated at the stational church of St. Mary
Major. This particular church was chosen for these occasions in honor
of Mary, who gave us Christ.22
The beautiful feast of Christmas and its octave particularly high­
light Mary’s Maternity. January 1 had been celebrated in Rome as
a Marian feast, the first and only one of the early Marian feasts that
originated in the West.23 However, by the beginning of the ninth
19 Cf. Joseph Alvarez, De Beata Maria Virgine in liturgia Adventus, in Epheme­
rides Mariologicae, Vol. 1, 1951, pp. 531-533, and I. Schuster, O.S.B., The
Sacramentary, translated from the Italian hy Arthur Levelis-Marke (New York:
Benziger Bros., 1930), Vol. 1, Advent, passim.
20 This oration is also the same as the one for the feast of the Annunciation
(March 25).
21 For an explanation of the origin of the Ave Maria as an Offertory verse for
the fourth Sunday of Advent, cf. René-Jean Hesbert, O.S.B., Antiphonale missarum
sextuplex (Bruxelles: Vromant & Co., 1935), pp. xxxviii—xxxix, xliv.
22 Cf. St. Andrew’s Missal for the first Sunday of Advent.
23 F. Holweck, Calendarium, p. 1. Although the title definitely appears in manu­
scripts of calendars and missals, Hesbert seriously questions whether the feast was
ever intended to be anything other than the octave of Christmas or possibly a mis­
reading of Natalis Sanctae Martinae, who was honored on this day. R.-J. Hesbert,
Antiphonale missarum sextuplex, p. Ixxxi.
Bernard Botte, O.S.B., argued the other view in La première fête de la liturgie
romaine in Ephemerides Liturgicae, Vol. 47, 1933, pp. 425-430; holding that the

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

253

century, it was considered to be a feast of Our Lord, the Circumcision.
In whatever way the historians of the liturgy may solve the
origins, the fact remains that Christmas and its octave are replete
with striking references to the Maternity — Mary and Jesus cannot be
separated here if the fullness of the mystery is to be preserved.*
24

“This is the day whereon the King of Heaven was pleased to be bom
of a Virgin” (1st Responsory at Matins).
“How great is this mystery, how wonderful is the teaching of the faith!
The beasts saw the new-born Lord lying in a manger. Blessed is that
Virgin whose womb was made meet to bear our Lord Christ” (4th
Responsory).

“Blessed is God’s Holy Mother, Mary, maiden undefiled. This day hath
she brought forth the Saviour of the world” (5th Responsory).
This last prayer is particularly beautiful, expressing so succinctly
Mary’s Maternity, sanctity, and virginity. The next responsories are
equally beautiful, but these will suffice to show our point.
It would seem that the psalms of the first of the two Christmas
offices are the source for the psalms of the Office of the Blessed
Virgin. January 1 — the octave of Christmas (and probably a Marian
feast) —uses the psalms of the first office; February 2 and other
Marian feasts have the same psalms with only two modifications. The
Office of Virgins then gets its series of psalms from these.25
In considering the Maternity, we cannot fail to look at the feast
of tire Annunciation of March 25 which was for centuries, liturgically
speaking, a feast of the Maternity.26 Both the Mass and the Office
are replete with references to Our Lady’s Maternity:
feast of St. Martina did not appear in the calendars before the end of the seventh
century and claiming that January 1 was celebrated as a Marian feast before it was
celebrated as the octave of Christmas.
24 For passages from the Breviary, translations will be taken, when possible, from:
The Roman Breviary . . . translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess
of Bute, K.T., a new edition (Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons,
1908).
25 Georges Frénaud, O.S.B., Le culte liturgique de Notre-Dame in Revue Gré­
gorienne, Vol. 31, 1952, p. 107. This is a section from a review of the first
volume of Maria, edited by Du Manoir, with special attention to Abbot Capelie’s
contribution on Mary in the Western liturgy. This opinion counters that of Capelie
who feels that the Office of Virgins is the source for the psalms of the Marian
office. Cf. B. Capelie, La liturgie Mariale en occident, η. 236. Psalms for the feast
of the Assumption, see his: La fête de l’Assomption dans l’histoire liturgique, in
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 3, 1926, pp. 39-41.
2e One of the four earliest Marian feasts celebrated in the Roman Church. It

254

MARIOLOGY

“O God, Who hast willed that...” (Collect — same as for Maternity,
see above).

“Receive, O Virgin Mary, receive the word of the Lord, which is sent
thee by His angel. Thou shalt conceive and shalt bring forth God and
Man together. And thou shalt be called blessed among all women”
(3rd Responsory at Matins).
This is sufficient to show that the concept of Mary’s Maternity is
clearly expressed in the sacred liturgy. We do not find here the pre­
cision of expression that one expects in a theology textbook, but
rather the living, pulsing expression of a praying Church animated
with love and devotion.
It is interesting to note that the privileges of Mary are frequently
mentioned in the Pontifical and the Ritual. A few expressions honor­
ing her Maternity are: Sweet Mother; Dwelling Place of God; Dwell­
ing Place of the Son of God; Mother of Christ; Mother of Our Lord
Jesus Christ; The Word took flesh from her womb; She who bore
Him and she who nourished Him at the breast.27
One ancient and beautiful prayer that is found in the Breviary,
the Ritual, and the Pontifical honoring Mary’s Maternity is the Sub
tuum praesidium (Compline of Little Office; Versicle at 3rd Noc­
turn of Maternity and Mediatrix of all Grace).
We take refuge under thy protection, O holy Mother of God. Despise
not our supplications in our need, but deliver us from all dangers,
O Ever Virgin, glorious and blessed.28

SANCTITY

The second concept or privilege of Mary we want to consider is
her eminent sanctity. Rooted in the Scripture — “Hail, full of grace” —
this doctrine has ever been evident in the teaching of the Church. The
doctrine is implicitly contained in almost every feast honoring Mary,
probably dates from the middle of the seventh century. It is one of the four feasts
for the celebration of which Sergius I (687-701) prescribed a procession in the
Liber Pontificalis. The other three were: the Purification (February 2), the Assump­
tion (August 15), and the Nativity (September 8). L. Duchesne, Origines du
culte chrétien, étude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne, 2. édition (Paris: A.
Fontemoing, 1898), pp. 118, 261. (There is a fifth edition, 1925.) For the
record of the spread of the feast of the Annunciation, cf. Holweck, Calendarium,
pp. 60-61.
27 A. Onofrio, De B. V. Maria in precibus Ritualis et Pontificalis Romani, in
Ephemerides Liturgicae, Vol. 61, 1947, p. 104.
28 This prayer will be discussed more at length later.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

255

though there is no specific feast honoring her under this general title.
When we refer to Mary’s sanctity we include all her privileges
insofar as each, de facto, did increase her holiness, either actually,
such as her Immaculate Conception, or, at least, by providing a
means for sanctity, such as her virginity.
Mary was not only free from any stain of original or actual sin,
but her soul —more than any other except that of her own divine
Son —was steeped in divine grace. The sacred liturgy expresses this
in different ways.
From the feast of the Annunciation (March 25) we have the
words of Scripture: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou among women” (Alleluia, Gospel, and Offertory).
“Thou hast found grace with God” (Gospel). These phrases from
the holy Gospel interlace the whole framework of this feast and
keep returning like a theme in most of the feasts in which she is
honored. In the Common Office of the Blessed Virgin, the fifth
lesson taken from St. John Chrysostom has this magnificent passage:
Verily, dearly beloved brethren, the Blessed Virgin Mary was a great
wonder. What thing greater or more famous than she hath ever at
any time been found or can be found? She alone is greater than heaven
and earth. What thing holier than she hath been or can be found?
Neither Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Martyrs, nor Patriarchs, nor
Angels, nor Thrones, nor Lordships, nor Seraphim, nor Cherubim, nor
any other creature visible or invisible can be found that is greater or
more excellent than she. She is at once the handmaid and the parent of
God, at once Virgin and Mother.
This passage certainly high-lights Mary’s eminent holiness. An­
other passage from the Common Office expresses her sanctity very
beautifully but less obviously:
"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem. Therefore tire
king has loved me and brought me into his chambers” (3rd Antiphon
of Lauds).

Perhaps the feast most intimately connected with the concept of
sanctity is that of the Immaculate Conception, which honors Mary’s
singular prerogative of having been conceived from the very first
moment free of any stain of sin. It is her triumph over Satan. She is
mankind’s one unspotted soul.
Tire doctrinal emphasis of this feast was implied in the feast of
the Annunciation where Mary’s fullness of grace and spotlessness of

256

MARIOLOGY

soul are stressed. A special feast seems to have developed from the
parallel feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (September
24). The step from one to the other is not hard to recognize. The
Eastern rite here too was ahead of the West. Already in the ninth
century, in the Marble Calendar of Naples, there is a feast of the
Conception of St. Ann. Although Naples is in the West, it was
at that time under the Byzantine rule and this calendar entry repre­
sents a Byzantine feast.
Even so, the origin of the feast in the West seems to have been
independent of this and cannot be placed much —if at all —before
1060. It seems to have been England’s privilege to have introduced
this feast to the West.20 The question of Ireland’s role as the first
to have the feast seems to have been conclusively discounted, es­
pecially since it has been shown that the entries in the early Irish
calendars were insertions of a later date.80
Pius IX defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in
1854 (Ineffabilis Deus'). In the document of the definition he refers
to the presence of the feast in the liturgy as a sign and a reflection
of the faith of the Church in the doctrine.31 Sixtus IV had in 1477
extended the feast to the universal Church. The Mass and Office
that he had approved on that occasion were replaced in 1863 by
Pius IX with the Mass formula we have today. Leo XIII, on Novem29 E. Bishop hinted that the extensive traffic between Rome and England in
this period may well have influenced the passage of the feast from Italy to England:
Liturgica historica (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918), p. 258. Cf. B. del Marmol,
O.S.B., Quelques precisions sur le culte de la Vierge au XIIe siècle, in Mémoires
et Rapports du Congrès Marial tenu à Bruxelles, 1921, Vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1922), pp.
231-241.
30 For a discussion of the whole problem of the origin of this feast, cf. Andrea
M. Cecchin, O.S.M., L'lmmacolata nella liturgia occidentale anteriore al seçolo XIII
(Rome: Edizioni Marianum, 1943), pp. 15-27. Edmund Bishop has two studies in
his Liturgica historica, pp. 239-259. The first is a reprint of an article in the
Downside Review, April, 1886. The second (pp. 250-259) is an essay on "Irish
Origins” of the feast which was written thirty years after the first essay. While his
study is interesting and his methods commendable, the force of his argument has
been lost now that Fr. Grosjean has pointed out that the entries in the Martyrology
of Tallaght (end of the eighth century) and the Martyrology of Oengus (end of
the eighth or beginning of the ninth century) relative to this feast (May 3, Con­
ception of the Blessed Virgin Mary) are later insertions: Analecta Bollandiana, Vol.
61, 1943, pp· 91-95·
31 "By which illustrious act she pointed out the conception of the Virgin as
singular, wonderful, and very far removed from the origin of the rest of mankind
and to be venerated as entirely holy, since the Church celebrates festival days only
of what is holy.” Pius IX, Official documents connected with the definition of the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (in Latin and
English) (Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1855), p. 62.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

257

ber 30, 1879, raised the feast from the rank of a double of the second
class to that of a double of the first class with a common octave.
As is usually the case, the Oration for the feast captures the
particular aspect or phase of doctrine the Church is stressing in
her celebration.
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin didst make
her a worthy habitation for Thy Son, and didst by His foreseen death,
preserve her from all stain of sin; grant we beseech Thee, that through
her intercession we may be cleansed from sin and come with pure hearts
to Thee.

We may notice here even the important theological distinction con­
cerning the merits of Christ. It was precisely this distinction that
cleared the theological atmosphere around this doctrine. Until it
was made, there had been some hesitancy concerning the doctrine
from fear of encroaching on the teaching of mankind’s universal
need of Christ’s redeeming grace.
Of even richer poetic beauty is the Introit of the Mass —taken
from the prophecy of Isaias:
I will greatly rejoice in the Lord and my soul shall be joyful in my
God, for He hath clothed me with garments of salvation and with the
robe of justice Lie hath covered me, as a bride adorned with her
jewels.

The use of passages of Holy Scripture referring to “the uncreated
Wisdom” (Epistle) and His eternal origin are here applied to the
origin of Mary, which was preordained by one and the same decree
with the Incarnation of the Divine Wisdom.32
The Gradual and the Alleluia verse for the feast are:
Blessed art thou, O Virgin Mary, by the Lord the most high God
above all women upon earth. Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou
art the joy of Israel, thou art the honor of our people.

Thou art all fair, O Mary, and there is in thee no stain of original sin.
This latter phrase — original sin —is distinctive in the liturgical
texts of the Mass. Editions of the Missal prior to 1863, and even
in the ancient calendars,33 entitled the feast In conceptione B. Mariae
Virginis.34
32 Pius IX, Official documents, p. 83.
33 CI. F. Wormaid, English Calendars before A.D. 1100 (London: Henry
Bradshaw Society, 1934), Vol. 1.
34 A Roman Missal printed in 1858 (four years after the definition) still has

258

MARIOLOGY

The Sarum Missal of the early sixteenth century had a special
Alleluia verse that mentioned the glorious conception of the Virgin
Mary. It also had a sequence: “Let this day be celebrated in which
the Conception of Mary is piously recalled.”*
35
The Invitatory of Matins says: “Let us keep the feast of the stain­
less conception of the Virgin Mary; let us worship Christ, her Son
and her Lord and ours.” This passage is interesting for the explicit­
ness of its dogmatic reference to Mary’s conception as well as for the
theological balance it portrays by reflecting Mary’s honors to Christ.
This is a pattern that goes through the whole structure of the
liturgical texts on Mary.
There follow some further passages pertaining to this concept — all
from the Breviary for the feast of the Immaculate Conception.
“O Lord, how excellent is Thy Name in all the earth, Who has made
Thee a worthy tabernacle in the Virgin Mary” (ist Antiphon at
Matins).

“Grace is poured into her Conception and she is fairer than the
daughters of men” (4th Antiphon of Matins).
“By this I know that thou favorest me, because mine enemy can not
triumph over me” (Versicle of 2nd Noctum).

“For the Lord hath created me in righteousness and hath held mine
hand and hath kept me” (4th Responsory).
And finally the first Antiphon of Lauds and Vespers:

“Thou art all fair, O Mary; there is no spot of original sin in thee.”
In a fourteenth-century manuscript of the Sarum Missal the feast
of the Conception is in the calendar (December 8) but it does not
have a special Mass formula or Office; it is celebrated with the feast
of the Nativity.36 The Mass on that day makes no explicit reference
to Mary’s conception which would seem to indicate that the latter
feast was only tacked on. Even in the later Roman Missals the two
this simple title. However, a Breviary printed in 1856 has Immaculatae inserted
in the title for this feast.
35 Missale ad usum insignis et praeclarae Ecclesiae Sarum. Labore ac studio
Francisci H. Dickinson (Burntisland, 1861-1883), η. 130.
38 In nativitate et in conceptione Sancte Marie. The Sarum Missal, edited from
three early manuscripts by J. Wickham Legg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916),
p. 318.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

259

Masses are very similar, being identical from the Introit through the
Gospel except for the change of the word “Nativity” to “Conception.”
The feast of the Nativity is one of the earliest Marian feasts in
the Western liturgy, celebrated in Rome during the pontificate of
Sergius I (687-701) and probably some years before. Like the feast
of the Immaculate Conception, it owes its origin probably to the
Gospel narration and the early feast of the birth of John the Baptist.
The feast had its origin in the East, probably in Syria or Palestine.
The object of the feast, namely, the birth of Mary, lacks historical
details and is based somewhat on apocryphal writings, which
abounded after the Council of Ephesus. Evidence is wanting to
show why September was chosen,37 though it is certainly because
of that date that the feast of the Conception was celebrated on
December 8, nine months earlier. Because of this lack of historical
foundation, the feast was slow in being accepted universally.38
A person might ask why the birth of Mary is particularly set aside
for honor, since in the case of the saints the Church “celebrateth
only tire day of their being made perfect at death” (6th Lesson,
December 9). The answer will be found in this that in the case
of Our Blessed Mother as in the case of St. John die Baptist, the
Church venerates even their birth since drey were sanctified in the
womb. Hence every phase of her life is worthy of honor who even
at her birth was a singularly perfect and holy creature.
There follow some pertinent passages from the Office of the feast
of die Nativity:

“Today is the Nativity of the Holy Virgin Mary, whose glorious life is
die ornament of all the churches” (Versicle and Responsory at Vespers).
“Let us tell again of the right worthy Birth of the glorious Virgin Mary
who gained the honor of Motherhood without losing the guilelessness
of a Maiden” (Antiphon at the Magnificat, ist Vespers).

“Thy birdi, O Virgin Mother of God, was a message of joy to the
whole world, for out of thee rose the Sun of righteousness . . .”
(6th Responsory of Matins).
“Let us keep with rejoicing the Birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary
that she may pray for us to our Lord Jesus Christ” (5th Antiphon at
Lauds).
37 F. Holweck, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. 10, p. 712.
aa Holweck, Calendarium, p. 312.

20θ

MARIOLOGY

“Let us this day keep solemnly the Birthday of Mary, Mother but still
Maiden, her Birth a step toward the loftiness of her throne” (Antiphon
at the Benedictus).

One might remark the obvious supernatural mentality reflected in
all these prayers. The perfectly natural event of Mary’s birth is seen
in the light of the beauty of her soul and the height of her calling
to be Virgin Mother and Queen.
Since holiness means attachment to the supreme good (God) and
distance from evil (sin), Mary is certainly most holy. We have seen
how the sacred liturgy expresses these concepts in a concrete way,
especially in the two feasts of the Annunciation and the Immaculate
Conception.

VIRGINITY

We pass now to the mystery of Mary’s life closely associated with
her sanctity, namely, her virginity. Our Lord himself tells us that
virginity is not a necessary sign of sanctity,39 but we know that
Mary’s virginity is very intimately connected with the holiness of
her life and flows from it. Before she ever realized the height of her
calling, she had consecrated herself body and soul, to almighty God.
Her “How can this be done?” is universally interpreted by exegetes
as a reference to her vow of virginity.40 The angel’s assurance was
all she needed: “Be it done unto me according to thy word.”
With regard to giving the full doctrine of Mary’s virginity (be­
fore, in, and after the birth of Christ) the expressions of the liturgy
are general and all-inclusive, using the simple term “virgin” to in­
clude all its implications. In some passages, however, more of the
fullness of her virginity is expressed, for example:
“Mother of God, when Moses saw the bush unconsumed, we own that
it was a figure of the preservation of thy most wonderful virginity.
Pray for us” (3rd Antiphon at Lauds, feast of Circumcision).

“The joy of a Mother was hers, remaining a Virgin unsullied” (from
the 2nd Antiphon of Lauds on Christmas).

"Long ago Ezechiel prophesied: I saw the gate shut; behold God
went forth from it before the ages for the salvation of the world. And
it was shut again, showing forth the Virgin, because after child-birth
39 Mt. 19:12.
40 M. Scheeben, Mariology, translated by Rev. T. L. M. J. Geukers (St. Louis,
Mo.: B. Herder, 1946), Vol. 1, p. 116.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

261

she remained a virgin. The gate which thou sawest, the Lord only
shall enter by it” (2nd Responsory of Matins on Wednesday in the
1st Week in Advent).

Although there is no feast today in the Roman calendar honoring
Mary in her virginity, there have been, in certain places, days set
aside to honor her through this privilege: fourth Sunday in July —
her Virginity; third Sunday in May — Queen of Virgins; first Sunday
in August — Faithful Virgin, etc.41 In the Roman Missal there is a
feast of the Purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary assigned to October
16.42 We pray in the Oration of that Mass:

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty and eternal God, that we who
venerate with festive celebration the most perfect virginity of the most
pure virgin Mary, may by her intercession attain to purity of mind
and body.
The feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which our Holy
Father, Pope Pius XII, extended to the universal Church after con­
secrating the world to her Immaculate Heart on December 8, 1942,
might also be considered here. The new Office and Mass were
promulgated on May 4, 1944.43 It is fixed on August 22, the octave
of the Assumption.
It is not possible or necessary to cite the countless references in
the Missal and Breviary referring to Mary’s virginity. But that the
liturgy incorporates in full the dogmatic teaching concerning it, there
can be no doubt. Mary’s name is seldom mentioned without affixing
to it this her glorious privilege.

Ό Mary, how holy and how spotless is thy virginity. I am too dull
to praise, for thou hast borne in thy womb Him whom the heavens
can not contain” (6th Responsory of Christmas Matins).

ASSUMPTION
We shall consider Mary’s role as Coredemptrix, which would
logically come here, in connection with her mediatory powers.
We pass now to that privilege of Mary so recently exalted by
the solemn definition of Pope Pius XII —the Assumption.44 This
41 Cf. Holweek, Calendarium.
42 Missae pro aliquibus locis.
43 Â.A.S., Vol. 37, 1945, pp. 44—52.
44 Ibid., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 753-771· Cf. C. Morin, The Assumption and the
Liturgy, in Vers le dogme de l'Assomption (Montréal, 1948), pp. 391-397; G. Giam-

202

MARIOLOGY

privilege —one of the first honored in both the Roman and Gallican
liturgies —is the one which in our day has received the most atten­
tion. Study, research, and prayer prepared the way for the definition,
and the definition has evoked more study, research, and prayer.*
45
The doctrine defined is Mary’s glorious bodily assumption into
heaven and her glorification in heaven. The definition does not ex­
tend to the death of Mary — a point considered by some to be forever
undefinable, because of the lack of historical evidence. However, the
sacred liturgy does refer to Mary’s death. Doctrinally, the Assumption
is the climax, the glorious completion of the most holy life of Mary.
It involves not only her victory over death, but also her glorification
in heaven above all the saints and angels.
We shall try to see how the Church is able to incorporate both
aspects of this doctrine into her prayer life —her liturgy. But first
let us consider the feast itself.
Tire Gallican feast of Our Lady, celebrated on January 18, most
probably came West from the Coptic liturgy with Cassian around the
year 55ο.4® This was the only Marian feast of the Gallican liturgy
prior to the influence brought about by the dissemination of the
Roman liturgical books.47
Around the turn of the eighth century the date was changed
under Roman influence from January 18 to August 15.48
The Mozarabic liturgy seems to have depended on Roman influ­
ence for its feast of the Assumption and at a late date.49
The object of the Roman feast at first seemed to have been only
berardini, O.F.M., Il valore dommatico della liturgia assunzionistica, in Atti del
Congresso Mariano dei Frati Minori d’Italia (Roma, 1948), pp. 511-557; F.
Antonelli, O.F.M., La festa dell'Assunzione nella liturgia rornana, ibid., pp. 223—
239; G. Brasso, O.S.B., Contenido doctrinal de las formulas asuncionistas de la
liturgia rornana, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 6 (Madrid, 1947), pp. 147-154.
45 J. Carol, O.F.M., A Bibliography of the Assumption, in The Thomist, Vol.
14, 1951, pp. 133-160; Recent Literature on Mary's Assumption, in The American
Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 120, 1949, pp. 376-387; The Mariological Movement
in the World Today, in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp. 37-42.
46 A. King, The Assumption of Our Lady in the Oriental Liturgies, in Eastern
Churches Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1949-1950, p. 204. CE B. Capelle, La fête de I'Assomption, p. 35; and La Messe gallicane de l'Assomption: son rayonnement, ses sources,
in Miscellanea liturgica in honorem L. Cunïberti Mohlberg (Rome: Edizioni
Liturgiche, 1949, Vol. 2, pp. 33-59.
47 For an excellent treatment of the problem of introducing uniform liturgical
books, cf. M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Age (Louvain, 1948),
Vol. 2, pp. xvii-xlix.
48 B. Capelle, La fête de l’Assomption, pp. 35-36.
40 B. Capelle, La liturgie Mariale en Occident, p. 233.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

263

the death of Mary with no reference to the Assumption until the
end of the seventh century.
As mentioned above, there was a procession in Rome on this day,
inaugurated by Pope Sergius I. From the seventh to the sixteenth
century, the papal cortège, including members of the Senate and
representatives of the people, passed from the Church of Adrian on
the Forum to St. Mary Major.60 When the people had assembled for
the procession, the following formula was read:

It is our duty to honor the solemnity of the day, O Lord, in which
the Holy Mother of God did indeed suffer temporal death, although
the bonds of this death could not hold back her whose flesh formed
the body of Thy Son, Our Lord.61

This is truly a remarkable passage in that it is not just a prayer
but rather a declaration of the fact of Mary’s victory over death
and an explicit avowal of her bodily assumption. It is remarkable
also, because the Mass formula (i.e., before the new one) is rather
noncommittal — one which was derived from the Common of Vir­
gins.62 In fact, the oration makes no mention of the Assumption. The
Introit is adapted for the Assumption, but the formula — Gaudeamus
— really belongs to the Mass of St. Agatha (February 5) and occurs
eight times in the Missal. The Alleluia verse and the Offertory are
the same. They repeat the first Antiphon of Vespers and Lauds:
“Mary hath been taken to heaven; the angels rejoice; they praise
and bless the Lord.” This verse is retained as the Alleluia verse in
the new Mass which our Holy Father approved for the universal
Church for the feast of the Assumption.68
The Introit of this new Mass is from the Apocalypse. The text is
that of the woman (Apoc. 12:1):
A great sign has appeared in the heavens: a woman clothed with the
50 I. Schuster, O.S.B., The festival of the Assumption into heaven of the Blessed
Virgin Mary in the ancient Roman liturgy, in The Sacramentary, translated from
the Italian by Arthur Levelis-Marke (New York: Benziger Bros., 1930), Vol. 5,
PP· 32-35·
51 From the Gregorian Sacramentary. PL, 39, 133.
62 Cf. B. Capelle, La fête de l’Assomption, pp. 38-40, where he discusses the
Mass at length, and the following two references where he analyzes the prayer,
Veneranda, just quoted: L’oraison 'Veneranda' à la messe de l'Assomption, in
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis, Vol. 26, 1950, pp. 354—364; La témoignage
de la liturgie, in Études Mariales, 1949. Assomption de Marie, Part 2 (Paris:
Vrin, 1950), pp. 49-52.
03 A.A.S., Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 793—795.

264

MARIOLOGY

sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve
stars. Ps. 97, v. 1. Let us sing a new song to the Lord, for he has done
great things!
The Oration is classic in its structure:54
Almighty and eternal God, Who hast assumed the Immaculate Virgin
Mary, the Mother of Thy Son, body and soul into heavenly glory,
grant, we beseech Thee, that always intent on higher things, we may
merit to be sharers of her glory.

This has a happy suggestion of the essential relation of the As­
sumption to the Immaculate Conception. It likewise puts the verb
in the active voice, showing God’s immediate action. God has
assumed Mary to Himself. Mary is in glory, body and soul. The
whole doctrine is here.
The Epistle accommodates the passage from Judith. This same
Epistle is used for the feast of the Seven Sorrows. The scriptural
passages referring to that valiant woman are here applied to Mary. I
include only three pertinent passages: “Blessed art thou, O daughter,
by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth.”
“Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed
thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies." “Thou
art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the
honor of our people.” The middle passage is most expressive in refer­
ence to Mary’s victory over Satan. This idea is brought up again
shortly after in the Offertory verse, which is the Protoevangelium:
“I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed
and her seed.”
The Gospel is that of the Visitation. Elizabeth’s words of praise
and Mary’s Magnificat are the pertinent passages.
This should suffice to show that the new Mass formula clearly
transposes dogma to prayer. Without question it is a superior formula
when compared to the former Gaudeamus Mass.
The new Office of the Assumption55 makes changes for the most
54 Cf. Sister Mary Gonzaga Haessly, O.S.U., Rhetoric in the Sunday Collects of
the Roman Missal (Cleveland: Ursuline College, 1938), passim; C. Egger, De
quibusdam Ecclesiae precibus latinis, in Latinitas, Vol. 1, 1953, pp. 141—147; J. M.
Bover, S.J., Uso litûrgico de los textos biblicos en la nueva Misa de la Asuncidn, in
Estudios Marianos, Vol. 12 (Madrid, 1952), pp. 97—110.
55 A.A.S., Vol. 43, 1951, pp. 385-399; cf. M. Gordillo, S.J., Las lecciones del
II nocturno de la Asunciôn en la historia del Breviario Romano, in Estudios Marianos,
Vol. 12 (Madrid, 1952), pp. 111-123.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

265

part by offering new texts in places where the old Office was of
the Common. However, the really characteristic passages remain.
“The Virgin Mary hath been taken into the (bridal) chamber on high
where the King of kings sitteth on the throne amid the stars” (2nd
Antiphon of Lauds).
“This is the day whereon Mary went up into heaven. Rejoice for she
reigneth forever with Christ” (Magnificat Antiphon for 2nd Vespers).
These passages, as well as the antiphon quoted earlier (“Mary
hath been taken to heaven, etc.”) may well have been incorporated
into the liturgy from an epistle-sermon Cogitis me by Paschasius
Radbert.'6
Another very beautiful passage is the first responsory of Matins.
It is a delicate interweaving of six different passages from the Canticle
of Canticles and of one from Ecclesiasticus.5'' This Responsory, too,
is retained in the new Office:

I saw her, when fair like a dove, she winged her flight above the rivers
of waters. The priceless savor of her perfumes hung heavy in her gar­
ments. And about her it was as the flower of roses in the spring of the
year, and lilies of the valley. )7. Who is this that cometh out of
the wilderness like a pillar of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and
frankincense?
We see, then, all the important facts relative to the doctrine of
Our Lady’s Assumption expressed in the sacred liturgy. Sometimes,
indeed, expressed in most simple and direct terms, sometimes in
figure, sometimes in the ecstatic prayer of the mystic, but always in
a manner and with an accuracy befitting the Spouse of Christ.

QUEENSHIP
Immediately following on Mary’s Assumption and implied in it
is her Queenship. She is the Queen of Heaven. Yet in reality her
Queenship is simultaneous with her Maternity. For from the first
moment of her conception of the God-Man she was Mother of a
8,1 This is the opinion of Capelie, La liturgie Mariale en Occident, pp. 224-225.
Dom Frénaud in his review of Capelle (Revue Grégorienne, Vol. 31, 1952, p. 106)
holds the Cogitis me to be rather a witness and commentary on the already existing
texts. In his own review of this (his own) article, which came a full year after
Frénaud had made these observations, Capelle makes no reference to them as
involving a problem: Bulletin de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Vol. 4, No. 2066.
8T Cant. 2:3; 5:12; 4:11; 2:1; Ecclus. 50:8; Cant. 3:6; 5:6.

266

MARIOLOGY

King. Not just Queen-Mother as understood in kingdoms today, but
truly Queen. The fact is implied in Holy Scripture and has been
attested to by one pope after another.58 The nature of her Queenship
is more than metaphorical; it is queenship in the proper sense. She
enjoys that power of intercession proper to a mother and a spouse
of the king and enjoys personal dignity attendant on her position.
She is Queen of queens because she is Mother and Spouse of the
King of kings and because by her life she helped to attain victory for
the kingdom.
The sacred liturgy takes explicit recognition of both her inter­
cessory powers and her dignity. There has been an active effort of
late to have a feast introduced in honor of Mary’s Queenship —to
correspond to the new feast of Christ the King. Until such time, the
feast of the Assumption can certainly be considered to honor her
Queenship since her glorification in heaven (which is one of the
objects of that feast) is but the King’s royal welcome and rewarding
of His Queen into their kingdom.
In the Oration of the Mass we speak of her as having glory in
heaven: “Almighty and eternal God, Who hast gathered to Thyself
the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of Thy Son, body and soul to
heavenly glory . . .” The Epistle speaks of her eminent dignity; she
is blessed by God above all women —and then: “Thou art the glory
of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honor of thy
people.” The Gradual is a verse from Ps. 44, which is the prophetic
psalm of the new kingdom: “Hear, O Daughter, and see and incline
thy ear and the king will desire thy beauty. The daughter of the King
enters with all beauty; golden are her garments.”
The Postcommunion appeals to God through the merits and inter­
cession of Mary, thus bringing out the other aspect of her Queenship
— power before the throne.
Mary’s pre-eminence even over angels is attested in the Versicle
and Responsory — “The Holy Mother of God is exalted above the
choirs of angels to the heavenly kingdom.” Since the fifth century,
Mary’s name has appeared after God and before the an gels in the
litanies, giving recognition to this dignity.
08 Cf. E. Carroll, O.Carm., Our Lady's Queenship in the Magisterium of the
Church, in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 29-81; or, more briefly, G. M.
Roschini, O.S.M., Royauté de Marie, in Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge (ed.
H. du Manoir, S.J.) (Paris: Beauchesne, 1949), Vol. 1, pp. 601-606. Cf. also
K. B. Moore, O.Carm., The Queenship of the Blessed Virgin in the Liturgy of
the Church, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 218—227.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

267

Mary’s Queenship is hers by a natural law —not just of inheritance
as a descendant of David, but in the very nature of her motherhood
of a King. “He shall be King over the house of Jacob forever; and
of his kingdom there shall be no end.”59
She has some acquired rights as queen, i.e., as a consequence of
her co-operation in the work of the kingdom, the redemption of men.
Her first “Be it done unto me according to thy word” implicitly
expressed this total co-operation. The feast of the Annunciation
honors her for this, while the feasts of the Purification and Seven
Sorrows expand on the actual role she played in the struggle for
victory.
From the Office common to the Blessed Virgin, the following pas­
sages give further evidence of the notion of queenship:
“Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold
wrought about with divers colors, and when the daughters of Sion
saw her, they cried out that she was most blessed” (Verse and Response,
6th Responsory of Matins).
T am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem. Therefore the
king hath loved me and brought me into his chamber” (3rd Antiphon
of Lauds).

“In thy comeliness and in thy beauty, ride on triumphant and reign”
(Short Resp., Lauds).

The King’s reign is eternal — so too shall be the queen’s.
The beautiful antiphons, Salve Regina, Ave Regina coelorum,
Regina coeli should be mentioned here since they thread through the
Divine Office day by day throughout the year keeping Mary’s Queen­
ship before our minds.
These few examples taken from the Missal and the Breviary
should be adequate to show clearly Mother Church’s desire to place
on the lips and in the hearts of her children prayers that express her
understanding of the doctrine of Mary’s Queenship.
MEDIATION

We come now to the final doctrines which integrate all the above
under the practical aspect of Mary’s role in the whole plan of redemp­
tion—her role as Coredemptrix and Dispenser of graces. They are
treated here under one topic because her work as Dispenser of graces
flows from her share in the work of redemption.
69 Lk. 1:33.

268

MARIOLOGY

Her perfect union with her divine Son from the first moment of
His mission down to the tortuous way of Calvary merited for her a
unique role in the redemptive actions of our divine Saviour. Her
every act was unique in that its perfection and its purity rendered
it most pleasing and consequently meritorious before God. Her
sorrows and her deep compassion with every suffering step of our
Redeemer in the course of the Passion were such that she has merited
the title of Coredemptrix.
Taking this into account and then considering her other glorious
prerogatives, Mother, Saint, Virgin, and Queen, it is not hard to
understand the unique role she plays in heaven as the Mediatrix
and the Dispensatrix of all graces.
We need not here proceed any further than this into the theo­
logical aspects of these doctrines, especially since there are variations
of opinion among theologians on the extent of her role in the plan
of salvation. Next to the doctrine of the Assumption no other problem
has been more fully treated in recent literature.60 Whatever the
theological solution might be, the texts of the liturgy of tire Church
will hardly exert more force in the final proof than to imply the
unique intercessory powers of Mary in heaven and some mode of co­
redemption during her life here on earth.61
Mary’s “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me
according to thy word” is her complete acceptance of God’s plan for
her. This consent celebrated on the feast of the Annunciation
(March 25) is the foundation for her office of Mediatrix. Words do
not convey the degree of dedication contained in this consent, but
there could be no halfway measures for this soul whose intellect was
unclouded by ignorance and whose will was undivided by concupis­
cence or selfish consideration. This was the turning point in history,
and Mary consented to provide herself body and soul to the cause.
60 J. Carol, O.F.M., Mariological Movement in the World Today, Section E —
"Mary’s Co-redemption,” in Marian Studies, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 34-37 for the
beginnings of a bibliography from both points of view.
01 Cf. G. Cozien, O.S.B., La Maternité de grâce dans la liturgie, in Quatrième
Congrès Marial hréton tenu à Folgoat . . . 1913 (Quimper, 1915), pp. 244-249;
P. Charles, S.J., L'hymnologie mariale et la Médiation de la T. S. Vierge, in
Mémoires et Rapports du Congrès Marial tenu à Bruxelles, 1921 (Bruxelles, 1922),
Vol. 2, pp. 475-494; I. Van Houtryve, O.S.B., La Médiation de Marie dans la
liturgie, in La Vie Diocésaine, Vol. il, 1922, pp. 349-360; Serapio de Iragui,
O.F.M.Cap., La Mediacién de la Virgen en la himnografia latina de la edad
media (Buenos Aires, 1939); D. Baier, O.F.M., The Franciscan Office of St. Mary
of the Angels and the Mediation of Grace, in Orate Fratres, Vol. 10, 1936,
pp· 399-402·

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

269

Later she was called upon to carry out in deed this consent of her
spirit, especially when she followed her divine Son to the cross. Her
oneness with Him especially here and her glorious merits consequent
on the anguish of soul she endured, give her a unique relationship
with the Redeemer, a relationship theologians have not hesitated to
include under a special name — Coredemptrix. It is the feast of the
Seven Sorrows, especially the one in Passion Week, that brings to
mind this mystery.
“There stood by the cross of Jesus, His Mother” (Introit). She
would not be separated from Him now. By this fidelity and co-opera­
tion at the foot of the cross “an ineffable union is made to exist
between the two offerings, that of the Incarnate Word and that of
Mary; the Blood of the Divine Victim and the tears of the Mother,
flow together for the redemption of mankind.”62
"O God, at whose passion according to the prophecy of Simeon, a
sword of sorrow pierced the most sweet soul of the glorious virgin and
mother, Mary, grant in Thy mercy that we who call to mind with
veneration her soul transfixed with sorrow through the merits and
prayers of all the saints faithfully standing by Thy cross, may obtain
the blessed result of Thy Passion” (Oration).

As Collects go, this one is a rather poor composition, and it is also
exceptional in this that it is prayed directly to Christ. The Oration
for the feast of the Seven Dolors (September 15) omits the refer­
ence to the other saints and simply reads: “. . . mercifully grant that
we who reverently meditate on her sorrows may reap the happy fruit
of Thy Passion.”
“Holy Mary, the Queen of heaven and Mistress of the world, stood
by the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, full of grief” (Alleluia, Sep­
tember 15). There is in this verse a hint of the teaching of Pope
Pius XII: that Mary is “Queen” by right of conquest.63 Her Queen­
ship is here stressed, and her endurance even to the point of spiritual
martyrdom merits the victory. In connection with our thought —the
Queen has shared the victory with the King.
“Happy the senses of the Blessed Virgin Mary which without
dying earned the palm of martyrdom beneath the cross of our Lord”
(Communion). This is the great paradox of Christianity! There is
02 P. Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, translated from the French by
Oom Laurence Shephard, O.S.B. (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1952), Vol. 6,
Passiontide and Holy Week, p. 175.
03 A. AS., Vol. 38, 1946, p. 266.

27°

MARIOLOGY

victory in death and victory in martyrdom without death, and both
of these seeming contradictions took place at the same time on
Calvary in Jesus and Mary.
No one with even the most elementary contact with liturgical
books would question that they reflect the belief in Mary’s inter­
cessory powers. The Offertory of the Mass we were just considering
is in itself a sufficient witness. “Be mindful, O Virgin Mother of God,
when thou standest in the sight of the Lord to speak good things for
us and to turn away His anger from us” (Offertory). Mary’s word
on our behalf at the throne of God is what we seek, confident of the
power of her intercession on our behalf.
After the Salve Regina which is recited at least once a day from
Pentecost to Advent, there is this versicle, response, and prayer:
y. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
ty. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray. O almighty and everlasting God who by the co­
operation of the Holy Ghost, didst prepare the body and soul of Mary,
glorious Virgin and Mother to become the worthy habitation of Thy
Son, grant that by the gracious intercession of her at whose memory
we rejoice, we may be delivered from present evils and everlasting
death.

We pray to her to intercede for us for those things most essential
to us (our prayer is really to God, but with an absolute confidence
that Mary is simultaneously making our prayer her own on our
behalf): (i) that we be made worthy of the promises of Christ
(final perseverance); (2) grace to avoid the occasions of sin; and (3)
grace to avoid sin itself with its eternal consequences (everlasting
death).
There are two prayers that can be added here because of their
intercessory contents. The first is the Magnificat Antiphon of the
first Vespers of the Common Office of the Blessed Virgin:
O holy Mary, be thou a help to the helpless,
a strength to the fearful,
a comfort to the sorrowful.
Pray for the people, plead for the clergy,
make intercession for all women vowed to God.
May all that are keeping this thy holy feast
day feel the might of thine assistance.
Certainly this beautiful antiphon embodies in full the idea of
intercession. We pray to Mary, confident of her competence to help

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

271

all with the might of her assistance. This antiphon has been taken
from a sermon attributed to St. Augustine.04 It breathes a deep
confidence in Mary and in her intercessory powers.
The second prayer worthy of note is a very short antiphon that
only recently has been discussed as being a third-century witness of
a prayer of intercession to Our Lady.05 This prayer is a translation
from the Greek original. Today its place in the Breviary is in the
Little Office, the antiphon at the Nunc Dimittis; it occurs once in
the Pontifical and twice in the Ritual. “We take refuge under thy
protection, O holy Mother of God. Despise not our petitions in our
necessity, but deliver us from all dangers, ever Virgin glorious and
blessed.”00 We find in this prayer, especially interesting because of
its early date, an assertion of Mary’s role as Mother and Virgin as well
as Intercessor. To have placed our trouble in the hands of Mary is
to be assured that she will handle “our case” with God.
We have seen, then, that the liturgy does reflect the faith of the
Church regarding Mary’s Coredemption and intercessory powers.
While the doctrines are never fully expressed in just those words,
they are contained there in substance.
Having covered the main doctrines concerning Our Lady that find
expression in the liturgy, it is not out of place at this time to consider
Mary’s cult in general as it exists in the Roman liturgy and to treat
of a few special feasts and prayers that are pointed to her honor.

IN GENERAL

In the daily life of the Church we find Mary invoked over and
over again. The Divine Office never begins without a Hail Mary and
never ends without a Marian antiphon. In the Office and at Mass the
Confiteor seeks her intercession. Low Masses are always concluded
with the three Hail Marys and the Hail, Holy Queen prescribed by
Pope Leo XIII for the conversion of Russia. The oration A cunctis
prescribed for most seasons of the year and prayed on ferial days
and on days of simple feasts invokes the special intercession of Mary.
The daily use of the Magnificat has a significance both in the way
of honoring Mary who first prayed it, and in urging us to pray in
04 PL, 39, 2104.
F. Mercenier, O.S.B., La plus ancienne prière à la Sainte Vierge, in Questions
liturgiques et paroissiales, Vol. 25, 1940, PP· 33—36.
00 For the placement of the comma before or after semper (ever) which would
change the meaning from "ever Virgin” to "ever deliver us,” cf. A. Paladini, C.M.,
in Ephemerides Liturgicae, Vol. 61, 1947, pp. 109-110.

272

MARIOLOGY

joyful gratitude at the beginning of each liturgical day of grace (at
Vespers) for the mystery of God’s loving mercy, our salvation. Not
infrequently the Magnificat antiphon locks up in a few words the
whole mystery of the feast being celebrated.
While no one of these prayers alone is particularly convincing,
taken together they converge to focus the Church’s consciousness of
the role of Mary in our daily spiritual life.
The weekly Mass and Office for Saturday are celebrated in her
honor whenever they are not hindered by some higher-ranking feast.
Further, there are five different forms of this Mass that give varia­
tions corresponding to the temporal cycle in which they fall. It is
noteworthy that this Mass and Office are of very ancient origin,
probably dating as far back as Alcuin (f 804).
Throughout the year at different times the Litany of Loreto is
prescribed (May and October in parishes), and the Litany of All
Saints, prayed especially on Rogation Days and at ordinations, gives
Mary the place of honor after the Divine Trinity.

FEAST OF THE PURIFICATION
The feast of the Purification (double of second class) but briefly
mentioned above is worthy of attention because it is one of the four
feasts that go back to the middle of the seventh century. The pro­
cession prescribed for that day is still extant in a modified form. Both
the feast and the procession have their origin in the East. There,
however, the date was usually February 14 in place of February 2,
since the Nativity of Our Lord was celebrated on January 6 instead
of December 25. The twelve days’ difference accounts for the differ­
ent dates of this feast which is based on the historical fact of Mary’s
bringing the Child to the Temple forty days after His birth.07 The
feast originally was a feast of Our Lord — YPAPANT1 Domini (the
meeting of the Lord, i.e., the meeting of Jesus and His parents with
Simeon and Anna), which title the feast frequently had even in
Western calendars.08 It was only some time after the tenth century
that the blessing of candles was introduced. The Presentation of
67 M. Higgins, Note on the Purification and Date of Nativity in Constantinople
in 602, in Traditio, Vol. 1, 1943, pp. 409-410. Also published more recently in
Archiv fiir Liturgiewissenschaft, Vol. 2, 1952, pp. 81-83.
68 Of the twenty calendars edited hy Wormaid (English calendars before A.D.
1 too) fifteen have Purificatio Beatae Mariae, but there are five that have YPAPANTl
Domini — and some of these represent calendars as late as 1000.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

273

Jesus and not the Purification is the principal object of the feast even
though it is definitely Marian in tone.
SEVEN DOLORS

This meeting of Mary with Simeon, who prophesied her sorrows,
directs us to another feast of Mary —the Seven Dolors. This feast is
celebrated in the Temporal Cycle on Friday of Passion Week and
in the Sanctoral Cycle on September 15. Both feasts have the same
object, i.e., the martyrdom of the Mother of God and her compassion
in the sufferings of her Son,®8 although the former’s original object
was more precisely the compassion of Mary at the foot of the cross,
while the object of the latter is the Seven Dolors. For all practical
purposes the Masses are identical. St. Bernard’s lessons in the second
Nocturn on the Compassion of Mary at the foot of the cross are
common to both Offices.
The martyrdom of the Virgin is set before us, not only by the
prophecy of Simeon, but also in the story itself of the Lord’s Passion.
. . . the sword did, indeed, pierce through thy soul! for nought could
pierce the Body of thy Son, without piercing thy soul likewise. Yea,
and when this Jesus of thine had given up the ghost, and the bloody
spear could torture him no more, thy soul winced as it pierced His
dead side. His own soul might leave Him, but thine could not.

The sword of sorrow pierced through thy soul so that we may truly
call thee more than Martyr in whom the love that made thee suffer
along with thy son wrung thy heart more bitterly than any pang of
bodily pain could do. . . . Marvel not, my brethren, that Mary should
be called a martyr in spirit.
The Office of the feast in Passion Week is notable for its lack of
specific reference to the number of Mary’s sorrows. It is more cen­
tered on the Passion. The counting of the individual sorrows was a
later development — a natural development of affective piety. The
responsories at Matins in the Office for the September feast enumer­
ate these seven sorrows. In both feasts though, there is an emotional
tenderness and affective element quite rare in most of the liturgical
texts.
Both feasts are late in the calendar, the former in 1423, the latter
in 1668 (not for the universal Church until 1814). The September
110 F. G. Holweck, Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, p. 151.

274

MARIOLOGY

feast was celebrated on the third Sunday in September until Pope
Pius X’s reform in 1913 assigned it to September 15.™
Characteristic of the Mass of September and the Office of the
Friday of Passion Week is the poignant Stabat Mater of Jacoponi
da Todi, O.F.M. (t 1306),70
71 or perhaps of St. Bonaventure
ft 12.74).72 The hymn is very personal in expression, giving pointed
evidence to the more personalized asceticism beginning around this
period. It is based on the following passages of Holy Scripture: John
19:25; Luke 2:35; Ezechiel 13:6; 2 Corinthians 4:10; and Galatians
4:17.
Because they both have the same object, these two feasts are some­
what of an anomaly in the sacred liturgy which has a governing
principle of never doing the same thing twice (Numquam bis de
eodern).
VISITATION

The visit of Mary to Elizabeth was honored in the late Middle
Ages on Friday of Ember Week in Advent when the Gospel of the
Visitation is read. Tire Franciscans were the first to celebrate this as a
special feast in 1263. It was extended to the universal Church in
1389 and confirmed again in 1441.73 Because of its close affinity to
the feast of St. John the Baptist, our feast is celebrated on July 2,
which is the first free day after the octave of St. John. The Mass,
except for the Epistle and Gospel, is taken from the feast of the
Nativity (September 8). The doctrinal implication of the Gospel is
perhaps Mary as Mediatrix. Origen did not hesitate to attribute St.
John’s sanctification to her Mediation.74 The feast is celebrated in
the Church today as a double of tire second class.
HOLY NAME

The feast of the Holy Name of Mary (September 12) is closely
connected with the feast of her Nativity (September 8) just as the
feast of the Circumcision and the naming of Our Lord follows after
Christmas. However, the origin of this feast may well have developed
70 Holweck, Calendarium, pp. 76, 320, 342.
71 G. M. Dreves, Ein Jahrtausend Lateinischer Hymnendichtung . . . Nach
des Verfassers Ableben revidiert von Clemens Blume, S.J. (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland,
1909), Vol. I, pp. 390-391. Cf. J. Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology . . . ,
revised edition (London: John Murray, 1915), pp. 1081-1084, 1706.
72 A. Manser, Stabat mater, in Lexikon fiir Théologie und Kirche, Vol. 9, p. 760.
73 Holweck, Calendarium, pp. 213—214.
74 In Lucam homiliae, n. 7. PG, 9, 1817-1819.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

275

as a consequence of the simple and tender love of the faithful. St.
Bernard’s grandiloquent words on the name of Mary may well have
fostered that devotion:
It is said: “And the virgin’s name was Mary.” Let us speak a few
words upon this name, which signifieth, being interpreted, “Star of the
sea,” and suiteth very well the Maiden Mother, who may very meetly
be likened unto a star. A star giveth forth her rays without any harm
to herself, and the virgin brought forth her Son without any hurt to
her virginity. . . . She, I say, is a clear and shining star, twinkling with
excellencies, and resplendent with example, needfully set to look down
upon the surface of this great and wide sea.

O thou, whosoever thou art, that knowest thyself to be here not so
much walking upon firm ground as battered to and fro by the gales
and storms of this life’s ocean, if thou wouldst not be overwhelmed by
the tempest, keep thine eyes fixed upon this star’s clear shining. If
the hurricanes of temptation rise against thee or thou art running upon
the rocks of trouble, look to the star, call on Mary. If the waves of
pride, or ambition, or slander, or envy toss thee, look to the star, call on
Mary. If the billows of anger, or avarice, or the enticements of the flesh
beat against thy soul’s bark, look to Mary. If the enormity of thy sins
trouble thee, if the foulness of thy conscience confound thee, if the
dread of judgment appall thee, if thou begin to slip into the deep of
despondency, into the pit of despair, think of Mary. ... If thou keep
her in mind, thou wilt never wander. If she hold thee, thou wilt never
fall. If she lead thee, thou wilt never be weary. If she help thee
thou wilt reach home at last — and so thou wilt prove in thyself how
meetly it is said: “And the Virgin’s name was Mary” (2nd Noctum).

The feast, first celebrated in Spain in 1513, was dropped twice,
once by Pius V and once by Benedict XIV, but was reintroduced by
Innocent XI in 1683 after the deliverance of Vienna from the
Turks.76
PRESENTATION
The feast of the Presentation of Our Lady (November 21) is a
feast honoring the coming of Mary to the Temple at the age of three
years. The only evidence for this event is taken from an apocryphal
source. And for this reason, probably, the feast was very slow in
coming from the East. It was not celebrated in the West until after
the Crusades, even though it had been celebrated at Jerusalem since
the sixth century.
Holweck, Calendarium, p. 317.

276

MARIOLOGY

Despite this flimsy historical foundation, the feast cannot fail to
attract one to the inspirational realization that Mary —free from all
stain or fault —had consecrated herself even from her infancy to God.
No doubt, it is in emulation of that dedication that some religious
communities pronounce their vows on that day and celebrate the
feast with solemnity.
It was probably because of its weak historical foundation that Pius
V dropped it from the calendar. Then Benedict XIV did the same
thing after it had been in the meantime reintroduced into the liturgy.
The present feast, a greater double, dates from the reign of Clement
VIII.Te The formula is very discreetly silent about Mary’s presentation
except in the Oration and in the Lesson where St. John Damascene
refers to the legend.
The Magnificat antiphon is particularly beautiful and interesting
in that it shifts the idea of Temple to Mary herself and expresses
pithily her major prerogatives. “O Blessed Mary, Mother of God,
Virgin forever, Temple of the Lord, sanctuary of the Holy Ghost,
thou without any example (before thee) didst make thyself well­
pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ.”
¥
¥
¥

These certainly do not represent all the Marian feasts (Holweck
lists around 940), but they do give a good cross section of them,
reflecting how the knowledge of Mary’s life and her spiritual prerog­
atives pass over into the prayer life of the Church. In honoring
Mary or some phase of her life we are honoring Christ and, through
Christ, God.
LITTLE OFFICE

A word should be said about the so-called Little Office of the
Blessed Virgin. Seemingly a development from the Common, it is,
on the contrary, the most ancient of the Marian Offices appended
to the Common Offices of the saints in the Breviary. From it the
Office of the Blessed Mother on Saturday was developed as some­
thing special. Even before that the Little Office had come to be
the Common of the Blessed Mother. Pius V inserted three noctums
into the Office to be used on greater feasts, but the rest of the frame­
work was the Little Office. It was only as late as the pontificate of
Pius IX that a separate Common was drawn up relegating this
ancient form into somewhat of an appendix.
τβ Ibid., p. 386.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

2,77

It was in the monasteries undoubtedly that this Office began to be
recited as a devotional accretion to the Divine Office,7’ but it soon
passed over to the laity so that it became their preferred devotion
down to the end of the Middle Ages. The interesting and beautiful
little volume so often represented in manuscript holdings and known
as the “Book of the Hours” was nothing more than the Little Office
of the Blessed Virgin.
Characteristic of the Office is its one noctum of three psalms and
a lesson each day. Tire psalms were taken from Matins of the feast
of the Assumption, three each day repeated twice in the course of the
week. At Lauds the antiphons are taken from the feast of the Assump­
tion except in Advent when they are taken from the feast of the
Annunciation (March 25), and after the Nativity when they are
taken from the feast of the Purification (February 2). Thus we see
how the principal Marian feasts celebrated at that time were inter­
woven into this Office.
It would be impossible to estimate the extension of the use of this
Little Office, but it is safe to say that thousands upon thousands have
consecrated their day-by-day existence through praying it. Even to
this day, it is the prayer of many religious communities of women
and lay Brothers.
MARIAN ANTIPHONS

There remains for us to examine the four Marian antiphons, gems
of doctrinal and devotional content that have always been close to
the hearts of the lay people as well as of the clergy and religious.
These antiphons, each in its proper season, are prescribed to be
recited after Lauds and after Compline. The Alma Redemptoris
Mater is recited from the first Sunday in Advent until the feast of
the Purification; Ave Regina Coelorum until Easter; the Regina Coeli
during Paschaltide; and finally the Salve Regina throughout the rest
of the year. In many religious communities the antiphon after Com­
pline is sung. Thus, the last official use of the voice before the great
night silence is a quiet, tender prayer to Our Lady.
The Alma Redemptoris''8 is considered the most literary composi­
tion of the group. It was probably written by Hermanus Contractus
(t 1054), a monk of Reichenau, who seems to have gotten his inspi77 H. Thurston, S.J., Virgin Mary, Devotion to the Blessed, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, p. 463c.
78 Cf. H. T. Henry, Alma Redemptoris Mater, in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. I, p. 326; J. Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology, pp. 51-52.

278

MARIOLOGY

ration from the already extant hymn, Ave Maris Stella.79 At least the
phraseology is strikingly similar.

Alma Redemptoris Mater

Ave Maris Stella

Alma Mater
Sweet Mother

Alma Mater

Coeli Porta
Gate of Heaven

Coéli Porta

Stella maris
Star of the Sea

Maris stella

Virgo prius et posterius
Virgin before and after

Semper Virgo
Always Virgin

Gabrielis ab ore
From the mouth of Gabriel

Gabrielis ore

Sumens illud Ave
Accepting that greeting
(of Gabriel) Ave

Sumens illud Ave

Just a glance at this grouping gives evidence of the similarity, but
it also forcefully shows the wealth of vigorous phrases used to ex­
press in delicate poetic language the key doctrines concerning Our
Lady.
The versicle, response, and oration following the Alma Redemp­
toris Mater change at Christmas, adapting themselves to the character
of the season. Before Christmas: “The Angel of the Lord declared
unto Mary and she conceived by the Holy Ghost”; after Christmas:
“After Childbirth thou didst remain a pure Virgin. Intercede for us,
O Mother of God.”
The second antiphon, the Ave Regina Coelorum, was introduced
into the Office by Clement VI (1342-1352), who felt he perceived
in it noble accents and aspirations of many doctors, such as St.
« This hymn is found in three ninth-century manuscripts, but is probably not
older than that. The lines of the first verse high-light the ideas to be developed
in the subsequent verses, e.g., Ave, Mater, Virgo. Cf. H. T. Henry, Ave Maris
Stella, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 149a; G. M. Dreves, Ein Jahrtausend
Lateinischer Hymnendichtung . . . , Vol. 2, pp· 238-239; J. Julian, A Dictionary
of Hymnology, p. 99.

MARY IN THE WESTERN LITURGY

279

Athanasius, St. Ephrem, and St. Ildephonse.80 The date of its origin
is uncertain, though it is found in a twelfth-century manuscript.81
It has been an antiphon for the feast of the Assumption, which helps
to explain its motif: Queen of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Glorious
Virgin, rejoice, Good-by (Vale). Farewell is made to the Virgin who
is proceeding to heaven where she will reign as Queen, even of the
angels, and will make intercession with Christ for us.82
The Regina Coeli is most obviously proper to the Paschal season.
The date of origin and author are unknown, but in an antiphonary
of the twelfth century for St. Peter’s in Rome it was assigned to
Easter Vespers. It honors Mary as Queen of Fleaven, who merited
to bear Him who has arisen from the dead. Queenship, Maternity,
sanctity, and intercession are all briefly but certainly expressed.
Finally, we come to the Salve Regina. It was probably written by
Hermanus Contractus Cf 1054) or perhaps by Adhemar du Puy
(t 1098), but was definitely written before St. Bernard’s time, and
all to the contrary notwithstanding, neither is he the author of the
three final invocations, Ό Clement, O Pious, O Sweet Virgin
Mary.”88
This is an antiphon almost every Catholic knows by heart because
it is recited in the vernacular after every Low Mass for the conversion
of Russia. It is a beautiful prayer pleading for the intercession of the
Mother of Mercy in behalf of her distressed children. The emphasis
on our distress is certainly pointed: “We, banished children of Eve,
cry unto thee, we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in a vale
of tears." Our prayer is for the beatific vision in heaven — man’s most
legitimate prayer.
The melodies for these four antiphons are among the most beauti­
ful in the whole Gregorian repertory. Deeply religious in spirit, this
music lends itself as an efficient means of revealing the mystical con­
tents of the texts.84
R0 H. T. Henry, Ave Regina, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 149b.
81 J. Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology, p. 99.
J. Otten, Antiphon, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 575c.
83 Capelle, La liturgie Mariale en Occident, p. 244. Cf. Le culte de Marie et
les bénédictins, in Revue liturgique et monastique, Vol. 7, 1921-1922, p. 247; E.
Cnrretôn, La Salve en la liturgia, in Liturgia (Burgos), Vol. 6, 1951, pp. 141-146;
I Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology, pp. 991-992; cf. also J. Maier, Studien
■tir Geschichte der Marienantiphon “Salve Regina" (Regensburg, 1939); S. Navarro,
C.M.F., El autor de la Salve, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 7 (Madrid, 1948), pp.
425-442; C. Boyer, S.J., Le "Salve Regina," in Marianum, Vol. 14, 1952, pp.
270-275.
·♦ J. Otten, Antiphon, p. 575c.

280

MARIOLOGY

Let, then, the concluding climax of the day’s sacred liturgy itself
conclude our considerations about the sacred liturgy as an accurate
and full reflection of the dogmatic truths concerning Our Blessed
Mother. The many areas of investigation completely untouched here
should only tend to make the position stronger. The Church be­
lieves; the Church prays, and her prayer unfolds her belief. We
have tried to present only this much: that what the Church believes
about Mary is adequately and beautifully expressed in the sacred
liturgy.

Outline History of Mariology

in tlie Middle Ages and Modern Times
By GEORGE W. SHEA, S.T.D.

ARIOLOGY is that part of the science of theology which treats
of Mary, Mother of God and of the sons of God. Essential to
all theology, and therefore also to Mariology, are two elements,
steadfastness in tradition, and yet progress.*
1
Steadfastness in tradition, that is, unswerving fidelity to the truths
of public revelation, to the Word of God both “written and handed
down,” according as it has been preserved inviolate and faithfully
expounded by the Catholic Church.2 The data of public revelation,
which was concluded with the death of the Apostles, are immutable,
admitting neither addition to their number nor alteration of their
meaning.3
And yet there is room for progress, without which theology would
not be a science; subjective progress, progress in our recognition,
understanding, elaboration, and formulation of the immutable truths
of revelation, of their further implications and their interrelations.4
Two factors make such advance possible and inevitable. One is the
intrinsic richness of revealed truth.5 The other is the manner in
which these profound verities were originally transmitted to us via
Scripture and the Apostles — in rudimentary form, so to speak; some-

M

1 Hence theology is both positive and speculative, which is to say, with
the Scholastics, that both auctoritas and ratio must come into play; cf. J.
Quasten, Patrology, Vol. z (Westminster, Md., 1953), p. 59; J. Bilz, Einfuehrung in die Théologie (Freiburg im Br., 1935), pp. 101-102.
2 Cf. D.B. (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Frei­
burg im Br., ed. 21-23, I937)> nn. 783, 1781, 1787, 1792, 1800, 1836.
3 Cf. ibid., nn. 1800, 1818, 2058-2064, 2080.
4 Cf. Bilz, op. cit., pp. 67-72.
Cf. Pius XII, Litt. Encyl. Humani generis (August 12, 1950): “Accedit quod
uterque doctrinae divinitus revelatae fons tot tantosque continet thesauros veritatis
ut numquam reapse exhauriatur’*; A.A.S., Vol. 42 (September 2, 1950), p. 568.

281

282

MARIOLOGY

what as unorganized data waiting to be worked up, or as raw materials
with which to construct a harmonious whole.®
To illustrate the first factor, eminently appropriate is Mary’s dig­
nity as tire Mother of God, a prerogative freighted with tremendous
consequences.6
7 “Because she is the Mother of God,” says Aquinas,
“the Blessed Virgin has a kind of infinite dignity from the infinite
good which is God.”89This single revealed truth alone, Mary’s divine
Maternity, would insure the forward march of theology, specifically,
of Mariology, as John Henry Newman recognized in a passage which
is almost a commentary on the statement of St. Thomas just quoted :
When once we have mastered the idea, that Mary bore, suckled, and
handled the Eternal in the form of a child, what limit is conceivable
to the rush and flood of thoughts which such a doctrine involves?
What awe and surprise must attend upon the knowledge, that a
creature has been brought so close to the Divine Essence?®

As to the second factor, Origen noted it thus in his “First
Principles”:

The holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered them­
selves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed
to be necessary to everyone . . . leaving, however, the grounds of their
statements to be examined into by those who should deserve the ex­
cellent gifts of the Spirit. . . while on other subjects they merely stated
the fact that things were so, keeping silence as to the manner or origin
of their existence; clearly in order that the more zealous of their suc­
cessors, who should be lovers of wisdom, might have a subject of
exercise on which to display the fruit of their talents. . . .10
Whence, after indicating “tire particular points clearly delivered
in the teaching of the apostles,” the Alexandrian came to dwell on
theology’s office of progress and development:

Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations
of this sort... if he would desire to form a connected series and body
6 Cf. G. Roschini, O.S.M., La Madonna seconda la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1
(Roma, 1953), p. 6.
7 Cf. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Lux veritatis (December 25, 1931), A.A.S., Vol. 23
(December 26, 1931), p. 513; Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Fulgens corona (September 8,
1953?, A.A.S., Vol. 45 (October 8, 1953), p. 580.
8 S. Th., I, q. 25, a. 6, ad 4um.
9 J. H. Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, Vol. 2 (London, 1914), pp. 82-83.
10 De principiis, lib. 1, praef., n. 3; PG, 11, 116-117; Engl, transi., The AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. 4 (New York, 1925), p. 239. Cf. J. Quasten, op. cit., Vol. 2,
p. 59.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

283

of truths agreeable to the reason of all these things, that by clear and
necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each indi­
vidual topic, and form . . . one body of doctrine, by means of illustra­
tions and arguments — either those which he has discovered in Holy
Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the conse­
quences and following a correct method.11
The Church’s “lovers of wisdom” have ever given themselves to
the glorious task of intellectual conquest so well described by Origen,
and in due course they undertook to enlarge and to solidify the
realm of our knowledge of Mary.
Here, as in other areas, the onward march of theology acquired
but slowly momentum, direction, discipline, and co-ordination; nor
has it proceeded always at a steady pace, always inexorably forward,
always unerringly, always with even deployment along the entire
front. A variety of circumstances now accelerated the general advance,
now retarded it; now made for successful thrusts and salients here,
for hesitation there, for temporary withdrawals or evasive tactics else­
where, in the face of phantom foes or supposedly impassable obstacles.
Yet the over-all gain down the centuries has been prodigious, espe­
cially in our age, as the modem treatises of Mariology eloquently
attest. But, even so, one may still repeat Frederick William Faber’s
dictum that “no province of theology will have to widen itself as
much as that which speaks” of Our Lady.12 “Flow many Marian
truths,” exclaims Roschini, “still implicit in the sources, await a
robust and penetrating mind which will render them explicit and
present them in a more effulgent light! In this field, so vast and so
delicate, many things remain to be done, some things to be done
over.”13
For those who would participate in this endeavor to consolidate
and to extend the precious conquests of the centuries, almost indis­
pensable is some familiarity with the history of Mariology.14 It is
not otherwise than with a new commander on a field of battle; to
cement his grip on the terrain already won, to plan and effect addi­
tional gains, he must first orient himself, striving to understand the
11 De principiis, lib. i, praef., n. io; PG, 11, 121; The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. 4, p. 241. Cf. Quasten, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 59-60.
12 F. Faber, Bethlehem, 25th Amer. ed. (Baltimore-New York: J. Murphy Co.),
p. 395. Faber had in mind the enlargement of theology even here below, not
only that which comes with the beatific vision.
13 G. Roschini, op. cit., p. 6.
11 Cf. ibid., p. 135; H. Rondet, S.J., preface to J.-B. Terrien, S.J., Le Mère des
homines, Vol. 1, ed. 8 (Paris, 1950), pp. 6—7.

284

MARIOLOGY

position and disposition of his forces by diligent study of the cam­
paign’s history.
Earlier chapters in this volume have reported the progress and
development of Marian dogma and theology during the patristic era.
It is the scope of the present chapter to continue that history, from
the Middle Ages down to modem times. Within the allotted space,
no more than a bare outline may be attempted.15 Hence it will be
impossible to record all the notable contributors and contributions
to Marian thought during these centuries, or to trace closely the
movement and evolution of that thought. But one may hope that
what does come to be said will show how grossly Otten underesti­
mated tire room for progress when, about to devote a few pages to
the Mariology of the Middle Ages, he wrote:
With the exception of a few subordinate points, dogmatic Mariology
was fully developed during Patristic times. . . . All this was a matter
of Catholic belief before the Scholastics began to systematize the
teaching of the Fathers. Hence there was little room for development
in the Mariological teaching of tire Church, except by way of setting
forth certain details which had been only lightly touched upon by
Patristic writers.16

Inaugurating as he did the scientific treatment of Marian doctrines,
St. Anselm of Canterbury is the logical point of departure for our
outline.11 The nine centuries to be traversed can be divided into three
15 The Mariological literature and developments of our century alone are im­
mense, while the magnitude of earlier materials can be estimated from the huge
collections made (somewhat indiscriminately and uncritically, to be sure) by: H.
Marracci, Bibliotheca Mariana, 2 vols. (Romae, 1648); idem, Appendix ad Biblio­
thecam Marianam (Coloniae, 1683); J. Bourassé, Summa aurea de laudibus
B. Μ. V., 13 vols. (Parisiis, 1862); A. Roskovany, B. Virgo Maria in suo Conceptu
Immaculata, ex monumentis omnium saeculorum demonstrata, 9 vols. (Nitriae,
1873-1881), covering some 25,000 Marian writings from the first century down to
A.D. 1880. The contents of the above collections are indicated in G. Roschini,
Mariologia, ed. 2, Vol. 1 (Romae, 1947), pp. 290-291, 301-302, 304-305.
Our outline will owe much to Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 217-305, 390-399;
idem, La Madonna seconda la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1 (Roma, 1953), pp. 88-95,
148-166; to various articles in Marian Studies, Vol. 1-4 (Washington, D. C., 19501953), and in the symposia edited by P. Strâter, S.J., Katholische Marienkunde,
Vol. I (Paderborn, 1947), and by H. du Manoir, S.J., Maria, Vols. 1-2 (Paris,
1949, 1952). For a rapid survey, still useful, despite need for revision, is M.
Scheeben, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, Vol. 3 (Freiburg im Br., 1882),
pp· 476-479·
1β B. Otten, S.J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1918),
P· 397·
17 For the period from the eighth century down to St. Anselm, cf. Roschini,
Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 211-217, 390.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

285

main periods which embrace, roughly, medieval, modem, and con­
temporary Mariology: I. the twelfth to the sixteenth century, from
St. Anselm to Protestantism; II. the late sixteenth to the nineteenth
century, from Protestantism to the dogmatic definition of the Immacu­
late Conception; III. the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from
1854 to the present.

I. MEDIEVAL MARIOLOGY
(TWELFTH TO SIXTEENTH CENTURIES)
Scientific Mariology, in the strict sense of the word,18 is of com­
paratively recent origin. This rigorously scientific discipline, enjoying
the status of a distinct and quasi-autonomous tract within theology,18
with its several theses systematically organized and connected under
the control of one master principle and various secondary principles,20
did not exist in the Middle Ages.21 The Scholastics expressed their
thought on the prerogatives of Our Blessed Lady now in sermons
and other discourses, now in devotional and ascetical writings, now in
commentaries on Scripture, in letters sometimes amounting to veri­
table theological opuscula, and on other occasions, especially in the
course of their tracts on the Incarnation. Not until the fifteenth
century, with the Tractatus de B. Virgine of St. Bernardine of Siena,
did there appear more or less systematic Marian treatises, which, how­
ever, were still far removed from the organic perfection and compre­
hensiveness of today’s Mariological tract.22
But let us hasten to add that, if the medieval “lovers of wisdom”
did not themselves achieve the well-rounded, highly developed, and
scientifically refined Marian disquisitions which grace modem dog­
matic theology, they did make distinguished contributions to tire
18 Cf. ibid., pp. 325, 396.
18 Roschini, art. Mariologia, in Encyclopedia Cattolica, Vol. 8 (Città del Vaticano,
1952), s.v. Maria, col. 85: "In modem times, consequent upon many positive and
speculative studies conducted with a rigorously scientific method, Mariology has
received a development which confers upon it a certain autonomy.” That is, while
remaining an integral part of theology, Mariology is no longer treated as a kind
of appendix to the tract de Verbo Incarnato; cf. idem, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp.
324-325.
20 Cf. ibid., pp. 323—326, 338.
21 Cf. J. Carol, O.F.M., The Mariological Movement in the World Today, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp. 25—26; F. Connell, C.SS.R., Toward a Systematic
Treatment of Mariology, in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, p. 56; E. Burke, C.S.P., The
Beginnings of Scientific Mariology, in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 117-118; J. A.
de Aldama, S.J., Mariologia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3 (Matriti, 1950),
p. 289.
22 Cf. Roschini, La Madonna seconde la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1, p. 151.

286

MARIOLOGY

evolution of such treatises. For the Scholastics were not at all con­
tent simply to transmit, without further ado, the deposit of revealed
Marian verities and the patristic elaborations thereof. Here, as else­
where, the doctors and other theologians of the Middle Ages strug­
gled, with no little —if incomplete — success, to win deeper insight
into the data of revelation, to clarify and to formulate the data more
precisely, to lay bare their ramifications and interrelations, to harmo­
nize and reconcile them, to recognize, state, and solve new problems.
Briefly, the mystery of Mary, too, was an object of the Scholastics’
“fides quaerens intellectum.”23 And therewith were had at least the
beginnings of scientific Mariology.
The initial impetus was delivered by St. Anselm of Canterbury
(t 1109), not only through the beneficent influence exercised on all
subsequent theology by the “Father of Scholasticism,”24 but also
through his specifically Marian writings.25 To be sure, these, when
spurious and doubtful works have been eliminated,28 are but few
and, at first glance, theologically unpromising; a few passages in Cur
Deus homo and De conceptu virginali et de originali peccato aside,
they are of a devotional character, Anselm’s three celebrated prayers
to Our Blessed Lady.2’
Yet one should not on that account underestimate the saint’s value
as a Mariologist. His contribution at the level of positive theology
23 It could not have been otherwise — the mystery of Mary is, after all, inseparable
from that of Christ; cf. M. Mueller, O.F.M., Maria. Ihre geistige Gestalt und Persoenlichkeit in der Théologie des Mittelalters, in P. Straeter, S.J. (ed.), Katholische
Marienkunde, Vol. 1 (Paderborn, 1947), pp. 269-271, developing the point that
in the religious life and thought of the Middle Ages “Jesus and Mary are a
single concept.”
24 Cf. F. Cayré, A.A., A Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, transi,
bv H. Howitt, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1940), pp. 404-407; J. Bainvel, Anselme, in DTC
(Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique), Vol. I, cols. 1343-1348.
25 Cf. R. Jones, Sancti Anselmi Mariologia (Mundelein, 1937); E. Burke, C.S.P.,
The Beginnings of a Scientific Mariology, in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp.
117-137; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 217-224. Anselm’s Mariology is touched
on in many places in the DTC; cf, the Tables générales, s.v. Anselme, col. 176,
for references.
28 For a convenient, not necessarily definitive, catalogue of the authentic works
of Anselm and other medieval Mariologists, cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 217 if.; idem,
La Madonna secondo la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1, pp. 88-92.
27 Orationes 50, 51, 52 (in PL, 158); these are now designated as Orationes
5, 6, 7 in the critical edition of S. Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F. Schmitt,
O.S.B., Vol. 3 (Edinburgi, 1946), pp. 13-14, 15-17, 18—25. Cf. A. Wilmart,
Les propres corrections de S. Anselme dans sa grande prière à la Vierge Marie, in
Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale, Vol. 2, 1930, pp. '189-204.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

287

is indisputable.28 But, what is more, if we probe more deeply, a great
speculative theologian may be seen in the midst of prayer; Father
Eugene Burke’s sensitive study has emphasized of Anselm’s Marian
corpus “the close relation between doctrine and devotion and how
the whole emanates from an essentially theological approach.”29 Thus
one can discover there in germ the basic Mariological principle which
theologians have used ever since, the principle that her divine Ma­
ternity is the very wellspring of Mary’s dignity and prerogatives;
from the divine Maternity Anselm infers Our Lady’s purity, virginity,
sanctity, and intercessory power.30
As to Mary’s spiritual Maternity, so clear and explicit was Anselm’s
doctrine on this, as well as her role in the distribution of all graces,
that he surpassed all previous and paved the way for all future efforts
to express Our Lady’s mediatorial functions.31
For all his realization that the Blessed Virgin’s purity and sanctity
must be proportioned to her dignity as the Mother of God, Anselm
failed, as some no less able minds were to fail after him, to perceive
the implications of this principle for the Immaculate Conception.
Texts which would place him among the defenders of the latter
doctrine are not his; whereas statements surely his logically exclude
28 R. Jones, op. cit., p. 84: “Vocari potest S. Anselmus magnus doctor marianus,
non quidem quia de B. Virgine multa scripsit opera theologica sed quia tanta
claritate tantaque vi traditionem de ea protulit. Omnes veritates quas hodie de
Maria docet magisterium ecclesiasticum ipsi fuerunt non tam notiones explicandae
quam facta laudanda atque adhibenda. Traditionem sibi a Patribus traditam
accepit et quasi ex re mortua vel dormiente fecit rem vivam et apertam; et deinde
ex hac doctrina viva, facilius potuerunt theologi post eum varios illius deducere
theologicos aspectus.” Not that one may expect to find reference to all Marian
doctrines; thus no direct testimony to the Assumption is available apart from
Homilia 9 (PL, 158, 644), which is commonly regarded as spurious.
29 E. Burke, art. cit., p. 136, where the author also points out that similar studies
would be rewarding for a better understanding and appreciation of such other
earlier medieval writers as Hugh of St. Victor and St. Bernard.
30 Cf. ibid., pp. 121-136. Anselm extols the divine Maternity thus in De con­
ceptu virginali et de originali peccato: "Nempe decens erat ut ea puritate, qua maior
sub Deo nequit intelligi, Virgo illa niteret, cui Deus Pater unicum Filium ... ita
dare disponebat”; c. 18 in Opera omnia, ed. Schmitt, Vol. 2, p. 150; c. 17 in PL,
158, 451. Again: “Nihil aequale Mariae, nihil nisi Deus maius Maria. Deus Filium
suum . . . dedit Mariae”; Orat. 7 in ed. Schmitt, Vol. 3, pp. 21-22; Orat. 52 in
PL, 158, 956.
31 So Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, p. 219, who includes in this judgment Anselm’s
teaching on Mary’s part in our Redemption. However, that teaching would not
seem to go beyond indirect, remote, mediate co-operation of Mary in the objective
Redemption; cf. J. Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione Beatae Mariae Virginis
(Civitas Vaticana, 1950), p. 153, nota 87·

288

MARIOLOGY

that glorious Marian prerogative, while conceding a special sanctifica­
tion of Our Lady in the womb.32 Nevertheless, it is a great merit of
Anselm that he furthered mightily the final solution of the medieval
controversy on the Immaculate Conception, through his speculations
in Cur Deus homo and in De conceptu virginali et de originali
peccato,33 particularly by his criticism of the Augustinian theses on
the transmission of original sin.34
Still under the influence of that Augustinian doctrine, St. Bernard
of Clairvaux (t 1153), likewise failed to extend Mary’s sanctity,
admittedly incomparable in all other respects, to her conception.35
His famous letter to the Canons of Lyons, while avowing a special
sanctification of Our Lady in the womb, denied, but with submission
given in advance to any contrary pronouncement the Church might
make in the future, that Mary was conceived free from original sin.36
82 Cf. RoscEini, op. cit., pp. 222-223. Anselm’s rejection of the Immaculate
Conception is not admitted by all; e.g., F. Spedalieri, S.J., Anselmus per Eadmerum,
in Marianum, 5, 1943, pp. 205-219, considers it significant that the above privilege
was upheld by the saint’s three most intimate disciples, among them Eadmer of
Canterbury (-f- 1124?), his friend and biographer. The latter’s Tractatus de Con­
ceptione sanctae Mariae (PL, 159, 301-318), long attributed to Anselm, is the
first monograph on the Immaculate Conception. Another work wrongly ascribed
to Anselm is Eadmer’s De excellentia Virginis Mariae (PL, 159, 557-580), notable
for its doctrine on Mary’s Queenship and its testimony to her corporeal Assumption.
On Eadmer, cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 224 (with bibliography); for some other
Benedictine writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, cf. J. Leclercq, O.S.B.,
Dévotion et théologie mariales dans le monachisme bénédictin, in Maria, ed. H. du
Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 555-562.
33 Cf. E. Burke, art. cit., pp. 122-128; A. Gaudel, Péché originel, in DTC,
Vol. 12, cols. 438-439.
34 Cf. Gaudel, loc. cit.; X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7,
cols. 995-1001. According to the teaching attributed to St. Augustine, original
sin is indivisibly constituted by concupiscence and the privation of sanctifying grace,
and is transmitted by the fact that generation is linked with concupiscence, wliich
excludes any sanctifying activity on the part of the Holy Spirit; cf. J. Leclercq,
art. cit., p. 573. Although he criticized that teaching, Anselm’s own doctrine on
original sin led to the same conclusion: only one bom of a virgin is immune from
original sin.
85 Cf. C. Clemencet, La Mariologie de S. Bernard (Brignais, 1909); B. Haensler,
O. Cist., Die Marienlehre des hl. Bernhard (Regensburg, 1917); D. Nogues, O.C.R.,
Mariologie de S. Bernard (Paris, 1935); A. Raugel, La doctrine mariale de S.
Bernard (Paris, 1935); P- Aubron, S.J., L’oeuvre mariale de S. Bernard (Paris,
’935); Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 225-235; J. Leclercq, art. cit., pp. 568-574;
Dom J.-B. Auniord, Citeaux et Notre Dame, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2,
pp. 583-613. Bernard’s Mariology is discussed frequently in the Dictionnaire de
Théologie Catholique; cf. the Tables générales, s.v. Bernard (Saint), col. 428.
30 Epist. 174: PL, 182, 332—336; Engl, transi, in The Life and Works of St.
Bernard, ed. by J. Mabillon (transi, and additional notes by S. Eales), Vol. 2
(London, 1889), pp. 5 r 2-518. Attempts to interpret Bernard benignly, as a

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

289

This error is the sole blemish marring Bernard’s reputation as the
most illustrious Doctor of Mary. The influence exercised by the
Abbot of Clairvaux down through the ages, not only on Marian
piety, but also on the theologians of Our Blessed Mother, is unparal­
leled in the annals of the Marian movement.*37
Surprisingly enough, the Abbot of Clairvaux did not write much
of the Blessed Virgin.3839His letter to the Canons of Lyons is his
only Marian work of an explicitly theological character; for the rest,
Bernard’s doctrine on Our Lady is expressed in a dozen sermons
delivered on various feasts of the Blessed Mother, in the four homilies
(collected under the title De laudibus V. Matris) on the Gospel
Missus est of Ember Wednesday in Advent, and here and there in
a few other sermons.38
Hence, to account for St. Bernard’s tremendous influence one must
look to factors other than the quantity of his Marian writings. Cer­
tainly the charm of their style, their fervor and unction, help explain
that influence — never was their author more deserving of the title
Doctor mellifluus than when he addressed himself to the subject of
Mary. For Dom J. Leclercq that is the whole secret of St. Bernard’s
success, and the only rightful basis for his reputation as “tire Marian
Doctor”; according to the Benedictine scholar, the Abbot of Clairvaux
is overrated as a theologian of Mary —“Bernard expressed (save for
his denial of the Immaculate Conception) the traditional doctrine
common to his epoch, contributing hardly any new precisions or great
doctrinal originality.”40
defender of the Immaculate Conception (cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. i, p. 232),
are curtly rejected by J. Leclercq, art. cit., p. 573, with whom J.-B. Auniord, art. cit.,
pp. 588, 591, would agree; cf. also X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in DTC,
Vol. 7, cols. 1010-1015.
37 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 227, 390—391.
38 Cf. J.-B. Auniord, art. cit., pp. 587—590; also J. Leclercq, art. cit., pp. 568569, who points out that the very paucity of Bernard’s Marian writings refutes
those who would reduce his religion to Mariolatry, his theology to Mariology; the
saint, Leclercq further observes in this connection, always considered the Blessed
Mother in relation and in due subordination to her divine Son.
39 Epist. 174 excepted, all are found in PL, 183; for references, cf. Auniord,
art. cit., pp. 587-590, and Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 226-235, cf. p. 226 for
the many spurious and doubtfully authentic works ascribed to Bernard.
40 J. Leclercq, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, p. 574; cf. also pp.
568-569, and idem, Bernard de Clairvaux, in Catholicisme, hier, aujourd'hui,
demain, Vol. 1, col. 1478. Compare G. Dumeige, Une session d'études théologiques
sur saint Bernard, in Études, Vol. 279, 1953, p. 249: Bernard “est davantage
l’admirable Docteur de la dévotion mariale qu’à proprement parler le théologien de
la Vierge;” "non,” the same writer conceded earlier, "qu’il manque de sens

290

MARIOLOGY

In the opinion of most, however, and theirs would seem the more
equitable judgment, the science of Mary was considerably enriched
by her greatest troubadour. If Bernard had no penchant for specula­
tion, this was not for want of power of mind or of sound theological
instinct.41 That his Mariology is concrete in form and character is
understandable from its pulpit origins, and from the saint’s close
adherence — born of his strict orthodoxy and wariness of innova­
tions, to the Bible and to the Fathers.42 Yet if, as with Anselm, one
delves beneath the surface, a competent and even creative theologian
may be seen in action. Bernard’s Marian doctrine surpasses that of
his predecessors by the richness and range of its synthesis, nor is it
lacking in explicitations, new precisions, original argumentation.43
To document this judgment somewhat, we may remark the fact
that Bernard’s Mariology was evolved under the control of certain
principles, especially the composite one of the grandeur of Mary’s
divine Maternity and her exalted role as Mediatrix between God
and men, her association with the supreme Mediator in the work of
our Redemption; with these prerogatives he links up the purity of
the Mother and Associate of the divine Redeemer, her sanctity, vir­
ginity, her other virtues and privileges.44 Or we may note that the
Abbot of Clairvaux was not content to be one of the stanchest wit­
nesses to the fact of Mary’s Assumption and glorification: he went
on to assign intrinsic reasons for this privilege, arguing it, e.g., from
her integrity, from the fact that heaven is our true home, whither she
has preceded us in order to act as our advocate and to summon us
there.45
théologique ou de force de pensée — on s’en rend compte en étudiant sa doctrine si
solide, sur le Christ, et l’auteur du traité sur la Grâce et le libre arbitre a montré
ce dont il était capable.”
11 As was just conceded by Dumeige, in note 40; cf. also F. Cayré, Manual of
Patrology and History of Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 430-432.
42 Especially St. Ambrose and St. Augustine; for other patristic and later sources
used by Bernard, cf. Leclercq, art. cit., in Maria, Vol. 2, p. 578. Such zeal for
orthodoxy is a guarantee that the troubadour of Mary did not allow his ardor
to carry him beyond the bounds of assured dogma; cf. P. Régamey, O.P., Les plus
beaux textes sur la Vierge Marie, nouvelle éd. (Paris, copyright 1946), p. 125. On the
other hand, mistakenly applied, it betrayed Bernard into his denial of the Immaculate
Conception; cf. Régamey, op. cit., p. 125; Leclercq, art. cit., in Maria, Vol. 2,
Ρ- 57443 Cf. Auniord, art. cit., in Maria, Vol. 2, pp. 587, 612; Régamey, op. cit.,
pp. 125-126.
44 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 226-234.
45 Cf., e.g., In Assumptione B. V. Mariae, Sermo 1; PL, 183, 415-417. In con­

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

291

Finally and above all, one must mention, as St. Bernard’s foremost
contribution to Mariology, his development of the doctrine of Mary’s
Mediation, which earned for him the title of “Doctor of Mediation,”
par excellence. To refer to but one aspect of that rich and complex
teaching,46 the Abbot of Clairvaux affirmed in unprecedented fashion
the role of Our Lady in the distribution of all graces, e.g., in the
well-known texts, oft quoted by the Sovereign Pontiffs: Mary is
“tire aqueduct” through whom all graces come to us;4’ God “willed
that we have all through Mary”;48 “God willed that we have nothing
that does not pass through Mary’s hands.”49
Dom J. Leclercq believes that, when the teaching of Bernard on
Mary’s Mediation is compared with that of earlier writers, it is dis­
tinguished more by its vigor than by its precision.50 But may we
justly expect to find in that doctrine, and in that of other twelfth­
century authors who were inspired by Bernard,51 doctrine expressed,
moreover, in sermons rather than in professedly theological works, all
the explicit distinctions and precisions of twentieth-century theo­
nection with the: Assumption St. Bernard quite naturally also enlarged on Mary’s
Queenship; thus in the sermon just cited and elsewhere, e.g., PL, 183, 425, 431,
436, 438·
46 Cf. Auniord, art. cit., pp. 601-608; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, 229-232.
According to J. Carol, De Corredemptione B. V. Mariae, pp. 155—156, it is
questionable that Bernard upheld Mary’s immediate co-operation in the objective
Redemption. And although he teaches in effect the spiritual Maternity of the Blessed
Virgin, Bernard never actually refers to her as “our mother,” despite St. Anselm’s
use of this term and its equivalents; doubtless the Abbot of Clairvaux avoided such
expressions because he did not find them in St. Ambrose or St. Augustine (another
instance of his concern for orthodoxy); cf. P. Morineau, S.M.M., Comment la
doctrine de la Maternité spirituelle de Marie s'installe dans la théologie mystique de
Saint Bernard, in Bulletin de la Société Française d'Études Mariales, 1935, pp.
121-148; Régamey, op. cit., p. 125.
47 Sermo in Nativitate B. V. Mariae, nn. 3-5; PL, 183, 439-440.
48 Sermo in Nativitate B. V. Mariae, n. 7; PL, 183, 441.
49 In Vigilia Nativitatis Domini, Sermo 3, η. io; PL, 183, too.
50 J. Leclercq, Bernard de Clairvaux (Saint), in Catholicisme, hier, aujourd’hui,
demain, Vol. 1, col. 1478.
51 Other Cistercians contemporary with Bernard were likewise strong proponents
of Mary’s Mediation and spiritual Maternity; among them we may mention (cf.
Auniord, art. cit., pp. 614-617; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 225, 236-237;
DTC, Tables générales'): Blessed Guerric, Abbot of Igny (^-1151 or 1155),
whose sermons are rated almost on a par with Bernard’s; St. Amadeus of Lausanne
(+ 1159), noted also for his strong testimony to Our Lady’s corporeal Assumption,
which was commemorated by Pius XII in the Apost. Const., Munificentissimus
Deus; Arnold of Chartres, Abbot of Bonneval (-f- 1160), regarded as the “Corredemptionis marialis primus adsertor” (cf. J. Carol, op. cit., p. 156); and Blessed
Ailred, Abbot of Rievaulx (φ u66).

292

MARIOLOGY

logians?52 It is enough that, in progressing beyond the formulas of
St. Anselm and of other predecessors, St. Bernard paved the way
for those later distinctions and precisions; therewith Mariology took
a great stride forward.53
The next medieval Mariologist of major importance54 is St. An­
thony of Padua (f 1231).55 His other attainments long overshad­
owed the fact that the celebrated thaumaturgist and preacher was,
in addition, “a remarkable theologian in dogmatic investigations,”
until Pope Pius XII reminded us of this in pronouncing the Fran­
ciscan Saint a Doctor of the Church Universal.58 The “Evangelical
Doctor” might also be styled another “Marian Doctor,” side by side
with St. Bernard.
For, although St. Anthony was heavily indebted to the latter, his
Marian teachings “are not only an echo of the past, they are also a
torch which sheds its light far into the future” — besides embracing
all the then accepted tenets, they also anticipated doctrines which
only centuries later were either defined as dogmas (the Assumption,
perhaps the Immaculate Conception) or established as common
doctrine.57
In St. Anthony we again have one whose Mariology must be
gleaned mainly from sermons.58 Those discourses, however, treat of
the Blessed Mother with such admirable theological precision and
52 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 237, on Blessed Ailred.
53 Cf. Auniord, art. cit., pp. 605; 603, note 78; E. Druwé, S.J., La médiation
universelle de Marie, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1, pp. 547-549.
54 Among lesser figures we may mention Alexander Neckam (■}■ 1217), of some
significance in the controversy on the Immaculate Conception; cf. X. Le Bachelet,
Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1037-1041, 1068-1069.
55 Cf. R. Huber, O.F.M.Conv., The Mariology of St. Anthony of Padua, in
Proceedings of First Franciscan National Marian Congress (Studia Mariana, cura
Commisionis Marialis Franciscanae editae, VII) (Burlington, Wis., 1952), pp. 188268; G. Roschini, La Mariologia di Sant’ Antonio da Padova, in Marianum, Vol. 8,
1946, pp. 16-67; L. Di Fonzo, O.F.M.Conv., La Mariologia di Sant' Antonio, in
the symposium S. Antonio Dottore della Chiesa (Città del Vaticano, 1947), pp.
85-122; B. Costa, O.F.M.Conv., La Mariologia di S. Antonio da Padova (Padova,
1950); additional literature cited in Huber, art. cit., pp. 266-268.
58 Cf. Pius XII, Litt. Apost., Exulta, Lusitania felix (January 16, 1946); A.A.S.,
38 (1 lunii 1946), pp. 200-204; Eng. transi, in The National Catholic Almanac
(Paterson, N. J., 1947), pp. 203-206.
57 Cf. Huber, art. cit., pp. 189, 206.
58 Eight sermons on the Blessed Virgin, with much relevant material in many
other sermons, especially those for the Sundays and for the feasts of Our Lord; cf.
Huber, art. cit., pp. 189-190. Cf. A. Locatelli, S. Antonii Patavini Thaumaturgi
Incliti Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatïhus (Patavii, 1895); representative
selections in L. Guidaldi, O.F.M.Conv., Il Pensiero Mariano di S. Antonio di
Padua (Padova, 1938).

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

293

such fullness that one can construct from them a veritable and com­
plete Marian theology.59
The master principle in that Mariology would be Mary’s divine
Maternity and the virginal birth of our Saviour, around which St.
Anthony makes everything else revolve, either as prerogatives pre­
liminary to the divine and virginal Maternity, or as prerogatives
subsequent to it. Among the former he numbers Mary’s plenitude
of graces, her perpetual virginity, and (possibly) her Immaculate
Conception; among the others, the prerogatives consequent upon the
divine Maternity, St. Anthony emphasizes Mary’s bodily Assumption
into heaven and glorification as Queen of angels and saints, her co­
operation in the redemption of mankind, her intermediary position
in the distribution of graces, and others.80
Whether the Evangelical Doctor actually taught the Immaculate
Conception is much debated; certainly he never denied it and was,
at the least, favorably disposed toward this doctrine.81 As to the
Assumption, we may recall the declaration of Pius XII, in the Apos­
tolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, that St. Anthony “holds
a special place” among witnesses to that truth. Noteworthy, too, is
the caliber of his teaching on Mary as Coredemptrix and spiritual
Mother of men, as Mediatrix in the distribution of all graces, mat­
ters in which St. Anthony is judged to have been quite ahead of
his time.82
Thus far in our résumé of medieval Mariology we have had to
study it as reflected in the ascetical writings and sermons of an
Anselm, a Bernard, an Anthony, where Marian thought mingles
with devotion in a kind of symbiosis.83 Rewarding though such study
59 Cf. Huber, art. cit., pp. 190, 206, 207.
60 Cf. ibid., p. 206.
91 Cf. ibid., pp. 215-225. For the opposite opinion see the scholarly book by C.
M. Romeri, O.F.M., De Immaculata Conceptione B. M. Virginis apud S. Antonium
Patavinum (Romae, 1939).
62 Cf. Huber, art. cit., pp. 241—246, 264.
63 For Information on many other authors whose devotional writings illustrate
the Marian thought of the twelfth and early thirteenth century, cf. Roschini,
Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 237—241; and the several articles on devotion to Mary
in various religious orders and congregations, in Maria, ed. FI. du Manoir, Vol. 2,
pp. 547-906; e.g., pp. 617-622, 686-693, 718-720. As a representative of the
secular clergy we may mention Richard of St. Lawrence (■(· c. 1245), whose
Mariale or Tractatus de Laudibus beatae Mariae Virginis, which for centuries was
mistakenly attributed to St. Albert the Great, sheds light on the state of the
question as it then obtained regarding Our Lady and her prerogatives; cf. Roschini.
op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 240—241; J. Carol, De Corredemptione B. V. Mariae, p. 161,
nota ro6.

294

MARIOLOGY

is, our major interest centers on formally theological treatment of the
Blessed Mother and her prerogatives. Such treatment, theological
discussion ex professo, makes its appearance with the great luminaries
of Scholasticism, among them St. Bonaventure (t ϊ2·74).μ
The Seraphic Doctor expressed his Marian thought not only in
oratorical works, his 27 sermons on the Blessed Virgin, sermons for
the feasts of the Epiphany and of Christ’s Nativity, the Collatio VI
de donis Spiritus Sancti, but also in his Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Luke, in the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter
Lombard, and in the Breviloquium.™
Characteristic of the saint’s Marian writings is their caution; in
glowing love for Our Lady, Bonaventure yielded to none, yet at the
same time he was deeply concerned not to heap unfounded honors
on her who has no need of questionable praise.68
The dominant principle in the Seraphic Doctor’s Mariology is a
composite one, the divine Maternity of Our Lady and her association
with Christ in the work of our redemption; from this twofold source
flow, for Bonaventure, all Mary’s other prerogatives and privileges,
e.g., her plenitude of grace and of virtue; her freedom from all per­
sonal sin, even venial; her Assumption into heaven.67
Unfortunately, influenced by the authority of St. Bernard (his
chief Mariological mentor, whom he cites some 400 times) and by
his own native caution, the Seraphic Doctor was among those who
failed to realize that Mary’s transcendent role as Mother of the
divine Redeemer also called for her complete preservation from
original sin, rather than for a mere prenatal sanctification. But if
he sided with opponents of the Immaculate Conception, holding
theirs “the more common, more reasonable, and safer” view,68 never­
theless he refused to reprehend the other school of thought.69 Indeed,
84 Cf. E. Chiettini, O.F.M., Mariologia S. Bonaventurae (Sibenici-Romae, 1942);
L. Di Fonzo, O.F.M.Conv., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de universali Mediatione B.
Virginis Mariae (Romae, 1938); Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 241-245; addi­
tional literature, p. 241, nota 1, and in J. Carol, De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis
Mariae, p. 162, nota no.
85 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 242, for these main repositories of Bonaventure’s
Marian teachings, also for a list of the spurious works once ascribed to him.
66 Cf. Sent. 3, d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, ad 3, and d. 4, a. 3, q. 3; in Opera omnia,
ed. Ad Claras Aquas (1882-1902), Vol. 3, 68 and 115.
87 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 242-243.
68 Cf. Sent. 3, d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
89 Cf. Balié, De regula fundamentali Theologiae Marianae Scotisticae (Sibenici,
1938), p· 6, quoted in Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 243.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

295

St. Bonaventure may even be said to have helped the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception toward ultimate victory, in that he admitted
Mary’s soul could have come under the influence of the Redemption
from the first moment of its creation.70
As we have already intimated, the Seraphic Doctor exalted Our
Lady’s association with Christ in the redemption of mankind, whence
he has come to share in St. Bernard’s title, “Doctor of Mediation.”71
"The Blessed Virgin is Mediatrix between us and Christ, as Christ
is Mediator between us and God.”72 St. Bonaventure insists on
Mary’s personal participation in the sacrifice of her divine Son and
in its consequences, although the precise nature of his teaching
regarding the extent of her co-operation in the objective redemption
is disputed.73 Be that as it may, the spiritual Maternity of Our Lady
is inculcated in a variety of ways, as when the Seraphic Doctor
explicitly declares that Mary “is not only the physical mother of
God, but also the spiritual mother of men.”74 Varied, too, and
emphatic, are the expressions by which he unfolds Mary’s part in
the subjective redemption, her role of intercession,76 her association
with Christ in the actual distribution of all graces.70 Truly, St.
Bonaventure is a Doctor Mediationis.’’’'
At least equally deserving of that title, already shared by Bernard
70 Cf. Sent. 3, d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 2; cf. X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in
DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1047-1048; J. de Dieu, O.F.M.Cap., Le culte marial chez les
Fils de Saint François d’Assise, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 788-789;
Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 2, Pars 2 (Romae, 1948), p. 56.
71 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 243-244.
72 Sent. 3, d. 3, p. i, a. 1; Opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. 67.
73 Cf. J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, Vol. 2, pp. 789-791; J. Carol, De Corre­
demptione Beatae Mariae Virginis, pp. 162-164.
71 Sermo 2, In Pentec., n. 4.
75 “We have three Advocates, Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin. The first
contends for us, the second speaks for us, the third intercedes for us”; In Joan.,
c. 14; Opera omnia, Vol. 6, p. 303.
78 E.g., repeating St. Bernard’s “all graces pass through Mary’s hands”; Serm. 4,
De Annuntiatione B. Μ. V.; Opera omnia, Vol. 9, p. 673.
77 St. Bonaventure’s reputation in this regard remains established even though
he is not the author of the Speculum B. Μ. V. (seu Expositio salutationis angelicae'),
which belongs rather to a colleague in religion, Conrad of Saxony, O.F.M.
(+ 1279). This charming and profound little work, a commentary on the “Hail
Mary” (as then recited, i.e., down to “Holy Mary”), is a compendium of Mariological
questions, with emphasis on Our Lady’s mediatorial functions; cf. Roschini, Mario­
logia, Vol. I, pp. 251-252; J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol.
2, p. 790. The opusculum, along with another spurious work, has been published
in English under St. Bonaventure’s name: The Mirror of the Blessed Virgin and the
Psalter of Our Lady (St. Louis, 1932).

296

MARIOLOGY

and Bonaventure, is another, St. Albert the Great Ct 1280).’8 “Medi­
atrix” and its equivalents recur habitually in his Marian writings.’9
On no subject, other than the Eucharist, did the Universal Doctor
dwell more often, more at length, or with greater predilection, than
Our Lady, particularly with an eye to her role in the economy of
salvation.80 He enlarged on the Blessed Mother not only in his
encyclopedic Mariale super Missus est,81 in the Compendium super
Ave Maria, in a dozen and more Marian sermons, but also in the
course of scriptural commentaries (especially that on the Gospel
according to St. Luke), and of theological works such as the
Commentary on the Sentences, the Summa de Incarnatione, and the
treatise De natura boni.*2 In a word, St. Albert seized every occasion
to express his love and devotion for the Mother of God and of men;
he wrote more in the sphere of Mariology than any other theologian
of his era.83
No less admirable is the quality of these extensive writings.
Always clear, almost always doctrinally solid, often profound, they
are further distinguished by the range of Marian questions dealt
with, and by some tendency toward synthesis, systematization, and
yet other functions proper to scientific Mariology.8·* In this connec78 Cf. M.-A. Genevois, O.P., Bible mariale et mariologie de S. Albert le Grand
(Saint-Maximin, 1934); M.-M. Desmarais, O.P., S. Albert le Grand, docteur de la
médiation mariale (Paris-Ottawa, 1935); J. Bittremieux, S. Albertus Magnus
Ecclesiae doctor, praestantissimus Mariologus, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 10, 1933, pp. 217-231; M. Cordovani, O.P., La Mariologia di S. Alberto
Magno, in Angelicum, Vol. 9, 1932, pp. 203-212; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1,
pp. 252—261; for additional literature, cf. Roschini, p. 252, nota 1, and DTC,
Tables générales, s.v. Albert le Grand, cols. 67-68.
79 Cf. Desmarais, op. cit., p. 135.
80 Cf. H. Wilms, O.P., Albert der Grosse (Muenchen: Verlag J. Koesel & F.
Pustet, n.d.), pp. 178-180.
81 This work (in Alberti magni opera omnia, édit. Borgnet, Vol. 37, 1—362) is
not to be confused with the Mariale of Richard of St. Lawrence (cf. supra, note 63;
this spurious work is also in Borgnet, Vol. 36). (Editor’s Note. As this volume goes
to press, reliable information reaches us from Europe concerning the recent dis­
covery to the effect that the Mariale [ed. Borgnet, Vol. 37] long attributed to St.
Albert, was not actually written by him. Cf. R. Laurentin, Court traité de théologie
mariale [Paris: 1953], p. 52, note 48a.)
82 On the authentic Mariological writings of St. Albert, cf. Roschini, op. cit.,
Vol. I, pp. 252-253; Desmarais, op. cit., pp. 148—167; P. Meersseman, O.P., In­
troductio in opera omnia B. Alberti Magni, O.P. (Brugis: apud C. Beyaert, n.d.),
118-121; M.-A. Genevois, O.P., La Mariologie de Saint Albert-le-Grand, in Bulletin
de la Société Française d'Études Mariales, 1935, pp. 27-51. Exccrpts are given in
French translation in A. Garreau, Saint Albert le Grand (Paris: Aubier, n.d.).
83 Thus M. Grabmann, in Wilms, op. cit., p. 178.
8·< Cf. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d'Ét. Mar., 1935, p. 47, note 1,

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

297

tion we may note that St. Albert’s argumentation in behalf of Mary’s
bodily Assumption into heaven is singled out for special praise in
the Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus.
Flaws there are, of course; among them, the exaggeration of Our
Lady’s knowledge.*85
86 Then, too, although with St. Augustine, St.
Anselm, and Scholastics all, St. Albert acknowledged in Mary a
plenitude of grace, of purity, and of virtue second only to Christ’s,80
he also was among those who failed to perceive that, consistently
with her singular mission and dignity, the Mother of God must
have been preserved from original sin.87 Moved by the authority of
Bernard of Clairvaux, and by the Augustinian view on the trans­
mission of original sin, the Universal Doctor admitted only a pre­
natal sanctification of the Blessed Mother.88
Such shortcomings are, however, offset by the excellence of St.
Albert’s doctrine on Mary’s part in the work of our salvation. The
“secretary and scribe of the Mother of God” stands as an incompara­
and pp. 50-51, regarding St. Albert’s contribution to the evolution of theological
method; cf. also E. Lajeunie, O.P., Quelques aspects de la Théologie mariale
actuelle, in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d'Ét. Mar., 1935, pp. 55-59; Cordovani, art. cit.,
in Angelicum, Vol. 9, 1932, pp. 210-212; Bittremieux, art. cit., in Eph. Theol. Lov.,
Vol. 10, 1933, pp. 218-219, 229-231.
85 Cf. Mariale, qq. 96-111; Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 261.
80 De hono, tract. 3, q. 3, a. 9, sol. (Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, cura B.
Geyer, Vol. 28 [hujus editionis numerus currens 1], Monasterii Westfalorum, 1951,
n. 302): "Impium est non credere virginitatem et munditiam gloriosae et sanctae
theotocos omnem creaturae munditiam excellere in quattuor. . . . Primum est
liberatio ab immundante, quod est peccatum, de quo dicit Augustinus (De nat. et
gratia, c. 36, n. 42; P.L. 44, 267), quod cum de peccatis agitur, nullam de beata
virgine vult haberi quaestionem propter honorem Filii eius, domini nostri lesu
Christi. Aliud est quantum ad immunitatem fomitis et incentivi ad libidinem, quia
fomes penitus fuit in ea exstinctus. Et haec duo plenius notata sunt in quaestione
De sanctificatis in utero. Tertium est puritas virgineae mentis in omni cogitatu,
verbo et opere ipsius. . . . Quartum autem est sacramentum perpetuae gratiae in
corde et in corpore. . . .” Mariale, q. 32 (Opera omnia, ea. Borgnet, Vol. 37,
Parisiis, 1908, p. 69): “Nulla alia creatura plena est gratia susceptive praeter
beatam Virginem, quae sola tantum accepit, quod pura creatura recipere plus non
potuit.” Cf. Bittremieux, art. cit., in Eph. Theol. Lov., Vol. 10, 1933, pp. 220-222.
87 Postilla super Isaiam, c. n, 1 (Opera omnia, cura B. Geyer, Vol. 19 [huius
editionis numerus currens 2], Monasterii Westfalorum, 1952, p. 162, lin. 76-78):
“Mater (Maria) enim, quamvis in originali peccato concepta sit, tamen ante nativi­
tatem mundata ad rectitudinem deducta est.” Cf. also In 3 Sent., d. 3, a. 5; a. 8;
Mariale, q. 163, 3.
88 Cf. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d’Ét. Mar., 1935, pp., 37—38,
47-48; Lajeunie, art. cit., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d'Ét. Mar., 1935, pp. 59-61;
X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1044-1045.

298

MARIOLOGY

ble witness to her mediatorial role, even if, as M.-A. Genevois holds,
that role occupies only a secondary place in St. Albert’s Mariology.89
Dispersed throughout his writings are the essentials “of all the later
theological elaborations” of Mary’s Mediation.90 Albert the Great
would seem to have surpassed all his predecessors and contemporaries
in expounding Our Lady’s formal and intimate co-operation in the
objective redemption.91 Emphasized, too, is her spiritual Maternity,
her Mediation in the spiritual regeneration of mankind.92 No less
explicit is the teaching of this Doctor of the Church that Mary is
Mediatrix also by her part in the actual distribution of all graces.93
From St. Albert we turn to his illustrious disciple, St. Thomas
Aquinas (t 1274).94 Neither the exuberance of his teacher nor the
warm effusions of his friend, St. Bonaventure, are to be found in the
Marian writings of the Doctor communis; one is struck by their
economy and their sober restraint.95
For, despite his great personal devotion to Our Lady,98 to her
whose quasi-infinite dignity as the Mother of God lifts her above all
angels and entitles her to the special veneration called hyperdulia,^
Aquinas would seem to have written more profusely of the angels
80 CE Genevois, art. cit., pp. 45—46.
00 Desmarais, op. cit., p. 146; for a summary of Albert’s doctrine on Marian
Mediation, cf. ibid., pp. 135-147; Bittremieux, art. cit., in Eph. Theol. Lov., Vol.
10, 1933, PP· 222-227; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 255-259.
81 Cf. Bittremieux, art. cit., p. 223; Cordovani, art. cit., in Angelicum, Vol. 9,
1932, pp. 207-208; J. Carol, De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae, pp.
164-167, 198.
92 Postilla super Isaiam, c. 11, 1 (Opera omnia, cura B. Geyer, Vol. 19, p. 163,
lin. 22-24): "Mater (Maria) enim figura est ecclesiae castis visceribus concipiens
et pariens, natus autem figura regeneratorum.” Mary is the "mother of regeneration,”
the "spiritual mother of the whole human race,” the “mother of all Christians,”
etc.; cf. Mariale, qq. 11, 29, 36, 43, 145, 148, 150, 166; cf. Desmarais, op. cit.,
pp. 128-132; W. O’Connor, The Spiritual Maternity of Our Lady in Tradition, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 161-163.
98 See, e.g., Mariale, qq. 29, 51, 146, 147, 164; cf. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1,
pp. 257-258; Bittremieux, art. cit., in Eph. Theol. Lov., Vol. 10, 1933, pp. 225227; Desmarais, op. cit., pp. 80-114; H. Wilms, Albert der Grosse, p. 179.
94 Cf. F. Morgott, Die Mariologie des hl. Thomas von Aquin (Freiburg im Br.,
1878); G. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 245-251; idem, La Mariologia di S.
Tommaso (Roma, 1950), cf. pp. 25-33 hu a complete bibliography.
95 Cf. A. Duval, O.P., La dévotion mariale dans l'Ordre des Frères prêcheurs, in
Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 753—754; Morgott, op. cit., pp. 3-4; Roschini,
La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, pp. 34-35.
96 Cf. Duval, art. cit., pp. 753-754; Roschini, op. cit., pp. 14-15; Morgott,
op. cit., p. 3.
97 Cf. S. Th., I, q. 25, a. 6, ad 4; ΠΙ, q. 30, a. 2, ad 1; III, q. 25, a. 5, c; II—II,
q. 103, a. 4, ad 2.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

299

than of their Queen.88 Not only did he forego the many minor
questions which fill a large part of St. Albert’s Mariology but, what
is more, St. Thomas has given us no ex professo treatment of such
major themes as those which bear on Mary’s role of Mediatrix.88
What he did say of the Blessed Mother is found mainly in the follow­
ing: S. Th., Ill, qq. 27-35; In III Sent., dd. 3-4; S. c. Gentiles, Jib.
4, q. 45; Compendium Theologiae, p. 1, cc. 221-225; Expositio salu­
tationis angelicae; and in a half-dozen Marian sermons.100
As to style and presentation, the Adoro te (or rather, Oro te de­
vote') and the Pange lingua sufficiently demonstrate his powers of
exalted and poetic expression; and yet, when St. Thomas spoke of
Our Lady, even in his sermons, he eschewed the ardent language, the
rich imagery, the forceful utterances of a Bernard, an Anthony, a
Bonaventure, an Albert.101
Nevertheless, the Angelic Doctor is also a Marian Doctor, ranked
with the foremost, and deservedly so.102 He who gave to theology
98 St. Thomas discussed the angels ex professo in a special treatise, De substantiis
separatis, and in S. Th., I, qq. 50-64, 106-114; S. c. Gentiles, lib. 2, cc. 91—101;
lib. 3, cc. 8o, 103, 105-110. It has been surmised that this wealth of teaching
earned St. Thomas his title of "Angelic Doctor”; cf. F. Cayré, Manual of Patrology
and History of Theology, Vol. 2, p. 594. Revealing are the entries in the "Index
tertius” to the Sumina Theologica: 356 under Angelus, 39 under Maria. Suarez
was to note and to correct the disproportion in Scholastic treatment of angels and
of their Queen; cf. De mysteriis vitae Christi, praefatio, n. 2 (Opera omnia, ed.
Vivès, Vol. 19, Parisiis, i860, pp. 1—2).
99 Cf. Roschini, La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, pp. 164-191; idem, Mariologia,
Vol. I, pp. 248-249; R. Bernard, O.P., La Maternité spirituelle de Maria et la
pensée de Saint Thomas, in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d’Ét. Mariales, 1935, pp. 89-90:
“Je ne vais pas essayer de dire comment saint Thomas a traité de la maternité
spirituelle de Marie, pour la bonne raison qu’il n’en a pas traité, si ce n’est par
quelques réflexions incidentes, pas très nombreuses.” Cf. also J. Carol, De Corre­
demptione Beatae Virginis Mariae, pp. 168-169. Further, Aquinas barely touched
on Mary’s Queenship; cf. Roschini, La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, p. 192. The
corporeal Assumption of Our Lady is another topic with which St. Thomas never
dealt directly, although, as Pius XII noted in Munificentissimus Deus, he did find
occasions to uphold that truth: S. Th., HI, q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio
salutationis angelicae; In Symb. Apostolorum expositio, a. 5; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1,
a. 3, sol. 3; d. 43, a. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, 2.
100 There is, of course, much incidental treatment of Marian matters throughout
the Summa Theologica and the commentary on the Sentences; moreover, St.
Thomas adverted to the Blessed Mother some 21 times in his commentaries on
ten books of the Old and New Testament; for a detailed inventory of Marian
passages in St. Thomas, cf. Roschini, La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, pp. 15-22; cf.
pp. 23-24 for vindication of the authenticity of the Expositio salutationis angelicae.
101 Cf. Roschini, La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, p. 34.
102 Cf. ibid., pp. 13-14, 34-35; Morgott, op. cit., pp. 2-5; Duval, art. cit., in
Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, p. 754; E. Hugon, O.P., S. Thomae doctrina de
B. Μ. V. Mediatrice omnium gratiarum, in Xenia Thomistica, Vol. 2, 1925, p.

300

MARIOLOGY

its statut véritablement scientifique*103104
*laid the firm foundations for
105
the construction of a stringently scientific Mariology, both positive
and speculative.101 Depth, if not breadth, solidity rather than elan,
and clear, precise concepts in preference to dazzling images and
ambiguous metaphors, are the invaluable contributions of St. Thomas
to the science of Mary.
The disciplined form which he imparted to the traditional teach­
ing on the Blessed Mother, his constant effort to relate that teaching
to the whole of revelation, made for accurate orientation of subse­
quent theological reflection and opened up new perspectives. His
method, principles, and insights have guided and inspired the labors
of Mariologists ever since. Despite the omissions in S. Th., Ill, qq.
27-35, omissions admitting of satisfactory explanation,10’ tire doctrine
there contained stands as the primitive nucleus of a special tract
“De B. Virgine”; the later elaboration of that nucleus by Suârez was
to constitute one of the major advances of Mariology.100
St. Thomas, the Mariologist, is especially renowned as the Doctor
of the divine Maternity. His scientific and exhaustive treatment of
this dogma is unrivaled.107 The divine motherhood is, moreover,
the central point of his Mariology, from which all else radiates, the
incomparable dignity of the Blessed Mother, her fullness of grace,
and whatever other Marian privileges and prerogatives St. Thomas
came to discuss.108
540: "Concludimus Angelicum, licet non singula explicite expenderit, statuisse firma
ac solida Mariologiae fundamenta. . . .”
103 Cf. M.-A. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. de l'Ét. Mar., 1935,
P· 50·
104 The reputation of St. Thomas as a speculative theologian should not be
allowed to obscure his concern for positive theology, in Mariology and elsewhere;
cf. Roschini, La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, pp. 37-39; R. Bernard, art. cit., in
Bull, de la Soc. Franç. de l’Ét. Mar., 1935, pp. 91-92.
105 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., pp. 167-168.
100 Cf. J. A. de Aldama, Mariologia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3 (Matriti,
1950), p. 289.
10T Cf. Roschini, op. cit., pp. 117-162.
108 Cf. Morgott, op. cit., p. 5. In effect, then, the divine Maternity operated as
the primary principle of the Angelic Doctor’s Mariology, although he never ex­
plicitly discussed such a principle (John Gerson would be the first to do so).
According to Rosellini, La Mariologia di S. Tommaso, pp. 35—36, the primary
Marian principle of St. Thomas was the divine Maternity considered in the con­
crete, that is, as historically verified, which would include not only Mary’s physical
motherhood of Christ but also her spiritual motherhood, as regards men; briefly, the
principle of Mary’s "universal maternity”; this position presupposes, of course,

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

301

Regrettably, Aquinas thought it necessary to exclude from among
those privileges the singular one of the Immaculate Conception.108109
“The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed
therefrom before her birth.”110 The Angelic Doctor based his view
ultimately on a point which St. Albert had raised without, however,
having particularly insisted on it, the universality of the Redemp­
tion.111 “If Mary had been conceived without original sin,” wrote St.
Thomas “she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and
so Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which detracts
from His dignity.”112
Thus the genius of the Angelic Doctor did not rise to tire idea of
a redemption which is able not only to liberate from sin already
contracted but also to preserve from contracting the guilt of original
sin at all —a more sublime mode of redemption which heightens
rather than derogates from the dignity of Christ as universal Re­
deemer.113 On the other hand, one must acknowledge that St.
Thomas contributed in no small measure to the final solution of the
controversy, by purging the idea of the Immaculate Conception from
certain false elements, by further clarifying the issues in marshaling
the strongest possible objections against the doctrine, and by develop­
ing powerful arguments for at least a special sanctification of Mary
in the womb —arguments which can easily be adapted to the Im­
maculate Conception.114
Rosellini's attempt, op. cit., pp. 164-191, to interpret the Angelic Doctor’s mind on
the questions of Mary’s Mediation, insofar as his views can be gleaned from
incidental utterances or are implicit in other statements.
109 Roschini, op. cit., pp. 193-237, refutes those who try to show that St.
Thomas was not an adversary of the Immaculate Conception.
110 S. Th., Ill, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2; cf. q. 27, aa. 1-2; Comp. Theologiae, p. 1,
c. 224; etc. St. Thomas held with the opinion that Mary’s sanctification in the
womb was wrought “cito post conceptionem, et animae infusionem,” Quodl., 6, q.
5, a. 7; cf. Roschini, op. cit., pp. 228-229.
111 Cf. M.-A. Genevois, art. cit., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. de l’Ét. Mar.,
1935. P· 48.
1,2 Comp. Theologiae, p. 1, c. 224; Engl, transi., C. Vollert, S.J., Compendium
of Theology by St. Thomas Aquinas (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 263-264.
113 Pope Pius IX, Litt. Apost., Ineffabilis Deus (December 8, 1854): “Omnes
pariter norunt quantopere solliciti fuerint sacrorum antistites . . . profiteri, sanctis­
simam Dei Genetricem Virginem Mariam, ob praevisa Christi Domini Redemptoris
merita numquam originali subiacuisse peccato, sed praeservatam omnino fuisse ab
originis labe, et idcirco sublimiori modo redemptam.” Quoted from Le Encicliche
Mariane, ed. A. Tondini (Roma, 1950), p. 40.
114 Cf. E. Dander, S.J., Mariologia, in L. Lercher, S.J., Institutiones Theol.
Dogm., Vol. 3, ed. 3 retractata (Oeniponte, 1942), n. 305; Roschini, op. cit., pp.

302

MARIOLOGY

No history of Mariology, however brief, could fail to give special
notice also to John Duns Scotus (t 1308).*115 Few will deny to him
the title of Doctor Marianus, although it rests not on any wide
contribution to the science of Mary but rather on the great Fran­
ciscan’s unique role in the development of the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception.116
To be sure, as we shall learn, other theologians before Scotus had
defended that glorious privilege of the Blessed Mother, even at
Paris — stronghold of the "maculists." But the Subtle Doctor is
generally credited with having turned the tide, by his brilliant solu­
tion of the theological difficulties which then prevailed against the
doctrine.117
Decisive, above all, was his insistence at Oxford and then at Paris
(c. 1307) on the distinction between what came to be called the
“liberative” and, in Mary’s case, the “preservative” redemption,
together with Scotus’ insight that such preservation of Mary from
original sin was a more sublime mode of redemption, thus heighten­
ing rather than lessening the dignity of Christ as Redeemer.118 At
236-237; F. Cayré, Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, Vol. 2, p. 627.
C£. X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in Diet, de Théologie Catholique, Vol.
7, cols. 1050-1060.
115 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 263-265; Vol. 2/2, ed. 2 (Roma, 1948),
pp. 65-69; P. Raymond, O.F.M.Cap., Duns Scot, in Diet, de Théol. Cath., Vol. 4,
cols. 1896-1898; X. La Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in Diet, de Théol. Cath.,
Vol. 7, cols. 1073-1078; J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2,
pp. 794-797; additional literature is cited in Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 263,
nota i. The Marian teachings of Scotus are contained in his commentary on the
Sentences, begun at Oxford (Opus Oxoniense), resumed and completed at Paris
(Reportata Parisiensia); a critical edition of the relevant passages has been furnished
by C. Balié, O.F.M.; loannis Duns Scoti . . . Theologiae Marianae Elementa
(Sibenici, 1933).
116 The Marian questions which Scotus treated ex professo are these: Mary’s
Immaculate Conception; her marriage with St. Joseph (perpetual virginity); the
divine Maternity, treated with depth and originality; the question of a real
filiation of Christ in relation to Mary. Cf. Raymond, art. cit., cols. 1896-1898; B.
Merkelbach, O.P., review of Balié, op. cit., in Angelicum, Vol. 12, 1935, pp. 408409; Balié, La prédestination de la Très-Sainte Vierge dans la doctrine de Jean
Duns Scot, in La France Franciscaine, Vol. 19, 1936, pp. 114—158; Carol, De
Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae . . . , p. 170.
117 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., cols. 1073-1078, 1078—1083; F. Cayré, Manual
of Patrology, etc., Vol. 2, pp. 657-658; Merkelbach, art. cit., p. 409, accords Scotus
the title Doctor immaculatae conceptionis. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 264-265,
and Vol. 2/2, pp. 68-69, contends that the Subtle Doctor’s role in regard to the
clarification of the doctrine has been highly exaggerated.
118 Cf. In 4 Sent., lib. 3, d. 3, q. 1; in Balié, op. cit., pp. 20-43 (Opus Oxon.'),
45-54 (Report. Par.).

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

3°3

Oxford Scotus had asserted not only the speculative possibility but
also the factuality of the Immaculate Conception.110 If at Paris he
wrote more cautiously on the latter point, this may be attributed
to deference on his part toward opponents of the doctrine, so numer­
ous then in Paris and backed by such great authorities as Anselm,
Bernard, Bonaventure, and Aquinas.119
120 The story that the Subtle
Doctor defended the Immaculate Conception victoriously in a public
disputation before the University of Paris would seem to have a
kernel of truth beneath the accretions of legend.121
After this necessary tribute to the towering figures of medieval
Mariology there is room only for brief mention of other noteworthy
contributors in this period to the science of Our Lady.122 One may
not, of course, forget other scholars of the University of Oxford
whose early support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
paved the way for Duns Scotus. Among these we may account the
Cistercian, Alexander Neckam (t 1217), and Robert Grosseteste,
of the secular clergy (f 1253, as Bishop of Lincoln).123 The latter’s
university lectures to sons of St. Francis of Assisi are credited by
some with having laid the primary foundation of tire traditional
teaching of the Franciscan theologians on the Immaculate Con­
ception.124 Then there is also William of Ware, O.F.M. (f c· 1300),
who lectured at Oxford, thereafter at Paris.125 Reputedly the teacher
119 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 1075.
120 Cf. ibid., col. 1076. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 265, nota 1, spurns this
explanation. He further remarks (p. 265) that the opusculum known as the
Theoremata denies the Immaculate Conception, and that this work “certainly
belongs to Scotus — as Father Balié has apodictically demonstrated”; Merkelbach,
art. cit., p. 408, likewise represents Balié as regarding the Theoremata to be cer­
tainly authentic; actually, Balic, op. cit., p. cxlv, is content to say that the question
is not yet settled, and that in the meanwhile the traditional view on the authenticity
of the work remains in possession.
121 Cf. Balié, op. cit., pp. xcvii-cxiv; X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., cols. 1076—1077.
122 On these and other medieval Mariologists, cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1,
pp. 262-276; M. Mueller, O.F.M., Maria. Ihre geistige Gestalt und Persoenlichkeit
in der Théologie des Mittelalters, in Katholische Marienkunde, ed. P. Strâter,
S.J. (Paderborn, 1947), Vol. 1, pp. 268-316; also the several articles on devotion
to Mary in various religious orders and congregations, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir,
Vol. 2, pp. 547-906.
123 On both theologians, cf. F. Mildner, O.S.M., The Oxford Theologians of
the Thirteenth Century and the Immaculate Conception, in Marianum, Vol. 2,
1940, pp. 284-299; on Neckam, cf. also supra, footnote 54.
,24 Cf. Mildner, art. cit., in Marianum, Vol. 2, 1940, p. 299.
125 Cf. Gulielmi Guarrae, J. D. Scoti, Petri Aureoli, Quaestiones disputatae de
Immaculata Conceptione B. Μ. V. (Ad Claras Aquas, 1904). Cf. X. Le Bachelet,
Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1060-1062.

3°4

MARIOLOGY

of Duns Scotus, he is considered by some to have supplied his
disciple with essentially all that the Subtle Doctor was to say in
defense of the Immaculate Conception.1215 Others, however, attribute
his teaching on the subject to the influence of his celebrated pupil.127
Famed chiefly as the compiler of the popular Golden Legend,
James of Voragine (rather, Varagine), O.P. (+ 1298, as tire Arch­
bishop of Genoa), deserves also to be remembered as the author of
the Mariale aureum and of many other Marian sermons, Scholastic
in cast, which exercised great influence in the Middle Ages.128
Remarkable on many other grounds, the Spanish theologian, Bl.
Raymond Lull (t 1316), a member of the Third Order of St.
Francis, merits attention for his Mariology as well.129 The latter is
found mainly in his Disputatio Eremitae et Raymundi super aliqui­
bus dubiis quaestionibus sententiarum Petri Lombardi, the Liber de
Sancta Maria, and the poems, Plant de Nostra Dona Santa Maria
and Horas de Nostra Dona Santa Maria. The Doctor Illuminatus was
perhaps the first to uphold the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep­
tion at Paris, in his Disputatio Eremitae . . . (a.d. 1298); however,
his explanations were not without flaw, and their importance has
been exaggerated at the expense of William of Ware and of Duns
Scotus. Outstanding, on the other hand, were the Spaniard's teach­
ings on the spiritual Maternity of Mary.
That Mariology came to win a special place in theology is due in
126 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. i, pp. 264-265, and Vol. 2/2, pp. 68-69;
X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, col. 1075; M. Grabmann,
Die Geschichte der katholischen Théologie seit dem Ausgang der Vaeterzeit (Frei­
burg im Br.), p. 89. Roschini and Le Bachelet acknowledge Scotus’ superiority in
this respect, that, unlike William of Ware, he rejected the old theory of con­
cupiscence infecting the flesh and transmitting original sin, in favor of St. Anselm’s
position (already adopted by Aquinas) which placed the essence of original sin
in the privation of sanctifying grace.
127 Cf. J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, p. 794. On
the interdependence between Ware and Scotus relative to the Immaculate Concep­
tion, see the interesting and well-documented paper by L. Siekaniec, O.F.M.,
William of Ware, in The Scotist, 1941, pp. 38-40; likewise M. Millier, O.F.M.,
Johannes Duns Scotus (Gladbach, 1934), p. 12; F. Pelster, S.J., Duns Scotus nach
englischen Handschriften, in Zeitschrift für katholische Théologie, Vol. 51, 1927,
p. 68; J. Lechner, Wilhelm von Ware, in Lexikon für Théologie und Kirche, Vol.
10, col. 910.
128 Cf. P. Lorenzin, O.F.M., Mariologia lacobi a Varagine, O.P. (Romae, 1951).
129 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 265-266; E. Longpré, O.F.M., Ladle,
Raymond, in DTC, Vol. 9, cols. 1127-1128; X. Le Bachelet, Immaculée Con­
ception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1062-1064.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

305

no small degree to the efforts of Peter Auriol, O.F.M.
1322 as
Bishop of Aix).130 He is renowned especially for his defense of the Im­
maculate Conception, in a special treatise, Tractatus de Conceptione
B. Μ. V., and in a vindication of the latter work, Bepercussorium
editum contra adversarium innocentiae Matris Dei. Among the rea­
sons for believing that God preserved the Blessed Virgin from origi­
nal sin, Peter cited Mary’s Assumption and the conviction that her
body had been spared from all corruption. The same author was the
first to discuss explicitly the question, destined to be long contro­
verted: Was Mary exempted from original sin not only de facto but
also de jure?131
Among others who enriched medieval Mariology we may mention
the Franciscans, Francis of Meyronnes (f 1325)132 and William of
Nottingham (+ 1336);135 Engelbert, Benedictine abbot of Admont
Ct 1331), author of an extensive dogmatic monograph, De gratiis
et virtutibus
and of a doctrinally interesting Marian psal­
ter;134 John Bacon or Baconthorp, the great Carmelite theologian
(t 1348), who, after initial opposition, became one of the stanchest
defenders of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, thus bringing about
the triumph of that doctrine among the Carmelites;135 the Viennese
theologian, Henry of Langenstein, also known as Henry de Hassia,
Sr. (t i 397);13g John Gerson Cf 1429), renowned as the first to treat,
130 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 267-269; A. Teetaert, O.F.M.Cap., Pierre
Auriol, in DTC, Vol. 12, cols. 1821-1826, 1873-1875; idem, Un grand Docteur
marial franciscain: Pierre d'Auriol, in Études Franciscaines, Vol. 39, 1927, pp. 352375; Vol. 40, 1928, pp. 124—152; J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir,
Vol. 2, p. 802. Cf. Gulielmi Guarrae, ]. D. Scoti, Petri Aureoli quaestiones dis­
putatae de Immaculata Conceptione B. Μ. V. (Ad Claras Aquas, 1904).
131 Cf. J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, p. 802; Teetaert,
art. cit., in DTC, Vol. 12, cols. 1873-1874. For the later history of this con­
troversy, cf. J. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. 4 (Dogmengesch. der neueren
Zeit) (Freiburg im Br., 1890), pp. 179-183.
132 Cf. J. de Dieu, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, p. 803; M.
Mueller, Maria. Ihre geistige Gestalt und Persoenlichkeit in der Théologie des
Mittelalters, in Katholische Marienkunde, ed. P. Straeter, Vol. 1, pp. 270, 294,
298 f., 301, 310, 313 f.
133 Cf. A. Emtnen, O.F.M., Immaculata Deiparae Conceptio secundum Guillelmum
de Nottingham, in Marianum, Vol. 5, 1943, pp. 220-244.
,3'1 Cf. G. Fowler, Intellectual Interests of Engelbert of Admont (New York,
*947), pp· 43-44; S. Beissel, S.J., Geschichte der Verehrung Marias in Deutschland
waehrend des Mittelalters (Freiburg im Br., 1909), pp. 246-248.
135 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, col. 1082;
and DTC, Tables générales, s.v. Baconthorp, col. 349.
138 Cf. M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der katholischen Théologie seit dem Ausgang der Vaeterzeit (Freiburg im Br., 1933), p. uji.

3o6

MARIOLOGY

ex professo, Marian principles and to lay down sage directives for
Mariologists.137
So superbly and completely are Marian themes elaborated in the
sermons of St. Bernardine of Siena (t 1444), that the Franciscan
deserves to be ranked among the great medieval Doctors of Mary.138
Acclaimed as “the echo of St. Bernard,” he is regarded as the greatest
theologian of the universal Mediation of Our Lady; and his doctrine
on her Assumption, applauded by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissi ­
mus Deus, has moved some to salute him as “the Doctor of the
Assumption.”138
Other medieval preachers and theologians to whom Marian science
is indebted include Alphonsus Tostatus, Bishop of Avila (t 1455);140
Ambrose Spiera, O.S.M. (t 1455);141 St. Antoninus, O.P., Arch­
bishop of Florence (t iqçç);1·*2 Cardinal John Torquemada, O.P.
(t 1468);143 the Carthusian, Denis of Ryckel (t 1471 );144 and
Bl. Bernardine of Busti, O.F.M. (t 1515), with whom the period
came to a not inglorious close.1*5
During that four-century span from St. Anselm to Bl. Bernardine,
Mariology registered many substantial gains. Some of them may be
briefly noted. The dogma of the Divine Motherhood, defined at
Ephesus, achieved theological deepening, especially at the hands of
St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. With St. Anselm, the Scho137 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 270-271, 323, note 3. The Marian
contributions of this somewhat neglected theologian have been appreciated by A.
Combes, La doctrine mariale du chancelier Jean Gerson, in Maria, ed. H. du
Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 865-882.
188 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 271-273; G. Folgarait, La teologia
mariana di San Bernardino da Siena (Milano, 1939); P· Emm. ab Izegem, O.F.M.Cap., De doctrina mariologica S. B. Senensis, in Collectanea Francescana, Vol.
to, 1940, pp. 383—394; L. di Fonzo, O.F.M.Conv., La mariologia di S. B. da Siena,
in Miscellanea Francescana, Vol. 47, 1947, pp. 3—102; D. Scaramuzzi, O.F.M., La
dottrina del B. G. Duns Scoto nella predicazione di S. Bernardino da Siena (Firenze,
1930), pp· i35-»4i·
130 Cf. E. Longpré, Bernardin de Sienne (Saint), in Catholicisme, hier, au­
jourd’hui, demain, Vol. 1, col. 1488.
140 Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 122.
111 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, p. 273.
142 Cf. ibid., p. 273.
143 Cf. ibid., p. 273; Grabmann, op. cit., p. 100.
144 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, p. 274; J. De Wit, Dionysius de Karthuijser
over onze lieve Vrouw, in Handelingen van het vlaamsch Maria-Congres te Brussel,
Vol. i (Brussel, 1922), pp. 345-351.
145 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 275; J. de Dieu, art. cit., p. 806; F. Cucchi, O.F.M.­
Conv., La Mediazione universale della Santissima Vergine negli scritti di Bernardino
de'Bustis (Milano, 1942).

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

307

lastics emphasized that Mary’s exalted office as the Mother of God
required in her the greatest purity, sanctity, and fullness of grace
after Christ. Implicit in such teaching is the doctrine of the Immacu­
late Conception. If St. Bernard and many subsequent theologians of
great name failed to recognize this and even denied Mary’s im­
munity from original sin at her conception, some excuse can be
found in the confused state of tire question in the twelfth and thir­
teenth centuries,”6 and in the seemingly insoluble difficulties, espe­
cially on the score of the universality of the Redemption. The
ensuing controversy gradually brought about the clarification of the
true issues; the solution, by Duns Scotus and others, of the for­
midable objections; and the development of positive arguments fa­
vorable to the thesis of the Immaculate Conception.’·*7
Therewith the opposition, which had never been universal,1-18
dwindled rapidly. By the end of the fourteenth century the original
sanctity of Mary’s soul was common doctrine among the Franciscans,
who were joined in the latter half of the century by the Carmelites,
Augustinians, Premonstratensians, Trinitarians, Servîtes, and by
many Benedictines, Cistercians, and Carthusians.149 In the fifteenth
century the great majority of theologians upheld this glorious
privilege of the Blessed Mother.150 In the meanwhile, however, they
continued to debate the manner of Mary’s preservation from original
sin.151
Another significant development in medieval Mariology was the
triumph of the doctrine of Our Blessed Mother’s Corporeal Assump­
tion into heaven. This Marian prerogative had been controverted
146 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 10411042.
147 Cf. ibid., cols. 1089-1093; A. Teetaert, art. Pierre Auriol, in DTC, Vol. 12,
cols. 1823-1824.
118X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., DTC, Vol. 7, col. 1058, observes that "the opposition
was not universal, but particular and, in a certain sense, local. Alexander of Hales,
Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and their disciples, all
pertained to the same literary milieu, the university of Paris.” Cf. idem, art.
Marie — Immaculée Conception, in Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique,
Vol. 3 (Paris, 1926), col. 263.
149 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. cit., in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 1078-1089.
150 Cf. ibid., cols. 1108-1132; J. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. 3 (Dogmengesch. der mittleren Zeit) (Freiburg im Br., 1882), pp. 426—428; Vol. 4 ÇDogmengesch. der neueren Zeit) (Freiburg im Br., 1890), pp. 178-179. M. Mueller mis­
takenly declares that most medieval theologians rejected the Immaculate Conception;
cf. art. cit., in Katholische Marienkunde, Vol. 2, p. 295.
151 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 10931094; cf. supra, note 131.

3o8

MARIOLOGY

from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, but thereafter it became the
common teaching, vindicated by arguments upon which subsequent
centuries would find it difficult to improve.152 The contributions of
the great Scholastics in this sphere are admirably summarized by
Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus.153
As our references to the great Doctors of Marian Mediation have
already suggested, another central preoccupation of medieval theo­
logians was the role of the Blessed Mother in the redemptive work
of Christ, and, by the same token, her relations with the Church,154
and with all men, her spiritual children.155 Fruitfully discussed in
this period was not only Mary’s part in the distribution of all graces,
but also the fact of and the mode of her co-operation in the acquisi­
tion of those graces, i.e., her part in the objective Redemption.156
The elucidation of the latter aspect of Marian Mediation was facili­
tated to some extent by the theological deepening of the dogma of
tire divine Maternity, and by the gradual acceptance of Our Lady’s
Immaculate Conception.157 In its turn, the growing appreciation of
the Blessed Mother’s coredemptive role contributed to a heightened
understanding of her Queenship.168
These major accomplishments of medieval Mariologists suffice to
refute B. Otten’s contention that the Church Fathers had left the
Scholastics little room for further development of Marian doctrines.159
At the same time, they validate the judgment of G. Philips, that, if
152 Cf. G. Roschini, Il Dogma dell’Assunzione (Studi Mariani, 3), ed. 2
(Roma, 1951), pp. 81-83; C. Balié, O.F.M., Testimonia de Assumptione B. V. Μ.
ex omnibus saeculis. Pars prior: Ex aetate ante Concilium Tridentinum (Romae,
1948), pp. 222-387. C. Piana, O.F.M., Assumptio B. V. M. apud scriptores saec.
XIII (Bibliotheca Mariana Medii Aevi, fasc. 4) (Sibenici-Romae, 1942).
153 Cf. A.A.S., Vol. 42 (4 nov. 1950), pp. 762-766; Engl, transi., Catholic Mind,
January, 1951, pp. 72-74.
154 Cf. H. Barré, C.S.Sp., Marie et l'Église; du Vénérable Bede à Saint Albert
le Grand, in Marie et l'Église. Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d’Ét. Mar., 1951 (Paris,
I95O- PP· 59-143·
153 Cf. W. O’Connor, The Spiritual Maternity of Our Lady in Tradition, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 153-168.
156 Cf. J. Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione B. Μ. V. (Civitas Vaticana, 1950),
pp. 151-198; L. Riley, Historical Conspectus of the Doctrine of Mary’s Co-Redemp­
tion, in Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, pp. 47-54; Roschini, La Madonna seconde
la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1 (Roma, 1953), pp. 149-150.
157 Cf. M. Mueller, art. cit., in Katholische Marienkunde, ed. Strâter, Vol. 1, pp.
282—286, 286-295.
138 Cf. W. Hill, S.S., Our Lady's Queenship in the Middle Ages and Modern
Times, in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 135-153, 154-155 (summary).
108 Cf. supra, note 16.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

3°9

the theological treatise De Beata be of recent origin, its constitutive
elements have an ancient and thoroughly respectable history.180

II. MODERN MARIOLOGY
(SIXTEENTH TO NINETEENTH CENTURIES)

This period extends from the Council of Trent, which expressly
excluded “the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of
God” from its decree on original sin,101 and thus paved tire way for
the dogmatic definition of her Immaculate Conception, to the defini­
tion itself on December 8, 1854.
The intervening centuries witnessed notable advances in the
science of Our Lady. Tremendous impetus to such progress was
given by the violent attacks on Marian cult and doctrines, which
were mounted first by the Protestant “Reformers,”182 then by the
Jansenists and kindred spirits,183 especially Adam Widenfeld, in
his notorious brochure of 1673, Monita salutaria B. Mariae Virginis
ad cultores suos indiscretos.™*
In meeting these onslaughts the defenders of Catholic orthodoxy
produced a huge volume of polemical and dogmatic literature, which,
if uneven in quality, nevertheless grounded more thoroughly and
illumined more clearly the perfection of die Mother of God; her
unrivaled sanctity; her immunity from all sin, bodi original and
actual; her universal Mediation in the acquisition and the distribu­
tion of all graces; and the special veneration which is her due.185
100 G. Philips, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 19, 1953, p. 460,
reviewing the Marie et l'Église volume of tire Société Française d'Études Mariales.
161 Sess. 5, cap. 6 (June 17, 1546); D.B., n. 792. Cf. M. Tognetti, L’Immacolata
al Cone. Tridentino, in Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 304-374.
102 Cf. C. Dillenschneider, C.SS.R., La Mariologie de S. Alphonse de Liguori,
Vol. I (Fribourg, Suisse, 1931), pp. 1—32; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 391393; S. Beissel, S.J., Geschichte aer Verehrung Marias im 16. u. 17. Jahrhundert
(Freiburg im Br., 1910), pp. ioo-rii.
163 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 33-X04; Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1,
PP· 393-395164 Attempts at a partial rehabilitation of Widenfeld have been undertaken by P.
Hoifer, S.M., La dévotion à Marie au déclin du XVIIe siècle autour du Jansénisme
et des 'Avis salutaires de la B. Vierge Marie à ses dévots indiscrets’ (Paris, 1938);
G. Cacciatore, S. Alfonso de Liguori e il Giansenismo (Firenze, 1942). Roschini
rejects these efforts in his La Madonna seconde la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1, pp.
156-157.
108 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 153; Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp.
150-151, 194-X95, 226—227, 250—251; Beissel, op. cit., pp. X12-117; H. Rondet,
S.J., preface to J.-B. Terrien, S.J., La Mère des hommes, Vol. 1, ed. 8 (Paris, 1950),
pp. 13-44. F°r details on the Mariological progress in this era, confer: E. Dublanchy,
art. Marie, in DTC, Vol. 9 (Paris, 1926), passim, especially cols. 2355-2369, 2392-

310

MARIOLOGY

Dozens of authors belonging to this period merit special mention,
but these pages can notice only some of the more eminent champions
of Mary’s glories.100* The first German Doctor of the universal
Church, St. Peter Canisius, SJ. (t 1597), unquestionably falls into
this category, thanks to his masterful refutation of Protestant errors,
the De Maria Virgine incomparabili et Dei Genetrice sacrosancta libri
quinque.107 This apologetical classic may be termed the first complete
exposition of Catholic doctrine on the Mother of God.
As such, it assures its author a high place in the historical evolution
of the science of Mary. However, the honor of having created the
first modem Mariology, rigorously scientific and scholastic, belongs
not to Canisius but to his confrere in religion, Francis Suarez
(t 1617).163 As we have already remarked, the doctrine of Aquinas
in the Summa Theologica, III, qq. 27-35, stands as tire primitive
nucleus of a special tract “De B. Virgine”; the Spanish Jesuit’s
elaboration of that nucleus, in tire first twenty-three disputations of
his De mysteriis vitae Christi,100 is justly celebrated as a monumental
contribution both to the content and method of Mariology.
Among the foremost Mariologists of all time one must number
the Capuchin preacher, St. Lawrence of Brindisi (t 1619). Original,
yet always theologically sound, and often profound, his Mariale,
consisting of 84 sermons, amounts to a complete, if informal, treatise
2394, 2400—2403; 2436-2453; X. Le Bachelet, art. Immaculée Conception, in DTC,
Vol. 7, cols. 1150-1209; J. Carol, De Corredemptione B. V. M., pp. 198-480; L.
Riley, Historical Conspectus of the Doctrine of Mary's Co-Redemption, in Marian
Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, pp. 64-92; W. O'Connor, The Spiritual Maternity of Our
Lady in Tradition, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 168-172; W. Hill, S.S.,
Our Lady's Queenship in the Middle Ages and Modem Times, in Marian Studies,
Vol. 4, 1953, pp· 155-169; C. Balié, O.F.M., Testimonia de Assumptione B. V. M.
ex omnibus saeculis. Pars altera: Ex aetate post Concilium Tridentinum (Romae,
1950); P· Renaudin, Assumptio B. Mariae Virginis Matris Dei (Taurini-Romae,
i933)> PP· 69-92.
ice For other Mariologists of the modem era, cf. Rosellini, Mariologia, Vol. 1,
pp. 276-301; Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 107-254; Grabmann, op. cit.,
passim; and various articles in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 547-991.
1βΤ Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 109-113. The De Maria Virgine
incomparabili is reproduced in Vols. 8-9 of J. Bourassé, Summa aurea de laudibus
B. Μ. V. (Parisiis, 1862).
108 Cf. J. de Aldama, S.J., Piété et système dans la Mariologie du 'Docteur
Eximius,' in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 975-990, esp. pp. 979-983;
Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 153-154, 157-161; J. Bover, S.J., Suarez,
mariologo, in Estudios Eclesidsticos, Vol. 22, 1948, pp. 311—337.
ie» Opera omnia, ed. Vivès, Vol. 19, pp. 1—337.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

311

De Beata, which is especially remarkable for its thorough and
effective vindication of the Immaculate Conception.170
Tire latter doctrine, championed also by St. Peter Canisius and
Suarez, found a further supporter in St. Robert Bellarmine, SJ.
(t 1621), whose sermons and Disputationes de controversiis ren­
dered yet other valuable services to Marian doctrine and piety,
notably by their refutation of Protestant errors.171
Some other distinguished Jesuit Mariologists of the period may
be noticed here. The science of Our Lady owes a good deal, on the
positive side, to D. Petau (f 1652), whose Dogmata Theologica
(lib. 14) assembled and subjected to critical scrutiny the ancient
traditions on Mary’s prerogatives.172 Also deserving of express men­
tion are the prolific Theophilus Raynaud (t 1663);173 George de
Rhodes (t 1661), who incorporated in his Disputationes theologicae
scholasticae an excellent treatise De Maria Deipara;17' and Paul
Segneri(t 1694), author of the little classic, ll devoto dellaVergine.1™
Dillenschneider has rescued from obscurity one of the ablest
Marian theologians of the seventeenth century, John Baptist Novati,
O.S.Cam. (f 1648). His De eminentia Deiparae Virginis adopted
and developed many Suarezian theses; of chief interest is the work’s
discussion of Mariological principles and axioms, and of various
aspects of Marian Mediation, particularly the Blessed Mother’s im­
mediate co-operation in the objective Redemption, and her spiritual
Maternity.170 The latter themes also found admirable treatment in
the De hierarchia Mariana of Bartholomew de Los Rios, O.E.S.A.
(t 1652).177
170 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 281-283; idem, La Mariologia di S.
Lorenzo da Brindisi (Padova, 1951); Jérome de Paris, La doctrine mariale de S.
Laurent de Brindes (Paris, 1933); Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 213—218.
171 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 113—118; S. Tromp, S.J., S. Robertas
Bellarminus et B. Virgo, in Gregorianum, Vol. 21, 1940, pp. 162-182; J. A.
Hardon, Bellarmine and the Blessed Virgin, in Our Lady’s Digest, Vol. 8, October,
1953, pp. 175-183; idem, Mary Mediatrix in the Theology of Bellarmine, in The
Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 48, 1947, pp. 91-97.
172 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 167-170.
173 Cf. ibid., pp. 170-176.
174 Cf. ibid., pp. 178-182.
175 Cf. ibid., pp. 222-225.
170 Cf. ibid., pp. 161-166; J. Carol, De Corredemptione B. V. M., pp. 288-290.
177 Cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, p. 286; Carol, op. cit., pp. 271-273; A.
Musters, La Souveraineté de la Vierge d'après les écrits mariologiques de Barthélemy
de los Rios (Bruges, 1946).

3!2

MARIOLOGY

The traditions of the Franciscan school, especially its advocacy of
the Immaculate Conception, were ably continued in the writings of
Peter de Alva y Astorga, O.F.M. (f 1667),178 and the Conférences . . .
sur les grandeurs de la très Sainte Vierge Marie Mère de Dieu of
Louis D’Argentan, O.F.M.Cap. (+ 1680).179 Important for the study
of Scotist Mariological thought are the De eminentissima Deiparae
Virginis perfectione libri tres by John M. Zamoro, O.F.M.Cap.
(f 1649),180 and the remarkable Fons illimis theologiae scoticae
marianae by Charles del Moral, O.F.M. (t 1731)·181
Among the sons of St. Dominic who advanced Marian science in
this period we may name Justin Miechow (f 1689), renowned for
his exhaustive and solid commentaries on the Litany of Loreto;182
Vincent Contenson (f 1674), whose celebrated Theologia mentis
et cordis contains an extensive and pellucid dissertation on the
Blessed Mother’s prerogatives;183 and John Van Ketwig (t 1746),
whose Panoplia Mariana is a Mariology ad mentem S. Thomae.1**
As could be expected of the “Order of Mary,” tire Servîtes have
contributed profoundly to the development of Marian dogma and
piety.185 A shining example is the Austrian theologian, Caesar
Shguanin (t 1769), remarkable for the quality as well as the quan­
tity of his writings on all phases of Mariology.188 The science of Our
Lady has also been enriched by tire Clerics Regular of the Mother
of God, especially by Hippolytus Marracci (f 1675), another amaz­
ingly prolific author.187
Jansenist rigorism and the Monita salutaria of Widenfeld were
strenuously combated by many of the controversialists and theolo178 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 289.
179 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 187-194.
180 Cf. Archangelus a Roc, O.F.M.Cap., Joannes M. Zamoro al· Udine, O.F.M.­
Cap., praeclarus mariologus (1579-1649) (Roma, s.a.), extractum ex Collectanea
Franciscana, Vol. 15—19, 1945-1949.
181 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 295; I. de Guerra Lazpiur, O.F.M., Integralis con­
ceptus Matemitatis divinae juxta Carolum del Moral (Romae, 1953); Carol, op. cit.,
PP· 339-342·
182 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 285; Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 218-220.
183 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 182-184.
181 Cf. ibid., pp. 145-150.
185 Cf. G. Roschini, L’Ordre des Servîtes de Marie, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir,
Vol. 2, pp. 885-907.
ise Cf. idem, Mariologia, Vol. 1, p. 296.
187 Cf. F. Ferraironi, O.M.D., Le culte marial dans l'Ordre des Clercs Réguliers
de la Mère de Dieu, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 2, pp. 917-923; Rosellini,
Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 290-291; Roschini, Un grande precursore dell'era mariana:
il P. Ippolito Marracci, O.M.D., in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 11, 1953, pp. 219-232.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

3i3

gians already named in these pages. But exceptional in this regard
were the labors of John Crasset, SJ. Ct 1692),188 and, above all, of
Henry Boudon Ct 1702).189 Several spiritual writers of the era also
entered the lists, with telling effect. Their devotional works not only
nourished Marian piety but, at the same time, broadened and deep­
ened its doctrinal bases, particularly in connection with the media­
torial role of Our Blessed Mother, a crucial issue in the Jansenist
controversy.180
Of the above group the most famous representatives are Cardinal
de Bérulle Ct 1629);181 John Olier Ct 1657);102 St. John Eudes
Ct 1680);183 St. Louis M. Grignion de Montfort Ct 1716), univer­
sally renowned for his Treatise on the True Devotion to the Bl.
Virgin;19'1 and the no less celebrated Redemptorist Doctor of the
LIniversal Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori Ct 1787), whose tremen­
dously successful Glories of Mary is both dogmatic and ascetical,
harmonizing profound science and great erudition with ardent filial
affection for the Mother of God and Mother of men.185
To these doctrinally significant spiritual writers, mostly of the
Bérullian school, one must add the last disciple of that school,
William Chaminade Ct 1850), founder of the Marianists, whose
published and unpublished writings are now being increasingly
explored and appreciated.180
188 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 118-124; H. Baron, S.J., Jean
Crasset (1618—1692), le Jansénisme et la dévotion à la Sainte Vierge, in Bull, de
la Soc. Franç. d’Êtudes Mariales (Paris, 1938), 249-255.
189 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 124-128, 242—246.
190 Cf. E. Druwé, S.J., La Médiation universelle de Marie, in Maria, ed. H. du
Manoir, Vol. 1, pp. 551—552; M.-A. Genevois, O.P., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç.
d'Ét. Mar. (Paris, 1936), p. 50.
191 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, 230-234; Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1,
p. 284; J. Nicolas, O.P., La doctrine mariale du Card, de Bérulle, in Revue Thomiste,
Vol. 43, 1937, pp. 81-100.
192 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 234-238.
198 Cf. ibid., pp. 238-242; E. George, Saint Jean Eudes, Modèle et Maître de
vie Mariale (Paris, 1946).
194 Cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 246-250; Roschini, Mariologia,
Vol. i, pp. 293-295; F. Setzer, S.M.M., The Spiritual Maternity and St. Louis M.
de Montfort, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 197—207.
193 Cf. J. Kannengieser, art. Alphonse de Liguori, in DTC, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1903),
col. 917; Roschini, op. cit., Vol. 1, 297-301; J. Dillenschneider, La Mariologie de
S. Alphonse de Liguori, Vol. 2 (Fribourg, Suisse, 1934); see also Vol. 1, pp.
252-382.
»DB E. Neubert, S.M., La doctrine mariale de Messier Chaminade (Paris, 1938);
T. Stanley, S.M., The Mystical Body of Christ according to the Writings of
Father William Joseph Chaminade: a Study of His Spiritual Writings (Fribourg,

314

MARIOLOGY

If we assign the contributions of Cardinal John Henry Newman*197
to the latter half of the nineteenth century, Chaminade is the sole
Mariologist worthy of note in the preceding fifty years. For, despite
the defeat of Jansenism, and notwithstanding the many gains regis­
tered in the Post-Tridentine era, Mariology was in low estate in the
early decades of the nineteenth century. Jansenism, though over­
come, had, along with rationalism, semirationalism, and Josephinism,
left its mark on all theology,198 and on the science of Mary in
particular.199 In this decadent epoch, the general works of theology
tended to neglect the traditional place given to Our Lady, being con­
tent to treat only of her divine Maternity and perpetual virginity.200
For their part, Mariologists were prone to exalt the Blessed Mother
without reference to tire whole of theology.201 In short, the unhealthy
gap between theology and Mariology, which Suârez had sought to
close, had widened.202
However, the labors of earlier theologians of Our Lady were to be
instrumental in bringing about a glorious renascence of Marian
studies. Their painstaking discussions on the Immaculate Conception
had ripened this doctrine for the solemn definition it came to receive
from Pope Pius IX, in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.
One of the salutary effects of that Papal pronouncement was the
gradual development of a rigorously scientific and adequate Mariol­
ogy, as an organically structured treatise distinct from, yet integrated
with, the rest of theology. A résumé of this providential evolution
Switzerland, 1952); excerpt from the same, Mary and the Mystical Body (The
Marian Library, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, 1953); F. Friedel, S.M.,
Dogmatic Foundation of Father Chaminade’s Doctrine of Filial Piety, in Marian
Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 208-217.
197 Cf. F. Friedel, S.M., The Mariology of Cardinal Newman (New York, 1928);
John Henry Newman: Maria im Heilsplan, (eingeleitet u. uebertragen von Birgitta
zu Muenster, O.S.B.) (Freiburg im Br., 1953); Most Rev. John J. Wright,
Mariology in the English-speaking World, in Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, pp.
11—26.
198 Cf. M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der katholischen Théologie seit dem
Ausgang der Vaeterzeit (Freiburg im Br., 1933), pp· 206—219; J. Bellamy, La
théologie catholique au XIXe siècle, ed. 3 (Paris, 1904), pp. 1-20; E. Hocedez,
S.J., Histoire de la théologie au XIXe siècle, Vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1949), pp. 13-24.
199 Cf. Bellamy, op. cit., p. 267; P. Régamey, O.P., Les plus beaux textes sur la
Vierge Marie (Paris, 1946), p. 295.
200 Cf. Bellamy, op. cit., p. 267.
201 Cf. Theology Digest, i (1953), p. 145 (summary of article on Mary and
the Church, by R. Laurentin, in La Vie Spirituelle, 86, 1952, pp. 295-304).
202 Cf. J. A. de Aldama, S.J., Mariologia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3
(Matriti, 1950), ρ· 289.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

315

is attempted in the next and last section of our brief history of
Mariology.
III. CONTEMPORARY MARIOLOGY (1854-1954)

In the century which has elapsed since the dogmatic definition
of the Immaculate Conception, many factors combined to produce
the present flourishing state of Marian studies.203 But chief among
them has been the efficacious influence of the Papal Magisterium.
The initial impetus delivered by Ineffabilis Deus was sustained and
augmented by a succession of other pontifical documents, from the
ten Rosary Encyclicals of Leo XIII to the manifold Marian pro­
nouncements of Pius XII.
To be sure, this Papal encouragement given to renewed serious
studies of Our Lady bore fruit only gradually, although the harvest
in the second half of the nineteenth century was not as lean as has
been suggested.20·* Positive theology was the first to reap the benefit of
the definition of the Immaculate Conception;205 either in preparation
for or as an aftermath of Ineffabilis Deus, there appeared the works of
Perrone, Guéranger, Passaglia, Ballerini, and Malou.200 On the
203 On these factors, for example, Catholic reaction to attacks on Marian doctrine
and cult (by Protestants, Old Catholics, Modernists, the Eastern Dissidents), the
celebration of Marian Congresses, the publication of source materials, the foundation
of Mariological Academies, Centers, and Societies, and the erection of university
chairs of Mariology, etc., cf. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. I, pp. 396-399; idem, La
Madonna seconde la Fede a la Teologia, Vol. 1, pp. 158-166. Mariological societies
will be dealt with at length elsewhere in the present work.
201 On the history of Mariology in the latter half of the nineteenth century,
cf. Hocedez, op. cit., Vol. 3 (Bruxelles-Paris, 1947), pp. 313-316; Bellamy, op. cit.,
pp. 267-281. A. Noyon, S.J., art. Mariolatrie, in Diet. Apologétique de la Foi
Catholique, Vol. 3 (Paris, 1926), col. 316, contends that few of the many works
produced in this period possessed lasting significance; H. Rondet, SJ., in his
preface to J.-B. Terrien, S.J., La Mère des homines, Vol. 1, ed. 8 (Paris, 1950),
pp. 46-47, believes that the Marian theology of the period concerned itself almost
exclusively with the Immaculate Conception. Both judgments appear too sweeping;
a glance at Hocedez, and at the nineteenth-century authors quoted in J. Carol,
De Corredemptione B. V. M., pp. 382-480, suffices to suggest that, between 1854
and 1900, a goodly company of writers dealt ably with a wide variety of Mariological
themes.
203 Cf. Bellamy, op. cit., pp. 270-273.
200 J. Perrone, S.J., De Immaculato B. V. Mariae Conceptu (Romae, 1847); P.
Guéranger, O.S.B., Mémoire sur la question de l'immaculée Conception de le trèssainte Vierge (Paris, 1850); C. Passaglia, De Immaculato Deiparae semper Virginis
Conceptu Commentarius, 3 vols. (Romae, 1854-1855); A. Ballerini, SJ., Sylloge
Monumentorum ad Mysterium Virginis Deiparae illustrandum, 2 vols. (Romae,
1854-1856); J. Malou, L’Immaculée Conception de la très-sainte Vierge Marie,
2 vols. (Bruxelles, 1857). On the source collections of Bourassé and Roskovany,

3i6

MARIOLOGY

speculative side, the science of the Blessed Mother achieved precious
growth with the Dogmatik of Matthias Joseph Scheeben (f 1888),
the century’s greatest theologian and Mariologist, in whom specu­
lative genius was wedded to a profound knowledge of the Church
Fathers, and of medieval and Post-Tridentine Scholasticism.*207 Meas­
ured against the towering figure of Scheeben, of lesser importance
are J. Petitalot,208 August Nicholas,209 Louis di Castelplanio,210 and
the Dominican, Van den Berg.211
To Scheeben goes the distinction of having labored more than
any other modern theologian to change Mariology into a scientific
whole, distinct from, yet tightly integrated with, the rest of theology
(especially with the treatise on the Church), and given inner co­
already mentioned (supra, note 15), and on that of R. de Fleury, likewise uncritical,
see Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 301, 302, 304-305.
207 Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 231; C. Feckes, in Scheeben-Feckes, Die Braeutliche
Gottesmutter (Freiburg im Br., 1936), pp. VIII-IX. Scheeben’s Mariologie is found
in the third volume of his Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (Freiburg im Br.,
1882), pp. 455-600 (§§ 274—282), as the fifth and final chapter of the treatise on
Christology: "The virginal Mother of the Savior and her relation to the work of
the Redemption.” However, the divine Maternity and the virginal conception of
Christ are treated in earlier chapters of the Christology. Feckes has gathered these
separated materials together and adapted them for easier reading, in the abovementioned Die Braeutliche Gottesmutter. A similar compilation is the Flemish
translation by H. van Waes, S.J., Systematische Mariologie, ed. 2 (Bruxelles, 1943),
with introduction and notes by E. Druwé, S.J. The foregoing has been rendered
into English by T. Geukers, Mariology, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1946-1947), with
translator’s preface, Vol. 1, pp. ΙΠ-XXXIV. An article by Scheeben in the periodical
Das oekumenische Konzil vom Jahre 1869, discussing the parallel between the
definition of Papal infallibility and that of the Immaculate Conception, has been
hailed as "a gem of Mariology” by J. Schmitz, who republished the article in
Maria, Schutzherrin der Kirche (Paderborn, 1936). Of interest also are Scheeben’s
early work, Marienbltiethen (Schaffhausen, i860), and a few pages in Die Herrlichkeiten der goettlichen Gnade, ed. 15 (A. Weiss, O.P.) (Freiburg im Br., 1925),
pp. ill—117, 580-582, 592, 651.
208 La Vierge Mère d'après la théologie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1866).
200 J_a Vierge Marie dans le plan divin, 4 vols. (Paris, 1869). This work of
Nicolas, a lay theologian, was acclaimed in its day as the definitive treatise on
Marian doctrine (an exaggeration, as Roschini notes, Mariologia, Vol. 1, p. 304).
Scheeben knew it in one of its many translations, and praised its rich theological
content (Die Mysterien des Christentums, ed. J. Weiger [Mainz, 1931], note 266);
in fact, he gave dogmatic foundation to many of its intuitions; cf. Geukers, op. cit.,
Vol. i, p. XVII.
210 Maria nel consiglio dell’Etemo, 3 vols. (Neapoli, 1872). Scheeben applauded
the Franciscan’s work as "sehr geistreich"; Handb. der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. 3,
p. 478.
211 Author of Beatissima Virgo Maria, one of his several excellent monographs on
Thomistic teaching; cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 272.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

317

Lésion by a fundamental principle of its own.212 His views on the
place Mariology should hold in the over-all system of theology are
best summed up in his own words:
I came to the conclusion that Mariology can and must be considered
a link connecting the doctrine on the Redeemer and His work with
tire doctrine on the grace of the Redeemer and its distribution by the
Church, and that, thus conceived, Mariology is called to occupy a much
more important place in the system of dogmatic theology than is
usually accorded it. As I endeavored to treat Mariology from this point
of view, it shaped itself as the development of the profound concept
of the ancient Church, which ideally beholds Mary in the Church,
and the Church in Mary (Apoc. 12, 1). Thus, in my conception of it,
Mariology, as the doctrine on the personal bride of Christ and the
personal spiritual mother of mankind, when conjoined with . . . the
doctrine on Christ as the head of a Mystical Body and as the priestly
Mediator of the supernatural life of this Body, becomes a rich source
of light for the doctrine on the Church, on her inner organism and
supernatural essence.213
Intimated in the above passage is Scheeben’s conception, original
with him — at least in its formulation — of what should be the master
principle of Mariology. The Cologne professor considered it to be
the most characteristic note of the Blessed Virgin that she is both
the Mother of Christ according to the flesh and His supernatural
spouse. Scheeben erected “this ‘matemal-sponsal character,’ as he
calls it, into the fundamental principle of Mariology, thus fusing in
most intimate fashion the divine maternity and Mary’s freely willed
association with Christ, in which others prefer to see a distinct
principle.”214
212 Cf. E. Druwé, S.J., Position et structure du Traité Marial, in Bull, de la
Soc. Franç. d'Études Mariales (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 2.4-29; Geukers, op. cit., Vol. 1,
pp. XVIII-XXXIII; C. Feckes, Die Stellung der Gottesmutter Maria in der Théologie
M. ]. Scheebens, in M. J. Scheeben, der Erneuerer katholischer Glaubenswissenschaft, ed. by Katholischen Akademikerverband, 1935.
213 Preface to Handb. der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. 3, p. VI.
214 E. Druwé, S.J., La Médiation universelle de Marie, in Maria, ed. H. du
Manoir, Vol. 1, p. 565. Among those who espoused Scheeben’s version of the
supreme principle of Mariology we may mention F. Schueth, S.J., Mediatrix
(Innsbruck, 1925); C. Feckes, Das Fundamentalprinzip der Mariologie, in Scientia
Sacra, Theologische Festgabe . . . (Duesseldorf, 1935), pp· 252-276; idem, Das
Mysterium des goettlichen Mutterschaft (Paderborn, 1937) — Engl, transi., The
Mystery of the Divine Motherhood (London, 1941); E. Druwé, art. cit., in Bull, de
la Soc. Franç. d'Études Mariales (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 24-29. Cf. Roschini, Mariologia,
Vol. I, pp. 328-330.

3i8

MARIOLOGY

Druwé remarks that, whatever one may hold as regards this
methodological question (the aforesaid fusion into the one funda­
mental principle of the “bridal motherhood”), “the perfect associa­
tion of Mary with the Redeemer — principium consortii —is recog­
nized today by all Mariologists as fundamental, in this double sense:
that it pertains to the donné chrétien originel and that it consti­
tutes, with the divine maternity, the foundation of all of Mary’s
prerogatives.”215
Not the least among Scheeben’s merits was his masterful vindica­
tion of Catholic devotion to Mary. “With the deep and synthetic
view that marked him as one of the greatest religious thinkers of the
past century, he incorporated the Catholic doctrine regarding Mary
into the whole of Catholic dogmatic theology. In doing so, he showed
in an unexcelled way how the veneration of Mary takes root in the
deepest soil of Christian belief.”216 Invaluable is his insight into the
root of Protestant antagonism toward the Marian doctrines and cult
of the Catholic Church : it is the intimate rapport between Mary and
the Church.217
Scheeben’s pioneering work was not heeded immediately.218 It
remained for the twentieth century to resume his efforts at organiz­
ing Marian doctrines into a complete and cohesive treatise, and, re­
discovering the ancient and medieval appreciation of the relationship
between Mary and the Church, to forge a strong bond between
Mariology and Ecclesiology.219 By and large, the late nineteenth­
century Mariologists were more interested in particular questions.
Understandably enough, they devoted a great deal of attention
to the Immaculate Conception, both in order to explain the new
215 E. Druwé, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. r, p. 565. On the
importance of the principium consortii for the right of Mariology to exist as a
distinct theological treatise, cf. Druwé, art. cit., in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. de
l'Études Mariales, (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 16-29.
216 Geukers, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. IV.
217 Cf. E. Druwé, art. cit., in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1, pp. 566-567;
Geukers, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. XXI.
218 Strange to relate, Scheeben’s enthusiasm for Marian dogma was shared by
few German theologians until quite recent years; cf. K. Rahner, S.J., Problème
heutiger Mariologie, in Xus der Théologie der Zeit, ed. G. Soehngen (Regensburg,
1948), P· 85.
219 Cf. supra, note 154; Theology Digest, 1, 1953, pp. 145-146, summary of
the article on Mary and the Church, by R. Laurentin, in La Vie Spirituelle, Vol.
86, 1952, pp. 295-304. The link between Mary and the Church was also known to,
and exploited by, the Bérullian school, before Scheeben came to give a more
theological expression to this tradition; cf. H. Rondet, preface to Terrien, La Mère
des hommes, Vol. 1, ed. 8, p. 39.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

319

dogma to the faithful, and to defend it against the attacks of rational­
ists, Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Dissidents.220 However,
as we have already indicated,221 the Marian scholars of this era
addressed themselves to other matters as well. With the proclamation
of the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s bodily Assumption into
heaven shone forth with a new radiance, and the study of this pre­
rogative became the order of the day, especially after many of the
bishops present at the Vatican Council requested that tire doctrine
be dogmatically defined.222
Another consequence, at least indirect, of the momentum imparted
to Marian theology by Ineffabilis Deus was a renewed interest in
and a more penetrating study of questions bearing on Mary’s role
as universal Mediatrix.223 Paving the way for the profound develop­
ments which the twentieth century brought to these themes, many
late nineteenth-century Mariologists, especially after the appearance
of the Rosary Encyclicals of Leo XIII, gave their attention to Our
Lady’s part in the acquisition and the distribution of all graces, and
to the concomitant doctrine of her spiritual Maternity.224
Thus, among the many who discussed Mary’s co-operation, even
proximate, in the objective Redemption, one may cite Frederick
William Faber, O. Van den Berghe, J. De Concilio, P. Jeanjacquot,
S.J., and Francis Risi.225
Jeanjacquot also deserves a place of honor in the history of the
discussion on Mary’s intervention in the distribution of all graces,
220 Cf. X. Le Bachelet, art. Immaculée Conception, in DTC, Vol. 7, cols.
1209-1218.
221 Cf. supra, note 204.
222 Cf. C. Balié, O.F.M., Testimonia de Assumptione B. V. M. ex omnibus saeculis.
Pars altera: Ex aetate post Concilium Tridentinum (Romae, 1950), pp. 281-464;
Hocedez, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp 314-315; J. Bellamy, art. Assomption, in DTC, Vol.
I, cols. 2140-2141; E. Campana, Maria nel dogma Cattolico, ed. 6 (Torino, 1946),
pp· 744-751·
,
223 Cf. Bellamy, La théologie catholique au XIXe siècle, ed. 3 (Paris, 1904J,
pp. 274-275.
221 Cf. J. Bainvel, S.J., art. Marie, in Diet. Apologétique de la Foi Catholique,
Vol. 3 (Paris, 1926), cols. 285-302; E. Dublanchy, art. Marie, in DTC, Vol. 9,
cols, 2389-2409; Hocedez, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 315-3’6.
225 F. Faber, The Foot of the Cross (London, 1857); O. Van den Berghe, Marie
et le Sacerdoce, ed. 2 (Paris, 1875); J. De Concilio, The Knowledge of Mary
(New York, 1878); P. Jeanjacquot, Simples explications sur la coopération de la
Très-Sainte Vierge à l’oeuvre de la Rédemption et sur sa qualité de Mère des
Chrétiens, ed. 3 (Paris, 1889); F. Risi, Sul motivo primario dell’lncarnazione del
Verbo (Brescia, 1898). On these and other authors, cf. J. Carol, De Corredemptione
B. V. M., pp. 382-480; L. Riley, Historical Conspectus of the Doctrine of Mary’s
Co-Redemption, in Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951, pp. 81-92.

320

MARIOLOGY

a discussion thereafter taken up and notably advanced by R. de la
Broise, S.J.;228 J.-B. Terrien, S.J.;22T J.-V. Bainvel, S.J.;228 and E.
Hugon, O.P.229 Furthered by the celebration of Marian Congresses
dedicated to Mary’s “maternity of grace,”230 and by Cardinal Mer­
cier’s enthusiasm on the subject of Our Lady’s universal Mediation,231
this topic, along with that of the Coredemption, has remained the
object of intense study down to the present.232
Intense, in fact, have been the labors of tire past several decades
to consolidate and to enlarge the whole realm of our knowledge of
the Blessed Mother. In consequence, Marian science has now
achieved truly marvelous development.
Thus, excellent general treatises, adequate in content and scien­
tifically organized and executed, now abound.233 Symposia, such as
226 R. de la Broise, Sur cette proposition: Toutes les grâces nous viennent par la
Sainte Vierge, in Études, Vol. 68, 1896, pp. 5-31; reproduced in R. de la Broise
and J. Bainvel, Marie Mère de grâce (Paris, 1921); R. de la Broise, La sainte Vierge
au XIXe siècle, in Études, Vol. 83, 1900.
227 J.-B. Terrien, Marie, Mère de Dieu, 2 vols. (Paris, 1896-1900), and
Marie, Mère des hommes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1899-1902); on this influential work see
H. Rondet’s preface to the eighth edition of La Mère des hommes, Vol. 1, pp.
44-48.
228 J.-V. Bainvel, Le "Fiat" de I'lncamation, in Quatrième Congrès marial breton
tenu au Folgoât en l’honneur de Marie, Mère de grâce (4-6 sept. 1913), Compte
rendu (Quimper, 1915), pp. 139-146; De la Broise and Bainvel, Marie, Mère de
grâce (Paris, 1921). Cf. also Hocedez, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 316, on Bainvel’s paper
read at the International Marian Congress at Fribourg, Switzerland, August, 18—21,
1902.
229 E. Hugon, La Mère de grâce (Paris, 1904).
230 At Fribourg, 1902; Folgoat, 1913; etc. For a chronological list of these and
similar events which have spurred Marian studies in the past fifty years, see J.
Besutti, O.S.M., Cinquante ans Çt 900-1950'), in Marie (Nicolet, Quebec, ed. R.
Brien), Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 14-16. For data on the proceedings of the many
Marian Congresses, cf. E. Campana, Maria net culto Cattolico, Vol. 2, ed. 2, cura
G. Roschini, (Torino, 1946), pp. 487-652.
231 J. Coppens, art. Belgique, in DTC, Tables générales (Paris, 1953), col. 401:
Mariology received a remarkable impetus from what one has called the “intuitions”
of Cardinal Mercier, who wished the Church to proclaim the universal Mediation of
Mary as a dogma; he obtained the co-operation of C. Van Crombrugghe, B.
Merkelbach, J. Lebon, J. Bittremieux.
232 Cf. Campana, Maria nel dogma Cattolico, ed. 6 (Torino, 1946), pp. 171—184,
250-252; E. Druwé, S.J., La Médiation universelle de Marie, ed. H. du Manoir,
Vol. I, pp. 417-572; T. Koehler, S.M., Maternité spirituelle de Marie, in Maria,
ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1, pp. 573—600; extensive bibliographies are provided in
and at the end of both articles; literature on the question of the Coredemption will
be cited below.
233 Certainly the most comprehensive treatise, and one indispensable to all
theologians, is that of G. Roschini, O.S.M., Mariologia, 4 vols., ed. 2 (Romae,
1947-1948); an adaptation of this work, somewhat more up to date, is the same

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

321

those edited by Fathers du Manoir and Striker, bring together the
ripest fruits of Marian scholarship and make them available to a
wide public.*
234235
*
The specialized literature has reached mountainous proportions;
countless are the monographs, and the studies and articles appearing
in the annuals of the various Mariological societies,23’ in the theo­
logical periodicals of general interest,238 and in those exclusively
devoted to the science of Our Lady.237 So vast is this literary produc­
author’s La Madonna seconde la Fede e la Teologia, 3 vols. (Roma, 1953); there
is also Roschini’s smaller manual, Summula Mariologiae (Romae, 1952). A select
list of other established treatises would include: G. Alastruey, Mariologia, 2 vols.
(Vallisoleti, 1934/1942); J. de Aldama, S.J., Mariologia, in Sacrae Theologiae
Summa, Vol. 3 (Matriti, 1950), pp. 288-418; D. Bertetto, S.D.B., Maria nel
dogma cattolico (Torino, 1950); C. Boyer, S.J., Synopsis Praelectionum de B. M.
Virgine (Romae, 1952); F. Dander, S.J., Summarium tractatus dogmatici de
Matre-Socia Salvatoris (Oeniponte, 1952); idem, Mariologia, in L. Lercher, Institu­
tiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, ed. 3, Vol. 3 (Oeniponte, 1942), pp. 279-359; R·
Garrigou-Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour, Engl, transi, by B. Kelly, C.S.Sp.
(Dublin, 1949); J. Keuppens, Soc. Miss. Afr., Mariologiae Compendium (Antwerpiae, 1938); A. Janssens, De Heilige Maagd en Moeder Gods Maria, 4 vols.
(Anvers, 1928-1932); H. Lennerz, S.J., De B. Virgine, ed. 3 (Romae, 1939); B.
Merkelbach, O.P., Mariologia (Parisiis, 1939); E. Neubert, S.M., Marie dans
le dogme, ed. 2 (Paris, 1946); A. Plessis, S.M.M., Manuale Mariologiae dogmaticae
(Pontchateau, 1942); Pohle-Preuss, Mariology (St. Louis, 1926); Pohle-Gierens,
Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, Vol. 2, ed. 9 (Paderborn, 1937), pp. 248-315; ScheebenGeukers, Mariology, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1946—1947); M. Schmaus, Katholische
Dogmatik, Vol. 2, ed. 3-4 (Muenchen, 1949), pp· 609-638, 879-908. Nor may
we overlook the classic works of E. Campana, Maria nel dogma Cattolico, ed. 6
(Torino, 1946), and Maria nel culto Cattolico, 2 vols., ed. 2, cura G. Roschini
(Torino, 1946).
234 Maria. Études sur la Sainte Vierge, sous la direction d’Hubert du Manoir,
S.J., Vol. i (Paris, 1949); Vol. 2 (Paris, 1952); Katholische Marienkunde, ed.
Paul Strater, S.J., 3 vols. (Paderborn, 1947-1951).
235 Cf. Roschini, La Madonna seconde la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. 1, pp. 161164; J. Carol, The Mariological Movement in the World Today, in Marian Studies,
Vol. i, 1950, esp. pp. 27—29. Valuable materials are also contained in the published
proceedings of Mariological Congresses.
233 Gregorianum, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Nouvelle Revue Théo­
logique, Theological Studies, The Thomist, etc. The American Ecclesiastical Review
has for years included an article on Our Lady in every issue; a select cross section
of these articles was published as Studies in Praise of Our Blessed Mother (Wash­
ington, D. C., 1952).
237 Marianum, edited by G. Roschini, O.S.M., published at Rome, since 1939;
Ephemerides Mariologicae, published by the Claretian Fathers in Madrid, since 1951.
Mention may also be made of Marie, edited by R. Brien at Nicolet, Quebec, since
1947; although this periodical is not primarily theological in character, it often
contains short papers by theologians of note.

322

MARIOLOGY

tion that bibliographers are hard put to record it,238 while Marian
Centers are equally hard pressed to collect and to house it in special
libraries.239 If we may high-light some of the more important features
of contemporary Mariology, the first to be noted is the growing pre­
occupation with the declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium,
the ordinary as well as the extraordinary.240 This is a most fruitful
development. For one tiling, such declarations furnish the supreme
arguments in theology, and are an indispensable safeguard in inter­
preting the data of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.241 Moreover, the
ecclesiastical magisterium is not only the authentic interpreter of all
doctrinal evolution in the Church: it is at the same time, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, the principal agent of all such
evolution —a spur to the further development of doctrine.2’2 As
J. Dillersberger remarks:

The teaching Church from time to time in its dogmatic decisions
determines the definitive form of such progress. But long before this
there came from the teaching Church the stimuli to new develop238 Cf. Roschini, La Madonna seconda la Fede e la Teologia, Vol. I, pp. 167170. A critical and complete Marian bibliography does not yet exist, although one
is in preparation by the Servîtes of the International College of St. Alexius
Falconieri in Rome. Some idea of their task may be gotten from the prodigious
literary output of just two of the century’s leading Mariologists, the late J. Bittremieux
and Roschini; the 175 distinct publications of the former are listed by J. Coppens,
L'enseignement et l’oeuvre théologique de M. le Chanoine J. Bittremieux, in
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 23, 1947, pp. 367-377; a partial
catalogue of Rosellini’s writings down to 1949 runs to nine pages in the com­
pilation of J. Besutti, O.S.M., Gli scritti del P. M.o Gabriele M. Roschini, O.S.M.,
in Marianum, Vol. 11, 1949, pp. 496-505. Abundant bibliographical information
is available in the issues of Marianum, Ephemerides Mariologicae, Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses, etc.; and in the Ragguaglio Mariano, published annually
by the International Marian Center, Rome. H. Rondet gives a select bibliography
at the end of lus preface to J.-B. Terrien, La Mère des homines, Vol. 1, ed. 8,
pp. 62-76.
230 Cf. L. Monheim, S.M., Some Marian Collections in the World, in Marian
Studies, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 46-55. The 1949 Booklist of the Marian Library, Uni­
versity of Dayton, Ohio, contains 10,539 entries.
240 As all know, it is not only in the solemn pronouncements of popes and of
ecumenical councils but also in the exercise of her ordinary and universal teaching
office that the Church sets forth things to be believed with divine and Catholic
faith; cf. Concilium Vaticanum, sessio 3, cap. 3 (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, En­
chiridion Symbolorum, n. 1792). See the valuable article by P. Franquesa, C.M.F.,
Magisterio Ordinario y Mariologia, in Ephemerides Mariologicae, Vol. 4, 1954,
pp. 25-66.
241 Cf. Pope Pius XII, ency., Humani generis, August 12, 1950; A.A.S., Vol. 42,
1950, p. 567; N.C.W.C. translation, nn. 18, 21.
242 Cf. C. Dillenschneider, C.SS.R., Marie au service de notre Rédemption
(Hagenau, Bas-Rhin, 1947), p. 45.

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

323

ment — we experience this especially in those truths which revolve
around Mary.243
As concrete evidence of the keen attention now being given to
the magisterium by Our Lady’s scholars, one may cite the collections
of Papal documents on Mary,214 various studies on the Marian doc­
trine of individual popes,243 and other studies on particular questions
in the light of Papal teachings.240 To date, these explorations have
confined themselves pretty much to the Papal magisterium; rich and
243 J. Dillersberger, Das neue Wort ueber Maria (Salzburg, 1947), p. 10; C.
Feckes, The Mystery of the Divine Motherhood (London, 1941), pp. 137-138: the
popes “have indicated the way which the theologian must follow to complete the
portrait of Mary.”
244 Cf. Le Encicliche Mariane, ed. A. Tondini (Roma, 1950); reproduces, in
their original language and with Italian or Latin translations, 56 documents from
February 2, 1849, to May 1, 1948, with a complete elenchus (pp. 579-626) of
all documents from 1849 to July 16, 1949; R. Graber, Die marianischen Weltrundschreiben der Paepste in den letzten hundert Jahren (Wuerzburg, 1951)—in­
cludes several useful indexes; W. Doheny and J. Kelly, Papal Documents on Mary
(Milwaukee, 1954) —36 documents from 1849 to 1953.
245 Cf., for example, G. Roschini, I Papi e Maria, in Marianum, Vol. 4, 1942,
PP· 153-166; J. Bittremieux, Doctrina Mariana Leonis XIII, in Ephemerides Theol.
Lovanienses, Vol. 4, 1927, pp. 359—383; idem, Ex doctrina Mariana Pii XI, in
Ephemerides Theol. Lovanienses, Vol. 11, 1934, pp. 95—101; G. Roschini, La
Madonna nel pensiero e nell’insegnamento di Pio XI, in Marianum, Vol. 1,
>939> pp· 121—172; idem, La Madonna nell’Enciclica 'Mystici Corporis Christi,' in
Marianum, Vol. 6, 1944, p. 108-117; J· Dillersberger, Das neue Wort ueber Maria
(Salzburg, 1947) —the entire book is a commentary on the Marian epilogue of
the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi; C. Balié, O.F.M., De doctrina philosophica
et theologica Pii Papae XII eiusque momento (Ad Claras Aquas, 1949), pp. 91-98;
D. Bertetto, S.D.B., La dottrina Mariana di Pio XII, in Salesianum, Vol. 11, 1949,
pp. 1-24; J. Carol, O.F.M., Mary’s Co-Redemption in the Teaching of Pope Pius
XII, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 121, 1949, pp. 353-361; and,
of course, the innumerable commentaries on the Apostolic Constitution, Munifi­
centissimus Deus, November 1, 1950, defining the bodily Assumption of Our Lady
into heaven.
246 To cite but a few, cf. H. Seiler, S.J., Corredemptrix. Theologische Studie zur
Lehre der letzten Paepste ueber die Miterloeserschaft Mariens (Rom, 1939); J.
Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione B. V. M. (Civitas Vaticana, 1950), pp. 509-539;
A. Baumann, Maria Mater nostra spiritualis. Eine theologische Üntersuchung ueber
die geistige Mutterschaft Mariens in den Aeusserungen der Paepste vom Tridentinum bis heute (Brixen, 1948); G. Shea, The Teaching of the Magisterium on
Mary's Spiritual Maternity, in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 35-110; E. Carroll,
O.Carm., Our Lady's Queenship in the Magisterium of the Church, in Marian
Studies, Vol. 4, 1953, pp. 29-108; A. Robichaud, S.M., The Immaculate Con­
ception in the Magisterium of the Church before 1854, in Marian Studies, Vol. 5,
>954· PP· 73-J45; A. Wolter, O.F.M., The Theology of the Immaculate Concep­
tion in the Light of 'Ineffabilis Deus,’ in Marian Studies, Vol. 5, 1954, pp. 19-72.

324

MARIOLOGY

inviting vein though they be, quite unexploited as yet are the teach­
ings of the universal episcopate.247
Another heartening feature of contemporary Marian studies is the
high level of biblical Mariology. Noteworthy is the conscientious
effort of scholars to determine and apply the principles involved in
the explanation of the Marian texts of Sacred Scripture.248 On these
many passages249 countless new commentaries have appeared, geared
to the great progress of modern biblical science. Invaluable, although
at times ultraconservative, is die Mariologia biblica of Father Ceuppens, which endeavors to expound all the major Marian texts of the
Bible.200 Among the many other general works of lasting significance
one must single out for express mention those of the Dominican,
F.-M. Braun, and the Jesuit, Paul Gachter.251 Illustrative of the
numerous major studies of particular texts are the contributions of
J.-F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., T. Gallus, S.J., and B. Le Frois, S.V.D.202
247 J. Carol, O.F.M., has gathered and analyzed episcopal teaching on his favorite
subject: Episcoporum doctrina de Beata Virgine Corredemptrice, in Marianum,
Vol. to, 1948, pp. 210-258; idem, De Corredemptione B.V.M., pp. 539-619. The
mind of Pope Pius IX’s fellow bishops on the Immaculate Conception was ex­
pressed in their replies to his encyclical, Ubi primum (February 2, 1849), which
were published in Pareri dell’Episcopato Cattolico . . . sulla definizione dogmatica
dell’Immacolato Concepimento della Beata Vergine Maria, 10 vols. (Roma, 1851—
1854). The mind of many bishops on the doctrine of the Assumption, as indicated
in petitions sent to the Holy See between 1869-1941, can be seen in the
monumental work of W. Hentrich, S.J., and R. De Moos, S.J., Petitiones de
Assumptione Corporea B. V. Mariae in caelum definienda ad Sanctam Sedem
delatae, 2 vols. (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1942). The materials in this work,
in the Pareri ... , in the Collectio Lacensis and similar collections, in pastoral
letters, catechisms, etc., invite study insofar as they reflect the mind of the
universal episcopate on many other Mariological topics, e.g., Mary's spiritual
Maternity; cf. G. Shea, art. cit., in Marian Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 39, 53-54.
24s Cf. D. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology, in
Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp. 67—116; S. Alameda, O.S.B., La Mariologia y
las fuentes de la revelacidn, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 1, 1942, pp. 41-72.
24s Cf. A. Robert, P.S.S., La Sainte Vierge dans l’Ancien Testament, in Maria,
ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1, pp. 21-39; A. Bea, S.J., Dos Marienbild des Alten
Bundes, in Katholische Marienkunde, ed. Strater, Vol. 1, pp. 23-43; G. Hilion,
La Sainte Vierge dans le Nouveau Testament, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1,
pp. 43-68; A. Merk, S.J., Das Marienbild des Neuen Blindes, in Katholische
Marienkunde, ed. Strater, Vol. 1, pp. 44-84; Scheeben-Geukers, Mariology, Vol.
i, pp. 9-41; Scheeben-Feckes, Die Braeuttiche Gottesmutter, pp. 1-18.
250 F. Ceuppens, O.P., De Mariologia biblica (Theologia biblica, 4), ed. 2
(Taurini, 1951).
251 F.-M. Braun, O.P., La Mère des fidèles. Essai de théologie johannique (Paris,
1953); P· Gâchter, S.J., Maria im Erdenleben. Neutestamentliche Marienstudien
(Innsbruck, 1953).
252 J.-F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., Le mystère de Marie selon le Protévangile et
l'Apocalypse (Paris, 1949); T. Gallus, S.J., Interpretatio mariologica Protoevangelii

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

325

Nor has that other branch of positive theology been neglected,
study of the monuments of Tradition. The impetus which was given
to such study by the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Concep­
tion and by subsequent non-Catholic attacks on the newly defined
dogma was intensified by Modernist opposition to Marian doctrines
(A. Loisy, J. Turmel, H. Koch, and others),253 by the century-long
movement culminating in the solemn definition of Our Lady’s cor­
poral Assumption, and by controversies among Catholic theologians
on Mariological questions still open to debate. Linder this stimulation
scholars have produced a vast literature exhibiting and evaluating the
Marian testimonies of the Church Fathers and of the ancient lit­
urgies.25'1 In addition, as our footnotes will have suggested, the Mario­
logical teachings of earlier theologians have been the object of tireless
research.255
Discussions on the systematic treatment of Mariology are another
remarkable feature of the contemporary scene.256 Involved here are
several questions, intimately interrelated: the right of Mariology to
exist as a distinct tract within the theological system, the proper
location of that distinct treatise within the over-all system, the organ­
ization and structure of the treatise, and the existence and nature of
a first principle which would preside over the structure of Mariology,
giving the treatise organic unity and order.257 The problem as to the
(Gen. 3, 15) tempore postpatristico usque ad Cone. Tridentinum (Romae, 1949);
idem, Interpretatio mariologica Protoevangelii posttridentina usque ad definitionem
dogmaticam Immaculatae Conceptionis. Pars prior: aetas aurea . . . usque ad
annum 1660 (Romae, 1953); B. Le Frois, S.V.D., The Woman Clothed With
the Sun (Rome, 1954); D. J. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The First-Gospel: Genesis 3, 15
(Saint Bonaventure, N. Y., 1954).
258 Cf. E. Dublanchy, art. Marie, in DTC, Vol. 9, cols. 2345-2347; E. Campana,
Maria nel dogma Cattolico, ed. 6, pp. 603-606, 625-652.
254 For orientation in this field, cf. Katholische Marienkunde, ed. Straeter, Vol.
I, pp. 85-136 (articles on the Eastern Fathers and liturgies), pp. 137—267 (articles
on the Latin Fathers and liturgies); G. Jouassard, Marie à travers la Patristique, in
Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1, pp. 71-157; see also pp. 215-361, articles on
Mary in the liturgies.
255 Mention may be made here of the small but useful anthology of P. Palmer,
S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (Westminster, Md., 1952), containing
annotated selections from the ecclesiastical magisterium, from Church Fathers and
theologians.
258 Cf. F. Connell, C.SS.R., Toward a Systematic Treatment of Mariology, in
Marian Studies, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 56-66.
257 Cf. Connell, art. cit.; E. Druwé, S.J., Position et structure du Traité Marial,
in Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d'Études Mariales (Juvisy, 1936), pp. 7-34; R. Laurentin,
Le problème initial de méthodologie mariale, in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1,
pp. 695-706.

326

MARIOLOGY

nature of the fundamental principle of Mariology is complicated by
various questions on the nexus between the different prerogatives of
Our Lady,258 and has, in consequence, given rise to a great number
of opinions.259
Side by side with these general and methodological problems, many
particular questions of Mariology have been the center of contem­
porary interest. Quite naturally, the Apostolic Constitution, Munifi­
centissimus Detis (November i, 1950), the first centenary of Ineffa­
bilis Deus (December 8, 1854), and the exhortations of the
encyclical Fttlgens corona (September 8, 1953), have focused atten­
tion on the sublime and interconnected prerogatives of the Immaculate
Conception of Our Blessed Mother and of her corporal Assumption
into heaven. As to the many other topics currently of major interest,280
limitations of space permit only the bare mention of two, Our Lady’s
role of Coredemptrix,281 and her relationship with the Church.282
258 Cf. L. Everett, C.SS.R., The Nexus between Mary’s Co-Redemption and her
other Prerogatives, in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp. 132—137.
259 Cf. for discussion and bibliography, G. Roschini, La Madonna seconde la
Fede la Teologia, Vol. 1, pp. 97-116; idem, Mariologia, Vol. 1, pp. 324—337; A.
Mueller, Um die Grundlage der Mariologie, in Divus Thomas (Fribourg), Vol. 29,
1951, pp. 385-401 (summary in Theology Digest, Vol. 1, 1953, pp. 139-144); E.
Ledvorowski, Maternitas divina fundamentum Mariologiae, in Marianum, Vol. 15,
I953> PP- 176-194·
260 Cf. G. Philips, Sommes-nous entrés dans une phase mariologique?, in
Marianum, Vol. 14, 1952, pp. 1—48; idem, Les problèmes actuels de la théologie
mariale, in Marianum, Vol. 11, 1949, pp. 24-53; A. Michel, Chronique de Théologie
mariale, in L'Ami du Clergé, Vol. 60, 1950, pp. 33-48, 97—112; J. Carol, The
Mariological Movement in the World Today, in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp.
32-45·
281 Cf. J. B. Carol, art. cit., in Marian Studies, Vol. 1, 1950, pp. 34-37; idem,
De Corredemptione B. V. Mariae (Civitas Vaticana, 1950), bibliography, pp. 9-42;
idem, The Problem of Our Lady’s Coredemption, in The American Ecclesiastical
Review, Vol. 123, July, 1950, pp. 32-51; idem, Our Lady's Coredemption in the
Marian Literature of Nineteenth Century America, in Marianum, Vol. 14, 1952,
pp. 49-63; Marian Studies, Vol. 2, 1951 (the volume is devoted mainly to this
question); C. Boyer, S.J., Thoughts on Mary's Coredemption, in Studies in Praise
of Our Blessed Mother, ed. Fenton-Benard (Washington, D. C., 1952), pp. 147161 ; Alma Socia Christi (Acta Congressus Mariologici-mariani Romae anno sancto
1950 celebrati), Vol. 2 (Romae, 1952), entirely devoted to this question; additional
bibliography in L. Leloir, La médiation mariale dans la théologie contemporaine
(Bruges-Paris, 1933), and in C. Dillenschneider, Marie au service de notre Rédemp­
tion (Haguenau, 1947); idem, Pour une Corédemption mariale bien comprise
(Rome, 1949); idem, Le mystère de la Corédemption mariale. Théories nouvelles
(Paris, 1951). Closely connected with Our Lady’s Coredemption is the specific
question of Mary’s share in the priesthood of Christ. By far the best publications on
this subject are those of René Laurentin, Maria, Ecclesia, Sacerdotium; essai sur
le développement d'une idée religieuse (Paris, 1952); and Marie, l'Eglise et le Sacer­
doce; étude théologique (Paris, 1953); cf. also the same author’s important con-

MARIOLOGY: MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

327

The theological deepening of these themes will, as has been the case
with earlier Mariological developments, both reveal new facets in
the gems adorning Our Lady’s radiant crown of glory and, at the
same time, yield precious new insights into the entire deposit of faith.
tribution Rôle de Marie et de l'Eglise dans l'oeuvre salvifique du Christ, in
Bulletin de la Société Française d’Études Mariales, Vol. ίο, 1952, pp. 43-62.
282 Cf. G. Philips, Perspectives mariologiques. Marie et l'Eglise. Essai bibliographi­
que, in Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 436-511; H. Lennerz, S.J., Maria-Ecclesia,
in Gregorianum, Vol. 35, 1954, pp. 90-98; Études Mariales. Marie et l’Eglise, I
(Bull, de la Soc. Franç. d’Études Mariales, Paris, 1951); H. de Lubac, S.J.,
Méditation sur l’Église (Paris, 1953), pp. 273—329; K. Delahaye, Maria: Typus der
Kirche, in Wissenschaft und Wahrheit, Vol. 5, 1949, pp. 79-92; Y. Congar, O.P.,
Le Christ, Marie, et l’Église (Bruges, 1952); additional bibliography in Theology
Digest, Vol. I, 1953, pp. 139-145, and particularly in R. Laurentin, Bibliographie
critique sur Marie et l'Eglise, in Bulletin de la Société Française d’Études Mariales
(Paris, 1953), PP- 145-152·

Mary’s Immaculate Conception*
By AIDAN CARR, O.F.M.Conv., S.T.D., and
GERMAIN WILLIAMS, O.F.M.Conv., S.T.D.

HE Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the
Virgin Mary was formulated with absolute precision and for all
time in the Bull of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, on December 8,
1854. The essential words of the definition are these:

T

The most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception,
was by the singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of
the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune
from all stain of original sin. This doctrine is revealed by God and
therefore must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.1

As is evident from the terms of this proposition, there are two
constitutive elements in the definition: 1. a declaration of the privi­
lege itself of the Immaculate Conception; 2. a statement of the
certitude of that privilege.

i. DECLARATION OF THE PRIVILEGE

In order the better to understand what is contained within this
singular privilege of Christ’s Mother, one may examine the com­
ponent parts, or “causes,” of the Immaculate Conception. These are:
a~) Material cause, or subject. Obviously, the subject of the Immac­
ulate Conception is the -person of the Blessed Virgin Mary, considered
in the first instant of her conception in the womb of her mother. A
human begins to be, in the true sense, at the moment the soul is
created by God and infused into the fetus, and this is the moment
* Editor's Note. According to our original plans, this paper, and the one im­
mediately following, were to be published in the second volume of this set, devoted
to the systematic treatment of Our Lady’s prerogatives. Since an extensive paper on
the Mariology of the Eastern Fathers, intended for the first volume, was not avail­
able in time, it was decided to exchange places in order to achieve the desirable
balance in the over-all number of pages.
1 D.B., No. 1641.

328

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

329

of animation. That is called Mary’s "passive conception.” Passive
conception is the terminus of the parents’ generative act, which act
is, by way of contradistinction, called “active conception.”2
Before the human fetus is informed by a rational soul, the concep­
tion is known as “inchoate,” while from the instant of the animation
of the fetus, the conception is “consummated.”3 It is solely when
the fetus is consummately conceived that a person has come into
being. At precisely what stage of fetal development the soul is
created and infused by God has always provided theologians with
material for subtle discussion, but modern writers commonly favor
tire opinion that it takes place at the very first moment of fecundation.
The definition of the Immaculate Conception offers no intimation
as to the official teaching of the Church on the point.
Surely it would be untenable to argue in favor of any sanctification
of Mary prior to the animation of the fetus, for until the moment
of the substantial union between soul and body there is not yet a
person, and hence no possible subject of grace. Only a rational person
can be sanctified. The privilege accordingly affects uniquely the person
of the Virgin, and not merely the soul nor merely the virginal body
of the Mother of God. The initial sanctity of Mary concerns exclu­
sively her personal conception achieved in sanctifying grace. Her free­
dom from the stain of all sin is identified with her being and her
personality.4
b) Formal cause, or object. This aspect of the privilege of the
Immaculate Conception concerns the fact of the preservation of the
Virgin from all stain of original sin. The definition directly denies
that she contracted the guilt of Adam’s curse, and so indirectly it
affirms, because of the diametrical opposition between sin and grace,
that she possessed sanctifying grace from the first instance of her per­
sonal existence. Original sin, according to the settled teaching of the
Church, is the deprivation of grace inflicted upon the posterity of
Adam as a consequence of his personal sin; it is a radical enmity
between a sinful mankind and the Creator.5 Therefore, directly to
exempt Mary from this essential effect of original sin is indirectly to
affirm that she enjoyed an original sanctity through grace, with its
2 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., Mariologia (Parisiis, 1939), p. 105 ff.
3 For a thorough treatment of the species of conception, cf. G. Alastruey, Mario­
logia (Vallisoleti, 1934), Vol. I, p. 180 ff.
4 Cf. Ephrem Longpré, O.F.M., Exposition du Dogme de l’immaculée Conception,
in Deuxième Congrès Marial National (Lourdes, 1930), p. 81.
3 DTC, Vol. 7, cols. 845-846.

33°

MARIOLOGY

accompanying adoptive filiation as a child of God. She was ever on
terms of perfect friendship with God.®
Similarly, the privilege of the Immaculate Conception is expressed
negatively when it is stated that Mary was always without original
sin. It is expressed positively when it is stated that she always had
sanctifying grace. While in the words of the very definition of the
doctrine the formula employs the negative statement, yet in other
cognate sections of the Bull Ineffabilis Deus the positive aspect re­
ceives due emphasis. A like duality of expression of the Virgin’s sanc­
tity, two sides of the one coin, appears in the writings of the Fathers
of the Church and of later theologians, wherein sometimes is empha­
sized the negation of all sin, while again is stressed rather the positive
fullness of grace.T
The angels and our first parents, prior to the angelic and human
falls from grace, were immune from any sin, actual or original. But
their immunity is to be distinguished from that proper to the Mother
of God, for she was preserved immune. As will be seen in greater
detail later, the immunity attributed to her was divinely provided for
in view of the merits of Christ, which were applied to her in an
exceptional and unique manner. She was redeemed.8 The grace
which adorned the angelic nature, like that granted to Adam and
Eve, was “owed” to them in the hypothesis that God had decreed the
elevation of the angels and of our first parents to the supernatural
order. Having so to speak “obligated” Himself to give the means by
which alone such an elevation could be realized, God accordingly
constituted the angels and the first man and woman in a state of
sanctifying grace.9 But in the case of Mary', although in fact she was,
in virtue of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, constituted
in grace from the first moment of her existence, nevertheless as a
lineal descendant of Adam’s infected nature, she would have been
conceived in sin, had not God intervened to preserve her.10 This
6 Cf. Charles Gonthier, Marie et le Dogme (Paris, 1920), pp. 26-33.
7 Cf. C. Passaglia, S.J., De Immaculato Deiparae semper Virginis conceptu
(Romae, 1855), Sec. 1, 2, 3. Cf. also Sedulius, In Carmina Paschalia, lib. 2, v.
28, PL, 19, 596; Opera Augustini, appendix, PL, 8, nor; Opera Augustini, sermo
123, PL, 5, 1990; Ivo, In serm. de Nativit. Domini, PL, 162, 570. For Eastern
thought on this, cf. S. M. Le Bachelet, L’lmniacolata Concezione (Roma, 1904),
Parte I: L’Oriente. Specifically for Spain, cf. I. M. Oller, Espana y la Inmaculada
Concepciôn (Madrid, 1905), passim.
8Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 847.
8 Cf. S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., I, q. 95, a. 1.
10 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., L'Immaculée Conception dans L’Écriture sainte et
dans la tradition orientale (Rome, 1952), p. il.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

331

miraculous preservation will be considered at length in a subsequent
part of this article.
Finally, the immunity of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the stain of
man’s primal sin is specifically different from the freedom possessed
by her divine Son.11 He had no human father according to the flesh,
for the active principle of His carnal generation was the overshadow­
ing action of the Holy Spirit, in virtue of which His Mother con­
ceived Him.12 Since no seed of Adam begot Christ, there can be no
question of tainted human nature in any way infecting Him. Surely
the Redeemer of mankind needed no redemption!
c) Efficient cause of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception
is God, or rather His great love for the woman destined to be the
Mother of the Incarnate Word. This divine benevolent love moti­
vated God to preserve Mary from the stain of all sin, in view of her
sacred Maternity and through the merits of Christ her Son. This
wondrous immunity effected by God’s love and special providence
still numbered Mary among the redeemed, but with the unique
modality of redemption that might better be called “preredemption”
or “redemption in a more sublime manner” than that accorded to
all other children of Adam. While in the case of the rest of man­
kind the merits of the Saviour are applied in suchwise as to free
them from the guilt of original sin already contracted at their concep­
tion; in Mary’s case, on the contrary, the fruit of Christ’s redeeming
life and death was applied in suchwise as to preserve her from ever
contracting Adam’s guilt. Accordingly, this gratuitous concession on
the part of God did not infringe at all on the formality of the
Saviour’s redemptive role.13
While the redemption obtained by other humans is properly de­
scribed as “restorative” or “liberative,” that of Mary is simply known
as “preservative,” and is incomparably of a nobler kind.
In this light it is evident that the doctrine of the Immaculate Con­
ception does not derogate from the universality of Christ’s Redemp­
tion, for Mary, although immaculately conceived, was still redeemed
by her Son, whose theandric life and piacular death contain the
meritorious cause of His Mother’s singular grace. It was the difficulty
of a seeming derogation from the universality of Christ’s redemption
which had prevented theologians prior to the Franciscan, Duns Scotus
(t 1308), from affirming the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Concep11 Cf. S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., Ill, q. 31, a. 7.
12 Lk. 1:35.
13 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., Mariologia, p. 108.

332·

MARIOLOGY

tion. It is the particular glory of Scotus, in regard to the entire doc­
trine of tire Immaculate Conception, that he demonstrated not only
the nonrepugnance of the dogma in the context of mankind’s original
sin, but its nonrepugnance as well in the context of Christ’s universal
Redemption. Other theologians denied that Mary was conceived in
grace because they were persuaded that to admit it would be to
detract from the honor due Christ. It remained for Scotus, on the
contrary, to show that by denying the Immaculate Conception one
indeed would derogate from the excellence of Christ insofar as He
is a perfect Redeemer.14
d) Final cause, in the sense of the ultimate reason for the Immacu­
late Conception, was that Mary might be a fully worthy instrument
for the accomplishment of the Incarnation.15 As to the dogmatic defi­
nition itself, its ultimate reason was, as the Bull declares, “the honor
of the most holy and undivided Trinity, the adornment and dignity
of the Virgin Mother of God, and die exaltation of the Catholic
Faith and Christian religion.”15

2. CERTITUDE OF THE PRIVILEGE
The Bull Ineffabilis Deus defines that the doctrine of the Immacu­
late Conception is “revealed by God and dierefore must be firmly
and constandy believed by all the faithful.”17 Since this truth is,
according to the words of the Sovereign Pontiff, a revealed one, it
follows that it must be formally contained in the deposit of divine
revelation, and not merely contained virtually therein as a theological
conclusion the minor premise of which is human reason. While Pope
Pius IX seems to indicate that the doctrine is formally revealed, still
he does not specify whether that revelation has been made to us in
an explicit manner by God, that is to say, in an express and direct
manner, or whether it has been revealed only implicitly, that is to
say, indirectly and obscurely. That question the Pontiff left to the
14 Cf. Carolus Balic, O.F.M., De debito peccati originalis in B. Virgine Maria
(Romae, 1941), p. 88.
15 Cf. the cogent argument of Scotus on this point in Sehastianus Dupasquier,
O.F.M.Conv., Summa Theologiae Scotisticae, Vol. 3 (Patavii, 1706), p. 244· Cf.
also Vincent Mayer, O.F.M.Conv., The Teaching of the Ven. John Duns Scotus
(on the Immaculate Conception), in Franciscan Studies, Vol. 4 (New York, 1926),
pp· 39-46.
18 D.B., No. 1641.
17 D.B., No. 1641. Cf. Ludovicus Lercher, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae Dogma­
ticae, Vol. 3 (Oeniponte, 1934), p. 338.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

333

deliberations of theologians,18 restricting himself to declaring that the
Immaculate Conception is a truth revealed by God. That something
is in fact contained in the deposit of revelation is one thing: the
way in which it is contained is another thing. Since God can reveal
a truth explicitly or implicitly, it follows accordingly that this truth
itself can likewise be included in revelation either explicitly or
implicitly.19
According to the principles of the Catholic Faith, all revealed
truth is enveloped in Scripture and Tradition, and one must accept,
“with like pious affection and reverence” the two sources of revela­
tion.20 Hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not
merely deduced from revelation without actually being revealed; nor
is it some dogmatic fact in some way only connected with a revealed
dogma to which it stands related; nor is it a new doctrine. The truth
of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is undeniably one given by God
to the Apostles in revelation, and delivered by them to the Church.21
The certitude of the doctrine is rooted not merely in the authoritative
teaching office of the Catholic Church, making use of Scripture and
Apostolic Tradition, but the writings of the Fathers and later theo­
logians, together with the common consent of the vast body of the
faithful, all offer irrefragable testimony to that certitude.
ADVERSARIES OF THE DOCTRINE

Only non-Catholics stand opposed to the Immaculate Conception
of the Virgin Mary. Among them must be numbered the schismatic
Greek “Orthodox” Church, the “Old Catholics” founded by Dollin­
ger late in the nineteenth century, Protestants of all sects, Rational­
ists, and divers other groupings. All these object to the doctrine itself,
maintaining that it is no part of the Christian religion, and so reject
the definition as contrary to revealed truth. As grounds for refusal
to accept the Immaculate Conception, spokesmen for the objectors
allege the same difficulties offered by adversaries prior to the solemn
definition in 1854. This contrary position is expressed succinctly in
the question of the Protestant theologian Harnack: “If this truth is
a revealed one, when was it revealed and to whom?”22
18 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. VIII.
« Cf. DTC, Vol. 7. col. 847.
2° D.B., No. 1787.
21 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 109.
22 Cf. Gabriel M. Roschini, O.S.M., Mariologia, ed. 2, Vol. 2 (Romae, 1948),
p. 23.

334

MARIOLOGY

TENOR OF THE BULL “INEFFABILIS DEUS"
In his solemn pontifical document, Pope Pius IX defined the doc­
trine of the Immaculate Conception to be of faith for Catholics in
virtue of his supreme power as Vicar of Christ, but at the same time
he acknowledged that the definition reflected the universal mind of
the Church’s hierarchy and of the Catholic faithful, for their opinion
had been asked for and found favorable. The Sovereign Pontiff, by
way of preamble to the definition proper, stated that God from all
eternity chose a Mother for His Son, and because He loved her more
than He loved any other creature He, therefore, endowed her with
the gift of freedom from all stain of sin, a gift most becoming to the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Pope reminded the Catholic world of the enduring attention
which the Church down through the centuries had devoted to the
development of the doctrine, even to the extent of having instituted
a feast of the Conception and in other ways encouraging the piety
of the faithful toward a cult of the unique privilege of Mary. The
doctrine was favored by popes prior to Pius IX, and Alexander VII
explicidy declared that the Immaculate Conception might safely
be defended as Catholic truth.23 A similar opinion was consistently
held by various religious communities and eminent theologians, as
well as by many synods throughout the world. The Pope further
mentioned in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus that the cogency of the favor­
able testimony of the most ancient sources in the Oriental Church
contributed in no small measure to the advance in the way toward
definition.
Pius IX singled out the force of the argument derived from the
writings of the Fathers of the Church who so greatly exalted the
sanctity and dignity of the Mother of God, referring to her immunity
from sin and applying to her apposite sections of Scripture, especially
the references to “the woman” in Gen. 3:15, and the salutation of
the angel to Mary narrated in the Gospel of St. Luke 1:28. Tire tra­
ditional writings of the most renowned Fathers described Mary’s
plenitude of grace as a kind of climax of all God’s miracles in the
order of grace. This conviction of Mary’s high holiness and immunity
from the stain of sin was shared by the generations of simple faithful
as well as by the Catholic clergy of the ages, all of whom found
23 Cf. Armand Robichaud, S.M., The Immaculate Conception in the Magisterium
of the Church, in Marian Studies, Vol. 5 (Washington, D. C., 1954), pp. 118-120.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

335

pious consolation in venerating the Immaculate Mother of God.
Countless petitions were addressed to the Holy See requesting a
formal definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
In concluding his Bull, Pius IX spoke of his own efforts with
regard to the doctrine, pointing out that once elevated to the Chair
of Peter he longed most ardently to promote the honor of Mary in
every way possible and to enhance her cult by making her singular
prerogatives more widely known. To the achievement of this end
the Pontiff added that he had instituted a special commission of
cardinals to examine the questions connected with the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception, and had dispatched letters to the bishops
of the world in this connection in February, 1849. In reply to these
Papal inquiries, the bishops confirmed the universal piety of their
people toward this privilege of the Blessed Virgin, annexing their
own petitions that the Immaculate Conception be defined by the
Roman Pontiff. The special commission of cardinals had returned a
like decision.
Accordingly, being unwilling further to delay a solemn pronounce­
ment, and after consultation with a consistory of the cardinals, to­
gether with much private and public prayer imploring the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, the Pope determined to declare and define that
the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is one of faith.
Finally, the Supreme Pontiff affirmed his joy and gratitude that it
was granted to him to offer this honor to the Mother of Christ, trust­
ing that she would continue by her patronage to aid the Church
yet more in its divine work. He exhorted the faithful to increase their
veneration and piety toward “tire Virgin conceived without sin.”2·*
ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE
Support for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as found in
the sacred writings of the Old and the New Testament is neither
abundant nor coercive.25 Although this truth is contained implicitly
rather than explicitly in Scripture, yet when the indications therein
comprised are carefully examined in the lucid context of Tradition
and authority, it becomes manifest how intimately Mary’s immunity
from all sin is joined to the inspired account of God’s plan for man’s
2·* Cf. Paul F. Palmer, S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (West­
minster, Md., 1952), pp- 81-89.
25 Cf. Narcisco Garcia Garcés, C.M.F., Titulos y Granàezas de Maria (Madrid,
1952), p. 384 ff.; Scoti-Guarrae-Aureoli, Quaestiones Disputatae de Immaculata
Conceptione B. V. M. (Ad Claras Aquas, 1904), p. VII.

336

MARIOLOGY

redemption. As the sharp lines of a valley below may become appar­
ent only when the climber stands upon a summit, similarly the pro­
found content of God’s word awaited the clarification of the passing
centuries.2®
Pertinent texts both in the Old and the New Testament are classi­
cally considered either as principal or as ancillary. The former are
clearer and more forceful and so lead more immediately to a support
of the doctrine; the latter are less cogent. The characteristic of the
Old Testament: foreshadowing the brightness of the New Testament
and representing subsequent figures through types and prefigures, is
quite evident with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Con­
ception.27 The eminent Martin Jugie has observed that there are
some twenty-four places in Scripture which have been cited as favor­
ing the dogma, and that these various allusions have perhaps been
subjected to the least critical analysis of all proofs of the doctrine.28
I. Principal Scriptural Proofs
A. In the Old Testament
The abiding enmity between the serpent, the devil, and the
woman, Mary, as developed in the exegesis of the text of Gen. 3:15:
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and
her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her
heel,” is commonly offered in support of the Immaculate Conception.
Whatever differences may exist among Scripture scholars as to the
correct interpretation of this important passage, there can be no
serious doubt but that the Blessed Virgin is “the woman” mentioned.29
Nor can any construction placed upon the famous ipsa pronoun used
by the Vulgate, derogate from the force of this text, since the essen­
tial notion of Mary’s utter freedom from any diabolical dominion is
26 Cf. Jean-François Bonnefoy, O.F.M., Le Mystère de Marie selon le Protévangile et l'Apocalypse (Paris, 1949), passim; F. Ceuppens, O.P., Theologia
Biblica, Vol. 4: De Mariologia Biblica (Romae, 1948), pp. 70, 208.
27 Cf. G. Alastruey, op. cit., p. 182.
2SCf. Martin Jugie, op. cit., p. 41.
29 Cf. Francis X. Peirce, S.J., Mary Alone is "the Woman" of Genesis 3, 15, in
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 2 (Washington, D. C., 1940), No. 3, pp.
245-252; Antonine De Guglielmo, O.F.M., Mary in the Protoevangelium, in The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1952, No. 2, pp. 104-115; J. Coppens, Le
Protévangile, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 26 (Louvain, 1950),
p. 35-

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

337

sufficiently indicated in the phrase, “I will put enmities. . . .”s0
The Blessed Virgin is the woman whose radical opposition to all that
Satan stands for demands a perfect immunity from sin, specifically
from original sin, and the reference to her is in a literal sense.31 The
enmity described requires that Mary be finally a complete victor
over the devil and his snares, and this she would not have been if
for one instant she had been subjected to Satan through the slavery
of sin. The crushing of the serpent’s head can mean nothing else
than a perfect immunity from his evil stain.82
The New Eve, the Mother of the Messias, and Lucifer, the author
of sin, are in every way enemies, with the conquest divinely assured
to be Mary’s. At no time were these hostile forces as allies; at no
time was the Virgin Mother a vanquished satellite of God’s proud
rival. Sanctifying grace alone establishes man in God’s friendship
and, by the same token, constitutes him Satan’s bitter foe. The
absence of that grace from the soul, effected by sin, ranges one in
the ranks of the Prince of darkness by removing one from a share in
the divine nature, the essential function of God’s grace. Had there
been an instant, however brief, when Mary’s soul was stripped of
grace, then Scripture could not properly refer to Mary as one who
vanquished the very personification of evil. Whether Eve be con­
sidered as a type of the Blessed Virgin, or whether the woman
described is Mary in a more literal acceptation, there is had a clear
antithesis between good and evil, as between the state of God’s
Mother and Eve after the Fall; as between Christ the New Adam,
and the old Adam, enmeshed in sin.83
The conjoint victory of the Redeemer and His Mother over the
devil is the divine reply to the common defeat of the first parents
so DTC, Vol. 7, col. 859. Cf. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., Historical Develop­
ment of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in Studies in Praise of Our
Blessed Mother, ed. Fenton-Benard (Washington, D. C., 1952), p. 94.
31 Cf. P. F. Ceuppens, O.P., De Mariologia Biblica, ed. 2 (Romae, 1951), pp.
16-17; Tiburtius Gallus, S.J., Interpretatio Mariologica Protoevangelii (Romae,
1949), passim; G. Arendt, S.J., De Protoevangelii habitudine ad Immaculatam Dei­
parae Conceptionem (Romae, 1904). See Father E. May’s paper in this volume.
32 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 237; Raymundo Mar­
tinez y Ferrer, De utilitate et ratione sufficienti ad dogmaticam definitionem (In­
teramnae, 1853), p. 61; Vasco Bertelli, L'interpretazione mariologica dei Protoevangelo (Gen. 3, 15) negli esegeti e teologi dopo la Bolla "Ineffabilis Deus” di
Pio IX (Romae, 1951), passim.
33 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 113; P. Hitz, C.SS.R., Le sens Marial
de Protévangile, in Études Mariales (Paris, 1947), passim.

338

MARIOLOGY

through the wiles of the serpent and their own malice. It is a perfect
parallelism and one that has traditionally been invoked to prove the
Immaculate Conception.34 Mary’s triumph was in virtue of her
Son’s.35 The most solid support of Mary’s unique prerogative is thus
based on one and the same divine decree, establishing her predestina­
tion to a singular grace together with the absolute and universal
primacy of her Son.36
Neither Christ, the Seed of the woman, nor the woman herself,
could for even a moment be overcome by evil, for then the victory
would not be entire. The probative force of this argument in support
of the Immaculate Conception is, when thus understood, considered
as strongly suasive in the conclusions presented by the Pontifical
Commission for the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception, constituted by Pius IX, and reporting its findings on July
ίο, 1852.37

B. In the New Testament
When the angelic messenger Gabriel greeted the Virgin who was
divinely destined to be the Mother of the Saviour, he spoke words
manifestive of a tremendous miracle and mystery in the order of
grace: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: ‘Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women.’”33
While of itself this salutation, considered in text and context, is
not a complete and explicit proof from Scripture of the immunity of
Mary from original sin, yet it is undeniably an implicit or equivalent
statement of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.39 “Full of
grace” can mean nothing other than “entirely replenished with God’s
love” —“in nowise deficient.” And the phrase “the Lord is with thee”
must similarly mean that Mary was never without Him and that
the devil was never with her, as he indeed would have been had
she been conceived in sin.40
34 Cf. A. H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., Tractatus de Beatissima Virgine Maria, ed. 5
(Romae, 1926), p. 137, footnote; for the sense of Coredemption cf. J. B. Carol,
O.F.M., Romanorum Pontificum doctrina de B. V. Corredemptrice, in Marianum,
Vol. 9 (Roma, 1947), p. 165; V. G. Bertelli, II senso mariologico pieno e il senso
letterale de Protoevangelo (Gen. 3, 15) dalla "Ineffabilis Deus" al 1948, in
Marianum, Vol. 13, pp. 369—395.
35 Cf. C. Crosta, Theologia Dogmatica, Vol. 3 (Varese, 1932), p. 176.
36 Cf. Jean-François Bonnefoy, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 140.
3T Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M., in Marianum, Vol. 1, 1939, pp. 314-316.
33 Lk. 1:28.
36 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 238; DTC, Vol. 7,
col. 859.
40 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 239.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

339

When subjected to philological analysis the sense of this important
text adds immensely to the general force of the scriptural argument,
for how could Mary have been filled with God’s grace in the strict
rigor implied in plenitude, and yet have been without that grace
at some moment of her existence? The message of the Annunciation
can mean only that the Virgin possessed as perfect a degree of grace
as would be possible for a mere creature, and that this unparalleled
sanctity is complete both as to its proper intensity and as to its exten­
sion in time. The English rendering “Hail, full of grace” is from the
Greek original χαίρε κΐχαριτωμίνη, and the past participle κίχαριτωμίνη
correcdy signifies not merely the preterit quality of what is modified
by it, but implies as well unvarying continuity.
A paraphrase of the first four words of the angelic salutation might
well be: “Greetings to you who are so adorned with divine gifts and
supernal goods, so replete with God’s love and friendship that its
very fullness is contained in you.” In other words, such an immensity
of grace was infused into the soul of the Mother of God that no other
human can be compared to her by reason of this holiness, and this
unique privilege has always been hers. It is also noteworthy that
Gabriel is not described as exclaiming, “Hail, Mary, full of grace,”
but simply as saying, “Hail, full of grace.” Thus the “full of grace”
is used in a substantive manner, as a title peculiarly her own, her
God-given name, somewhat the same as she spoke of herself to
Bernadette at Lourdes, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” As proper
to her alone, this appellation “full of grace” is not some extrinsic
designation; rather it is her property in a radical and intrinsic sense
at all moments of her existence. There was no period of time, how­
ever so brief, in which she was not “full of grace.”41
To this initial greeting the archangel added “the Lord is with thee”
— ό Kvpcos μετά σοΰ. Correlated with what has immediately preceded,
drese words indicate an unqualified and simple union of Mary, the
beloved one of God, with the Lord. No reference is contained either
in the text itself or in the context to any temporal limitation; rather
the sense is entirely a general one: whenever Mary was, then God
was with her and she with Him in His grace.·12 Had she, on the
contrary, been even for the most infinitesimal period of time under
n Card. Alimonda, ll Dogma dell’lmmacolata (Torino, 1886), p. 118: “. . . giacchè
ivi appunto si recita e se narra a svelare la virtù divina, per la quale quei segni o
miracoli si operavano; laddove a Maria sola s’indirizza autonomasticamente il
celeste saluto, che altri mai non sorti.”
42 Cf. B. II. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., pp. 112-113.

34°

MARIOLOGY

the domination of sin, there would have been some interruption of
this communion with God, and accordingly the archangel’s universal
declaration of her grace would have been itself faulty. Either the
words contain an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception or else
they are meaningless.
The final phrase of the salutation regarding the sanctity of the
Mother of the Messias — “Blessed art thou among women” —means
that she is not only blessed in herself, but blessed in comparison with
all other women. This Hebraism bears the connotation of a superla­
tive degree of blessedness, so that, by antonomasia she is the blessed
one of all women as a consequence of the divine Maternity and its
concomitant grace.43 This utterly unique office carries with it a cor­
respondingly unique infusion of grace, a blessing that is an essential
link in the chain of causality that will reach its culmination in the
Redemption, blotting out the curse visited upon mankind by the sin
of the first parents. This scriptural reference manifests how fitting
it is that she whose own gracious life was the divinely chosen instru­
ment for the Incarnation, should herself be totally free from the very
fault her Son came to remove. As will be seen elsewhere in this arti­
cle, this divine Maternity is always the point of reference in treating
the reasonableness of the Immaculate Conception.44
The basic antithesis between the blessing of God and His curse,
with reference to the immunity from original sin, appears frequently
in Scripture. It is a familiar note.43 This curse, a fundamental aliena­
tion from God’s friendship, is the consequence of the primal sin and
as such is its chief penalty. As the one sin of Adam is the unique
and ultimate cause of the blight visited upon all men descended from
Adam by carnal generation, and is on that account called by antono­
masia “the sin,” similarly its concomitant punishment is called “the
curse.” Conversely, Mary, who is by antonomasia called “blessed,”
must be herself immune from that sin which caused that curse. She
cannot be both so completely blessed and yet be, at any moment,
subject to the very opposite of blessing: God’s curse.
Additional support for this antithetical parallelism is found in the
words of God addressed to the serpent: “Because thou hast done this
thing, thou art cursed. . . .”46 As this malediction falling upon the
43 Cf. Henry Bolo, Pleine de grâce (Paris, 1895), passim.
44 Cf. A. H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., op. cit., p. 219.
45 Mt. 5:44; Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14; James 3:10.
40 Gen. 3:14·

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

341

devil was the outcome of his sinful deceit, so the blessing bestowed
upon Mary was the reward of an immunity from all sin. As the
author of sin was cursed, contrariwise she who co-operated so inti­
mately in the divine plan of salvation is crowned with divine blessing.
The same inference is readily deduced from the greeting of Eliza­
beth to Mary at the Visitation: “Blessed art thou among women, and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb.’’47 The Virgin is called "blessed” in
somewhat the same way as her Son, observing, of course, a due
analogy of proportion between the relative plenitude of grace in
each case. The implication is therefore clear that Mary was always
entirely free from the baneful curse identified with original sin.
The probative force of these cited passages of the New Testament,
while affording a highly effective argument of convenience in favor
of the doctrine of tire Immaculate Conception, is rather suasive than
apodictic. According to some very competent scholars, the argument
taken from these chief texts in favor of the doctrine is not as strong
as that of the Protoevangelium.*3 Be that as it may, the clearest proof
from the inspired books would seem to be derived from understand­
ing the Old Testament as the type and foreshadowing of the New
Testament; the latter is the perfection of the former, just as Mary is
the new and sinless Eve.48 What is said of "the woman” in Gen. 3:15
finds its fulfillment only in Mary.50

II. Ancillary Scriptural Proofs
A. In the Old Testment
There are a number of texts in the Old Testament traditionally
cited, with varying degrees of appositeness, as supporting the freedom
of the Mother of God from the stain of Adam’s sin. They are of
minor moment as compared with the principal passage of Genesis.
Among the more notable examples of these might be mentioned:
“Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee”51 —
“Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled”52 — “the
47 Lk. 1:42.
48 Cf. V. Sardi, La solenne definizione del dogma dell'Immacolato Concepimento
di Maria Santissima, Vol. I (Roma, 1905), p. 796 ff.
48 Cf. Jules Souben, Nouvelle Théologie Dogmatique (Paris, 1902), Vol. 4,
pp· 135-13750 Cf. J. de Aldama, Mariologia, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa (ed. a Patribus
Soc. Jesu), Vol. 3 (Madrid, 1950), p. 303, No. 28. Cf. also Eric May’s paper
in this volume.
01 Cant. 4:7.
82 Cant. 5:2.

342

MARIOLOGY

Highest himself hath founded her”53 —“For wisdom will not enter
into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”51 Perhaps
the best cognate text is “the most High hath sanctified his own
tabernacle.”55
These and other like texts are employed in an accommodated sense
by the Church’s liturgy when the Blessed Virgin is the subject of the
prayer, and specifically for the feast of the Immaculate Conception
in the Roman Missal and the Breviary. Since the manner in which
the Church prays is a criterion of its belief, it follows that the use
of these various sections of Scripture is a forcible argument in favor
of their actually referring to Mary’s privilege in the order of grace.
Because these excerpts from the Old Testament, although in them­
selves of minor significance, do not place temporal limits to her
sanctity, and indeed because several of them intimate that her holi­
ness was established already from the beginning, it may legitimately
be concluded that the tenor of the texts is fully consonant with the
precise sense of the Immaculate Conception. The application of them
to Mary’s immunity is in accordance with the secondary and indirect
literal sense of the passages.56

B. In the New Testament
The best example of a subsidiary text in the New Testament
used to strengthen the general argument in support of the revealed
quality of the Immaculate Conception, is that of Apoc. 12: the
vision of the woman clothed with the sun, and of the great dragon
who is her persecutor. Authors are not agreed as to whether the
woman mentioned is the Church, or Mary, or perhaps both.57
Accepting the opinion, sufficiently probable, that sees the woman
as the Virgin, it can be said that her being “clothed with the sun”
is an affirmation of her soul’s grace, since grace is often compared to
the light of justice and she is enveloped in radiant light. The stain
of sin, on the other hand, is a certain deprivation of splendor mar­
ring a soul that is enslaved to anything contrary to the brilliance
offered by the light of faith and reason.58 Sin is a work of darkness
«Ps. 86:5.
54 Wisd. 1:4.
«Ps. 45:5.
50 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, op. cit., p. 113.
57 See the various opinions referred to in Father M. Gruenthaner’s paper in
this same volume.
68 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., Ia-IIae, q. 86, a. 1.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

343

because sin results in a stain; sin is found in an act not illumined
by the light of reason informed by grace. Such a want of splendor
cannot exist in one who is “clothed with the sun.” Moreover, the
struggle between the woman and the serpent, destined to end in his
defeat, would not have been an unbroken combat if she had, for a
time however so brief, been conquered by him.
The devil originally made his effort to overcome Mary when he
seduced the first parents, from whom the infection of sin passed
down to their posterity, and would indeed have engulfed Mary except
for her special preservation through the causality of the Incarnate
Word. His humanity taken from Mary and from the earth, became
the instrument that turned aside the tide of sin lest it sweep His
Mother into the bitter waters flowing from a poisoned source. This
is the interpretation of verses 15 and 16 of chapter 12 of Apocalypse:

And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it
were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth,
and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
The total context of chapter 12 is, more than anything else, an exalta­
tion of Mary’s spiritual Maternity, but it furnishes a confirmation as
well as an interpretation of the enmity between the woman and the
serpent narrated in the Protoevangelium contained in Genesis.59 Mary
was protected from falling under the serpent’s influence through the
redemptive act of Christ, becoming a satisfying victim for mankind
in accordance with the prophecy of Isa. 53:6. Tire piacular death
of the Saviour had a special efficacy for the Mother of the Messias,
and this is why the serpent, the dragon, in the words of Apoc. 12:17:
", . . was angry against the woman: and went to make war with
the rest of her seed. . . .”
This passage in the last of the inspired books thus is a classical
argument, of perhaps a lesser weight, to confirm Mary’s immunity
from original sin. It is the fulfillment of the promise contained in the
first of the inspired books, for this promised relief on behalf of a
suffering human race is accomplished, according to St. John, in the
Mother of Christ and in her seed: the sacred humanity, and each
person, the Virgin and her Son, enjoyed freedom from all sin. This
conjoint sinlessness, Christ's natural to His divinity, Mary’s special
to her humanity, was a requisite to their conjoint victory over Satan
0» Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 869; Jean-François Bonnefoy, O.F.M., op. cit., passim.

344

MARIOLOGY

by their sufferings. The doctrine of the Coredemption thus becomes
a valuable asset in a proper understanding of the meaning of the
Immaculate Conception. “She joined her own heroic sufferings to
those of her beloved Son for the salvation of mankind, and the
eternal Father was pleased to accept them for that purpose in sub­
ordination to those of the unique Redeemer.”60
ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION

I. Force of This Argument

The question as to whether or not a particular truth is actually
contained in the deposit of divine revelation, while obviously related
to the question of the profession of that truth by the Church, is
nevertheless of a different order. The former is of the objective
order: it is (or is not) a truth irrespective of what steps have been
taken by the magisterium of the Church to render an authoritative
statement on the point at issue. The latter is of a subjective order,
for a public acceptance of a doctrine by the Church makes explicit
and personal what was hitherto implicit and impersonal. While it
is undoubtedly true that often these two orders do in fact parallel
each other, and tend more and more to do so in the measure that
the implicit content of revelation is made consciously explicit, still
it is not necessary that such parallelism be always realized. One need
not suppose that he will find in the subjective order all the content of
the objective order.61
In keeping with this preliminary principle, and by way of appli­
cation of it to the special question of the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, it is well to remark that whether there was or was not
an explicit belief in the doctrine from the earliest days of the
Church is not something that can be resolved a priori. Rather it is
a question of historical fact to be determined by a perusal of the
sources, wherein alone can be discovered such evidence as will afford
a reply to a factual question. In this connection we may fittingly
invoke the philosophical axiom which affirms that objective evidence
is the ultimate criterion of truth, joined to the judgment of the
Church as to what truth is divinely revealed.
60 J. B. Carol, O.F.M., Our Lady's Coredemption in the Marian Literature of
Nineteenth Century America, in Marianum, Vol. 14, 1952, p. 61. There is a
growing emphasis in Mariology on Mary’s relation to the work of her Son, the
Redeemer. Cf. E. Ledvorowski, Maternitas divina fundamentum Mariologiae, in
Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 176-194.
” Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 848.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

345

The word “dogma” has the meaning of something fixed and
determined in doctrine, and to merit this title a proposition must be
indeed revealed by God, and as such proposed by the Church to
the faithful as a truth to be believed. Once so pronounced, it be­
comes immutably established. The transition of a truth from the
objective order to the subjective: from implicit to explicit levels of
knowledge, does not mean that any new thing has been revealed,
for revelation terminated for all time with the passing of tire last
of the Apostles. To the Church has been committed this deposit
of total truth, and the office of Christ’s Church is to guard and to
interpret it. While there can, therefore, be no increase in what is
contained in that treasury, yet there can surely be an elucidation of
obscure truths with the passing of the centuries. The seed can, in a
propitious climate, produce its fruit, and this climate is sometimes
created by the rise of heresies which can alone be refuted by a
firm declaration by the Church; sometimes it is created by contro­
versies among theologians; or again by a development of a special
piety on the part of the Church’s faithful. In all these instances it
must be held that the Holy Spirit is at work, guiding and enlight­
ening the teaching function of the Church. There is never a change
in doctrine. There are advances in the same line of truth.
In applying this central notion to the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, it becomes evident in the light of investigation that
this dogma was not at first expressed in technical and precise terms,
but was universally believed as a part of her great purity and holi­
ness, and that with the unfolding of the centuries, it became more
distinctly Mary’s prerogative. A careful and recent study on the prob­
lem of the evolution of this doctrine has stressed that in the case
of the Immaculate Conception the growth of explicit belief is to
be attributed rather to the inherent power of the doctrine than to
exterior forces at work. The truth of the Virgin’s immunity from the
stain of original sin was “endowed with a victorious vitality which
was nurtured by divine solicitude.”62
Whatever may have been the inherent tendency of the doctrine,
it cannot be gainsaid that immense impetus was given the develop­
ment of its explicit modality by the forces of controversy, particularly
in the stages prior to the final definition. In the first ages of the
Church there were no doubts raised, since the reality of the Immacu112 J. Duhr, S.J., L’évolution du dogme de l'immaculée Conception, in Nouvelle
Revue Théologique (Louvain, 1951), Vol. 73, p. 1032.

MARIOLOGY

346

late Conception formed, together with the divine Maternity and its
necessary sanctity, one complex mosaic. It was not until the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries that the question was thrown into issue in
the schools of theology, and by about the middle of the sixteenth
century scarcely anyone any longer called the Immaculate Conception
into doubt.63
The value of the argument from tradition, based on the writings
of the most distinguished ecclesiastical writers, together with the
emphasis placed on the sanctity of Mary in the liturgy of the Church,
affords a very precious adjunct to the scriptural evidence in favor
of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, independently of the inter­
pretation and comment of the Fathers, the inspired texts remain of
limited force in this respect.64 For this reason, the current of tradition
must be painstakingly examined in order to discover in what way
and with what degree of unanimity the various streams of Catholic
thought formed the universal conviction that Mary was conceived
in grace. Founded ultimately upon revelation, written and oral, and
coupled with the public prayer of the Church, these sources prepared
the way for the formal definition of the Immaculate Conception. The
historical and liturgical development of the doctrine is conveniently
divided into chronological periods.

II. Period

of

Implicit Faith — Up to the Council
of Ephesus (431)

a) Parallelism between Eve and Mary
This oft-repeated comparison between the first woman, the sinful
Eve, who was seduced by the serpent, and the Second Eve, the
blessed Mary, whose vital role in man’s redemption made her the
“Socia” of the Saviour, is rooted in a similar antithesis between
Adam and Christ. Thus St. Paul declares, “For as by the disobedience
of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one,
many shall be made just.”65 The juxtaposition of the two women,
one vanquished by Satan, the other victorious over him, flows as a
natural corollary to the disobedience of the old Adam and the perfect
submission of the New Adam, the just Redeemer.
Perhaps the first to invoke this beautiful antithesis was St.
Justin (100-167):
03 Bernard A. McKenna, The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Washington,
D. C., 1929), p· 89.
Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 473; DTC, Vol. 7, col. 871.
65 Rom. 5:19.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

347

While still a virgin and without corruption, Eve received into her heart
the word of the serpent and thereby conceived disobedience and death.
Mary the Virgin, her soul full of faith and joy, replied to the angel
Gabriel who brought her glad tidings: “Be it done to me according to
thy word.” To her was bom He of whom so many things are said in
the Scriptures.ee
Similar passages appear in the writings of St. Irenaeus (130-202)“’
and Tertullian (160-240).®®
The contrast between the two women implies a double comparison,
one of likeness; one of unlikeness. Eve and Mary are indeed similar
insofar as both were stainless as they came from the hand of God,
each was integral, each without corruption, each a virgin.00 They
are unlike insofar as Eve, by her disobedience and pride, became
an instrument for the downfall of the human race, while Mary,
humble and obedient, was found worthy to assist in the salvation
of the world through her office as Mother of Jesus. If taken in an
unqualified sense (and the general tenor of the antithesis warrants
it), then Mary’s utter freedom from corruption argues a correspond­
ing freedom from original sin. St. Irenaeus would seem to interpret
the high holiness of the Virgin as contrasted to Eve’s betrayal into the
snares of the serpent: the complete conformity of the all-pure Mary
to the will of God effectively untied the knot of sin introduced by
Eve.70 This contrast would be imperfect and its chief characters
would be inadequately in opposition if Mary had herself been
stained by the sin of the first parents. From a broader view there
would be a distortion of perspective if the Mother of the Messias
were held to have fallen under the primitive curse, since together
with her Son she forms a team that is destined to achieve a conquest
over the evil resulting from the transgression of its counterpart:
Adam and Eve.
b) The Sanctity of Mary in a General Sense
Among the Fathers the theme of Mary’s exalted holiness appears
very frequently and with considerable elaboration, and nearly always
with the purpose of thereby enhancing the dignity of the Son, and
defending the reality of His earthly life, suffering, and death. Many
Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, No. 100, PL, 6, 710 D.
87 Contra haereses, lib. 5, cap. 1, No. 2, PG, 7, 1122.
88 De carne Christi, cap. 17, PL, 2, 781-782.
88 Cf. Ed. Hugon, Tractatus Dogmatici, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1935), p. 718.
78 Contra haereses, lib. 3, cap. 22, PG, 7, 959 b-c.

348

MARIOLOGY

of these truths of the Saviour had been called into doubt by the
early heresiarchs, and one mode, and a forceful one, to combat errors
concerning the Son was to emphasize truths about the Mother.71
The conviction of the writers relative to her holiness is founded,
necessarily, in revealed truth which became more explicit with the
passing of time.72 In denying that she herself had ever sinned, the
Fathers placed her merit in a distinct class above tine rest of human­
kind, and no eulogy was too great to describe her, nor were any words
adequate to convey the measure of her holiness. She was "most
pure”; “inviolate”; “unstained”; “unspotted”; “blameless”; “entirely
immune from sin”; “blessed above all”; “most innocent.”73 If she was
free from sin without qualification, then why not also from original
sin? Assuredly, this freedom excluded deliberate venial sin, and hence
with greater reason it should exclude the deprivation of grace implied
in original sin, for while venial sin is more voluntary, nevertheless,
simply as sin and with its conjoined ignominy, the consequences of
original sin are more serious and more unbecoming to the Mother of
Christ since it would put her at odds with God.74 As St. Anselm
stated (and he reflects the common mind of the writers on this
point): “It was fitting that the Virgin should be radiant with such
purity that under God no other can be greater.”78
The argument for the immaculate quality of the soul of Mary
receives a rather strange support from a species of the doctrine of
traducianism, prevalent in some quarters in the early centuries. This
taught that human souls were generated by the parents along with
the body, and thus in some way the offspring received their souls
from the parents. Corporeal traducianism taught that the soul derived
from the material element of the parents, and Tertullian, while a
Montanist, proposed this heretical theory to explain the origin of
the soul.78 Spiritual traducianism taught the origin of the human
soul to be from the soul of the parents. Even St. Augustine seems
to defend this doctrine, but he admits that his opinion is obscure. In
either case, if Mary herself had been stained by sin, her Son would,
” Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 873.
72 Cf. G. Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté de Marie chez les Pères, in
Études Mariales (Paris, 1947), pp. 13-28.
73 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., Tractatus de peccato originali et de Immaculato
Beatae Virginis Deiparae Conceptu, ed. altera (Romae, 1904), p. 244.
74 Ibid., p. 263.
75 Cf. De conc. virg., c. 18; PL, 158, 451.
70 D.B., No. 170.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

349

in some way, have been affected in His own soul by the taint that
marred His Mother’s person. In this connection St. Hippolytus insti­
tutes a comparison between Christ and His Mother, developing, with
considerable complexity, the need for perfect innocence on the part
of Mary because of the supreme sanctity of Him whom she begot.
He compares the Messias to an ark of incorruptible wood, formed
from the stainless stock of Mary who gave to Him His humanity and
who knew no corruption herself. This writer’s use of the same phrase
to describe the sinlessness of Mother and Son is a bold parallelism,
and contains a forceful implicit affirmation in Mary’s complete free­
dom from the stain of all sin. Since the “incorruptibility” of Jesus
must include, of course, immunity from original sin, and since His
soul (in the opinion of Hippolytus) was derived from hers, she
too, must have been immaculate.77
One of the most direct and unqualified testimonies for the Immac­
ulate Conception to be found among the early ecclesiastical writers is
that of St. Ephrem of Syria Ct 373). In his Carmina Nisïbena he
categorically declared, in his poem addressed to Christ, “Thou and
Thy Mother are alone in this: you are wholly beautiful in every
respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy
Mother.”78 This use of the accommodated sense of Cant. 6:7, affords
a clear affirmation of the exemption of Mary from all sin, rooted in
the fact of the divine Maternitv. Further to single out the exclusive­
ness of this prerogative of the Blessed Virgin, in the context of this
phrase of her freedom from spot or stain, St. Ephrem emphasizes
that she alone, of all mankind, possesses such a privilege. Thus
exalted above all mere creatures in the order of grace, her pure soul
came immaculate from the hand of God, ‘like Eve before the fall,
endowed with the fullness of grace, by reason of her anticipated
motherhood of the Son of God.”79
The firm stand of the Syrian Church regarding the utter sinlessness
of the Blessed Virgin, as evinced in the writings of such renowned
figures as St. James of Sarug (452-519), who denied that there was
the slightest defect or stain upon the soul of Mary, reiterated sub­
stantially the teaching of St. Ambrose (333-397) who has Christ
to say of His Mother: “Come . . . receive Me in that flesh which
fell in Adam. Receive Me not from Sara, but from Mary, a virgin
77 Apud Theodoretum, in dialogo Eranistes, PG, 10, 610.
78 Carmina Nisibena, ed. Bickell (Leipzig, 1866), p. 40.
79 Cf. The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 9 (Philadelphia, Pa., 1893),
pp. 406-407.

35°

MARIOLOGY

incorrupt; a virgin by grace; entirely free from every stain of sin.”80
In a celebrated passage of St. Augustine (354-430) the Doctor of
Grace appears to enunciate a principle upon which might be predi­
cated an argument that Augustine taught, in an implicit fashion,
Mary’s Immaculate Conception. He states: “(Concerning the Virgin)
I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sin, out
of honor to the Lord, for from Him we know what abundance of
grace to overcome sin in every way was conferred upon her who
undoubtedly had no sin.”8X Logically, the idea of the Immaculate
Conception is contained herein, but for reasons of prudence relative
to the Pelagian polemic on the transmission of original sin, Augustine
evidently did not consider it prudent to place the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception in a precise formula.82
It cannot, of course, be successfully maintained that the truth of
Mary’s immunity from all stain of Adam’s sin was at all explicitly
taught by these and many other similar early writers of the Church.
For closeness to the doctrine and for clarity of expression, implicit
affirmation of the Immaculate Conception is perhaps found most
vividly stated in Augustine. Surely the continuity of unqualified
endorsements of Mary’s holiness in general provides a very solid
and entirely legitimate conclusion that the writers intended, in some
way, to make the Immaculate Conception an integral part of their
teaching.83

c) The Divine Maternity
The early Church Fathers are strong in their defense of the
motherhood of Mary and of the incomparable sanctity which accom­
panied it. By her God-given grace she merited to be the Mother of
the Saviour, an unique honor that would never have been realized
had there not been, on her part, an intimate union with her Son
through the grace and charity in her soul. The Virgin perfectly pure
in body and soul, she first bore Him in her heart before she con­
ceived Him in her womb: “She alone is called ‘full of grace’ since
she alone obtained a grace none other can claim: to be filled with
so In Ps. 118 Expositio, PL, 2, 782.
si De natura et gratia, cap. 36, No. 42, PL, 44, 267.
82 Cf. Phillipp Friedrich, Die Mariologia des Hl. Augustinus (Kiiln, 1907), pp.
183-238. Also B. Capelle, O.S.B., La pensée de saint Augustin concernant l'imma­
culée Conception, in Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale, Vol. 4, 1932,
pp. 361—370.
83 Cf. A. Dufourcq, Comment s'éveilla la foi à l’Immaculée-Conception et à
l’Assomption aux Ve et VIe siècles (Paris, 1946).

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

351

the very Author of grace”84 — “Consider the holy Mary, who was of
such great purity that she merited to be the Lord’s Mother.”85 Such
statements are typical, for it is only to be supposed that the fact of
Mary’s being the exalted Mother of the Redeemer would be acknowl­
edged by even the earliest writers, and with unanimity, as the center,
the key of all the admirable privileges of nature, of grace, and of glory
possessed by her. Considered in itself, the Maternity could be, abso­
lutely speaking, without the personal holiness of the mother, since
the divine Maternity is mainly a grace given for others {gratia gratis
data}. As such it is not directly sanctifying (according to some) and
does not necessarily demand utter sinlessness on the Mother’s part.
But the dignity of her office in the light of the sublime dignity of
the Son of God, could scarcely allow that she who bore the Incarnate
Word would be other than completely stainless herself.88 This aware­
ness formed a basic theme in tire profound stress placed by the
writers on the Virgin’s exceptional sanctity. It is a further reason to
see the Immaculate Conception woven into the warp and woof of
the pristine Mariology of the Fathers and lesser apologists.

III. Period of Incipient Explicit Faith — From the
Council of Ephesus (431) to Eleventh Century

During the period of time covered by the middle of the fifth cen­
tury up into the eleventh century, the belief in the total sinlessness
of the Virgin among the great body of the faithful, by the writers
of this era and by the teaching Church, became considerably more
explicit. Nevertheless, due to the denial of original sin by the Pela­
gians, a heresy condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage, the
writers who opposed Pelagius, Celestius and Julian, Bishop of Eclana,
seem in some fashion to have denied Mary’s immunity from Adam’s
sin. This denial stems, perhaps, from an overly literal interpretation
of these early writings, and a failure to weigh duly the polemical
exigencies of the epoch. It was held that Christ alone was free from
original sin and that all other children of Adam inherited it.87 This
insistence on the universality of the taint is attributable to the ten­
dency to attach the disorder inherent in the generative act to the
transmission of original sin. The element of inordinate concupiscence
8,1 S. Ambrose, In Expositionem Evangelii secundum Lucam 1:29, No. 9, PL,
15, 1556 A.
85 Pseudo-Jerome, Epist. 2.2 Ad Eustochium, No. 38, PL, 22, 422.
86 J. Mahieu, Sainte Mère de Dieu (Bruges, 1940), p. 45.
87 Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 225.

352·

MARIOLOGY

characteristic of active generation was believed to carry over neces­
sarily into passive generation. Post-Augustinian Western writers were
measurably influenced by this doctrine, and it rather effectively
prevented what might well have been the logical conclusion to their
general teaching on Mary’s exalted sanctity: that she received from
God a special dispensation that exempted her from the consequence
of Adam’s sin.88 The well-established “all-holy” quality of the Mother
of Christ, formulated and developed with such amplitude in earlier
times, and assuredly emphasized between the Council of Nicaea
(325) and the Council of Ephesus (431),89 offered abundant ma­
terial for the conclusion that Mary was conceived in grace.
The Church in the Orient appears to have escaped largely from
the stream of post-Augustinian thought that checked the writers in
the West from a willingness to concede Mary’s utter freedom from
all sin. While prior to the Council of Ephesus, before the divine
Maternity was unequivocally defined, many of the Eastern theologians
appear to have spoken of imperfections in the Virgin, and even of
positive faults. Such assertions can hardly be reconciled with a sup­
port of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and are probably
the direct result of the authority of Origen (c. 185-254). This apolo­
gist interpreted the words of the prophet Simeon, “And thy own
soul a sword shall pierce . .
as indicating that Mary was under
some sin, and had to be in order to be herself redeemed. This unfor­
tunate (or perhaps fortunate) error had a profound influence on
subsequent Oriental writers, and only St. Ephrem (c. 310-378) and
St. Epiphanius (+403) seem to have escaped succumbing to the
renowned authority of Origen.91 After the Council of Ephesus, re­
flection on the consequences of the divine Maternity led to definite
conclusions concerning the entire purity of the Mother of God. The
dissenting voices of certain of the Eastern writers who held that the
Virgin did contract original sin and was delivered of its stain only
at the moment of the Annunciation, never gained any measure of
wide acceptance among the better authors.92 The latter, in the course
of time, formulated the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Con­
ception in surprisingly clear terms, although these often took the form
88 Cf. The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 114, (Washington, D. C.,
1946), p. 346.
88 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 893 ff·
80 Lit. 2:35.
81 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 474.
82 Ibid., p. 475.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

353

of statements in the positive sense of her unrivaled sanctity, rather
than in the negative sense of a simple rejection of original sin
from her.83

A. The Immaculate Conception in the Doctrine of the Eastern
Church
i. Theological Argument
a) Fifth Century
The Third Ecumenical Council, that of Ephesus (431), declared
Our Lady to be the Mother of God (Dei genitrix) and thereby served
as an important stimulus to the development of the doctrine of her
singular sanctity and unique prerogatives, both from the theological
and the liturgical aspects. The condemnation of Nestorianism, the
heresy that denied the genuine sense of the Incarnation, set the
stage for an ever more explicit belief in the Immaculate Conception.
While references to Mary's immunity from original sin are not
wanting even earlier,84 few of them equal in clarity of expression
the teaching of Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (t43°):
“In place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most
pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A
Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s
fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless;
undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.”95 In a similar
vein of praise of the Saviour’s Mother, St. Proclus, Patriarch of
Constantinople (t 446), compares the action of God in preparing a
dwelling place for the Word to the work of a potter who would
not fashion for himself a vessel of tainted clay. Hence, whatever
might stain the purity of the Incarnate Word must first be removed
from her who was destined to bear Him. “He came forth from her
without any flaw, who made her for Himself without any stain,”
wrote St. Proclus.88 And again: “Mary is the heavenly orb of a new
creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished
from her entire soul all the night of sin.”87
03 Cf. DTC, Vol. 7, col. 935.
' ■* Cf. Dominicus Cerri, Enchiridion ex quibus exurgit triumphus B. Mariae Vir­
ginis Matris Dei in originale peccatum (Taurini, 1851), passim.
05 Homil. 6 in S. Deiparam, No. 11, PG, 77, 1427 A.
00 Oratio i de Laudibus S. Mariae, PG, 65, 683 B.
07 Ibid., Oratio 6, PG, 68, 758 A.

354

MARIOLOGY

Similarly, Hesychius of Jerusalem (f c. 450) extolled the incor­
ruptibility, immortality, immunity from concupiscence, impeccability,
triumph over Satan, and the coredemptive mission of the Mother of
God.88 These qualities of Mary, in relation to the Immaculate Con­
ception certainly appear as causes in relation to an effect; as parts
in a whole of sanctity connoted in immunity from original sin. Other
Eastern writers, such as Basil of Seleucia (+458)" and Antipater
of Bostra, a near contemporary,98
100 reflect this same theme of un­
99
paralleled holiness.

h) Sixth Century
As in the preceding century, the writers of the Orient repeat in
the sixth century the special care God manifested in preparing the
soul of Mary as a becoming instrument of the Incarnation and Re­
demption: perhaps no author of this period is more explicit than
St. Anastasius I (f 598), a stanch defender of the dignity of the
Blessed Virgin, and whose writings declare, in equivalent terms, the
privilege of the Immaculate Conception.101
c) Seventh Century
By the seventh century the doctrine of Mary’s freedom from
original sin had become well elaborated, and while the future would
hold a yet more explicit statement of it, nevertheless, it may be fairly
concluded that from this century on there was in reality no contro­
versy on the substance of the teaching.102 St. Sophronius (+637),
Patriarch of Jerusalem, devoted much attention to the fullness of
Mary’s grace, writing of its incomparably illustrious quality; of its
perpetuity; of its uniqueness since no one else received like it for
no one else was “prepurified.”103 In his “Synodal Epistle,” approved
by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, he described Mary as “holy, im­
maculate in soul and body, entirely free from every contagion.”10·*
Similar praise of the Virgin’s entire holiness can be found in other
98 Sermo 5, PG, 93, 1463; 1466.
99 Cf. Oratio 39 in Sanctissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG, 85, 426.
100 Cf. In Sanctissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem, Homil. 2, PG, 85, 1778; 1783.
101 Cf. Oratio 3 de Incarnatione, No. 6, PG, 89, 1338.
102 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S J., op. cit., p. 284.
103 Oratio 2 in Sanctissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG, 87 (3), 3247.
101 Epistola Synodica ad Sergium, PG, 87 (3), 3159; 3162.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

355

authors of this period, for example, in the work of St. Modestus
(t 634), another patriarch of Jerusalem.105
d) Eighth Century
The outstanding figure of this epoch may properly be considered
St. John Damascene (c. 675-749), whose writings on the pre­
rogatives of Mary mark him as a vigorous exponent of her Immacu­
late Conception. If he did not expressly teach the doctrine, never­
theless his whole treatment of Mariology points the way to it, and
indeed presupposes it as an essential element in the composite of
her graces.100 This Doctor’s exposition of the nature and conse­
quences of original sin is thoroughly in keeping with the Catholic
tradition and the definitions of the Church. Adam, by his trans­
gression of the divine precept, brought harm both upon himself
and upon all humans carnally generated from his infected line. In
our first parent we are all sinners since he was the head of the
human race, and the consequences of that sin are visited upon the
children as well as the state of sin itself. Not only was there a loss
of sanctifying grace, but together with its forfeiture were lost those
gifts which depended upon grace as effects depend upon their cause:
freedom from death and ills of soul and body; freedom from con­
cupiscence, from malice, from ignorance. Averted from God, man­
kind inclined in disorder to material and sensible goods.
When the Blessed Virgin is contrasted with this dreary portrait of
fallen human nature, conceived in sin and engulfed with the dire
results of the fall, St. John Damascene delineates her figure as far
removed from everything connected with the primal sin. She alone
is full of grace; free from all concupiscence; never for a moment
was her face turned from a steady gaze upon the Creator; she sub­
mitted to death only in order to resemble her Son. In no place is
original sin attributed to her, and although evidently the phrase
“Immaculate Conception” is not employed, yet the exemption implied
in it must be included in the absolute purity and sinlessness and
grace associated in every way with her who was destined to be the
Mother of the God of infinite holiness.107
105 Cf. Encomium in Beatam Virginem, PG, 86 (2), 3279; 3282; 3283; 3302;
3306.
>°e Cf. Valentine A. Mitchel, S.M., The Mariology of Saint John Damascene
(Kirkwood, Mo., 1930), p. 125.
107 Cf. De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. 4, cap. 14, PG, 94, 1159 A.

356

MARIOLOGY

This predestination of Mary was a special decree of Divine Provi­
dence: from all eternity God had loved her and chosen her as the
Mother of the Son, and because of this sublime office she was
promised a life more excellent in the order of grace than human
nature itself warranted. Should she, who was thus a most special
object of God’s loving solicitude, have ever for a moment been
displeasing to him?108
This position is further stressed when we see an intimate con­
nection between Mary’s conception in the womb of St. Anne and
her initial grace therein. St. John Damascene writes of the Virgin
as “the earth’s most divine bud”;109 “the germ of justice”;110 “the
divine grace in her whom St. Anne was privileged to bear.”111 He
explains, in effect, that a person is conceived without stain only if,
under God’s grace, a stainless seed has been the instrumentality for
that conception. This was the case, and uniquely so, in the daughter
of Anne and Joachim.112113
In a parallel passage tire Doctor calls Mary
“the most holy daughter of Joachim and Anne, hidden from the
fiery dart of Satan, dwelling in a bridal chamber of the spirit, pre­
served without stain as the Spouse and Mother of God.”118 From
what stain other than original sin could Mary have been preserved?
And why would Satan have sought, through fear, to harm her,
except because she was his enemy through the perfect abundance
of her grace?
Just as she was immune from original sin, so she was not subject
to the disorders of its guilt in the matter of carnal concupiscence:
utterly pure in mind114 and body.115*As Adam was in his innocence,
with the whole intent of his intellect devoted to contemplation of
things divine,118 similarly Mary repelled any movement toward any
vice.117 The penalty of death, so directly the consequence of Adam’s
fall, is exacted of every offspring of the first parent who inherits his
fault. Christ the Redeemer could not be subject to death since He
108 Cf. ibid., PG, 96, 675.
109 Homilia 3 in Dormitionem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 5,
110 Homilia 1 in Nativitatem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 9,
111 Ibid., Homilia 1, No. 2, 663.
112 Cf. Ibid.
113 Homilia 1 in Nativitatem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 3, PG,
114 Homilia 2 in Dormitionem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 2,
115 Homilia 1 in Nativitatem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 8,
118 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. 2, PG, 94, 978 C.
1,7 Homilia 2 in Dormitionem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 3,

PG, 96, 762 A.
PG, 96, 674 C.

96, 675.
PG, 96, 726 B.
PG, 96, 674 B.

PG, 96, 727 A.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

357

was sinless and death comes through sin.118 In the case of the Blessed
Virgin, St. John Damascene declares, she also was not subject to
the universal law of death, but submitted to it out of loving con­
formity to the chosen lot of her Son, “the Lord of nature who did
not refuse to experience death.”110 Thus her death indeed resembled
that of sinful man, but was not associated with the humiliation of
punishment for sin, for “in her,” the Saint exclaims, “the sting of
death, sin, has been extinguished.”120 The evidence is forceful that
Damascene taught substantially the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception.121

e) Ninth Century
Witnesses in the Eastern Church at this period are numerous in
support of what must be considered a very widespread, if indeed
not universal, acceptance of Mary’s immunity from original sin in
the Orient.122 St. Tarasius (f 806), Patriarch of Constantinople,
speaks of Mary as “predestined from the creation of the world;
chosen from among all generations that she might be the immaculate
domicile of the Word . . . the immaculate oblation of human nature.”
“This Virgin,” the author adds in the same context, “is immaculate
by her excellence.”123
Epiphanius, in his sermon on the life of the Blessed Virgin,
affirms her entire immunity from concupiscence, a freedom joined
to original justice.124 Joseph Hymnographus (f 833) describes Mary
as immune from all sin; wholly pure and immaculate; entirely with­
out stain.126 Georgius Nicomediensis whose theological opinions par­
allel in most matters those of his friend and contemporary Photius,
the father of the Greek schism, exempts the Mother of Christ from
all stain of sin and from the consequences of the fall of Adam.120
118 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. 3, cap. 27, PG, 94, 1095 B-C.
119 Homilia 1 in Dormitionem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 10, PG, 96, 714 D.
120 Homilia 2 in Dormitionem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 3, PG, 96, 727 C.
121 Cf. Stephen C. Gulovich, The Immaculate Conception in the Eastern
Churches, in Marian Studies, Vol. 5 (Washington, D. C., 1954), p. 160.
122 Cf. C. Octavius Valerius, De superstitiosa timiditate vitanda (Tridenti, 1751),
p. 28: ‘Oriente sacrum hunc statumque Conceptionis diem omnes summo concordique pietatis studio amplexati sunt nemine disentiente aut reclamante, quod
ego quidem noverim aut usquam legerim.”
123 In SS. Deiparae Praesentationem, PG, 98, 1498; 1482; 1490.
124 Cf. Sermo de vita Sanctissimae Deiparae, PG, 120, 194, 198.
125 Cf. Mariale, PG, 105, 983 ff.
12,1 Cf. Oratio 7 in Sanctissimae Deiparae ingressum in templum, PG, too, 1454;
1443·

MARIOLOGY

358

f) Tenth Century
The continuity of belief in the immunity of Mary from the heredi­
tary stain is manifest during this century among authors of perhaps
less renown than those of the preceding century, but whose state­
ments in the sources are equally uncompromising where the Mother
of God is under consideration. Euthymius (+917), a patriarch of
Constantinople, held, together with Petrus (t c. 920), Bishop of
Argo, that Mary was liberated from the infection of original sin
from her conception in the womb of St. Anne.127 A contemporary,
Joannes Geometra, wrote that the Mother of the Saviour “was con­
ceived in joy,” and “joy” he understood, as the context shows, as
synonymous with sanctifying grace.128 In his celebrated hymns he
yet more clearly affirmed that Mary had no sin as other men do,120
but rather that she came into the world in the state of original
justice, a “new creation” who was the supreme work of God and
the personification of ideal beauty.130
These and like expressions among these writers convey a very
distinct idea of the Immaculate Conception, often enclosing it in
positive formulas by insisting on the fullness of her grace; its un­
broken continuity; its resemblance to the condition of Adam prior
to sin; its entirely unique character. She needed no reconciliation to
God since He had already intervened in a singular fashion in order
to sanctify His Mother in her very conception. Such is the tenor of
these pertinent texts.
2. Argument From Liturgy

a') Relation of Liturgy to Faith
The value of liturgical worship as an index to the beliefs of the
Church and the faithful is founded in the axiom “the law of prayer
is the law of faith” — lex orandi est lex credendi. This liturgical
worship consists in the public performance of an act of worship of
God in forms laid down by the Church, in the name and on behalf
of the whole Christian people. It is thus the social exercise of the
virtue of religion, and manifests in a very definite fashion the reli­
gious creed of those who participate in it. The liturgy expresses itself
127 Cf.
128 Cf.
129 Cf.
130 Cf.

Oratio in conceptionem S. Annae, PG, 104, 1351; 1359.
Sermo in Sanctissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG, 106, 819; 846.
Hymnus 3 in Beatissimam Dei Genetricem, PG, 106, 862.
Hymnus 2 (and) 3 in Beatissimam Dei Genetricem, PG, 106, 858; 862.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

359

in the forms of prayer and various ceremonies of the Church, par­
ticularly in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the recitation of the
Divine Office, and the liturgical books such as the Missal, the
Breviary, the Ritual, among others, contain a rich fund of Catholic
doctrine. Whatever names may be attached to these sources (as in
tire Eastern Church the Euchologion does the work of the Missal,
the Pontifical, and the Ritual of the Latin rite), the basic idea is the
same: the people pray as they believe and as the Church teaches
them. It may very well happen, as it seems to have happened in the
case of the Immaculate Conception, that the great body of the faith­
ful tend to develop in their devotions an awareness of a truth not
yet universally agreed upon by theologians.181 But such a devotional
development, while important in assaying a trend in the sensus
communis fidelium, is not strictly speaking a part of the Church’s
official prayer.
b) Liturgical Development in Eastern Church
The liturgical celebration of the feast of the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin preceded, as might be reasonably expected, the feast
of her Conception, although in the order of time the latter mystery
would naturally be prior. The evidence is convincing that Mary’s
Nativity merited a special day in the liturgy of the Orient already
by the middle of the sixth century, or certainly by the seventh, and
shortly afterward there is testimony of the celebration of the feast
of St. Anne’s Conception. By this was meant Anne’s active concep­
tion of her daughter Mary.132 A homily on this feast was composed
by John of Euboea, a contemporary of St. John Damascene.133 By
the time of Photius the feast was observed universally in the Greek
Church, a conclusion easy to reach by a perusal of the widely read
homilies of George of Nicomedia (+917) and the import of the
Menologium compiled in 984 by the edict of Emperor Basil II,
acknowledging the feast of the Conception as celebrated on De­
cember 9.134
As analyzed by Jugie, the object of this feast includes the heavenly
message that Mary would be conceived, through a miracle in the
natural order, in the sterile womb of Anne, as well as the recognition
181 Cf. H. du Colombier, S.J., A la Gloire de Marie (Paris, 1936), p. 24.
182 Cf. Canones Praecipui et Triodia, Conceptio Sanctae ac Dei Aviae Annae,
PG, 97, 1306-1318.
183 Cf. Sermo in Conceptionem Sanctae Deiparae, PG, 96, 1459-1499.
134 Cf. Stephen C. Gulovich, art. cit., p. 169.

36o

MARIOLOGY

of the exceptional graces that accompanied the Virgin’s passive
conception. The most noteworthy element of this liturgical celebra­
tion is the emphasis placed upon the passive conception by the
hymnographers and orators who referred to the significance of the
feast. Among the Greeks and the Slavs, especially in the Middle
Ages, this day of “the Conception of the Mother of God” was one
of solemn observance, providing occasion for panegyrics on the
sanctity of Our Lady, extolling her immunity from all stain, even
from the first instant of her existence.135
The firm conviction among the Catholics of the Orient that Mary
was ever holy and completely so, a conviction that was consistently
reflected in the theological and liturgical movements of the Greek
Church, was not altered by the schism begun under Photius in 867
and consummated under Michael Cerularius in 1054. This sad
estrangement from the center of Catholic truth did not retard
the development of Marian theology from the eleventh to the fif­
teenth century, which continued certainly up to the fall of Constan­
tinople to the Turks in 1453. Indeed, one might truthfully assert
that the Byzantines were strangers to the controversy on the Immacu­
late Conception that raged in the West.136 And almost all the
(unedited) sources of this later period agree with the earlier edited
material in formulating expressly or in equivalent terms the doctrine
of Mary’s total immunity from all stain of sin.137 It is but another
evidence of the dreary consequence of the East’s separation from the
See of Peter that the modern Orthodox Church has forfeited its
allegiance to Mary’s singular prerogative. The polemical and negativistic mentality which has for centuries characterized the Oriental
Christians has obscured, to a large measure, the glorious past of the
devotion in the East to the Mother of God.138
B. The Immaculate Conception in the Doctrine of the Latin Church
From the Council of Ephesus (431) until the middle of the
eleventh century is the epoch of preparation for explicit belief in
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was during
this era in a stage of incipient explicit profession.139 In the West the
development was less rapid than in the East, due perhaps to the
1S5 Cf.
136 Cf.
137 Cf.
338 Cf.
138 Cf.

DTC, Vol. 7, col. 959.
Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 473.
DTC, Vol. 7, col. 936 ff.
Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 476.
DTC, Vol. 7, col. 979; J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 306-310.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

361

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

a) Fifth Century
St. Peter Chrysologus taught that Mary was destined to holiness
because of the divine Maternity, and that this sanctity was with her
from the beginning of her existence.140 St. Maximus of Turin
(t c. 470) writes of the Virgin as “a worthy dwelling of God by
virtue of her original grace,” and without this grace she would not
have been the Mother of the Incarnate Word.141 Sedulius, noted as
a writer of hymns, institutes a comparison between Mary all pure
and the tainted nature of the rest of men, for she is “as the tender
rose bloom amid sharp thorns.”142 St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspa
Ct 533)> contrasts the sinfulness of Eve with the perpetual sanctity
of Mary.143 And in a commentary on the angelic salutation, he ex­
plains with considerable preciseness, the significance of “full of
grace,” making it practically equivalent to what is now understood
to be immunity from original sin.144

b) Sixth, Seventh, Eighth Centuries
The line of growth in the development of the teaching on the
Immaculate Conception continued during these centuries with much
the same impetus as in earlier times, with an augmenting insistence
on the initial quality of Mary’s grace. St. Venantius Fortunatus,
Bishop of Poitiers (t 609), called the Virgin “a new creation,” the
“just seed” promised by God to Jeremias the Prophet.145 St. Ildephonse
of Toledo (f666), in a (doubtfully authentic) work on the privi­
leges of the Blessed Mother, stresses the unbroken continuity of her
no Cf. Sermo 140, De Annuntiatione D. Mariae Virginis, PL, 52, 576.
141 Homilia 5, Incipit dictum ante Natale Domini, PL, 57, 235 D.
142 Carmen Paschale, lib, 2, PL, 19, 595-596.
143 Sermo 2, de duplici Nativitate Christi, No. 6, PL, 65, 728 C.
144 Cf. Sermo 36, De laudibus Mariae ex partu Salvatoris, PL, 65, 899 C.
145 Miscellanea, lib. 8, cap. 7, PL, 88, 277-281.

302

MARIOLOGY

grace, made firm by "an eternal covenant” with God.148 Pseudo­
Jerome likens Mary to a cloud which never knew darkness but was
ever engulfed in light.147 Ambrose Autpertus (f 778) declares that
tire Mother of God was “immaculate, because in nowise corrupt,”
and never subject to the snares of Satan.148 Paulus Warnefridus wrote
that Mary was never "spiritually deserted” by the grace of the
Word.149 These citations are illustrations, chosen from among nu­
merous others, of the constant affirmation of such an eminent holiness
in Mary as would postulate at the same time freedom from tire stain
of original sin and its consequences.

c) Ninth and Tenth Centuries
In these last two centuries before the commencement of the con­
troversy in the West, there is found a continuation of the trend of
theological thought developed previously. Haymon, Bishop of Alberstadt (+ 853), accommodated to Mary’s conception the sense of the
passage in Ecclus. 24:14: “From the beginning, and before the
world, was I created . . concluding that only her unbroken sanctity
could render her fit to be the Mother of God.150 Paschasius Radbertus
(t 860) deduces that Mary brought forth her Son without any
pain or any corruption because she herself was without any guilt or
corruption, but rather was fully blessed;151 she was exempt from all
contagion of man’s first progenitor. 152 In the same vein St. Fulbert
(t 1028) wrote that God the Father chose her soul and body as the
dwelling for His Son, and therefore made it perfectly pure from all
that is evil and of sin.153

d) Eleventh to Sixteenth Century
This wide period includes the time of controversy in the West
concerning the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and its
effective termination with the general acceptance of the Scotistic
position. The influence of St. Anselm (1033—1109) on his contem146 Cf. QSermones dubii), Sermo 2, De Assumptione Beatae Mariae, PL, 96,
252 A.
147 Cf. Breviarium in Psalmos, Ps. 77, PL, 26, 1049.
148 Cf. Ep. 9 ad Paulam et Eustochium, de Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis,
PL, 30, 132 A.
149 Homilia 2, in Evangelium: Intravit Jesus, PL, 95, 1573 B.
159 Cf. Homilia 5 in solemnitate perpetuae Virginis Mariae, PL, 118, 765 D.
151 Cf. De partu Virginis, lib. 1, PL, 120, 1369 A.
152 Cf. ibid., 1375 B.
158 Cf. Sermo 4, de Nativitate Beatissimae Mariae Virginis, PL, 141, 322 B.

I

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

363

poraries and upon the writers posterior to his era would be difficult
to exaggerate, and the inference is strong that Anselm did not lean
toward acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception for the simple
reason that he could not see how Mary’s conception in grace could
be properly reconciled with the universality of the Redemption
wrought by Christ.154 And yet there was celebrated, certainly con­
temporaneously with Anselm, the feast entitled The Conception of
Mary, the purpose of which was to honor the perfect purity of the
Mother of God.155 This feast was observed on the eighth or ninth of
December, and, according to Baronius, it began in England about
the end of the tenth century.150 The simple piety of the faithful
readily accepted it, and certain revelations and miracles were com­
monly associated with the feast, widely celebrated by about the
middle of the eleventh century, or somewhat later.157
Theological backing for the feast, based upon the vast deposit of
Mariological literature of the preceding centuries, was not by any
means wanting, even at about the time the question of the propriety
of the feast was being agitated. Eadmerus, a friend of St. Anselm,
defended the orthodoxy of the feast of Mary’s Conception, declaring
that the Mother of God was indeed removed from the common law
of inheritance of the first sin, otherwise God’s wisdom would be
inoperative.158 This exclusion of Mary from the law of sin was,
according to Eadmerus, from the “very beginning of her creation.”159
This author even appears to have taught that this privilege was in
the manner of a preservation, for if God prevented the good angels
from personal sin, why would He not preserve His own Mother
from the consequences of another’s sin?100
154 Cf. Rogerus T. Jones, Sancti Anselmi Mariologia (Mundelein, Ill., 1937), p.
45; Francis M. Mildner, O.S.M., The Immaculate Conception in England up to
the Time of John Dims Scotus, in Marianum, Vol. 1 (Roma, 1939), pp. 200—201.
155 Cf. Gaetano M. Perrella, C.M., La dottrina dell'Immacolata nella Liturgia
della festa, in Marianum, Vol. 4 (Roma, 1942), pp. 21—31; Andrea M. Cecchin,
O.S.M., La Concezione della Vergine nella liturgia della Chiesa occidentale anteriore
al secolo XIII, in Marianum, Vol. 5 (Roma, 1943), pp. 58-114.
158 Cf. C. Octavius Valerius, op. cit., p. 29.
157 Cf. Felim O'Briain, O.F.M., Eeast of Our Lady’s Conception in the Medieval
Irish Church, in The Irish Ecclesiastical Review (Dublin, 1948), p. 702; M. J.
Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1947), p. 87 (footnote).
188 Cf. Opera S. Anselmi, Appendix: De Conceptione Beatae Mariae Virginis,
PL, 159, 304 D-305 A.
189 Ibid., 307 A.
too Ibid., 305 D.

364

MARIOLOGY

e) St. Bernard
Whatever authorities may be thus invoked in favor of the cele­
bration of a feast honoring the conception of Mary as a legitimate
and sufficiently traditional liturgical observance, the historical fact is
that the power and influence of St. Bernard (1091-1153) was,
despite his great love for Mary, aligned with the forces that opposed
such a feast. He formulated his objection in a celebrated letter to
the Canons of Lyons.101 Probably this stand of Bernard was a provi­
dential one, for it set off a controversy about the Immaculate Con­
ception that ultimately resulted in the universal acceptance of the
doctrine of Mary’s immunity from original sin. It is disputed among
students of Bernard’s letter whether the saint intended simply to
oppose the introduction of the feast as inopportune and not approved
by Rome, or whether he intended to take issue with the doctrine
itself of the Immaculate Conception. More probably his objection
was against the doctrine as then understood.102
It must be remembered that at the time St. Bernard wrote, the
notions concerning conception, animation, the time of the infusion
of the soul, the nature of concupiscence and its relation to original sin,
were neither as clear nor as well settled as they later became, espe­
cially in the course of the controversy. The feast about which the
Doctor complained had for the object of its cult the seminal concep­
tion of the daughter of Anne and Joachim, and this conception, in
the physiological teaching of the era (and accepted as correct by
theologians), preceded animation. Bernard did not believe (as
indeed one cannot) that something (the person of Mary) could be
sanctified before it existed. And this interpretation prevailed among
most of the later Scholastics.103 The Acta of the feast under dispute
emphatically indicated that the object of the feast was precisely the
conception of the seed.104 Moreover, it was believed by Bernard and
other renowned theologians that in some way sin was connected
with the generative act of the parents. This would disallow sanctifi181 Cf. Ep. 174 Ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, PL, 182, 332-336; but see Sebastianus
Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 241: ". . . Bernardus non tam arguit opinionem
de Immaculata Conceptione, quam institutionem illius solemnitatis inconsulta Sede
Apostolica, et ex propria auctoritate.”
182 Cf. C. Octavius Valerius, op. cit., p. 27; A. Raugel, La doctrine de Saint
Bernard (Paris, 1935), p. 34 ff.; Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 236.
163 Cf. Antonius Ballerini, S.J., De S. Bernardi scriptis circa Deiparae Concep­
tionem (Roma, 1856), passim; Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 236.
164 Cf. M. J. Scheeben, op. cit., p. 89.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

365

cation as concomitant with generation. Accordingly, since Mary
could not be sanctified before she was conceived, nor when she was
conceived, the only conclusion must be, in the mind of Bernard,
that Mary was cleansed from original sin after conception but before
birth.188
St. Bernard’s position carried great weight with the writers who
came after him. They followed his doctrine whenever they wrote
about the question of sanctification before animation,188 holding too
that the soul was infused (animation) from forty to eighty days after
seminal conception.187 Even allowing for this difference Between the
opinion of the writers of those days and the opinion that subse­
quently prevailed, that animation is simultaneous with conception,
nevertheless the Scholastics did not all admit Mary’s sanctification
in the instant itself of animation. Indeed, St. Bonaventure declares:
“. . . teneamus, secundum quod communis opinio tenet, Virginis
sanctificationem fuisse post originalis peccati contractionem.”188
In substance, then, when the better known Scholastics examined
the question of the Virgin’s mode of conception, it was not discussed
whether she was immaculately conceived, but whether her sanctifi­
cation occurred before the infusion of the soul into the flesh, by
some sanctification of the flesh itself. The freedom of the soul from
the stain of original sin would be the necessary consequence, it was
felt, of such a carnal sanctification. Or, further, it was discussed
whether the sanctification took place after the infusion of the soul,
removing from her soul that stain of sin to which union with un­
sanctified flesh necessarily subjected it. The first view: sanctification
of the flesh before the infusion of the soul with the consequent
preservation of the soul from sin, was unacceptable, both because
inanimate flesh is not susceptible of sanctification, and also because
such a preservation as would follow, if that sanctification were pos­
sible, would exempt Mary from the universal law of sin and the
need for redemption. The accepted opinion was that not only did
conception of the flesh take place in sin, but that the soul itself
in its infusion into the unsanctified flesh, was contaminated by sin.
165 Cf. Pierre Aubron, S.J., L’oeuvre Mariale de Saint Bernard (Paris 1935),
pp. 177-184.
1ββ Cf. S. Bonaventura, in III Sent., d. 3, a. 1, q. 1; S. Thomas Aquinas, in Ill
Sent., d. 3, q. 1, a. 1; S. Albertus Magnus, in III Sent., d. 3, a. 4; Alex. Halensis,
Summa Theol., Ill, d. 3, a. 4.
107 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, op. cit., p. 237.
108 Cf. in 111 Sent., d. 3, q. 2.

366

MARIOLOGY

It was not yet understood that the soul could be sanctified simulta­
neously with its infusion.109 Of course, St. Bernard was prepared to
conform his opinion to that of the Church, should he have been
required to do so.170
f) St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) treated the question of the Im­
maculate Conception only incidentally, as cognate to his considera­
tion of the sinlessness of Christ.171 He followed the teaching of St.
Bernard, and so perhaps it might be held that his unwillingness to
admit Mary’s immunity from sin from the first moment of her con­
ception was due to the failure of the schools to develop an accurate
notion of the moment of conception and animation. Some exponents
of St. Thomas have endeavored to establish that the Angelic Doctor
virtually held for the Immaculate Conception, and would certainly
have taught it if “conception” had been treated completely by him.172
But most students of St. Thomas are quite prepared to admit that
the Angelic Doctor simply denied Mary’s freedom from original
sin.173 The “Thomistic School” of theology has produced not a few
defenders, for centuries, of the Blessed Virgin’s singular prerogative.
Long before the definition of the Immaculate Conception as an
article of Faith, many Dominicans pledged themselves to a defense
of it when taking their degrees in the schools of Europe.174

g) John Duns Scotus
It is one of the great glories of the Franciscan Order to have pro109 Cf. M. J. Scheeben, op. cit., p. 95.
170 Cf. Bernard’s spirit of submission, Litt. 174, PL, 182, 333.
171 Cf. Paul F. Palmer, S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (Westminster,
Md., 1952), p. 71.
172 Cf. D. Francesco Gaude, Sullo Immacolato Concepimento della Madre di Dio
(Roma, 1856), p. 86 ff.; M. A. Bros, Santo Tomas de Aquino y la Inmaculada
Concepcion de la Virgen Maria (Barcelona, 1909), passim.
173 Cf. G. M. Roschini, O.S.M., La Mariologia di S. Tommaso (Roma, 1950),
pp. 236-237. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the opinion of St. Thomas in
S. Th., Ill, q. 27, a. 2 ad 2um, with Mary’s immunity from original sin: “. . . si
nunquam anima B. Virginis fuisset contagio originalis peccati inquinata, hoc de­
rogaret dignitati Christi, secundum quam est universalis omnium Salvator.” Cf.
Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 291; Armandus Plessis, S.M.M., Manuale
Mariologiae Dogmaticae (Pont-Chateau, 1942), p. 60; Emile Campana, Marie dans
le Dogme Catholique (Montréjeau, 1913), Vol. 2, p. 200 ff.
174 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 236; D. J. Kennedy,
O.P., St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception, in The Dogma of the Immacu­
late Conception, ed. B. McKenna (Washington, D. C., 1929), p. 96.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

367

duced the Subtle Doctor, John Duns Scotus (1270-1308), whose
forceful defence and brilliant clarification of the truth of the Im­
maculate Conception prepared the way for its ultimate definition.
He showed that the reasons for sanctification of the person of Mary
after animation could be possible and was fitting, and that actually
“after” animation in reality means only that the sanctification fol­
lowed the infusion of Mary’s soul in the order of nature, but not in
the order of time. That is to say, that the freeing of Mary from the
stain of sin required, as a necessary precondition, the creation and
infusion of her soul, but that in terms of time the sanctification and
the animation were simultaneous. Scotus brought the argument to
the level where alone the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
could be properly formulated and theologically (and philosophically)
accepted by all.175 His distinction between priority in time and
priority in nature adequately took care of the objection of St.
Bernard.176
The objection against the immunity of Mary from original sin
based upon the universality of its stain, as stated by St. Paul in
Rom. 5:12: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world,
and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all
have sinned,” and the consequent universality of Christ’s Redemption,
had offered the greatest stumbling block to an acceptance of the
Immaculate Conception.177 The core of Scotus’ answer to this classical
difficulty consists in his development of the office of Christ as a
perfect Mediator and a perfect Redeemer, and thus it would pertain
to Him as most fitting to preserve His Mother from the stain of all
sin, not merely from all actual sin, but from original sin as well. To
deny this, Scotus taught, would derogate from Christ’s excellence. In­
deed, in virtue of the Incarnation and Redemption it was even more
fitting that the merits of Christ should preserve His Mother from
original sin than from actual sin, for it was to atone for the former
especially that the Saviour endured His Passion.178 Hence Christ
redeemed His Mother by preservative redemption, not by restorative
175 Cf. Emile Campana, op. cit., p. 232.
178 Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M., The Immaculate Conception (San Francisco, 1925),
p. 21.
177 Cf. D. J. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 90.
178 Cf. Carolus Balié, O.F.M., De debito peccati originalis in B. Virgine Maria
(Romae, 1941). p. 88 ff.; Joannis Duns Scotus, Theologiae Marianae Elementa, in
Bibliotheca Mariana, ed. Carolus Balié, O.F.M. (Sibenici, 1933), p. 190; Scotus.
Quaestiones Disputatae de Immaculata Conceptione (Ad Claras Aquas, 1904), pp.
12-22.

368

MARIOLOGY

redemption as in the case of all the rest of mankind.178 Moreover,
Christ, not Adam, is the moral and spiritual head of the human race,
for He is the source of all its grace. Because of the sin of Adam
mankind became subject to the power of Satan, with the exception
of Mary. She was not subject to the devil since God had already
decreed, according to Scotus, that the Word should become flesh
through Mary, and so, as Christ was decreed before Adam, it must
follow that Mary was included in the same decree as her Son.179
180
Although Scotus himself did not explicitly teach Mary’s predestina­
tion before the prevision of Adam’s sin, this doctrine would seem to
follow from his theory on the absolute predestination of Christ.181
Of course, Duns Scotus taught that the Blessed Virgin had her
origin from the carnal seed of Adam as his natural daughter, and
hence she would have contracted original sin unless preserved by
the foreseen merits of her divine Son.182 And Scotus believed it to
be a much greater tribute to the power, wisdom, and goodness of
God that He should preserve His Mother from all sin, including
original sin, rather than that He should cleanse her from it. “Either
God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to
preserve her and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling
to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He
willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for
no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so.”183 As
the most perfect of all merely human creatures, the Mother of God
should have received the most perfect redemption through grace: a
redemption that preserved her, not one that healed her only.
Although the great Franciscan Doctors prior to Scotus, St. Bona­
venture184 and St. Anthony,185 did not admit, at least clearly so, the
179 Cf. Scotus (ed. Balié), p. 192: “Nobilius autem est praeservare ne offendat quis
quam post offensam remittere.”
180 Cf. Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 179 ff.
781 N. G. da S. Marcello, O.F.M., L’immacolata ed il Verbo U manato (Ad
Claras Aquas, 1904), passim; Ephrem Longpré, O.F.M., Exposition du Dogme de
l'Immaculée-Conception, in Deuxième Congrès Marial National (Lourdes, 1930),
p. 80.
182 Cf. Carolus Balié, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 99.
188 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, op. cit., pp. 243-244: “Aut Deus potuit, et
noluit, aut voluit, et non potuit praeservare illam ab originali, si potuit, et noluit,
ergo avarus in eam fuit, si voluit, et non potuit, infirmus fuit, certe nullus est, qui
possit honorare matrem, et nolit.”
184 Cf. Emmanuel Chiettini, O.F.M., Mariologia S. Bonaventurae, in Bibliotheca
Mariana Medii Aevi (Romae, 1941), p. 145 ff.
185 Cf. Caietanus Stano, O.F.M.Conv., De mente S. Antonii Patavini quoad Imm.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

369

doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin, the Franciscan School
after Scotus propounded the doctrine even more emphatically than
he.*
186 Up to the first half of the sixteenth century, the Dominicans
continued opposed to the doctrine.187

h) Papal Pronouncements
In the course of the succeeding centuries the controversy continued
among the various schools of thought, chiefly as between the Fran­
ciscans and the Dominicans, but after the heated sessions of the
Council of Basle (1431-1438) the sovereign pontiffs declared with
increasing emphasis the mind of the Church. No official affirmation
of Rome’s stand appeared before the Constitution Cum praeexcelsa'K*
(1477) of Sixtus IV, wherein the Pope commended the celebration
of "the wondrous Conception of this Immaculate Virgin.”188 This
was followed within a few years by the Constitution Grave nimis
(1483) of the same Pontiff, in which the Holy Father clearly distin­
guished the meaning of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in nearly
the same terms as were employed nearly four hundred years later by
Pope Pius IX.180 Although this declaration of Sixtus IV was, of
course, not a definition, nevertheless in it the Pope stated that he
reproved those who denied the Immaculate Conception.181
While the Council of Trent (1545-1563) did not define the
dogma, yet it unequivocally stated in its famous decree on original
sin that it did not intend to include the Blessed Virgin within the
meaning of that decree: “This same Holy Synod declares that it is
not its intention to include in this decree, where there is question
of original sin, the blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of
God. Rather the Constitutions of Sixtus of happy memory are to
be observed. . . .”182
Conceptionem B. V. Mariae, in Miscellanea Francescana, Vol. 40 (Roma, 1940),
p. 18; Candidus Romerii, O.F.M., De Immaculata Conceptione Virginis apud S.
Antonium (Romae, 1939), p. 78; Diomede Scaramuzzi, O.F.M., La dottrina teologica
di S. Antonio di Padova (Roma, 1933), pp. 30-39.
186 Cf. P. Pauwels, O.F.M., Les Franciscains et L'Immaculée Conception
(Malines, 1904), p. 9 ff.; lérome de Paris, O.F.M.Cap., La doctrine mariale de
Saint Laurent de Brindes (Paris, 1933), pp. 61-74.
187 Cf. M. J. Scheeben, op. cit., p. 108.
188 Cf. C. Octavius Valerius, op. cit., p. 36.
188 D.B., No. 734.
100 Cf. Emphrem Longpré, op. cit., p. 80.
101 Cf. Cherubinus Sericoli, O.F.M., Immaculata B. M. Virginis Conceptio
iuxta Xysti IV Constitutiones (Romae, 1945), passim; D.B., No. 735.
102 D.B., No. 792. Cf. M. Tognetti, L'lmmacolata al Concilio Tridentino, in
Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 304-374.

37°

MARIOLOGY

After Trent the opposition to the Immaculate Conception became
greatly moderated, and even those who previously had been against
it either changed their view or else discontinued any serious attacks
on the complete orthodoxy of the doctrine. One of the most zealous
and brilliant defenders of the doctrine during this period was the
Dominican Ambrose Catarino.183
Pope St. Pius V (1504-1572) condemned the error of Baius
wherein the latter had stated that the Mother of God was subject to
original sin,184 and in the Constitution Quod a nobis (1568) the
Pontiff put the feast of the Immaculate Conception in the calendar
of the Roman breviary.
Alexander VII in the Constitution Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum
(1661) described with remarkable exactitude the sense of the doc­
trine of the Immaculate Conception, in words similar to those later
used in Ineffabilis Dews.185 Pope Clement XI, in the Constitution
Commissi Nobis (1708), instituted the feast of the Immaculate
Conception, December 8, as a holyday of obligation.188
The Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1846 declared Mary
Immaculate to be the Patroness of the United States, and con­
firmation of this dedication was furnished by Pope Pius IX on
February 7, 1847, less than eight years before the solemn definition
of the dogma.187
THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Any doctrine that contributes so richly to the spiritual, liturgical,
and intellectual life of the Church as does the doctrine of Mary’s
Immaculate Conception, quite properly would be expected to have
abundant theological reasoning in its favor.188 Among the various
arguments traditionally invoked in support of the dogma, despite the
diversity of their force, all may be reduced to two general classes:
(1) the possibility of the doctrine (a) on God’s part; (b) on Mary’s
part; (c) on the part of mankind — (2) the fittingness of the doctrine
(a) on God’s part; (b) on Mary’s part; (c) on the part of mankind.
193 Cf. Giacinto Bosco, O.P., L’lmmacolata Concezione net pensiero del Gaetano
e del Caterino (Firenze, 1950).
194 D.B., No. 1073.
195 Ibid., No. 1100.
196 For history of the Papal acts, cf. Dominicus Palmieri, op. cit., pp. 293-298.
For complete treatment of acts prior to 1854, cf. J. Armand Robichaud, S.M.,
art. cit.
197 Cf. Paul F. Palmer, S.J., op. cit., p. 79.
198 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 119®.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

371

i. The Possibility of the Doctrine
a) On God’s Part

Strictly speaking, only that is impossible for God which implies
a “metaphysical contradiction.” Thus even God obeys the principles,
for example, of sufficient reason and of identity. God can do what­
ever does not include some inherent repugnance, simply because He
is utterly omnipotent. With regard to the Immaculate Conception,
while this required a miracle in the order of grace, it is surely not
impossible that God would preserve a human person from incurring
the penalty of Adam’s sin, if He so decreed. This was an unique
exception granted to her because of her office as the Mother of the
God-Man. Since the laws governing the dispensation of grace are
formulated by God, He can accordingly relax the operation of such
laws as He deems fit.188
It does not matter whether one consider the possibility on the
part of any one of the three divine Persons, for all acts of God which
take effect outside the divine nature are common to each of the
three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.200 This mystery does
not derogate from the dignity of the Father, who must prepare a
human nature as a fit channel for the Incarnation. Nor do the pre­
rogatives of the Incarnate Word suffer any diminution, nor is Flis
essential sanctity affected by the great grace accorded Flis Mother.
As the second Person of the Trinity He is substantially sanctified
with the full holiness of the Godhead, and born into the world as
man, He has the absolutely unparalleled distinction of being born of
a woman who was without any stain of sin and a virgin. Christ’s
immunity from sin was by natural right as proper to the divine
nature, and since Fie was not of Adam’s seed, He can in no manner
be considered as even under the law of original sin. Mary had her
immunity by way of privilege. This privilege enjoyed by her did not
diminish the efficacy of Christ’s redemptive act, but instead exalted
it, since the Immaculate Conception was in virtue of her Son’s merits
which preserved her in a more sublime manner than other humans
enjoy.201 Finally, the possibility on the part of the Holy Spirit cannot
be impugned, for in Flis role of Sanctifier He is able to cleanse
Mary’s soul from sin in any way and at any time He so elected, just
St. Thomas, S. Th., 1, q. 105, a. 7.
200 Cf. ibid., I, q. 31, a. 1.
2,11 Cf. Joannes Duns Scotus, op. cit., p. 192.

γρ.

MARIOLOGY

as He is fully able to preserve her entirely from contracting any stain
of sin in the first place.

b) On Mary’s Part
No impossibility can be alleged insofar as Mary is concerned, for
as a creature she is subject to the Creator according to His will, and
therefore she can be used by God to help in the achievement of His
designs and thereby to manifest His power, wisdom, and goodness.202
As seminally descended from Adam there was some relationship to sin
established by this very fact, but that she did not ever actually incur
this hereditary taint was indeed extraordinary and miraculous. While
it was in itself extraordinary and unique that she should have been
immune from original sin, yet in virtue of her office as Mother of the
Messias and of her total subordination to the decrees of God in that
regard, there was assuredly no impossibility on her part. And in a
sense her Immaculate Conception might be termed ordinary precisely
so far as she herself is concerned: merely another tremendous gift in
the totality of her elevation over all the accustomed ways of God’s
dealings with mankind. This singular privilege remains in itself in­
ferior to her divine Maternity, since the former was on account of the
latter.203 Exalted above all the rest of men by her preservative libera­
tion from the law of sin, she was further exalted above all angels by
the privilege of becoming the Mother of God-made-Man.
c) On the Part of Mankind
While it is a divinely revealed truth that in Adam “all men have
sinned,”201 still this “all” need not be so rigorously understood as to
disallow any exception whatsoever, as is plainly evident from similar
uses of the inclusive sense of certain words: “. . . every man is a
liar . . . ,”205 “. . . there is none that doth good.”200 Hence, while the
Virgin Mary is a member of the human race and as such was in
some way associated with the disabilities incumbent upon mankind,
nevertheless this fact raises no insurmountable obstacle to her being
exempted from the common lot of other children of Adam, if God so
willed to exempt her.
202 Cf. Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (Milwaukee, 1951),
p. 201.
203 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 105 ff.
2°·* Rom. 5:12.
205 Rom. 3:4.
206 Rom. 3:12.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

373

2. The Fittingness of the Doctrine

a) On God’s Part
If all the just are children of God in virtue of their individual
share in the divine life through sanctifying grace,207 then Mary is,
to a pre-eminent degree and because of the divine Maternity,208 God’s
most beloved child. The nature of her mission required that.208 She is
the first-born of all mere creatures and to her may properly be accom­
modated the words, "I came out of the mouth of the most FligFi, the
first-born before all creatures.’’210 Chosen from all eternity for her
sublime role, as Mother of the only-begotten Son of God, what­
ever honored her, necessarily honored Him, and whatever would
lessen her dignity would, in some manner, reflect unfavorably upon
her Son. Had she been affected by sin and so subject to the devil, she
would scarcely have been worthy to be the Mother of God: each one
is given grace according to the need of that to which God has chosen
one.211
God the Father associated Mary to Himself in the generation of
the Son in time, and the analogous relationship thereby resulting
called for a very high share in the infinite purity and holiness of
God. It is incongruous to suppose that He who from all eternity was
begotten in the bosom of the heavenly Father should assume a human
nature in the body of a woman who at any time had been marred
by sin’s guilt. The same divine Person is the Son of God and the
Son of Mary, and as she was similar to God in generating the Word,
so she ought to be similar to God in sanctity, in that measure possible
to a mere human.212
If the propriety of Mary’s immunity from original sin be examined
in the light of Mary’s relationship to the Word, an equally cogent
argument is derived. Had the Son chosen to be His Mother one
unworthy of that exalted dignity (and original sin would make one
unworthy) then such a selection would be attributable either to a want
of wisdom on the part of the Son, or to an inability to provide other207 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I-Π, q. no, a. 3.
203 Cf. Chan. J. Mahieu, op. cit., p. 47.
209 Cf. R. P. Poupon, O.P., Le Poème de la Parfaite Consécration à Marie (Lyon,
1947), P· 1X3·
21u Ecclus. 24:5.
211 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., III, q. 27, a. 5 ad mm.
212 Cf. Arthur Martin, S.J., Vida y misterios de la Bienaventurada Virgen Maria
Madré de Dios (Mexico City, 1950), p. 17.

374

MARIOLOGY

wise. Obviously, neither of these alternatives is possible in view of
the infinite knowledge and power of the Son. Therefore, Mary
must have been sanctified from the first instant of her existence.213
The filial piety of the Son toward His Mother would assure that
the amability of Mary in the eyes of God should never suffer any
interruption nor be any less than possible. Had she, even for the
briefest interval of time, been under original sin, she would not have
been constantly lovable to the Father. Rather she would have been
an object of His wrath. The Word Himself obeyed the command of
God, “Honor thy mother,” and this He would not have done had
He, although able to preserve His Mother from the stain of sin, not
done so.
Christ came to take away the sins of the world, and so He was
destined to be segregated from sin214 and from all dishonor flowing
from a personal relationship with sinners: “For it was fitting that we
should have such an high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated
from sinners. . . .”21S Had Flis own Mother been a sinner, this
revealed truth would be difficult to reconcile with her condition, for
her stain would be, in some way, to His dishonor.21"
Christ was a perfect Mediator, fulfilling to the highest degree the
office of atonement and reconciliation decreed for Flim by the
Father: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men,
the man Jesus Christ.”217 Physically, Christ is between the two
extremes of divinity and humanity: distinguished from each and yet
having something in common with each. Morally, the perfection of
mediation is attributed to Christ, because the Word became Incarnate
to reconcile mankind with God. As Man, the Son of Mary, Christ’s
suffering and death merited reparation for all, for His human actions
and sufferings have a redemptive value in that they are proper to
the Word, who sustains and directs the assumed nature. Christ,
therefore, is Mediator according to His human nature which He
received from the Virgin, without, of course, being independent of
Flis divinity. This perfect mediatorship of Christ postulated that His
Mother be preserved from sin, since Fie would effect in her behalf
213 Cf. Bishop Ullathome, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
(Baltimore, 1855), passim.
214 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., Ill, q. 4, à. 6 ad 2111η.
215 Hebr. 7:26.
216 Cf. St. Peter Damian, Homil. in Nativ. B. Μ. V., senno 46, PL, 144, 755.
217 i Tim. 2:5; cf. D.B., No. 790.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

375

whatever was needed for the excellence of her person: she was the
first fruit of His redemption.218
Additional support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
is found in Mary’s own coredemptive life. As Mother of the Incarnate
Word, she participates subordinately in the mediation of Christ with
God, and is also Mediatrix between Christ and men. While her
Mediation consists principally in praying in order to obtain for us
the application of the fruits of the Redemption, yet she is not
restricted to this office, because as associated with Christ, she co-oper­
ated with Him in the work of the Redemption, contributing accord­
ing to the measure of God’s will to the acquisition of the fruits of
salvation.219 While this function could, absolutely speaking, be carried
on without freedom from the stain of original sin, it is far from fitting
that it should have been so.
The prerogative of exemption from the sin of Adam placed Mary
under the highest obligation to Christ the Mediator, since to be pre­
served from that sin is the greatest good the Redeemer could bestow.
If no one had been thus perfectly redeemed, then no one would be
perfectly indebted to Christ. Mary is Christ’s debtor more truly than
the rest of mankind because she is more perfectly innocent than any
other.220 And she is so holy because her redemption, her share in
Christ’s merits, is so excellent. Other humans are freed from the
power of darkness; she never knew anything except the light of a
supreme creatural sanctity.
The intimate union between Mary and the Holy Spirit further
shows the entire fittingness of the dogma of the Immaculate Con­
ception. It is, by analogy, like the union of spouses, for He “over­
shadowed” her and she conceived by Him.221 Just as every spouse
expects to find unblemished purity in his beloved, similarly the
Spirit of God would take care to preserve His spouse from any
spiritual detriment: from sin of any kind. How better might the
great love of God be manifest than by giving Mary such singular
grace as would require her having been conceived with a fullness of
grace? As the daughter of God the Father, and Mother of God the
Son, and as spouse of God the Holy Spirit, it is thoroughly befitting
218 Cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., 243.
219 Cf. Juniper Carol, O.F.M., Romanorum Pontificum doctrina de B. V. Corredemptrice, in Marianum, Vol. 9 (1947), p. 165 ff.
220 Cf. Chan. J. Mahieu, op. cit., p. 51.
222 Lk. 1:35.

376

MARIOLOGY

that the Virgin be endowed with the greatest purity conceivable
under God.222
b) On Mary’s Part
As Hugh of St. Victor poetically expressed it, Mary was the clay
from which the Second Adam, Christ, was molded. She is the tree
upon which flourished that divine fruit, and the perfection of the
Saviour points unmistakably to the perfection of the source of His
human life, for a tree is known by the fruit it produces.223 Mother
and Son ought to be, as nearly as possible, alike, and anything that
might stand in the way of their similarity should, if possible, be
removed. Original sin would be an obstacle to such a resemblance
and hence fittingly it should never have stood between them.
According to the eternal decree of God, Mary was destined to be
a new Eve who, together with Christ and in subordination to His
redemptive role, would repair the injury inflicted upon the human
race by the first parents.224 To accomplish her mission of opposition
to Satan and his wiles and the consequences of his seduction of the
first Eve, the Virgin should have been in nowise subject to the
devil, and in nowise displeasing to God. Rather it was becoming
that she share in tire fullest degree in that divine grace which,
under Christ, she would instrumentally win for and convey to other
humans.225 Arguments in favor of Mary’s immunity from original
sin based on her mission as the Mother of the Saviour and Coredemp­
trix with Him of mankind, are among the most cogent that can be
adduced to support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. She
was singularly graced because of her utterly unique place in the
divine scheme.225
If Mary lacked the initial sanctity implied in the immunity from
original sin, it would be difficult, if not indeed virtually impossible,
to explain adequately her other privileges in the order of grace. Just
as the divine Maternity is the radical principle of all her other
gifts,227 so too is the Immaculate Conception a cause of her fullness
222 Cf. St. Anselm, De Cone. Virg., cap. 18, PL, 158, 451.
223 Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, De Verbo Incarnato Collationes seu Disputationes
tres, collatio 3, PL, 177, 321.
224 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 13.
225 Cf. Francisco S. Ramôn, Teologia Mariana, Vol. 1 (Guadix, 1921), pp.
290-329.
220 Cf. J.-B. Terrien, S.J., La Mère de Dieu et la Mère des hommes, Vol. 1,
(Paris, 1900), pp. 365-383.
227 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 225.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

377

of grace and complete sinlessness. Considered even in a general sense,
Our Lady’s grace exceeds the grace of all other creatures, nearly to
the extent of being inconceivably great.228 But had she been con­
ceived in original sin, the limits of her grace would be very manifest.
Her exemption from the stain of this sin is, therefore, a necessary
part of the vast ocean of grace constituting the sanctity of the Mother
of God. Without her prerogative of immunity, all her other privileges
assume a vague, disconnected, and unreal quality.229
Sanctity may be considered either from its negative aspect: moral
cleanness — absence of stain offensive to God —freedom from more
or less serious deorientations from one’s last end; or it may be
considered from its positive aspect: the firm conjunction of the soul
with God —the application of one’s faculties to the love and service
of God.230 In the case of original sin there is had a privation of sanc­
tifying grace in the soul from the moment of its very creation as it
comes from the hand of God. Because it is destined to inform a body
that is carnally descended from Adam by way of seminal generation,
it is consequently denied the original grace that would have been
present except for the sin committed By the physical head of the
human race. This want of habitual grace, this denial of a share in
the divine life, this refusal of heirship to the human person is called
“the stain of original sin.” While the essence of this sin has never
been defined,231 nevertheless it is the settled doctrine of Catholic
theologians, following the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, that
original sin is the privation of original justice,232 and that it is in
the corporal seed of man as an instrumental cause.233 The Mother
of Christ was free of this sin and its stain in virtue of sanctifying
grace that enveloped her soul from the instant it was created. There
is no medium between the state of sin and the state of grace: the sin
is directly removed by the grace. Hence when it is stated that she
was without any sin, the negative aspect of her holiness is declared.
228 Cf. Alexius H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., op. cit., p. 227; Bozzola-Greppi, S.I.,
Cursus Theologicus, Vol. 3 (Neapoli, 1948), pp. 102-103; Ed. Hugon, op. cit.,
p. 726; C. Van Crombrugghe, Tractatus de Beata Virgine Maria (Gandae, 1913),
p. 165.
229 Cf. Thomas U. Mullaney, O.P., The Nexus Between the Immaculate Con­
ception and Mary's Other Prerogatives, in Marian Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 200-218.
230 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., II—II, q. 81, a. 8.
231 Cf. Ephrem Longpré, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 85.
232 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I—Π, q. 81, a. 1.
233 Cf. ibid., q. 83, a. 1.

37θ

MARIOLOGY

But this includes, implicitly, the positive element of the presence
of habitual grace in her soul.234
An additional argument for the fittingness of Mary’s Immaculate
Conception is found in the fact of her Queenship over the angelic
world: “Queen of Angels” is a glorious title, and it applies to
her in the order of grace and not in the order of nature. Naturally
she is inferior to them; supernaturally she is exalted above them. God
preserved the good angels from the rebellion of sin. Would He not
similarly, and with even greater reason, preserve His Mother from
the stain of any sin? If she had not been exempted from the guilt of
original sin, then she would hardly be superior to the good angels
who are sinless, and would be subjected to the malign power of the
chief of the fallen angels. This would be an incongruity of unthink­
able proportions.235
Further, there were some humans other than Mary who were born
without original sin, as Jeremias and John the Baptist. But Mary’s
excellence is of a higher order than that of either of these, and accord­
ingly it is fitting that the mode of her sanctification be higher than
cleansing in the womb, namely, a total preservation from sin by
her Immaculate Conception.23®
The freedom enjoyed by Mary from the consequences ordinarily
associated with original sin, her immunity from disordered motions
of the flesh;237 from even the slightest deliberate fault; her Maternity
without anguish; the noncorruption of her body upon the completion
of her mortal course;238 her virginity together with her motherhood
— these wonderful privileges, presupposing first of all the divine
Maternity, have their root in the privilege of the Immaculate Concep­
tion and are a complement of it. While her corporal virginity cannot
234 Cf. Alexius H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., op. cit., p. 221. This author observes
that since it is more noble to move oneself (under actual grace) to sanctification
than simply to be moved (as an infant ordinarily would), therefore the Mother
of God was sanctified by her own motion of will at the moment of her con­
ception, this being due to the dignity of the divine Maternity. Since this would
be simply a motion of will to God, it would be meritorious. St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, I, q. 95, a. 1) holds a similar motion on the part of our
first parents.
235 Cf. Eadmerus, De Conceptione B. Μ. V., PL, 159, 307.
238 Cf. ibid., 305.
237 Cf. L. Lercher, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 3 (Oeniponte,
1934), Ρ· 340.
238 The question as to whether Mary actually died or not is still an obscure
question, with supporters on both sides. Cf., v.g., Gabriel M. Roschini, O.S.M.,
Did Our Lady Die? in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, August, 1953, pp. 73-88.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

379

be directly attributed to the Immaculate Conception, yet they are
fittingly associated. Her virginity of soul finds a counterpart in her
virginity of body. If God suspended, by a miracle, the operation of
the natural laws of human generation so that a virgin gave birtli,
then with greater reason might it be inferred that He would make a
special provision for her in the order of grace. Such a dispensation
is both to God’s and Mary’s honor and glory, and it is fitting in a
pre-eminent way that she who begot Him who is all just, should
herself be totally just.239
c) On the Part of Mankind
Tire becomingness of the Immaculate Conception insofar as man­
kind is concerned, stems from the proposition that such a divine
arrangement is a culmination of God’s gifts to our race. Having
determined to give His only-begotten Son as a Victim for our sins,
and therefore having willed that His Son should assume our sinful
nature, it would seem fitting also that He create some human who
would be perpetually innocent, never a captive of the devil. Such a
person would be the Immaculate Mother of the Son, co-operating
with Him in the sublime work of redeeming her fallen fellow men.
Such a one would serve as a perfect model of holiness although
entirely human herself. She who would thus be an example for
humans yet pilgrims on earth would at the same time shed luster
upon the glory of the blessed in heaven, for their Queen’s dignity
would be enhanced by a perpetual fullness of grace. Tirus her whole
human family, the Church militant, and suffering, and triumphant,
can truly say of this unique Mother of God: “Thou art the honored
one of our people.”240
THE POSITION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN RELATIVE TO
THE LAW OF ORIGINAL SIN
Adam, on account of his transgression of the divine precept,241,
committed a grave sin of pride and disobedience, the guilt of which
has been communicated to all his posterity who form, together with
their father Adam, a human solidarity. The common origin of all
mankind from this infected seed makes all men to share in a com­
mon sin, even as they would have shared in a common heritage of
230 Cf. Narcisco Garcia Garcés, C.M.F., op. cit., p. 391.
240 Cf. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary (New York, 1931), pp.
287-308.
241 Gen. 3:6.

38o

MARIOLOGY

justice, had the first parents not fallen.242 Adam was our head, and
in his sin we have all sinned243 and accordingly have forfeited our
claim to initial sanctifying grace and the gifts which accompanied it:
freedom from concupiscence, from suffering, from ignorance, from
death.
With regard to Mary and her Immaculate Conception, the ques­
tion presents itself under the form of her obligation to incur this
stain of sin. Was she subject to this general law of inheriting sin?
It is not asked, of course, whether she contracted sin, but whether
she should have contracted it, and in what sense must that possible
debt of contracting be understood. The solution of this problem
reflects upon the dignity of Mary, and effects a logical reconciliation
of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the universality
of Christ’s Redemption.
One must distinguish on the one hand the “debt” to contract
original sin, and on the other hand the actual contracting of it. It is,
in other words, the distinction between what should be and what
actually is, as we might say of someone who has been exposed to a
particularly contagious disease, “he should be sick in consequence,”
but to the amazement even of doctors, he is not in reality infected
by the germ in question. All are agreed, at least since the definition
of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and indeed well before
the Bull Ineffabilis Deus virtually no Catholic held otherwise,244
that Mary never actually was touched by the stain of any sin
whatever. But whether or not the Blessed Virgin ought to have con­
tracted original sin, that is, whether or not she had a debt of con­
tracting it, has for long been a matter of controversy among theologians.248 This discussion, never having been settled by any official
statement of the Church, and being left open by the terms employed
in Ineffabilis Deus, is properly a matter of divergent speculation
among theologians. The controversy had its beginnings in tire four­
teenth century, and by the sixteenth century there were considerable
discrepancies in the terminology relative to the debitum, and there
were various schools of thought on the correct position to take concern­
ing Our Lady’s relation to such a debt. At the basis of tire controversy
242 Cf.
243 Cf.
244 Cf.
245 For
Apologia
1630).

J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 313-314.
Rom. 5:12-19.
L. Letcher, S.J., op. cit., p. 344 ff.
a remarkable (older) treatment of the question, cf. Joannes Perlinus, S.J.,
scholastica pro magnae Matris ab originali debito immunitate (Lugduni,

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

381

were two distinct but related problems: the predestination of Christ
and His Mother, and the exact nature of original sin.24®
In its most general sense, the debt of contracting original sin is an
obligation, a necessity, an exigency of a human person’s being subject
to an initial privation of sanctifying grace. This obligation is rooted in
the universal law of solidarity existing between the common carnal
head of all mankind, Adam, and each of his progeny descended from
his seed. The seed of the first man thus becomes a baneful heritage
for all his posterity.247 That much is clear. But less evident is the
question as to precisely how this obligation arises. Does it arise from
the mere fact of carnal generation? Or does the necessity of our
incurring original sin arise rather from the law of God directly operat­
ing, to the operation of which human generation is simply a conditio
sine qua non? Stated in other words: does the law requiring our
being conceived in sin operate as a cause of our incurring that sin
even apart from the fact of human generation as a necessary con­
dition? Or do the law and the fact of human generation from an
infected line together constitute the cause for the transmission of
original sin?
The solution to these questions has prompted most theologians to
make a distinction between a “remote” and a “proximate” debt. If
the law of God which places all men under the obligation to incur
original sin depends upon generation merely as a conditio sine qua
non in order for the sin to be contracted, then one would hold that
the Blessed Virgin was under a remote debt to contract that sin. It
would be remote in the sense that God, while excluding Mary from
the law of sin, would nevertheless leave her under the conditioning
obligation of incurring sin for the reason that she had a human nature
derived from Adam through seminal generation.
If, on the contrary, one considers that the law and carnal genera­
tion taken together comprise a joint cause for the transmission of sin,
then Mary would have a proximate debt of contracting original sin.
It would be proximate in the sense that God would include her in
the law of sin, but exclude her from the application of that law.
The remote debt is also termed “conditioned” debt, since under it
sin would follow absolutely from the law and conditionally from
seminal generation, that is to say, immediately from the law and
mediately from human generation. It is also called a “potential”
"*0 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., p. 311.
217 Cf. Rom. 5:12-13.

382

MARIOLOGY

debt248 because, even if one be excluded from the law of inheriting
sin, nevertheless, because of the fact of seminal generation necessarily
rendering that law operative, one would actually incur the sin unless
again one were exempted by God from the operation of the law.
Proximate debt is also called “absolute” debt because of the law’s
being one with the fact of seminal generation, in suchwise that the
act of generation is not merely a condition which enables the law to
operate. Radier it is the law operating. In this notion, original sin
follows absolutely upon the fact of seminal generation, unless it
happen that the law is divinely prevented from the actual applica­
tion of its effect.249

i. Opinions of Theologians Relative to the Debt of Original Sin
in Mary
Some theologians hold that the distinction between the remote
and proximate debt is useless because Mary was certainly a daughter
of Adam, and since the law of contracting original sin is identified
with the derivation of human nature from Adam, to exclude her
entirely from the law would be to deny that the Virgin was a child
of Adam. And this would, in effect, assert that she in no sense needed
to be redeemed, even preservatively.250

a) Proximate Debt
According to the opinion which teaches that the Blessed Virgin
had the proximate debt of contracting original sin, she was included
in the law of transmission of sin in such a way that she ought to
have contracted it, not only by reason of her human nature as derived
from Adam, but also by reason of her person. She had, if this be
held, not only a natural debt, but even a personal debt of incurring
the sin of our first parents.251 In the theory of the proximate debt,
the divine law was decreed in such a manner that original justice
was so conferred on Adam that he would either keep it or lose it for
himself and his posterity, including Mary. Thus she, as all other
humans, ought to have been deprived of conception in grace because
248 Cf. Carolus Balié, O.F.M., De debito peccati originalis in B. Virgine Maria
(Romae, 1941), p. 74.
249 Cf. Evaristo de la Virgen del Carmen, O.C.D., Sobre el débite del pecado
original en Maria, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 5 (Madrid, 1946), pp. 293-308.
250 Cf. A. H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., op. cit., pp. 134-135; Dominicus Palmieri,
S.J., op. cit., p. 334; Ed. Hugon, op. cit., p. 713.
251 For an interpretation of Scotus’ doctrine on this question of the kind of
debt in Mary, cf. Sebastianus Dupasquier, O.F.M.Conv., op. cit., p. 251.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

383

of Adam’s sin. But, this opinion continues, she actually did not suffer
this privation because she was preserved by God: in her case the
law did not apply.252 According to this view, the preservation of the
Blessed Virgin was accomplished, not by excluding her from the
law of the transmission of original justice (which was a universal law
without exception), but from the application of the law. The theory
that Mary had a proximate debt of contracting sin is held by not a
few ancient and contemporary theologians.253
b) Remote Debt
In the opinion favoring a remote debt in the Virgin, Mary was
entirely exempted from the universal law of original sin because the
law was never intended for her.25'* She had a remote debt of incurring
original sin only insofar as she had a human nature derived from
Adam. Therefore, this debt was only a natural one, not a personal
one on her part, because she, as a person, was never subject to the
law: she was preserved entirely from being subject to die law in
virtue of the merits of Christ the Redeemer. In this theory, original
justice was so bestowed on Adam that under the law of its transmis­
sion he would keep it for all those naturally begotten of him, and if
he lost it by sin, he would lose it for himself and all his posterity
except the Mother of the Saviour.255 Hence, in consequence of this
law, even under Adam’s sin, Mary ought not to have been subject
to the privation of grace. True enough, the opinion adds, as a natural
offspring of our father Adam, she should otherwise have been in­
cluded in the law, yet in fact God excluded her from the law of
original
sin in virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ.258
o

c) No Debt Whatever
The theologians who hold the opinion that there was no debt at
all in the Mother of the Saviour explain their position by declaring
that Mary was constituted a distinct order from the rest of mankind:
she was simply outside the order of sin, either original or actual.
Many distinguished Spanish scholars have supported this theory.257
252 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 313—314·
253 Cf. G. M. Roschini, op. cit., Vo]. 2, pars 2, p. 92; J. Keuppens, Mariologiae
Compendium (Antverpiae, 1938), p. 65.
2S'* Cf. G. M. Roschini, op. cit., pp. 92-93.
255 Cf. Ed. Hugon, op. cit., p. 710 ff.
250 Cf. Christianus Stamm, Mariologia (Paderboma, 1881), pp. 48-51; J. de
Aldama, op. cit., p. 313 ff.
257 por a lucid summary of the position of leading Spanish theologians during

384

MARIOLOGY

According to this doctrine, Mary was neither included in the law of
the transmission of sin from Adam, nor excluded from it. Sharing
with Christ a wholly separate decree, she was above and beyond any
sinful order. The divine decree concerned effected the absolute
predestination of the Mother of the Messias antecedently to God’s
prevision of the fall of Adam, and so that decree was without any
relation to the condition of the parents from whom she was generated.
Authors of unimpeachable authority support this view, which seems
to add to the dignity of the Virgin.258 This school advances the
argument that God both foresaw the fall of Adam and also willed that
Adam represent the entire human race even in his sin, yet He did
so with the single exception of Mary. Hence the Blessed Virgin was
not only immune from sin itself, but even from any obligation what­
soever of incurring sin.259
St. Alphonse di Liguori regarded this opinion as probable, explain­
ing that since God deigned to distinguish His Mother from the
common lot of men by so many graces, that it can be correctly
believed that He did not include her will with Adam’s in any
fashion.280
A recent and clear defense of the position that denies any debt
in Mary considers sin, as indeed it is, as a privation of something
(sanctifying grace) that should be.281 If one speaks of a debt to some­
thing negative, one must understand it differently from a debt or
obligation to something positive. Considering debt from a positive
aspect: that which should be present in Adam’s posterity is original
justice, for if Adam had remained faithful to the divine precept, all
his offspring would have received grace at conception in virtue of a
title as descendants of Adam. In this way, original justice is the real
the very important seventeenth century, cf. J. M. Delgado, O.F.M., Exenciôn del
débita segûn los Maridlogos espaiioles de 1600 a 1650, in Ephemerides Mariologicae,
Vol. I (Madrid, October-December, 1951), pp· 501-526.
ass in view of this, it is difficult to understand the stricture of Van Noort on
those who deny any debt. Cf. his Tractatus de Deo Redemptore (Hilversum, 1925),
p. 172 (footnote): “. . . omnes doceant, et docere debeant, Mariam habuisse debitum
incurrendi peccatum originale. . . .” Cf. also Pohle-Preuss, Mariology (St. Louis,
1926), p. 40.
259 Cf. F. X. ab Abàzuza, O.F.M.Cap., Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 2
(Chile, 1949), p. 220 ff.
200 Cf. op. cit., pp. 308-309; Clément Dillenschneider, C.SS.R., La Mariologie de
S. Alphonse de Liguori (Fribourg, 1934), pp. 225-226.
281 Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M., The Theology of the Immaculate Conception in
the Light of "Ineffabilis Deus," in Marian Studies, Vol 5, 1954, pp. 62-70.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

385

debitum. Mankind’s loss of this title through Adam’s sin is not of
itself original sin, which consists rather in the privation of original
justice. The title to sanctification is regained through Christ’s Re­
demption, for He is the New Adam. The phrase “original justice”
may mean either grace at the moment of origin of the soul, or it can
mean justification because of one’s origin. Original sin would thus
involve a double negation: first, the loss of title to grace because of
one’s descent from Adam; second, the absence of grace at the moment
of conception.
Thus, the want of grace when a human is conceived is a privation
and a fault, but a fault for which the person in fault is not at fault.
Rather it is Adam who is at fault, since through his infidelity the
grace that should have been present in the human soul is not present.
Redemption does not restore original justice in the sense of justice
by reason of origin, not even in the case of Mary. Justification is not
through any incorporation in Adam, but through incorporation in
Christ.
Applying these notions to the Mother of Christ, it would follow
that there are various different ways in which God might have
preserved Mary from incurring original sin. He might have given her
grace in “simple gratuity” at the moment of her conception, or else
in virtue of some “title,” such as because of her divine Maternity of
the Redeemer. If the grace had been given in virtue of simple gra­
tuity, Mary would not have been truly redeemed, for such a gift
would not have been in view of the merits of Christ.
It can be said that there was a debt in Mary if two conditions
would be verified. One that she lost her title to grace in Adam’s sin;
the other, that God decreed not to give her grace at the moment of
her conception. The title lost in Adam only made sin for her a possi­
bility, not a necessity, and accordingly this possibility of original sin
in turn makes redemption by Christ possible. But in view of the
fact that God would not give grace to any child of Adam at the
moment of conception except through the merits of the Redeemer,
it follows that redemption would be necessary to preserve one in fact
from contracting original sin. As a daughter of Adam it is true that
Mary lost her title to grace at the moment of conception precisely in
virtue of her origin, and therefore although sin was not necessary if
God so decreed, nevertheless redemption was necessary.
Mary needed grace if sin were not to stain her soul, and to Christ
is she indebted for her sanctification. But did she similarly have a

386

MARIOLOGY

necessity to incur sin by reason of a debt in Adam’s sin? She was
surely “indebted” to her first parent for tire possibility of her contract­
ing sin, insofar as he surrendered one title she might have had to
original grace.
“Mary lost one title to the grace of an immaculate conception but
she gained another. The very fact that the Ineffabilis Deus cites Mary’s
relation to Christ the Redeemer as her title to grace at the moment
of conception, a title she possessed as it were from all eternity in the
plan of Divine Wisdom, is it meaningful to speak of a need, a neces­
sity, an obligation to contract sin? . . . Mary never seems to have
had any genuine debitum. It was grace, not sin, that she should have
had.”262
In substance, it might be pointed out in this connection, that it is
in virtue of the merits of Christ that both Mary and all the redeemed
have another title to grace in place of the title lost by Adam’s sin.
It is the tide, of course, from the Saviour’s Redemption. There is this
vastly important difference, however, between Mary and ourselves:
we have the title to be restored to grace in virtue of Christ’s merits,
whereas by God’s special decree with regard to His Mother, she
had the tide in virtue of her Son’s merits to be preserved, not merely
from actually incurring original sin, but even from the obligation or
debt of incurring it.

THE IMMUNITY OF MARY FROM CONCUPISCENCE
i. Nature of Concupiscence
The consequences of original sin, in addition to the chief loss, that
of sanctifying grace, include the forfeiture also of certain immunities
enjoyed by our first parents, freedoms that we ourselves would have
possessed had Adam not sinned. These immunities are from con­
cupiscence (called the “fuel of sin” — fomes peccati), from death,
from malice in the will, from darkness of the intellect in ignorance,
from sufferings of all kinds. Man is naturally subject to inherent
disabilities of this kind, and the function of the preternatural gifts
which were joined with sanctifying grace and rooted in it, was to
relieve man of such disagreeable impediments to a full and com­
pletely happy life. By the sin of our first parents we were made
subject to the penalty of their loss. These gifts are not regained when
the soul is restored to sanctifying grace through justification, the dis262 Ibid., p. 69. Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M., Recent Literature on Mary’s Assumption,
in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 120, 1949, pp. 381-385.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

387

abilities remaining in the person, with greater or less force,
out life.263
The most noteworthy of these penalties is that of concupiscence,
which is from Adam’s sin and leads us to sin, so much so that St.
Thomas describes original sin as consisting materially in concupis­
cence.284 Insofar as holiness is concerned, the wound of concupiscence
plays a greater part than do the other penalties, precisely because
of its proclivity to make actual sin a dreadful reality in human life.
It is not formally or properly in the body, but rather in the lower
powers of the soul, which we call the “sensitive” faculties, having a
profound influence on the body. While it is therefore materially in
the body, formally it is in the soul. The entire human person is
infected by concupiscence because of our deriving a corrupted nature
from our first parents: “nature infects the person.”285
The movement of the sense appetites, which was controlled easily
and connaturally by our first parents so long as they retained grace
and the accompanying gifts, became so disordered in consequence of
original sin that these passions are in a state of revolt against man’s
higher faculties. This rebellion, while not entailing a complete cor­
ruption, leads sense desires to assert their demands contrary to the
dictates of man’s rational appetite, the will. The immoderate ten­
dency of the lower potencies of man to seek their adequate sensible
objects in opposition to the higher faculties, results in concupiscence
“in first act” Qin actu primo) or “in second act” Qin actu secundo).
Concupiscence in actu primo is the radical state of the sense appe­
tites, their condition of being always proximately disposed to act
contrary to reason. In actu secundo, concupiscence consists in the
actual motions themselves of the appetites.288
Man’s soul was essentially rectified and oriented to God by the
gift of sanctifying grace, and this supernatural elevation of the soul
and its faculties was perfected in the preternatural order by the
gift of integrity, which rendered sense subordinate to spirit even as
spirit was, through grace, subordinated to God. The subjection of
the superior part of the human composite effected by grace, once
removed by sin, the loss of the gratuitous subjection of the inferior
263 Cf. Petrus Bardus, De Immaculata Conceptione, in Monumenta antiqua
Immaculatae Conceptionis, ed. Petrus de Alva et Astorga, O.F.M. (Lovanii, 1664),
P· 357·
2°·* Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I-II, q. 82, a. 3.
205 Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 26.
2ηβ Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., pp. 314-315.

j88

MARIOLOGY

part followed as a necessary part of the punishment visited upon man
by the Creator.287 Thus in a formal sense, original justice consisted in
habitual grace; in a material sense, it consisted in the hierarchy of
integrity within man.
The inherent proneness of mankind toward an unreasonable satis­
faction of sensible desires of whatever kind, called in actu primo by
theologians, may be “released” by God simply when He permits the
normal baneful effects of original sin to take their course in the
human person; or it may be “bound” through the special providence
of God preserving one from the inroads of concupiscence, although
the “fuel of sin” is allowed to remain; or finally it may be “extin­
guished” by being totally removed from tire subject by a special act
of God. When concupiscence is thus extinguished there is realized
an habitual and immovable disposition in the subject by which the
inferior powers never move against reason, their proclivity to do so
being completely taken away.288
Concupiscence in actu secundo, the very movements of sense appe­
tites, may be “indeliberate,” when there is no question of the will’s
consent to the movements provoked, and therefore indeliberate mo­
tions are without any direct moral reference. These motions may be
“semideliberate” when they occur with imperfect advertence or im­
perfect consent, and ordinarily are venial sins. Or finally, concupis­
cence in actu secundo may be “deliberate” if it is joined to full
advertence and consent, and where grave matter is in question
mortal sin results.288

2. Relation of Mary to Concupiscence
The fundamental principle to be borne in mind with regard to
the position of Mary in relation to the wound of concupiscence is
this: Our Lady was constituted in an unique state of grace, and in
virtue of this most special condition she was related to all the pre­
ternatural gifts characteristic of the state of innocence.270 To what
extent the Bull Ineffabilis Deus may be considered as excluding con­
cupiscence from Mary is controverted among theologians.271 There
267 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I—II, q. 82, a. 3.
268 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 340.
288 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I—II, q. 73, a. 6.
270 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., L'Immaculée Conception dans l’Écriture sainte et
dans la tradition orientale (Rome, 1952), p. VIII; L. Garriguet, La Vierge Marie
(Paris, 1933), pp. IS5-I79·
271 Cf. Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. 11 (footnote).

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

389

can scarcely be any question with regard to the Blessed Virgin’s being
subject to any concupiscence in actu secundo in any form, since
such disordered motions are intimately associated with the stain of
original sin and too immediately related to actual sin: actual con­
cupiscence is die “motion of sin,” as St. Thomas expresses it.272 The
suggestions of sudden movements of the flesh, springing from the
violent inclination of our flesh toward sensible objects, were found
among the saints, all of whom were conceived in original sin. In
Mary there was no trace of such motions, even in a material sense.
Thus it does not suffice to assert simply that Mary never consented
to disordered carnal activity; she never in fact experienced the
slightest actual revolt in her lower nature.273
Concerning the question of Mary being subject to concupiscence
in actu primo, there has not always been such complete unanimity
among theologians, at least with reference to die time when even
this radical form of concupiscence was removed from the Mother
of God. In the doctrine of the Scholastics, whose teaching prevailed
generally up to the era of the definition of the dogma in 1854, the
wonderfully integral nature of the Blessed Virgin knew a “bound”
concupiscence from the moment of her first sanctification (either at
the moment of her conception or else subsequently while in the
womb of Anna) up to the moment of her second sanctification (when
the Word assumed flesh), when all concupiscence was totally extin­
guished.274 This is the position of St. Thomas Aquinas, who explains
that the fomes peccati remained in Mary according to its essence after
her justification, but that insofar as any actual operation of concupis­
cence was concerned the fomes was impeded. At the instant of her
conceiving the Son of God, all concupiscence was totally removed.275
Later theologians, at least since the date of the definition of the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception, teach diat there was never in
Mary the slightest trace of disordered sense appetite, for the pleni­
tude of grace possessed by her was such that her entire sense life was
always perfectly in accord with the dictate of her immensely graced
will.275 This interpretation appears more generally consonant with
the honor of Christ whose flesh is of the most pure flesh of Mary;
272 St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., Ill, q. 27, a. 3.
273 Cf. Van Noort, op. cit., p. 189; Ed. Hugon, Marie pleine de grâce, p. 127.
274 Cf. Bozzola-Greppi, S.I., op. cit., p. 103; Alexius Martinelli, O.F.M., De
primo instanti Conceptionis B. V. Mariae (Romae, 1950), pp. 1—2.
275 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., III, q. 27, a. 3.
270 Cf. I. Keuppens, op. cit., p. 65; Ephrem Longpré, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 86.

39°

MARIOLOGY

with the fact that, being totally immune from all stain of original
sin, she ought therefore to be similarly free from one of its chief
consequences; and since this immunity was had by our first parents,
then fittingly it may be claimed for her.2” It should be remembered
that Mary’s freedom from concupiscence is not a result of the Immac­
ulate Conception, at least directly. It is attributable to the graces
that accompanied the singular prerogative of the divine Maternity.278
But insofar as her immunity from concupiscence is related to her
being conceived in grace, modern theologians acknowledge an extir­
pation of all disordered sense tendencies as concomitant with Mary’s
initial grace. This element in her sanctification is a negative thing:
the removal of the “stain” of sin effected by the infusion of grace into
her soul at the instant of its union with the body, and this is some­
times called her “first perfection.” Her “second perfection” became
a reality at the instant of the Incarnation, by which she received
consummate grace, itself capable of yet great augmentation.270 Her
first perfection, the Immaculate Conception, predisposed her to tire
second, serving as a means for the Word to come among men.280
And since the Word’s flesh was hers, all inordinate carnal tendencies
should have been removed, and were removed even in a radical
sense, at the first moment of Mary’s existence as a person.281
In the Bull Ineffabilis Deus it is said that the Mother of God was
free "from all stain of original sin.”282 While it is not entirely certain
that it was thereby intended to declare Mary’s freedom as well from
concupiscence, nevertheless it may be said that concupiscence is
truly part of original sin in those not yet justified, and so in Mary’s
case the use of “all” in the definition may have a special value.283
277 Cf. J. de Aldama, op. cit., p. 315.
278 Cf. Albert Kippes, O.M.I., The Immaculate Conception and. the Preternatural
Gifts, in Marian Studies, Vol. 4, p. 198; Ed. Hugon, Tractatus Dogmatici, p.
723; Gaston Démaret, Marie de qui est né Jésus (Paris, 1937), Vol. 2, p. 43 ff.
270 Cf. Achille Gorrino, Maria Santissima (Torino, 1938), p. 42 ff.; H. Depoix,
S.M., Beata Maria Virgine (Paris, 1866), p. 120 ff.; F. O’Neill, The Blessed Virgin
Mary and the Alleged Debt of Sin, in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record (Dublin,
July, 1923), p. 83.
280 Cf. A. M. Mayer, O.S.M., Advanced Mariology (Portland, 1934), p- 132.
281 Cf. Armandus Plessis, S.M.M., op. cit., p. 78; Dominicus Palmieri, S.J.,
op. cit., p. 338; A. H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., op. cit., p. 195.
282 D.B., No. 1641.
283 X. Le Bachelet in his article on the Immaculate Conception in DTC, Vol.
7, cols. 845-846, attributes no special importance to the omni of the definition in
Ineffabilis Deus. Martin Jugie disagrees with this position in L’Immaculée Con­
ception dans l’Écriture sainte et dans la tradition orientale, p. 11 (footnote). Cf.
also Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 221.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

391

Aside from any consideration of the possible quality of concupiscence
in the state of pure nature in man, a condition that has slight rele­
vance to the actual economy of mankind’s fallen and redeemed na­
ture, it should be affirmed that where there was never original sin,
there was never concupiscence. Such was Mary’s prerogative.284

THE RELATION OF MARY TO THE STATE OF
ORIGINAL JUSTICE

Our first parents were constituted by God in a state of innocence,
and this condition existed more probably from the first moment of
their existence, although some theologians have taught that this eleva­
tion did not take place until some time after God made man.285 This
establishment of Adam and Eve in such a perfect condition of super­
natural and natural being, in which their natural powers were per­
fected by the preternatural gifts, is called the state of “original jus­
tice.” It implies the presence in their souls of sanctifying grace by
which they were children of God and sharers in the divine nature,
together with infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity. They like­
wise possessed immunity from certain disadvantages natural to the
human composite: freedom from the necessity to die, from disorder
in the sense appetites, from the illness and sorrows of life, from
darkness of mind and from malice of will.280 This totality of inno­
cence and wondrous gifts was entirely a gratuity on the part of God,
in no manner owed to man.287 God could have allowed man to
remain simply in the state of pure nature, with natural means to a
natural end. But He did not; in His liberality Fie gave human nature
sanctifying grace as the formal element of original justice, and added
the blessing of integrity, completing and elevating man’s natural per­
fections. All this would have been transmitted to Adam’s posterity as
their heritage, had he not forfeited original justice by his originating
284 Cf. Ludovicus Lercher, S.J., op. cit., p. 347. It should be noted that,
strictly considered, the deletion of original sin and the preservation from concupis­
cence are distinct and separable gifts. As human, Mary ought to have been subject
to at least some degree of concupiscence, but because of the divine Maternity she
was exempt. This is the (probable) opinion of Van Hove, De immunitate B. M.
Virginis a concupiscentia, in Collectanea Mechilniensia, Vol. 14 (Malines, 1940),
pp· 41-42·
285 Cf. J. M. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1949),
p. 314 ff.
280 Cf. E. Doronzo, O.M.I., De Baptismo et Confirmatione (Milwaukee, 1947),
p. 90.
287 D.B., Nos. 1021, 1026.

392

MARIOLOGY

sin, communicated to us as original sin through infected human
nature.288
The extraordinary grace accorded Mary in the divine plan of our
Redemption as the Mother of the Messias presents the problem of
comparing her status with that of original justice enjoyed by our
protoparents. Specifically in light of her Immaculate Conception,
removing as it did all stain of original sin, can it be properly affirmed
that Mary was constituted in the same situation as Adam and Eve:
a condition of primitive innocence? Theologians are not agreed.
Some contend that the Mother of God was entirely a new Eve,
endowed with all grace and privileges of first innocence, even to the
extent of having a title to personal immortality. That she actually
died, this opinion holds, is simply because of her role of Coredemptrix. And had she not died, Christ would Himself have en­
dured something that is a characteristic human experience which
His Mother would not have known.288 Still other writers deny that
such was Mary’s state.280
In substance, the determination of the Blessed Mother’s position in
this regard may turn on her relation to her Son as her Redeemer,
who has restored her to a singular level of sanctity because she was
destined to be His Mother in the Incarnation. She needed His merits
in order to be the recipient of God’s grace, the formal element of
her holiness.281 Consistently with the opinion supporting a debt in
Mary, it would follow that the grace given the Blessed Virgin was
not in virtue of the primitive elevation of man, but in virtue of a
new and special elevation through Christ.282 She was neither in the
state of original justice, nor in a state of (personally) lapsed but
redeemed nature. Her state was totally unique and proper to her.283
Even if Mary had been placed simply in the state of original justice
through some special decree of God, it would not be necessary to
conclude that she would thereby have some or all of the gifts that
constitute integrity, for the possession of sanctifying grace, however
so exalted in degree, does not postulate the presence of the immunities
288 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., I—Π, q. 82, a. 4.
289 A. H. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., op. cit., p. 358, holds that the Bull Ineffabilis
Deus states that Mary was in the state of original justice. Cf. J. de Aldarna, op. cit.,
p. 316.
290 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 246 if.
291 Cf. Dominicus Palmieri, S.J., op. cit., p. 222.
292 Cf. J. de Aldarna, op. cit., p. 316.
293 Cf. ibid., p. 317; B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. in.

MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

393

that make up integrity. The participation in divine life which is
grace is quite separable from the immunities from death, suffering,
and the rest.294 The grace of the Immaculate Conception, a grace
“of Christ” contrasted with the grace “of God” received by our first
parents, did not constitute Mary in the condition of first innocence.
Nor did she, on account of that grace, have any strict title or claim
to the preternatural gifts.295 Having been lost through the fall of
Adam, they could subsequently be enjoyed by one whose role in
God’s plan was such that the presence of the gifts, or of some of
them, would be fitting and quasi-necessary in view of some special
destiny of that individual. Mary’s divine Maternity meets this
requirement, as well as her office of Coredemptrix.298 Similarly,
because of her propinquity to Christ, the source of grace efficiently
according to His divinity and instrumentally according to His
humanity, and because she gave Him that humanity, therefore Mary’s
grace was supreme as compared to that of any man or angel.292 With
this grace she received all the theological virtues, since she was still
a pilgrim despite her office, and also the moral virtues, except pen­
ance which concerns sorrow for sin. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit
were hers, of course, and actual graces beyond estimation.298 But all
these incredible manifestations of God’s solicitude for the sanctity of
His Mother did not remove from her such human infirmities as her
Son deigned to take upon Himself.299 As He, she was acquainted
with suffering and death and the manifold trials of soul and body to
which each human is, in this time of probation, subject. But what­
ever would truly be out of place in the Mother of the Saviour, what­
ever would lessen that dignity or be suggestive of sin, must be rigor­
ously excluded from her. In addition, therefore, to her freedom from
concupiscence, we should acknowledge her immunity from igno­
rance and from any debility in the irascible appetites, from all malice
294 Cf. Albert Kippes, O.M.I., art. cit., p. 197.
295 Cf. ibid. But Martin Jugie, A.A., op. cit., p. VIII, seems to hold otherwise,
at least with regard to concupiscence.
296 Cf. Juniper Carol, O.F.M., De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae
(Civitas Vaticana, 1950), pp. 550, 559.
297 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., Ill, q. 27, a. 5; A. A. Paquet, Disputationes
Theologicae (Quebec, 1922), p. 273.
298 Cf. Bozzola-Greppi, S.I., op. cit., pp. 102-103; J. B. Petitalot, La Vierge Mère
d'après la Théologie (Paris, 1904), pp. 85-88; Chan. J. Mahieu, op. cit., p. 50.
299 Cf. Albert Kippes, art. cit., p. 199.

394

MARIOLOGY

of will or error of intellect.300 Mary is, under Christ, God’s gracious
Masterpiece. In the words of the Franciscan Doctor, St. Bonaventure:
Mary the Virgin is the advocate of sinners
and the glory and the crown of the just.
She is the spouse of God, the abode of the Trinity
and the most special resting place of the Son.301
300 Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., op. cit., p. 141.
301ΙΠ Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. 2.

Mary’s Immunity From Actual Sin
By SALVATORE BONANO, C.M.F.

ANCTITY, while implying a positive, inner transformation of
the soul, presupposes as well a negative aspect, namely, the
freedom from sin. Justification contains two simultaneous acts: the
remission of sin and the infusion of grace. In the soul of Our Blessed
Lady there was no need for the first of these two acts, for she was
immaculately conceived and sinless during her whole life. Since the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been studied in a previous
article (cf. pp. 328-394), we shall concern ourselves here with the
truth of her perfect sinlessness.
The thesis may be stated as follows: Our Lady, through a special
privilege, avoided, during the whole course of her life, all personal
sin, mortal as well as venial, and was free from every voluntary im­
perfection. More, she was in a unique way impeccable.

S

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Impeccability. By this term we understand indefectibility in the
moral order, or the inability to sin. It can be either direct, deriving
immediately from the absolute, essential perfection of a being; or
indirect, based upon some quality of the subject to whom it is attrib­
uted, or upon a state or condition in which he finds himself. The
former belongs to God alone who is subsistent sanctity and the
supreme principle of all holiness. The latter, as the definition makes
clear, admits of varying degrees which are determined both by the
dignity of the person and the principles that account for the complete
removal of the possibility of sin.1 Thus we distinguish:
a) The impeccability that is Christ’s as man because of the hypo­
static union. There is only one Person in Christ, that of the Word
1 Cf. J. Vosté, O.P., De mysteriis vitae Christi (Rome, 1940), p. 21; G. Roschini,
O.S.M., Mariologia, Vol. 2 (Romae, 1948), p. 106; G. Alastruey, Tratado de la
Virgen Santisima (Madrid. 1945), p. 253.

395

396

MARIOLOGY

to whom all actions, both divine and human, are attributed. Were
there even the slightest sin in that sacred humanity, the sinful act
would have to be attributed to the Divine Word to whom that
humanity belongs, an attribution that would be absurd. This we
call metaphysical impeccability.2
b) The impeccability that is proper to the angels and the blessed,
who are confirmed in good and incapable of turning away from the
immediate and intuitive vision of the divine essence. This intuitive
vision is made possible to the intellect of the blessed through the
light of glory, a supernatural power infused by God. It brings about
a permanent adherence to God as the highest Good and since sin,
which makes man an enemy of God, consists in placing one’s last
end in created goods, the beatific vision confers a state of impotency
in regard to sin. This is called physical impeccability.3
c) The impeccability of the Blessed Virgin. A majority of authors
designate this as moral impeccability. That is, because of her personal
title and dignity as Mother of God she could never incur the stain
of sin. Mary is not intrinsically impeccable; the divine Maternity is
not a physical form that intrinsically affects and transforms her soul.
All theologians admit the existence in Mary of a real predicamental
relation that defines her motherhood in facto esse, i.e., from the mo­
ment that she conceived Christ. There was, moreover, a quasi-transcendental relation of Mary to the Word in virtue of which from all
eternity the entire reason for her existence is to be the Mother of
God. This determines her motherhood only in fieri. It is a relation
based on the infallible predestination of Mary to divine motherhood.4
Thus from the first moment of her existence there is moral incom­
patibility with sin, for were she stained with the least sin it would
reflect upon the honor due to Jesus. Suarez maintains the possibility
of a divine motherhood in a state of sin,5 since between the two
there is neither metaphysical nor physical opposition.
2 Secondary causes of Christ’s impeccability are the fullness of habitual grace and
the beatific vision.
3 The possession of God in the beatific vision is a state of perfect happiness, and
as such excludes all sin, mortal as well as venial. Cf. P. Richard, art. Impeccability,
in DTC, Vol. 7, col. 1275.
4 Cf. G. Rozo, C.M.F., Sancta Maria Mater Dei (Mediolani, 1943), p- 66.
5 De mysteriis vitae Christi, op. omn. (Parisiis, i860), Vol. 19, q. 38, a. 4, disput.
22, sectio 2, p. 327. It is beyond the scope of this article to enter into a study
of the precise nature of the divine Maternity and whether or not it is a forma ex
se justificans. For Scheeben, the grace of Mary’s motherhood accounts for in­
capability of sinning on the analogy of that of Christ’s humanity. Handbuch der
katholische Dogmatik, Vol. 3 (Friburgi i. Br., 1882), nn. 1602-1603; Mariology,

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

397

A final division is that of antecedent and consequent impeccability.
The former demands in a person direct opposition to the disorder of
sin through some title or added intrinsic principle of deliberate moral
acts. The latter implies the infallible divine prevision that a man
or an angel will de facto never sin. Our Blessed Lord, the angels,
the blessed in glory, and the Mother of God possessed an antecedent
inability to sin, not merely the inability due to divine prevision.
Sinlessness. This may be defined as actual freedom from all per­
sonal sin. As distinct from impeccability it has an aspect that relates
it to the order of fact. For a person may avoid sin de facto through
an abundance of grace, the gift of integrity, or a special assistance
of Divine Providence; none of these reasons, however, can remove
the power itself to sin. This sinlessness embraces freedom from all
mortal sin only, whereby sanctifying grace would be lost, or from all
venial sin as well.6
Privilege. Our Lady’s absolute sinlessness is a special privilege, for
it is of faith7 that the just man is unable to avoid all venial sin during
the whole course of his life. If Mary did so, we have a clear exception
to the law, and therefore, a privilege. This means that neither
ordinary nor special helps which are gratuitously given to those who
persevere to the end, were sufficient, but that a very unique gift was
required consisting in a constant assistance of Divine Providence
influencing her will in the direction of good. The fall of our first
parents is clear proof that the state of innocence does not of itself
confirm the soul in good. It is called a special privilege —no one else
has had it as extensively nor to the same degree. After the descent
of the Holy Ghost into their souls, the Apostles were so confirmed in
grace8 that they avoided all mortal, and even, in the opinion of some
theologians, all deliberate venial sin. Yet they were able to experience
transi, by T. Geukers, Vol. i (St. Louis, Mo.), p. 205 £.; Vol. 2, p. 135 f. The
sixteenth-century theologian S. Saavedra propounded the theory of an intrinsically
supernatural form that raised Mary to the dignity of Mother of God. J. Delgado,
La matemidad. divina segûn Silvestre de Saavedra, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 4,
T945, 521; J. Alonso, C.M.F., Gracia de Maria: naturaleza y fundamentos, in
Estudios Marianos, Vol. 5, 1946, p. 104. De Rhodes holds that the divine Maternity
excludes sin from Mary more efficaciously than habitual grace, but that of itself
it is not a form that sanctifies. Disputationes Theologiae Scholasticae, Vol. 2 (Lyons,
i66r), Tract. 2, q. 4.
0 G. Roschini, op. cit., p. 107.
7 D.B., No. 833.
8 St. Thomas, De Veritate, q. 24, a. 9, ad 2; B. Merkelbach, Mariologia (Parisiis,
1939). Ρ· >49·

398

MARIOLOGY

the rebellion of the flesh and a deceptive influence on the mind.
Actually, through an abundance of grace and special helps, they
succeeded in repressing these inordinate movements of the sense
appetite, but concupiscence itself as an effect of original sin was
always present and therefore also the possibility of having the dis­
ordered acts arise. Regarding St. Joseph, theological debate centers
on whether he was free from all actual sin and confirmed in grace
during his entire life or only from the time of his -marriage to Our
Lady.0
ERRORS

The Lutherans and Calvinists protested against, and belittled the
import of the Catholic attitude toward the idea of Mary’s utter sin­
lessness. Erasmus10 had already prepared the way for the Reformers
with the introduction of his religious humanism and derisive attacks
against devotion to Mary. The imputation of sin to Our Lady was
due, among other factors, to false conceptions entertained by the
Reformers on the nature of theology which they considered an illegiti­
mate body of deductions from Scripture. For them the Bible and the
Bible only was the literal expression of God’s word for all men. The
Scripture, they claimed, contains very little about the Blessed Virgin
and certainly does not authorize the belief in the surpassing holiness
and great gifts of soul and body that Catholics attribute to her.
Moreover, their views on original sin, the intrinsic corruption of
nature, and justification led logically to a denial of Mary’s sinless­
ness, Christ Himself being the only pure and perfect God-Man.
Turmel (under the pseudonym Herzog) attempted to prove that
the traditional teaching of the Church prior to the thirteenth century
was that Mary, like any other human being, had sinned. Sacred Scrip­
ture and the primitive Christian community, he holds, teach the
same."
The Jansenists, in rejecting the cult of Mary as an effect of super­
fl Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Mother of the Savior, transi, by B. Kelly, C.S.Sp.
(St. Louis, Mo., 1948), p. 326; A. Michel, art. Joseph, in DTC, Vol. 8, col. 1518;
Lépicier, Tractatus de Sancto Joseph (Paris, 1908), a. 2, pp. 153-161; Alastruey,
op. cit., p. 254. It is commonly held that in particular virtues some saints were
free from all sin, e.g., St. Thomas in chastity and humility, St. John the Baptist
in speech. Cf. Breviarium Ordinis Praedicatorum, feast March 7, Second Noctum,
First Antiphon.
10 Erasmus, Oeuvres, Vol. 1 (Basle, 1540), p. 663. Cf. also A. Noyon, S.J., art.
Mariolatrie, in D.A.F.C., Vol. 3, col. 315.
11 La Sainte Vierge dans l'histoire (Paris, 1908). Cf. the condemnation of this
work in A.A.S., Vol. 1, 1910, p. 554, and Vol. 22, 1930, pp. 517-520.

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

399

stition and a deterrent from a true interior piety, also taught that she
stood in need of purification at the time she presented Jesus in the
I emple; her Son contracted this stain from her.12 Highly derogatory
to Our Lady’s moral perfection was the work of A. Widenfeld,
Monita salutaria B. Mariae ad cultores suos indiscretos, put on the
Index in 1676.13
Pope Pius V condemned the proposition of Baius which states
that the death of the Blessed Virgin is to be attributed to the fact that
she incurred the stain of original sin.14

MAGISTERIUM
The Council of Trent has solemnly declared that Mary, by special
privilege, was preserved free from all actual sin, mortal and venial,
throughout her whole life. “If anyone asserts that man, after he is
once justified ... is able to avoid throughout his lifetime all, even
venial sin, except by a special divine privilege, as the Church holds
in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.”15 According
to Merkelbach this decree does not define Mary’s immunity from all
sin because of the use of the word tenere rather than credere. It is
not, therefore, an article of faith but certain Catholic doctrine.15 J.
de Aldama, S.J., holds that the Council is here defining the belief
of the Church in Mary’s privilege: "definitur fides Ecclesiae circa
hoc privilegium."1’ Roschini has an excellent study on the history
behind the formulation of Canon 23, and his conclusion is that Trent
has defined the Marian privilege as well as the general law of which
it is an exception.18
12 D.B., No. 1314.
13 Ibid., No. 1316. Cf. Grenier, Apologie des dévots de la Sainte Vierge (Brussels,
1675), p. 3. The Monita influenced the reform of the Gallican liturgy. Outstanding
opponents of Mariological Jansenism were De Montfort (1716), A. Liguori, (1787),
G. Crasset, S.J., (1618-1692), Bossuet (1628-1704), Th. Raynaud (1583-1632),
G. of Rhodes (1661), Contenson (1641-1674), P. Poiré (1584-1637).
14 D.B., No. 1073.
15 Session 6, c. 23; D.B., No. 833.
10 Op. cit., p. 143.
” Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 3 (Matriti, 1953), p. 363. Cf. also his El valor
dogmatico de la doctrina sobre la inmunidad de pecado venial en Nuestra Seüora,
in Archivo Teologico Granadino, Vol. 9, 1946, pp. 53—67.
is Op. cit., pp. lio-m. Fr. de Aldama, S.J., snows conclusively that the verbs
tenere and credere have equal value for the Fathers of Trent, loc. cit., p. 58 f.
On the meaning of "auxilium speciale," "magnum perseverantiae donum," and
similar Tridentine expressions cf. Hefner, Die Enstehungsgeschichte der Trienter
Rechfertigung Dekretes (Paderborn, I9°9)> P· 352· This Canon does not touch
the question of Mary's impeccability, nor the cause of her absolute sinlessness.

4oo

MARIOLOGY

The soul in the state of grace can avoid any venial sin considered
separately, but cannot avoid all venial sins cumulatively taken. The
Council adds “throughout his life” so as not to exclude the possibility
of freedom from them over a given period of time.
Pope Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus declares that God filled
Mary “far more than all the angelic spirits and all the saints, with
an abundance of all heavenly gifts from the treasury of His divinity,
in such a wonderful manner that she would always be free from
absolutely every stain of sin.”18

SCRIPTURE PROOFS
The privilege of Mary’s absolute sinlessness is implicitly revealed
in the Book of Genesis in the words spoken by God to the serpent
(Gen. 3:15): “I will put enmities between thee and the woman,
between thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head and thou
shalt lie in wait for her heel.” The enmity that is set up between
the woman and the serpent must be absolute as the text demands.20
Now, were Mary even for a moment a slave to sin, she would not
share in the complete victory of her Son over the devil. All sin,
original and actual, mortal and venial, is absolutely incompatible
with the state of her perfect enmity.21
Her sinlessness is again implicitly contained in the words of the
angel to Mary: “Hail, full of grace . . . blessed art thou among
women” (Lk. 1:28). Traditional teaching on this point is that the
words express a fullness of grace that extends to the first moment
of her life, a fullness that warded off from her all contact with sin.22
The Greek perfect participle κ^χαριτωμίνη signifies a state fully realized
and still persevering in its effects, a state of being “endowed with
grace,” or with “divine good pleasure” in an extraordinary way. The
Latin equivalent would be tota gratiata. The phrase “the Lord is
10 Cf. Ineffabilis Deus; in Col. Lac., Vol. 6, p. 836. Cf. also Mystici Corporis of
Pius XII, A.A.S., Vol. 35, 1943, 247.
20 Though the pronoun "she” in the Hebrew text is masculine and stands for
the posterity of the woman, there is no essential difference between it and the
Vulgate ipsa, since the woman is to achieve perfect victory in association with
her seed.
21 J.-B. Terrien, S.J., La Mère de Dieu et la Mère des hommes, Vol. 3 Paris,
Bit. i, pp. 26—49. F· Peirce, S.J., Mary Alone is "the Woman” of Genesis 3, 15,
in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1940, p. 245.
22 Cf. Ineffabilis Deus. Hence the Church applies to her, as the sponsa Christi,
this text from the Canticle of Canticles, 4:7: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and
there is no stain in thee.”

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

401

with thee” is to be understood as a statement of fact, not as an
indication of desire: “Dominus est," not “Dominus sit tecum.”~3
Difficulties. Some of tire Fathers, in explaining certain passages
of Scripture that refer to the Blessed Virgin, implied or asserted that
she sinned venially or showed some weakness.23
24 The Reformers of
the sixteenth century seized on these passages to belittle the Mother
of Christ in the eyes of the people. The biblical texts are the
following:
i. St. Luke 1:34: “But Mary said to the angel, ‘How shall this
happen, since I do not know man.’” Mary shows signs of unbelief
in the message of the angel.25*28
Answer: Our Lady knows, on the one hand, that her vow of vir­
ginity is God’s will for her, and, on the other, that the angel’s mes­
sage means the Infant will have Joseph as His father. There is no
conflict between her will and God’s will, but between an antecedent
divine will approving her virginity and the manifestation through
Gabriel of a subsequent will of God revealing a plan apparently in­
compatible with a virginal state. She is at a loss as to how to reconcile
the two, and so, not wishing to displease God, asks which course
should be followed.20
23 M. Jugie, A.A., L’Immaculée Conception clans l’Écriture Sainte (Rome, 1952),
p. 48 £.; U. Holzmeister, S.J., Dominus tecum, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 8, 1928,
p. 363.
21 Fathers and early writers who seem to have erred: (1) Tertullian says that
Mary for a short time failed to believe in Christ. “With the brethren of Jesus,
Mary did not believe in Him and hence must yield to Martha and Mary Magdalen
in faith,” De carni Christi, y, PL, 2, 766. (2) St. Basil: Epistola, 260, 9; PG, 32,
965· (3) St. John Chrysostom appears to have thought that there was taint of
vainglorious self-assertion in Our Lady’s action at the marriage feast of Cana:
Homilia 44 in Mathaeum; PG, 57, 463. (4) Maximus of Turin: Homilia in Epi­
phania Domini, 1; PL, 57. St. Cyril of Alexandria interprets the sword of sorrow as
the scandal she experienced on Calvary: In Joannem, 19, 25; PG, 74, 661. Origen
says that the sword of sorrow were the doubts and scandal that shook the faith
of Mary during the Passion: In Lc. homilia 17; PG, 13, 1845. Cf. Biblica, Vol. 29,
1948, p. 226. He influenced several writers of the time.
25 Thus Hamack, Zu Lc. 1, 34—35, in Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentlich Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche, Vol. 2, 1910, 55 f. He parallels Lit.
1:34 and Lk. 1:18. But there is a marked difference between the two. Zachary
doubts the word of the angel and asks for a sign that he may believe. Hence the
punishment that follows. Mary believes from the start and inquires only as to the
way in which the fact is to be accomplished. Suârez, op. cit., q. 27, a. 6, disputatio
4, sectio 3: Zachary asks, “How shall I know this?” Mary, "How shall this
be done?”
28 Cf. P. Joüon, S.J., Note d'Écriture Sainte, in Nouvelle Revue Théologique,
Vol. 66, 1939, p. 794. This question implied no positive error on her part, since

402

MARIOLOGY

2. St. Luke 2:35: “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce.’
Origen, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others interpret the sword as
meaning the uncertainty, unbelief, scandal that afflicted Mary at the
foot of the cross.
Answer: There is no basis for such an interpretation either in
Scripture or in the general teaching of tradition. The sword of sor­
row, looked at in the light of her faithful vigil near the cross, is a
revelation of her compassion and Coredemption. The Passion of
Christ and the compassion of Mary form a unity that reveal her
destiny of association and communion with the dying Christ. The
Greek term for sword ρομφαία is never used to mean “doubt,”*27 nor
does it ever symbolize restlessness or vexation.28 Its real and obvious
metaphorical meaning is deep sorrow.29
3. St. Luke 2:44?.: In losing the Child Jesus, Mary (a) was
negligent: (b) gave way to excessive sorrow; (c) was unduly dis­
turbed as shown by her words to Jesus.
Answers: a) The parents of Jesus left Jerusalem on the third day
of the Paschal solemnity with other Galilean pilgrims. The older
children were free to join any of the various groups that formed.
Mary and Joseph, therefore, were not anxious as to where Jesus was,
“drinking that he was in the caravan,” and so traveled the first day
alone. In the evening, noticing that He was not among the friends
and relatives, they were greatly disturbed and the next morning set
out for Jerusalem to search for Him.30
b) It was a case of motherly concern. Mary had the tender love
of a pure soul for her Son. Her sorrow cut deep, but it was not
inordinate.
she interpreted the words of the angel in their natural meaning. Her perfect
conformity to the will of God is shown by the words: “Be it done to me according
to thy word.”
27 G. Estius, Annotationes in praecipua ac difficiliora S. Scripturae loca (Ant­
werp, 1652), p. 349.
28 T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas (Leipzig, 1813), p. 157.
29 W. Bauer, Worterbuch zu N.T. (Berlin, 1937), p. 284; Zorell, Novi Testa­
menti lexicon graecum (Paris, 1931). Note also that the text has î<eXeù<rera< which
means not merely a blow that wounds but that pierces all the way through bringing
certain death, so that in relation to sorrow it means “unto death.” Cf. T. GaSus,
S.J., De sensu verborum Le. 2, 35 eorumque momento Mariologico, in Biblica,
Vol. 29, 1948, pp. 220-239.
30 L. Fonck, S.J., Duodennis inter doctores, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 2, T922,
p. 21.

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

403

c) Mary’s words: “Son, why hast thou done so to us?” are ex­
pressive not of impatience, but of deep love, of a mother’s genuine
sorrow, of maternal authority. The answer of Jesus is not a reproach,
for His parents were not at fault. It is the answer of Jesus as a
teacher. He is giving them to understand that His subjection to them
must always be conditioned by the will of the Father in matters that
have reference to His messianic mission. To this will Mary was by
no means opposed. But even though aware in a general way that
He must be about His Father’s business, she may have been ignorant
of the time, the place, and the precise manner for the accomplishment
of that business.31
4. St. John 2:4: “What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My
hour has not yet come.” Literally: ‘What to me and to thee?” The
tone of the reply seems to be a rebuke and an implicit admission
that the Mother’s request was uncalled for.
Answer: Our Lord uses the term “woman” in six other passages
and in the same meaning as that given to it in the present text. It
is used in contexts where He is sympathizing, healing, consoling,
affirming, praising, but never when reproving.32 Both in Greek and
Semitic the term indicates, not domestic intimacy, but an honorable
address, with sentiments of filial love and piety, as shown from its
use by Our Lord on the cross.33
The words “What to me and to thee?” have to be understood from
biblical, not modern, usage. The phrase does not mean: “What con­
cern is it of ours?” nor “What do you have against me?” In all the
biblical passages where it occurs, it signifies, according to context, a
greater or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the parties con31 Cf. B. Bartmann, Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? (Freiburg, 1909),
pp. 47-52; Maria im Lichte des Glaubens und der Frommigkeit, (Paderborn, 1922),
pp. 123-126; Lagrange, L’Évangile selon saint Luc (Paris, 1948), p. 94. On the
meaning of “my Father’s business” cf. F. Fields, Notes on the Translation of the
N.T. (Cambridge, 1889), pp. 50—56; P. Temple, "House" or "Business" in Lk. 2,
49, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 1, 1939, pp. 342—352; U. Holzmeister
Quaestiones Biblicae de S. Joseph, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 24, 1944, p. 241.
32 E. Power, S.J., Quid mihi et tibi, mulier? nondum venit hora mea, in Verbum
Domini, Vol. 2, 1922, p. 129. P. Gâchter, Maria in Kana, in Zeitschrift fur
Katholische Théologie, Vol. 55, 1931, pp. 351-402; E. Zoili, Quid mihi et tibi,
mulier?, in Marianum, Vol. 8, 1946, pp. 3—15; E. di Cristo Re, Che significa
"quid mihi et tibi"? in Scuola Cattolica, Vol. 75, 1947, pp. 137—142; P. Vanutelli,
Alie nozze di Cana, in Marianum, Vol. 10, 1948, p. 72; G. Roschini, O.S.M.,
La vita di Maria (Roma, 1945), p. 245.
33 Cf. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. The Gospel according to St.
John (London, 1953), p. 983, 786 b.

4°4

MARIOLOGY

cerned. With Ceuppens34 we may translate it as: “What have I in
common with you?” The answer was expected to be in the negative
and taken as a conditioned refusal, for immediately Our Lord adds:
“My hour is not yet come.” Christ’s hour for His messianic work,
for His public career, had not yet arrived; the time to prove by
miracles that He was the Son of God was to be reserved for a later
date. Mary, confident of obtaining what she has asked, tells the
servants: “Do whatever he tells you.” It is clear, then, that Jesus
neither reproached His Mother, nor denied her petition, but rather
showed that the mere mention of a need from her carries great
weight with Him.
5. St. Matthew 12:48: “Who is my mother and who are my
brethren?” Commenting on the text, St. John Chrysostom (later tire
Reformers) remarks that Our Lady gave in to a feeling of vanity in
the presence of the crowd. The words of Our Lord are a rebuke.
Answer: This is a completely gratuitous assertion as a study of the
context shows. Mary is His Mother and wants to be near Him as
she was on Calvary. The meaning is that He must not neglect to
fulfill the mission for which He came into the world and therefore
must set forth an example of complete detachment in the interests
of tire Father. Recall Lk. 2:44F concerning His “Father’s business.”
Spiritual affinity is superior to natural kinship — Flis Mother is to be
numbered among those related to Flim spiritually.35 The text of St.
Mark 3:21 gives no grounds for the assertion that she shared in the
opinion that “Fie has gone mad,” for it is not certain that the Greek
oi παρ αΰτοϋ necessarily means relatives or friends,36 or if understood
in that sense, it still remains doubtful whether we are to see in the
persons referred to, the “mother and brethren” of verse 31.37 At
any rate, we could very well expect His Mother to be concerned,
but we see not the least indication of any desire to take advantage
of her position as His Mother to receive the adulation of the crowd.
84 De Mariologia Biblica (Romae, 1948), p. 184. P. Joiion, Notes philologiques
sur les Évangiles, in Recherches des sciences religieuses, Vol. 18, 1928, p. 356.
35 Cf. F. Friedel, S.M., The Mariology of Cardinal Newman (New York, 1928),
pp. 281-282. M. Scheeben, Mariology, transi, by T. Geukers, Vol. 2, p. 131. J.
de Aldama, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, pp. 365—366.
38 La Sainte Bible, L. Pirot-A. Clamer, Vol. 9, Évangile selon S. Marc, pp.
438-439. The Greek term ί&στη under the influence of the Vulgate has been
given tire meaning of “mad,” but the true meaning is “was beside himself.”
37 J. Steinmueller, Txegetical Notes, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol.
4, 1942, pp. 354-359·

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

405

Concerning the Fathers who attribute either venial sin or imper­
fection to Our Blessed Lady, we note:
a) They are not speaking as witnesses of tradition, but rather pre­
senting tentative explanations to solve an exegetical difficulty.
b) They do not interpret one and the same text.
c) They do not speak of sin in the strict sense of the term, but
rather of feminine frailties.38
TRADITION

a) During the first four centuries we find the tradition of Mary’s
sinlessness in an implicit state, contained especially in the doctrine
that she is the Second Eve. She is also compared to the Church and
both are said to be without stain or wrinkle (Eph. 5:27), that is,
completely sinless and all-holy. In the Oriental liturgy, said to have
originated with St. James, and endorsed by the Sixth Ecumenical
Council, Our Lady is referred to as “most pure, immaculate, ir­
reproachable in every way.”39
The tradition becomes explicit with St. Ephrem the Syrian. His
authentic works, as well as those put out in his name, are replete
with texts that extol her sinlessness: “In thee, O Lord, there is no
fault, and in Thy Mother there is no stain.”40 Classical is the text
of St. Augustine which is universal enough to exclude sin of any
kind from the Blessed Virgin. In controversy with Pelagius, who
had appealed to the saints of the Old Law as examples of sinlessness,
St. Augustine states emphatically that all saints must confess with
one voice that they have known the defilement of sin, “with the
exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect
for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on
the subject of sin.”41
3s C. Boyer, S.J., Synopsis praelectionum de B. Maria Virgine (Romae, 1946),
p. 23. Friedel, S.M., op. cit., p. 283.
38 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 11
(Florentiae, 1775), canon 32, col. 958. The universal tradition of the Eastern
Church has ascribed this liturgy to St. James in which we find many prayers and
invocations to Our Lady. The Jacoban Syriac liturgy has the following: "The
Father sent Me the Word . . . and Gabriel, as a husbandman, sowed Me. The
womb of Mary as the good soil received me . . .” J. Comper, A Handbook of
Liturgies (Edinburgh, 1898), p. 74.
<° Carmina Nisibena, ed. Bickell (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 28-29. St. Ambrose
describes her as endowed, through grace, with an integrity that rendered her
sinless. Expositio in Ps. 118, sermo 22, n. 30; PL, 15, 1521.
•*1 De natura et gratia, c. 36, n. 42; PL, 44, 267. The opinion of St. Augustine
dominated the whole of tradition. Cf. Le Bachelet, art. Marie-Immaculée Conception,
in DTC, Vol. 3, cols. 210-275.

4o6

MARIOLOGY

b) The second period comprises the fifth to the thirteenth cen­
turies. This period reveals an explicit profession of faith in Mary’s
immunity from all sin during the whole course of her life. We also
have a more accurate interpretation of Scripture texts which in the
third and fourth centuries had offered some difficulty to this uni­
versal belief.
The sanctification or purification of Our Lady which, according to
some writers, took place at the moment of the Incarnation, was not
to free her from actual sin, but to completely extinguish concu­
piscence (fomes peccati) which up to then had only been restrained
(ligatus). SS. Leo the Great and John Damascene42 speak of the
purifying action of the Holy Spirit on her soul at the moment of
the Incarnation.43 This is to be interpreted in the light of the general
teaching of the writers of this period, as meaning that, prior to the
conception of Christ, she was not free from inordinate concupiscence
in actu primo, as a habit or tendency that of itself inclines to evil
and retards from the practice of virtues. Yet this habit was bound
and hindered from eliciting acts contrary to right reason. After the
conception of the Saviour she was freed entirely from the very habit
or essence of concupiscence.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, Eadmer and Hildebert
of Mans explicitly assert that Mary was exempt from all stain both
in body and soul all her life.44 In a letter to the monks of Lyons,
St. Bernard writes that Mary was granted a privilege accorded no
other creature, that of being exempt from all fault during the whole
of her life.40
c) In the period extending from the thirteenth to the sixteenth
century, there is an attempt to determine the immediate principle or
cause of Mary’s sinlessness and impeccability. For St. Albert the
Great that principle is the fullness of grace.46 St. Thomas Aquinas
« Sermo 22, PL, 54, 196. De fide orthodoxa, 1, 3; PG, 94, 986; In dormit. B.
Mariae Virginis, 1.3; PG, 96, 704.
43 Thus Venerable Bede writes that through the operation of the Holy Spirit
she was purified from carnal concupiscence. Homilia, Opera paraenetica, lib. 1,
Homilia 1; PL, 94, 12.
44 De excellentia B. V. Mariae, 3; PL, 159, 560. Hildebert, Sermo 69; PL,
171, 677.
45 St. Bernard, Epistola 174, 5, PL, 182, 334. Richard of St. Victor, Explicatio
in Cant. Canticorum, 26, 29; PL, 116, 482 and 416; De emmanuele libri duo, 1;
PL, 196, 660.
43 Mariale, q. 134; Opera Omnia (Paris, 1898), Vol. 20, p. 91. Alexander of
Hales, Summa theologiae (Veneriis, 1575), part 3, qq. 8-9, m. 3, a. 2, p. 32.
According to St. Bonaventure, Our Lady was powerless to sin from the moment

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

407

holds this to be inadequate. A special assistance of Providence is
needed to keep her free from the occasion of sin and to influence
her will in the direction of moral good. His reason is that the human
will is not sufficiently confirmed in good prior to the beatific vision.·*7
In this life the beatific vision is given to no one in a permanent
manner, save the case of the privilege conferred upon the sacred
humanity of Christ. The abundance of grace, he says, makes the
commission of sin difficult, because of the infused virtues which
give the soul a strong inclination to the act of the love of God and
the state of constant contemplation which withdraws the soul from
sin.48 But previous to the Incarnation this grace, granted to the
Blessed Virgin, while contributing to die suppression of inordinate
acts that anticipated the act of reason, did not render impossible
movements of the sensitive appetite.40 In addition to grace, she stood
in need of a special protection from God for the “binding” of con­
cupiscence, i.e., to prevent the disordered acts from arising. After
the Incarnation she received a fullness of grace that confirmed her
soul in good by the complete extinction of concupiscence and by the
gift of perfect perseverance through the special assistance of Divine
Providence.50
d) After the declaration of the Council of Trent concerning Our
Lady’s perfect immunity from actual sin, theological elaboration
centers mainly on providing solutions to the objections of Protestants.
Prominent in this field was St. Peter Canisius who wrote the monu­
mental Opus Marianum directed against the Centuriators of Magde­
burg.51 The first book studies the childhood and perfectly sinless*19
of the Incarnation, the reason given being that the closer one comes to the source
of grace, the greater are the supernatural gifts that one receives, and the more
remote the possibility of sin. Mary, as the Mother of God, came into immediate
contact with the divine Person and sacred humanity of her Son, and thus received
the perfect fullness of grace that confirmed her in good while extinguishing con­
cupiscence. De purificatione B. Μ. V., sermo i, (IX, 634 ab); in 3 sent., d. 3,
pars I, q. 2, quaestio 3. Cf. E. Chiettini, O.F.M., Mariologia S. Bonaventurae
(Romae, 1941), p. 150 f. As corroborative arguments of fitness he gives the
following: her absolute virginity, the impossibility of damnation, and a holiness
surpassing that of the angels.
■>’ S. Th., 1, q. too, a. 2.
De veritate, q. 24, a. 9.
19 S. Th., 3, q. 27, a. 4 ad I.
59 Contra Gentiles, lib. 3, Chap. 155. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception
makes it clear that Mary was free from concupiscence in actu primo et secundo
from the first instant of her existence.
91 Opus Marianum, first put out in 1577, p. 780 under the title De Maria
Virgine incomparabili et Dei Genetrice sacrosancta libri quinque, Secundus Com-

4o8

MARIOLOGY

life of Mary, while the fourth examines and interprets in an orthodox
sense various Gospel texts, the so-called Protestant loci communes,
such as Our Lord’s words to His Mother in the Temple and at the
marriage feast of Cana.52 In defense of traditional Mariology, he also
develops masterfully the Patristic antithesis of the first and Second
Eve.53
It is the unique merit of Suârez to have been the first to study
systematically and by use of the Scholastic method, the divine
Maternity of Our Lady with all its eminent prerogatives. In his
Disputationes de mysteriis vitae Christi, we have a Marian theology
in the strict sense of the term, wherein not only Mary’s actual sin­
lessness, but also her impeccability are brilliantly expounded and
defended.54 The root principle of Mary’s impeccability for these
theologians generally is the absence of concupiscence, the fullness of
grace, a special protection of Divine Providence, and a constant flow
of efficacious graces that kept her faculties free from all fault.
The Marian movement that arose during this period is still in
progress. Based on a more accurate exposition of the theology of
Christ and His Church, Mariology presents us with the Mother of
God as stainless and perfectly holy as the Mystical Body.

THEOLOGICAL PROOF
i. St. Thomas gives the fundamental reason for this privilege
when he says: “God prepares and disposes those whom He has
chosen for a special purpose in such a way as to make them capable
of performing that for which He selected them” (3, q. 27, a. 4).
Now God had chosen Mary for the Mother of His Son. Were she
at any time under sin she would have been unfit for her high office.
mentariorum de verbi Dei corruptelis (Ingolstadt, 1583), lib. 1, c. to, lib. 4, c. 1 f.
Vol. 2, p. 73, 386 ff.
52 In Bourassé’s Summa aurea de laudibus Beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Vol. 8,
col. 1210 ff. Cf. O. Braunsberger, B. Petri Canisii Societatis ]esu epistulae et acta
(Friburgi i. Br., 1896-1923), 8 vols.; Vol. 7, p. 392.
53 Scheeben, op. cit., p. 488.
54 Opera omnia, Vol. 19 (Parisiis, i860). Cf. Manteau-Bonamy, O.P., Maternité
divine et Incarnation (Paris, 1949), p. 175; J. Bover, S.J., Suârez Mariélogo, in
Estudios Eclesiasticos, Vol. 22, 1948, pp. 311-337. Another noteworthy Marian
theologian of this period is St. Lawrence of Brindisi. His Mariale develops the
fundamental Mariological principles, while his Lutheranismi Hypotyposis (3 vols.)
traces the historico-doctrinal genesis of Lutheranism. Opera omnia, 9 vols. (Patavi,
1928-1944). Cf. G. Roschini, La Mariologia di S. Lorenzo da Brindisi (Padua,
1951). Cf. also Roberti Bellarmini opera omnia, Vol. 3 (Parisiis, Vivès, 1870),
preface, pp. 134 and 137; book 3, ch. 16, pp. 319 and 321.

MARY’S IMMUNITY FROM ACTUAL SIN

409

Hence God gave her grace sufficient to make her always a fit Mother
of Jesus.
2. If she is the Mother of God, then “for the honor of the Lord”
she was absolutely sinless. Dishonor in parents reflects dishonor upon
the children. Aquinas remarks that the Word who is Wisdom and
Light could dwell only in a womb that was sinless (3, q. 27, a. 4).
3. Mary was chosen by God to be the associate of Christ in the
work of Redemption. Now sin certainly does not contribute to coredemptive mediation, much less does it have any satisfactory value.
4. Where there has been no mortal sin there can be no venial sin,
for the latter arises from a revolt of the sense appetite against reason,
whereas the former is a revolt of reason against God. Now the sense
appetite is perfectly subject to reason as long as reason remains
subject to God. Thus the first sin of Adam and Eve had necessarily
to be a grievous sin. As it is absurd to admit a grievous sin or even
its possibility in the Mother of God, we conclude that she was free
from all venial sin.
This immunity from all mortal sin was due more proximately to a
very high degree of habitual grace and charity which gives the soul
a very strong inclination to the act of the love of God, while with­
drawing it from the attraction of sin. Our Lady’s freedom from all
sin, due to a special privilege, demanded also a special assistance of
Divine Providence through actual and special supernatural helps
that gave her a prompt and generous state of soul. She was in this
manner confirmed in good and rendered incapable of committing
any sin. Thus, though our first parents in the state of original justice
were unable to sin venially, they could sin mortally, because they
lacked this confirmation in grace.
There are three reasons, deriving ultimately from her dignity as
the Mother of God, that show, not only her de facto sinlessness, but
also her absolute inability to sin. This impeccability was caused by:
(1) the extinction of concupiscence as to its very essence, (2) the
abundance of grace, (3) a special assistance of Divine Providence.65

FREEDOM FROM IMPERFECTION

Theologians debate the question as to whether there is a real dis­
tinction between positive moral imperfection and venial sin. The
more probable opinion holds the affirmative: Imperfection differs
from venial sin, for the latter, being a disordered act, cannot be
50 Cf. St. Thomas, Scriptum super sententias, lib. 3, d. 3, <j. 1, a. 2, sol. 2.

410

MARIOLOGY

ordained to the end of charity, whereas an imperfection is a morally
good act which can be ordained to that end, though lacking a cer­
tain amount of perfection.56 What we have said on Mary’s immunity
from venial sin applies likewise to freedom from all moral imper­
fection. “The answer usually given to this problem,” says GarrigouLagrange, “is that there was never any imperfection, however slightly
voluntary, in the lives of Jesus and Mary, for they never failed in
their prompt obedience to every divine inspiration by way of
counsel.”57
86 Garrigou-Lagrange, Christian Perfection and Contemplation (St. Louis, Mo.,
1944), p. 430. C£. A. Schellinckx, Autour du problème de l'imperfection morale, in
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 4, 1927, pp. 195-207. For the negative,
cf. E. Ranwez, Péché veniel et imperfection, ibid., Vol. 3, 1926, pp. 177-200.
Hugueny, Imperfection, in DTC, Vol. 7, col. 1286. Priimmer, Manuale Theologiae
Moralis, Vol. I (Friburgi i. Br., 1915), p. 81.
57 Garrigou-Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour, p. 75.

APPENDIX

The Holy Name of Mary
By RICHARD KLIGELMAN, C.P., S.T.L., S.S.L.

HE etymology and meaning of Mary’s name has fascinated her
spiritual children since the days of the Fathers. Many titles of
honor which Christian piety and the liturgy of the Church have
bestowed on Mary had their origin in the ancient speculations on
the meaning of her holy name. The history of the meaning of Mary’s
name supplies much valuable material for the history of Marian
devotion.*
1
The study devoted to die meaning of Our Lady’s name may seem
to many modems a useless, if pious, waste of time and talent. After
all, names are only convenient tags to distinguish one person from
another. The character and accomplishments of an individual, not
the name which fond parents bestowed on their newborn infant,
establish his or her place in history. Such a contemptuous appraisal
of the study of the meaning of Mary’s name would be justified, if it
were not that, in the case of Our Lady, we are concerned with the
victorious Woman of biblical prophecy, with the Mother of God
our Saviour.
A cursory reading of the Bible will indicate the importance which
the ancient Hebrews attached to the meaning of names. A close
relation was presumed to exist between a name and the personality

T

1 Cf. the “Vorwort” of O. Bardenhewer’s monograph, Der Name Maria, Biblische
Studien, Vol. i, pp. i—161 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1896). With remark­
able patience Bardenhewer collected and criticized all the etymologies proposed for
the name Mary from Philo to the end of tire nineteenth century. G. Roschini,
O.S.M., Mariologia, Vol. 2, Pars Prima (Romae, 1947), p. 59, note I, observes of
Bardenhewer’s work "ex quo auctores communiter hauriunt." The author of this
article is no exception.
411

412

APPENDIX

of its bearer. The Hebrew frequently used the name as almost an
equivalent of the personality, or character, or nature of the person
or thing named. When, for example, a prophet wished to express
forcefully the character of a person or place, he said he will be called
“so and so,” or its name will be “such and such.” Isaias indicates the
personality and dignity of the future Messias by telling us he will
be called “Emmanuel” (God with us) (Isa. 7:14; cf. also 9:6). The
New Jerusalem, we are informed by Ezechiel, will bear the name
“Yahweh Shamah” (God is there) (Ezech. 48:35).2
The contemporaries of Our Blessed Lady had inherited the Old
Testament culture and concepts. It is not surprising, then, that tire
ancient Hebrew concept of the relation of name to person existed
in the New Testament era. Faith in the mission and person of Jesus
is expressed simply as faith “in his name” (e.g., Jn. 1:12; 2:23). In
Acts 1:15 “names” (ονόματα) simply replaces “persons.”
When speaking to mankind through men God accommodates
Himself to the thought patterns of His spokesmen and their audi­
ence. In both Old and New Testaments God indicates the missions
of the heroes of the history of salvation by the names which He
imposes on them. (For a few Old Testament examples cf. Gen.
17:5, 15; 35:10.) The angel instructed Zachary that the child who
was to be born to Elizabeth should be called John (Yahweh is
gracious) (Lk. 1:13). Joseph is commanded to call Mary’s Son,
Jesus (Yahweh saves), “for he shall save his people from their sins”
(Mt. i :20-21). Our Blessed Lord presages the position of the Prince
of the Apostles in Flis Church by changing his name to Peter
(Cephas), “the Rock” (Jn. 1:42; Mt. 16:18). Therefore, as St.
Lawrence of Brindisi observes, “it would be a mistake to think that
this glorious name of Mary does not abound in mysteries, or that it
was not divinely imposed, as was the name of Christ and John
Baptist.”3
It is not necessary, as St. Peter Canisius thought, to posit a special
revelation of Mary’s name to her parents, such as the revelation of
2 Many examples could be cited. Cf. the article "Name” by G. B. Gray, Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, pp. 478-481; also “Nom,” H. Lesêtre, Dictionnaire
de la Bible, Vigoureux, Vol. 4, cols. 1669-1677.
3 The thesis expressed as follows by Roschini is common with mariologists: “Mariae
nomen ab aeterno, ab ipso Deo, praefinitum fuit, tamquam expressivum dignitatis
ad quam praedestinata fuit” (op. cit., p. 58). Cf. M. J. Scheeben, Mariology, transi,
by T. Geukers, Vol. 1 (New York: B. Herder, 1948), p. 6; B. Merkelbach, O.P.,
Mariologia (Paris: Desclée, 1939), P· 103. Cf. S. Laurentius a Brundusio, Mariale
(Patavii, 1928), p. 177.

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

413

Jesus’ name to Joseph (Mt. 1:2ο).4 It suffices that the parents of
Our Lady, inspired by God (an influence of which very likely they
were unconscious), called their child Mary.5

THE FORM OF THE NAME MARY
Mary is a proper feminine name home by only one person in the
Old Testament, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Exod. 15:20f.;
Num. 12:1-5, IO> 15> 20:1; Mich. 6:4).° In the Massoretic text tire
name is vocalized Miryâm. The Septuagint renders it Mariâtn
(Μαρκί/χ). The change of the first vowel probably represents the pro­
nunciation current in Aramaic-speaking Palestine during the two
centuries preceding Christ.7 In the Vulgate the name becomes Maria.
When one considers the prominence of Mary the prophetess in
the history of the Exodus, it seems strange that the Old Testament
Hebrews did not honor her by conferring her name on their daugh­
ters. But the sister of Moses is not alone in her biblical isolation.
The names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Aaron were also
avoided, and, it seems, from pious reverence for the heroes of the
Bible. A similar sentiment restrains Christians (Spanish-speaking
Catholics are a singular exception) from giving the holy name of
Jesus to their sons. And the early Christians would not call their
daughters Mary.8 The New Testament era saw a reversal of the
Old Testament practice. The contemporaries of Our Lady honored
the great men and women of their history by calling their children
after them. Perhaps there is also in this practice an indication of
their keen expectation of the proximity of the Messianic Age. In
the New Testament we meet, e.g., several individuals called Jacob
(James) and a number of Marys.
1 S. Petrus Canisius, De Maria Virgine Incomparabili et Dei Genetrice Sacro­
sancta libri quinque (Taurini, 1934), p. 1.
5 Cf. Roschini, op. cit., p. 58.
e The Massoretic text of i Par. 4:17 mentions a Miryâm, apparently a male
descendant of Ezra of Juda. The text is evidently corrupt. The LXX lists, in place
of this Miryâm, a son of Jether called Marôn according to most codices and pre­
ferred by Ralphs, or Maiôn according to Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and preferred
by Swete, or Môeôr according to Colberto-Sarravianus and Purpureus Vindobonensis
and preferred by Lagarde. Thus it is quite certain that the only bearer of the
name Mary in the Old Testament is the sister of Moses.
’ The Targum form of Mary’s name was Maryânt. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. 1, p. 36.
8 There is no evidence that any Christian woman was named Mary in the
early Christian centuries. Cf. Rohault de Fleury, La Sainte Vierge. Études ar­
chéologiques et iconographiques, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1878), p. 41; also F. Zorell, S.J.,
Verbum Domini, Vol. 7, 1927, p. 257.

4M

APPENDIX

In the Greek New Testament the form of Our Lady’s name is the
Septuagint rendition of the name of Moses’ sister, Mariam (Mt.
13:55; Lk. 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 46, 56; 2:5, 16, 34; Acts 1:14).
There is only one exception. Most critical editions of the text (e.g.,
Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Merk, Bover) read, on the authority
of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae, Maria in Lk. 2:19. When it
is not indeclinable Our Lady’s name becomes in the oblique cases
Μαρίας and Μαρία (once Μαρίαν in the accusative, Mt. 1:20). The
form Maria is employed for the Magdalene and for Mary of James
and of Clopas (Mt. 26:56; Mk. 15:47; 16:1, 9; Lk. 8:2; 24:10;
Jn. 19:25; 20:1). The sister of Lazarus is called Mariam by both
Luke and John (Lk. 10:39, 42; Jn. 11:2, 19, 20, etc.). Once John
employs the form Mariam for the Magdalene (Jn. 20:16; perhaps
also 20:18). Josephus uses the form Μαριάρ,ρ^, whether he refers to
Moses’ sister or to the women of the Herodian family who bore the
name (Ant. Jud., II, 9, 4; III, 2, 4; IV, 4, 6).
W. Smith (A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 2 [London, 1853], p.
255) thinks that Maria is a distinct form, a shortened form of the
more archaic Mariam, somewhat similar to Nathan, a shortened
form of Jonathan. Authors generally, however, are agreed that Maria
is merely a Hellenization of the Semitic Maryam. Maria gives a
regular Greek feminine form of the first declension. The Mariamme
of Josephus has been styled a “coquettish Hellenization.”9 It is pos­
sible that Matthew and Mark, in reserving the Semitic form Mariam
exclusively for Our Lady, intend to distinguish her even in name
from other women and to insinuate that she is the Miryâm of the
great liberation, which was prefigured and promised by the Exodus.10
As in the Old Testament, so in the New, Maria is the only form of
the name in the Vulgate.
THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE NAME MARY
No convincing argument has been adduced against the claim of
the Massoretic Miryâm to be the oldest and very likely the original
form of the name Mary. While this is generally admitted, there is
no agreement on the meaning of the name. More than seventy
etymologies have been proposed (in 1885 Bardenhewer listed sixty9 Cf. Deissmann, Urgeschichte, p. 22, cited by Moulton-Milligan, The Vocabulary
of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary
Sources, edition of W. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, Mich.,
i949)> p· 388.
10 Cf. H. Lesêtre, "Marie,” Diet, de la Bible, Vig., Vol. 4, col. 774.

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

415

seven)! This confusing variety is due to uncertainty concerning the
derivation of the name, even uncertainty about the language to which
it belongs, and to the pious avidity of preachers and writers to see
Mary’s prerogatives mirrored in her holy name. While some derive
the name from ancient Egyptian, and a few from Syriac, the
majority of exegetes have assumed that it is of Hebrew origin.
Ancient and medieval authors generally took it to be a composite
name, i.e., derived from two Hebrew roots. The modems, who attach
the name to the Hebrew, usually consider it a simple name.11

THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES A.D.
The earliest extant writer to concern himself with the meaning of
the name Mary was Philo (t a.d. 50), the learned Alexandrian Jew.
The statement of Exod. 2:4 that the sister of Moses was “standing
afar off, and taking notice what would be done” to her baby brother,
lying in his basket in the sedges on the river’s brink, leads Philo to
observe that Mary’s name means “hope.” His comment on Num.
12:1-3, which records that “Mary and Aaron spoke against Moses
because of his wife the Ethiopian,” is that Mary signifies “brazen
and bold sensuality.”12 As is evident, Philo is not giving the etymology
of Mary’s name. Rather he is assigning an allegorical and quite arbi­
trary meaning to her name because of her actions.
The ancient rabbis saw in Mary’s name a symbol of Israel’s bitter
servitude in Egypt. Mary means “bitterness” (Hebrew, Mérûr).
She was given this name, say the rabbis, because her birth coincided
with the beginning of the Egyptians’ hard treatment of the Jews.13
The ancient Onomastica Sacra have preserved the meanings
ascribed to Mary’s name by the early Christian writers and perpetu­
ated by the Greek Fathers. “Bitter Sea,” “Myrrh of the Sea,” “The
Light Giver,” “The Enlightened One,” "Lady,” “Seal of the Lord,”
“Mother of the Lord” are the principal interpretations.14
11 Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 16, points to the “edit hebraisches Geprage” of
Miryâm: three radicals and the denominative termination Am, like Shephupham
and Hupham sons of Benjamin, 'amram father of Moses. The root, he holds, is
M R’, Mârâ'.
12 Philo, De somn., II, 20, cited by Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 17.
13 The loci of the rabbinical literature are given by J. Levy, Neuhebrâisches und
chaldaisches Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim und Midraschim (Leipzig, 18761889), s.v. Mêrûr.
Onomastica Sacra, Paulus de Lagarde edidit (Gottingae, 1870), s.v. Μαρία,
176, 49; 179, 3>; 183, 34; 195, 66 lists the meanings: κυριούουσα, πικρά θάλασσα,
κυρία ήμών,άπά αοράτων, φωτίζουσα- s.v. Μαριά/ι, 175, Ζ2; *79> 31! Ι95> 66; 203, 17»

4i6

APPENDIX

Obviously influenced by the Septuagint Mariâm, these etymologies
suppose that the Hebrew form of the name is Maryam, not Miryâm.
“Bitter Sea” derives the name from Mar (bitter) and Yam (sea).
Aside from the fact that such an etymology does not explain the
first syllable of Our Lady’s name (Mir could hardly be derived from
Mar), this combination violates the usual Hebrew word order in
which the noun precedes the adjective. “Myrrh of the Sea” supposes
Mor (myrrh) and Yam. This also fails to account for the first
syllable of Our Lady’s name. And what is myrrh of the sea? Isn’t
myrrh a product of the vegetable kingdom, the resin of trees? “The
Light Giver” (φωτίζουσα) regards Mary’s name as a casuative (hiphil)
participle of the verb 'or (to shine) or of the verb râ’âh (to see). But
it is only with violence to the language that one can get Miryâm
from Meir or Mar'eh. The interpretation “Lady” and “Our Lady”
derives the name from the Aramaic word for Lord, Mâr'ë QMâr).
The feminine of this word, however, would be Mar’â in the absolute
state, Marth'â in the emphatic state. In fact, this Aramaic word
does occur as a feminine proper name in the New Testament. It is
the name of the sister of Lazarus, Martha. Absolutely impossible is
the meaning “Mother of the Lord” (Deus ex genere meo), which
would derive the name from the Hebrew Yâh (God) and Hârâh
(to conceive). “Seal of the Lord” supposes a bizarre combination of
the Persian word muhur or muhr (seal) and the Hebrew Yâh.
Among these interpretations of the Onomastica the Greek Fathers
preferred “Myrrh of the Sea” and “Lady.”15*
ST. JEROME TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY A.D.
About the year a.d. 390 St. Jerome made available to Western
Christendom the Onomastica of the Greeks. Jerome’s Liber Inter­
pretationis hebraicorum Nominum is a Latin translation and re­
vision of a similar book of Origen, which in turn was based on a
work of the Alexandrian Jew, Philo.18 On the name Mary in Mat­
φωτίζονσα, φωτιξομύνη η φωτίξουσα àvrovs, ή κύριο! ύκ yévovs μον) ij σμύρνα θαλλασία,
κυρίου σφρα^ίί.
1Β CE PG, 43, 4θ8 Ε, (attributed to Epiphanias); PG, 94, 1157, John Damascene;
also PG, 96, 689. J. Knabenbauer, S.J., Evangelium secundum S. Matthaeum, Pars
Prior (Cursus Scrip. S.), 1892, p. 44, is one of the very few, if not the only
modem, who prefers the meaning “myrrh": “Nomen myrrhae ex eo multum com­
mendatur, quia puellarum nomina ex arboribus plantisque deprompta revera in
usu erant.”
16 Cf. Jerome’s Preface to this work, PL, 23, 771 f.; also A. Penna, S. Girolamo
(Roma, 1949), p. 151 E

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

4i7

thew’s Gospel Jerome writes in the Liber Interpretationis: “Mariam
plerique aestimant interpretari, illuminant me isti, vel illuminatrix, vel
smyrna maris, sed mihi nequaquam videtur. Melius autem est, ut
dicamus sonare eam stellam maris, sive amarum mare: sciendumque
quod Maria, sermone Syro, domina nuncupetur."17 With the excep­
tion of Stella Maris all these interpretations occur in the Greek
Onomastica. Of course Stella Maris may have been in Jerome’s copy
of Origen’s work, but more probably this is his personal contribution
to the treasury of Marian etymologies. Jerome’s indication of his
preferences among the meanings he listed influenced all subsequent
Latin writers. “Lady,” “Bitter Sea,” “The Light Giver,” and especially
“Star of the Sea” are the interpretations common in the West from
Jerome until the sixteenth century.18 Stella Maris was by far the
favored interpretation.
The question has been raised whether Jerome wrote Stilla (drop)
Maris rather than Stella Maris. The Hebrew language contains no
word for star even remotely resembling Our Lady’s name. There
is, however, a Hebrew word Mar, meaning “drop” (cf. Isa. 40:15).
When Jerome wrote the Liber Interpretationis he was already well
versed in Hebrew. The conjunction sive in the text of Jerome sug­
gests that he is offering alternative meanings for the word Mar, i.e.,
“drop” or "bitter” (Melius autem est, ut dicamus sonare eam stellam
maris, sive amarum mare'). The text of Jerome in the ninth-century
Codex of Bamberg reads Stilla. The change to Stella is an under­
standable scribal error, especially when it is remembered that com­
mon speech confounded the vowels e and i. Countryfolk said vea
for via, vella for villa, speca for spica, leber for liber.19 St. Gregory
the Great on the text of Job 36-i.·? “qui aufert stillas pluviae” gives
a commentary that supposes stellas pluviae. The “stillas pluviarum”
of J er. 3:3 becomes in Gregory "stellae pluviarum.”20
The “Star of the Sea” of Jerome’s text is therefore very probably
due to the lapse of one or several early copyists, who substituted
stella for stilla because the two words were identical in pronuncia17 Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, PL, 23, 841-842; 789.
18 Peter Chrysologus, PL, 52, 579; Isidore of Seville, 82, 289; Venerable Bede,
92, 316; Walafrid Strabo, 114, 859; Rabanus Maurus, in, 75; Notker Balbulus,
131, 1005; Fulbert of Chartres, 151, 322; Herman Contractus, 143, 443; Peter
Damian, 144, 508; Rupert of Deutz, 168, 361; Bernard of Clairvaux, 182, 1142 and
183, 70; Amadeus of Lausanne, 188, 1344; Innocent III, 217, 499.
i» Cf. Quintillian, Inst. Orat., Vol. I, iv, 17; also Varron, Rer. rustic., I, ii, 14,
xlviii, 2, cited by Lesêtre, "Marie,” op. cit., col. 775.
20 PL, 76, 405 and 76, 867.

4i 8

APPENDIX

tion. Later copyists perpetuated the error because of the beautiful
meaning stella gave to Our Lady’s name. It would be unjust, how­
ever, to accuse the medieval scribes of deliberately changing Jerome’s
text in the interest of Marian devotion. Bardenhewer very wisely
observes that had the medieval clients of Our Lady read stilla maris
in their copies of Jerome, they would have found a symbolic rela­
tion between the drops of the sea and Our Lady as easily as they
did for stella maris.21 This unintentional alteration of Jerome’s text
was really a felix culpa. To it we owe some of Christendom’s most
beautiful tributes to Our Lady. It suffices to mention the hymn Ave
Maris Stella (ninth century) and St. Bernard’s Second Homily on
the words of Lk. i : 26, "Missus est."
The great Scholastic Doctors, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas,
Bonaventure, accept without question the interpretations current in
their day, which were derived from Jerome’s work. Thus St. Thomas
in his Expositio super Angelica Salutatione (cap. 6, 7, 8) explains
Mary’s name as “illuminatrix,” “domina,” “stella maris.” St. Bona­
venture gives the meanings “mare amarum,” “stella,” “domina” (e.g.,
Comment, in Luc 1:17).

THE MODERN PERIOD. SIXTEENTH AND
SUBSEQUENT CENTURIES
The revival of Hebraic studies, which accompanied the Renais­
sance, led to a more critical appraisal of the meanings assigned to
Our Lady’s name. The author of the lexicon of proper names in the
Complutensis Polyglott offered two new interpretations, "magistra
sive doctrix maris” and "exaltata."22 The first would derive Our
Lady’s name from Môreh (the hiphil participle of the verb Yârâh,
which in the hiphil has the meaning “to teach”) and Yarn. Aside
from the difficulty of explaining the origin of Mir from Môr, the
meaning obtained seems meaningless. What is a “teacher of the sea”?
Angelus Caninius embraced enthusiastically the interpretation
"exaltata." Lie regarded Miryâm as a noun formed from the verb
Rwm (to be high) and the very common preformant M.23 Cornelius
21 Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 73.
22 In the appendix of the fifth volume, which contains "interpretationes . . .
nominum N.T." cited by Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 122, also hy E. Vogt, S.J.,
De nominis Mariae etymologia, in Verbum Domini, Vol. 26 (1948), p. 164.
23 De locis S. Scripturae hebraicis, Angeli Caninii commentarius, (Antverpiae,
1600), pp. 63-64. Roschini (op. cit., p. 64), who, like the present author, probably
depends on Bardenhewer for this citation, erroneously attributes this work to
St. Peter Canisius.

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

419

a Lapide accepts this interpretation in his commentary on Ecclus.
43:7, and the great exegete Estius finds it “not displeasing.”24 But the
exegetes and philologists generally rejected it on the grounds that
a substantive formed from the root Rwm would be vocalized Mârôm,
not Miryâm or even Maryam, like Mâkôm a quite frequent noun in
the Old Testament derived from Qwm.u In fact Mârôm (height)
is a common noun in the Old Testament. But in 1948 E. Vogt, S.J.,
the present rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, adduced some
very telling arguments in favor of this etymology.26 From the root
Dyn (to judge) are derived two nouns meaning “strife,” Mâdôn,
the usual form, and Midyân, a rare form. Philologically, therefore,
the derivation of Miryâm from Rwm is probable. Now the celebrated
Ugaritic tablets, discovered at Ras Shamrah from 1929 through 1936,
offer new and striking evidence in favor of this derivation. In this
ancient Canaanite literature (mythological epics, religious poems,
and sacrificial ritual in a language closely akin to Hebrew) there
occurs a word MRYM used both as a noun and an adjective and
identical in derivation and meaning with the Hebrew word Mârôm,
“height.” According to C. H. Gordon, who painstakingly worked
out a grammar of this ancient Canaanite language, MRYM probably
should be vocalized MaryamQu) or MiraymQu').27 The Ras Shamrah
tablets date from the fourteenth century B.C. and so are contem­
poraneous with Moses and his sister Mary. Old Testament names
like Kelal, “perfection,” “the perfect one” (1 Esdras 10:30) and
Mibhâr, “election,” “the chosen one” (1 Par. 11:38), show that
Hebrew parents did express their joy in their newborn children by
conferring very flattering titles as names. Certainly "Highness” or
“The Exalted One” is an appropriate name for Our Blessed Lady,
who has been lifted by grace above all creatures, even the highest
Seraphim.
St. Peter Canisius offers a number of meanings, e.g., "exaltata"
and "rebellio” (from the root Mârâh'). But above all he endeavored
to give the beloved Stella Maris a solid philological basis. He derives
Mary’s name from the verb Hëîr and Yam. Apparently he has in
24 Annotationes in praecipua ac difficiliora S. Scripturae loca, 1621, p. 479 b,
in Lk. 1:27, cited by Vogt, art. cit., p. 164.
25 Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 125. Merkelbach, op. cit., p. 104, observes that Van
Hoonacker suggests a root Rtim with the meaning “to desire” like the Arabic Rama,
as the source of Mary’s name. In view of the silence of the lexicons it is pure
conjecture to attribute such a meaning to the Hebrew root.
20 Vogt, art. cit., pp. 164-166.
27 C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar (Romae, 1940), pp. 44, 103.

420

APPENDIX

mind the hiphil participle Meir of the verb 'ôr. This etymology is
no more successful than the ancient φωτίζονσα.23
Cornelius a Lapide commenting on Exod. 15:20 rejects the Massoretic vocalization. Maryam, he thinks, is the original form of the
name. It means either "amaritudo maris” (from Mar the construct of
the noun Mârâh and Yarn') or "Magistra aut Domina maris."
Christopher Vega, SJ., offered an original interpretation, "domina
diet" or "domina cribri," deriving the name from the Aramaic Mar
(Lord) and Yarn ÇYôm') meaning “day,” or Yarn meaning “sieve.”28
29
At the beginning of the eighteenth century Matthew Hiller pro­
posed the interpretation “the rebellious” or “the contumacious,” de­
riving Mary from Meri (rebellion) from the verb Mârâh.30 The
final Am of Our Lady’s name he held to be simply a termination used
in the formation of nouns. (Mem intensivum he called it.) Philologically there is no objection to this etymology. The meaning is also
quite apt for the sister of Moses, who murmured against her brother
in the desert. But such an interpretation could hardly be applied to
Our Blessed Lady.3132
Gesenius, the master of Hebrew lexicographers, in the first edition
of his celebrated Neues hebraisch-deutsches Handxvorterbuch identi­
fied the name Mary with the form Miryâm (their rebellion) of Neh.
9:17. The name would be composed of the noun Meri and the
third plural pronominal suffix am. In later editions Gesenius silently
adopted Hiller’s interpretation, explaining am as a substantive ter­
mination (Ein Bildungszusatz) 33
In 1856 P. Schegg in his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel pro­
posed the verb Mâra (to be fat) as the root of Our Lady’s name.
Arguing that to the Semitic eye a “well-developed,” even a corpulent
woman was beautiful, he gave as the meaning of Mary’s name “the
beautiful one.” With Hiller and Gesenius he considers the final am
28 St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., pp. 2-5.
20 Christophorus de Vega, S.J., Theologia Mariana, Pars II (Lugduni, 1653),
pp. 85-114.
30 M. Hiller, Onomasticum Sacrum (Tübingen, 1706), pp. 173, 876, 886. As
early as 1577 St. Peter Canisius had proposed Marah as the root of Mary’s name.
Cf. above, note 28.
31 Roschini’s attempt to apply this meaning to Our Lady seems very arbitrary
and farfetched, op. cit., p. 64.
32 Cf. Gesenius, Neues hebraisch-deutsches Handworterbuch, also Thesaurus
philologicus criticus linguae hebreae et chaldaeae veteris Testamenti, Editio Altera
(Lipsiae, 1835-1839), Vol. 2, p. 819.

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

421

of Mary’s name a simple denominative termination.83 Like Hiller’s this
etymology, from the viewpoint of philology, is probable. Normally,
however, a noun formed from Mara with the aid of the termination
am would be Mir’am, not Miryam. While Aleph can be changed
to Yod in certain cases, there is no proof that pronounced consonantal
Aleph, following a consonant and preceding a vowel, can be changed
to pronounced consonantal Yod.31 Moreover, is it true that corpulency
was associated with beauty in the Semitic mind? In Hebrew litera­
ture there is no example of the root Mara meaning “beauty.” But
quite a few authors have accepted Schegg’s interpretation (e.g., Fiirst,
Gildmeister, Bardenhewer, Lesêtre, Janssens, Scheeben).33
35 “The
34
Beautiful” is certainly an appropriate name for her who was im­
maculately conceived and endowed with grace and holiness surpass­
ing that of the highest angels, and who, in all probability, was also
physically the most beautiful of the daughters of Eve. Tota pulchra
es, Maria! In this interpretation the angel’s greeting to Our Lady,
Xaïpe κΐχαριτωμΐνη, Ave gratia plena, would express aptly the meaning
of her holy name (Lk. 1:28).
Is Mary an Egyptian name? May not Mary, born in Egypt,
have received an Egyptian name as did her brothers Moses and
Aaron? Father Francis Zorell, S.J., proposed the hypothesis that the
name Miryam is a composite word made up of the perfect passive
participle of the Egyptian verb mr (to love), i.e., merî(t) and the
Hebrew divine name Yam (i.e., Yahweh, as in Abiam for Abi-yahu).
The holy name Mary would therefore have the most appropriate
meaning, “The Beloved of God.”36
Father Roschini, O.S.M., embraces Zorell’s etymology as “most
probable, not to say certain” (probabilissima, ne dicamus certa).37
Moses is certainly an Egyptian name, and the name Aaron, which
cannot be explained from the Hebrew, is probably also of Egyptian
origin. It is possible that their sister also received an Egyptian name.
33 P. Schegg, Die heiligen Evangelien übersetzt and erklart, Vol. 1, Evangelium
nach Matthaus (München, 1856), p. 419; also Jacobus der Bruder des Herrn
(München, 1882), p. 56.
34 Vogt, art. cit., p. 167.
35 C. Beckermann, O.S.A., Et nomen Virginis Maria, Verbum Domini, Vol. 1,
(1921), pp. 130-136, gives arguments contra; Bardenhewer, op. cit., pp. 147-151,
gives the arguments pro, the association of beauty and corpulence.
33 F. Zorell, S.J., Was bedeutet der Name Maria? in Zeitschr. für Kathol. Theol.,
30 (1906), pp. 356-360.
37 Roschini, op. cit., p. 65.

422

APPENDIX

But Roschini’s argument that the name Mary would have occurred
frequently in the Old Testament if it were of Hebrew origin is not
at all convincing. Such a typically Hebrew name as Jacob is also
unique in the Old Testament. Granted that Mary is an Egyptian
name, the derivation from Merî-Yâm is by no means established.
Moses’ sister presumably was named shortly after birth. Did the
Hebrews in Egypt know then that God’s name is Yahweh? Did not
God reveal His name to men for the first time, when, many years
after Mary’s birth, He spoke to Moses out of the burning bush?
(Exod. 6:2-3.) Zorell himself later called his hypothesis “doubtful.”
Since meri when transcribed in Assyrian (a Semitic language) be­
comes mai and in Greek appears as μι, the R being lost in transcrip­
tion, the derivation of Miryam from this word is very questionable.38
Conclusion: The evidence available today is preponderantly in
favor of the meaning “Highness” or “Tire Exalted One.” Miryam
has all the appearance of a genuine Hebrew name, and no solid
reason has been adduced to warrant rejecting the Semitic origin of
the word. Father Zorell turned to the Egyptian only because he des­
paired of finding a satisfactory explanation according to the known
rules of Hebrew morphology. Had the grammarians and exegetes
known the Ras Shamrah literature with its striking argument in
favor of the derivation of Miryam from Rwffl, there is no doubt that
they would have embraced wholeheartedly this etymology first pro­
posed by Cardinal Ximenes’ Polyglott.39 Once again twentieth-cen­
tury archaeology has supplied the key to a satisfactory solution of a
centuries-old problem. The sweet name of Mary expresses fittingly
the dignity and glory of the Mother of God and the Queen of all
creation. She is “Highness,” “The Exalted One.”
Probably it were better, however, if Mariologists ceased searching
exclusively for the reasons of God’s choice of Our Lady’s name in
the etymology of the word, and looked for them rather in the rela­
tion of Mary (as antitype) to the sister of Moses. In view of the
inferior position of women in ancient society the role of Moses’
sister in tire history of tire Exodus is remarkable. She is a prophetess
who supports the Liberator in his great work of freeing Israel from
the Egyptian bondage. (Cf. the words of God in Mich. 6:4, “For
I brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and delivered thee out of
38 F. Zorell, S.J., Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, Editio Altera (Parisiis,
1931), col. 798.
39 Cf. Vogt, art. cit., p. 167.

THE HOLY NAME OF MARY

423

tine house of slaves, and I sent before thy face Moses, and Aaron, and
Mary.”) The sister of Moses is an apt type of Mary, the Alma Socia
Redemptoris, the coadjutrix of her divine Son in the liberation of
mankind from the slavery of sin and the bondage of Satan.·*0 May
not God have inspired the parents of Our Lady to call their infant
daughter after the sister of Moses, in order to indicate her mission
in the Redemption of mankind?
•*0 Mary’s murmuring against Moses does not disqualify her as a type of
Our Blessed Lady. The relation between type and antitype is never perfect. David
and Solomon are types of Christ Our Lord and King, in spite of the adultery
and murder of the one, and the profligacy of the other.

Index of Authors
Abârzuza (see Francis X. of)
Abd-el-Jalil, J.-M., 177
Abel, J. M., 80
Adamnam of Iona, 152
Adhémar du Puy, 279
Adrian I, Pope, 26, 45
Ailred of Rievaulx, 292
Alameda, S., 52, 324
Alastruey, G., 321, 329, 336, 395, 398
Albert the Great, St., 19, 27, 293, 296298, 365, 406, 418
Alcuin, 272
Aldama, J. de, 17, 285, 300, 310, 314,
341, 360, 380-381, 383, 387, 390,
392> 399» 404
Alexander, A., 211-215, 222
Alexander of Alexandria, 135
Alexander of Hales, 307, 365, 406
Alexander VII, Pope, 21, 23, 334, 370
Alexander VIII, Pope, 16
Alimonda, Card., 339
Allo, B., 107
Alonso, J., 396
Alphonsus Liguori, St., 313, 379, 384,
399
Alphonsus Tostatus, 306
Altaner, B., 145, 148, 149, 151, 157,
166, 167, 174
Alva y Astorga, P., 312, 387
Alvarez, J., 252
Amadeus of Lausanne, St., 291, 417
Amann, E., 157, 159, 160, 161, 169,
176, 177, 180
Ambrose Autpertus, 362
Ambrose of Milan, St., it, 113, 123,
124, 130, 131, 136, 140, 142, 147149, 155. 19°, 349, 351» 405
Ambrose Spiera, 306
Ambrosiaster, 129, 141
Ameri, G., 4
Anastasius, St., 354
Andrew of Crete, St., 153
Andricu, M., 262

Andronicus II, Emperor, 202
Anselm of Canterbury, St., 284-288,
297, 306, 348, 362-363, 376
Anthony of Padua, St., 292—293, 368
Antonelli, F., 262
Antoninus of Florence, St., 306
Anysius of Thessalonica, to, 131
Arbez-McGuire, 157
Arce, A., 211
Archangelus a Roc, 312
Arendt, G., 337
Arendzen, J., 54
Arias, H., 63, 66
Arintero, J. G., 70
Aristides of Athens, 118, 186
Armellini, M., 248
Amobius, 121
Arnold of Chartres, 291
Ascarius, Bishop, 153
Asmussen, H., xi
Assaf, M., 188
Athanasius, St., 141, 279
Attwater, D., 209, 210, 211, 220, 224,
225, 226, 231, 238, 239, 244
Aubert, R., 23, 24
Aubron, P., 45, 365
Audo, J., 243
Augustine, St., 15, 17, 54, 114, J20j
123, 125, 132, 136, 143-149, 155,
290, 297, 348, 350, 405
Auniord, J. B., 288, 289, 291
Auriol, P., 305
Baconthorp, J., 305
Badlay, A., 219
Baier, D., 268
Bainvel, J.-V., 286, 319, 320
Balié, C., 166, 171, 174, 294, 302, 303,
308, 310, 319, 323, 332, 367-368,
382
Ballerini, A., 315, 364
Bandelli, V., 20
Bardcnhewer, O., 121, 411, 415, 421

425

426

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Bardy, G., 7, 8, 12, 167
Bareille, G., 163
Baron, H., 313
Baronius, 363
Barré, H., 88, 155, »75. 3°8
Barret, M., 249
Barth, K., xi
Bartmann, B., 403
Basil of Caesarea, St., 224, 401
Basil of Seleucia, 354
Basil II, Emperor, 359
Bauer, W., roi, 402
Baumann, A., 323
Bea, A., 53, 57, 324
Beckcrmann, C., 421
Bede, Ven., 146, i52> 417
Beissel, S., 305, 309
Bellamy, J., 3t4, 3*5, 319
Bellarmine, R., 311, 4°8
Belloc, H., 211
Benedict XII, Pope, 26
Benedict XIV, Pope, 40, 45, 275, 276
Benedict XV, Pope, 29, 32, 36, 39, 42,
47
Bennett, V., T54
Bernard, R., 85, 299-300
Bernard of Clairvaux, St., 18, 38, 50,
279, 288-292, 294, 297, 364-366,
406, 417, 4t8
Bernadette, St., 50, 339
Bernardine of Busti, 306
Bernardine of Siena, St., 306
Bertelli, V., 57, 337-338
Bertetto, D., 2, 43, 321, 323
Bérulle, Card, de, 313
Besutti, J., 320, 322
Bilz, J., 281
Bird, T. E., 63
Bishop, E., 256
Bittremieux, J., 2, 35, 41, 179, 296298, 320, 322, 323
Black, G. F., 222
Blinzer, J., 105
Bolo, H., 340
Bôminghaus, E., 16
Bonaventure, St., 19, 27, 274, 294-295,
365, 368, 394, 406, 418
Boniface IX, Pope, 45
Bonnefoy, J. F., 107, 324, 336, 338, 343
Bonosus of Naissus, to, rr, 129, i3o
Bonsirven, J., 82, 83, 84, 107
Bosco, G., 370
Bossuet, 399

Botte, B., 252
Botz, P. R·, 186
Boudon, H., 313
Bourassé, J., 284, 310, 315, 408
Bover, J. M., 39, 56, 62, 88, 100, 104,
114, 175, 264, 310, 408, 414
Boyer, C., 35, i45> 279, 32I, 3*6, 404
Bozzola-Greppi, 377, 389, 393
Brasso, G., 262
Braun, F.-M., 56, roi, 324
Braunsberger, O., 408
Brian-Chaninov, N., 209
Brien, R., 321
Brightman, F. E., 189, 224, 225, 239,
240
Brodmann, B., 57
Bros, M. A., 366
Budge, E. A., 222
Buffon, V., 105
Bulbeck, R., 90
Burghardt, W. J., 154, 167
Burke, E., 285-288
Butler, A. J., 211
Buzi, D., 70, 71
Cabrera, M., r8
Cacciatore, G., 309
Campana, E., 319-32X, 325, 366-367
Canice, Fr., 75
Caninius, A., 418
Capelle, B., 5, 27, 121, 145, 147, 185,
251, 253, 262, 263, 265, 279, 350
Cappuyns, M., 247
Carol, J. B., vii, 35, 37, 39, 49, 58, 62,
113, 114, 117, 179, 262, 268, 285,
287, 29t. 293, 294, 2,95, 298, 299,
302, 308, 311-312, 315, 319, 321,
323-324, 326, 338, 344, 375, 386,
393
Carretôn, E., 279
Carroll, E., 45, 46, 47, 49, 266, 323
Cartmcll, J. I., 14
Caspari, C. P., 66
Castelplanio, L. di, 316
Caterino, A., 370
Cayré, F., 153, 286, 290, 299, 302
CeccheUi, C., 84
Cecchin, A. M., 256
Celestine, St., 7, 247
Cerfaux, L., 85, 175
Cerri, D., 352
Ceuppens, F., 58, 59j g7) IO4; 324>
336-337, 404

INDEX OF AUTHORS
Chaîne, Μ., ι6ι, 169
Chaminade, W., 313
Charlemagne, Emperor, 27
Charles, P., 268
Chiettini, E., 294, 368, 407
Clemencet, C., 288
Clement of Alexandria, St., 186
Clement VI, Pope, 278
Clement XI, Pope, 370
Closen, F., 68
Codrington, H. W., 225, 226, 242
Collins, J. J., 87
Combes, A., 306
Comper, J., 405
Congar, Y., 327
Connell, F. J., 18, 45, 285, 325, 337
Connolly, R. FL, 119
Conrad of Saxony, 295
Considine, J. S., 107
Contenson, V., 312, 399
Conybeare, F., 161
Coppens, J., 52, 320, 322, 336
Cordovani, M., 3, 5, 296, 297
Corluy, J., 104
Cornelius a Lapide, 419-420
Cosmas of Maiouma, St., 201
Costa, B., 292
Cotter, A., 51
Couturier, P., xi
Cozien, G., 268
Crasset, J., 313, 399
Crosta, C., 338
Cucchi, F., 306
Cushing, R., 45
Cyprian, St., 121, 135
Cyril of Alexandria, 7, 9, i3j I35> l(>7>
213, 221, 401, 402
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 113, 224
D’Alès, A., tn, 119
Dander, E., 301, 321
D’Argentan, L., 312
De Concilio, J., 319
De Guglielmo, A., 57, 336
Deissman, A., 414
De Jonehe, M., 58
De Kaulenaer, J., 89
De Koninck, C., 95
de la Broise, R., 32.0
De Lacy-O’Leary, 220
de Lagarde, P., 415
Delahaye, FL, 138, 155, 327
Delgado, J. M., 384, 396

427

de Lubac, FL, 327
Démaret, G., 390
De Meester, P., 207, 208
Denis the Carthusian, 306
De Roo, R., 30, 45, 49, 50
Desmarais, Μ. M., 296, 298
De Stéfani, G., 66
De Vine, F., 154
Devresse, R., 169
De Vries, G., 222, 232
De Wit, J., 306
Dickinson, F. FL, 258
Didacus Stella, 51
Diehl, Ch., 189
Di Fonzo, L., 107, 292, 294, 306
Dillenschneider, C., 115, 309-313, 322,
326, 384
Dillersberger, J., 30, 42, 322-323
Dioscoros of Alexandria, 210
Doheny, W., 323
Donnelly, M. J., 155, 175
Doronzo, E., 391
Dougherty, J., 58
Doumith, M., 185, 227, 228
Dreves-Blume, 274, 278
Drewniak, L., 147
Druwé, E., 5, 18, 33, 34, 35, 47, m,
117, 292, 313, 316-318, 325
Dublanchy, E., 14, 117, 123, 133, 135,
159-163, 165, 179, 309, 319, 325
Duchesne, C., 254
du Colombier, FL, 359
Dufourcq, A., 145, 146, 350
Duhr, J., 18, 345
du Manoir, FL, ix, 284, 293, 321
Dumeige, G., 289
Dupasquier, S., 332, 337, 364, 366,
368, 375, 382
Durand, A., 104
Duval, A., 298-299

Eadmer of Canterbury, 288, 363, 37g
406
Egger, C., 264
Emmen, A., 305
Emmeric of Izegem, 306
Engberding, FL, 220
Engelbert of Admont, 305
Ephraem, St., 50, 113, 227, 228, 231^
232, 279, 349» 352. 405
Epiphanius, St., 113, 148, 149, 352, 4
Erasmus of Rotterdam, 398
Estius, G., 402

428

INDEX of authors

Eudes, St. John, 313
Eugene IV, Pope, 19
Eusebius, 82, 91
Eustace of Antioch, St., 224
Euthymius of Constantinople, 358
Eutyches, 11, 12, 137
Evaristo de la V. del Carmen, 382
Everett, L., 326

Faber, F. W., 283, 319
Faller, O., 10, 131, 148, 153, 154
Falls, T. B., 45, 118
Feckes, C., 316, 317, 323
Fenton, J. C., 3, 45
Fernândez, J., 95
Ferraironi, F., 312
Feuillet, A., 64
Fields, F., 403
Filograssi, G., 2, 25, 45, 49
Flavian of Constantinople, 12, 13
Fleury, R. de, 316, 413
Florit, E., 55, 108
Flynn, T. E., 18
Folgorait, G., 306
Fonck, L., 402
Fortescue, A., 209, 223
Fortunatus of Poitiers, St., 151
Fowler, G., 305
Francis of Assisi, St., 303
Francis X. of Abârzuza, 384
Frangipane, D., 85
Franquesa, P., 322
Fregentino, G., 89
Frénaud, G., 253, 265
Friedel, F. J., 5, 18, 75, 314, 404, 405
Friedrich, Ph., 114, 145, 350
Fulbert of Chartres, St., 362, 417
Fulgence of Ruspe, 146, 361
Fürst, 421
Gâchter, P., 83, toi, 104, 324, 403
Galdôs, R., 53, 68
Gallagher, E., 60
Gallus, T., 58, 101, 104, 107, 324, 337,
402
Galtier, P., 9, n6
Garcia, J. R., 58
Garcia Garcés, N., 62, 335, 379
Garçon, J., in
Garreau, A., 296
Garrigou-Lagrange, R., 33, 321, 398,
410
Garriguet, L., 388

Gaudé, D. F., 366
Gaudel, A., 288
Gavrilof, M., 203
Geenen, G., 23, 27, 28, 29, 44
Genesius, W., 420
Genevois, M.-A., 117, 296, 298, 300301, 313
George, E., 313
George of Nicomedia, 357, 359
Germain of Constantinople, St., 153
Gerson, J., 300, 305
Geukers, T., 316
Gherardi, G., 105
Giamberardini, G., 214, 262
Gildmeister, 421
Giovanelli, G., 186
Gleason, R. W., 62
Gonthier, Ch., 330
Goossens, W., 115
Gorayet, G., 225
Gordillo, M., 187, 209, 264
Gordon, C. H., 419
Gorrino, A., 390
Gotz, J., 145
Graber, R., 323
Grabman, M., 296, 304, 305, 306, 310,
314. 316
Gray, G. B., 411
Grebaut, S., 223
Gregory of Elvira, 141
Gregory the Illuminated, St., 233
Gregory of Tours, St., 150-151
Gregory I, St., 17, 146, 417
Gregory X, Pope, 14
Gregory XV, Pope, 21
Grenier, P., 399
Grignion de Montfort, St. Louis, 50,
3I3> 399
Grohmann, A., 217
Grosjean, Fr., 256
Grosseteste, R., 303
Gruenthaner, M., 342
Guéranger, P., 269, 315
Guerra Lazpiur, I. de, 312
Guerric of Igny, 291
Guidaldi, L., 292
Gulovich, S., 357, 359
Gumbinger, C., 207

Hadji-Burmester, Ο. H. E., 210
Haensler, B., 288
Haessly, M. G., 264
Haller, W., 124

INDEX OF AUTHORS

429

118, 119, 120, 122, 132, 133, 138,
Hapgood, I. F., 189, 195-196, 199-202
140, 155, 186, 347
Harden, J. M., 223
Isabella II, Queen, 28
Hardon, J. A., 311
Isidore of Seville, St., 152, 417
Hamack, A., 112, 333, 401
Isserverdentz, J., 239
Hasset, M., 249
Ivanios, Mar, 226
Hassia, H. de, 305
Haymon of Alberstadt, 362
Jacob al-Baradai, 224
Healy, K., 28, 48
Jacoponi da Todi, 274
Hefele, C., 249
Jambois, L., 45
Hefner, 399
James, M. J., 80, 150
Heinisch-Heidt, 62, 66
James of Saroug, 228, 349
Helvidius, 11, 84, 124, 129
Janssens, A., 10, 321
Henry, H. T., 277-279
Janssens, H. L., 245
Hentrich-de Moos, 27, 324
Jarweh, M., 224
Hermanns Contractus, 279, 417
Jean de Dieu, 295, 302, 304, 305, 306
Hervé, J. M., 391
Jeanjacquot, J., 319
Herzog (see Tunnel)
Jerome, St., 11, 27, 34, 71, 84, 91,
Hesbert, R. J., 252
114, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 136,
Hesychius of Jerusalem, 354
142, 149, 153, 351, 362, 416-418,
Higgins, M., 272
418
Hilary of Poitiers, St., 122, 123, J 28,
Jérome de Paris, 311, 369
136, 140
John Chrysostom, St., 15, 113, 255, 401,
Hilary of St. Ahatha, 104
404
Hildebert of Mans, 406
John Damascene, St., 113, 153, 201,
Hill, W., 308, 310
276, 355-337, 359, 4°6, 416
Hiller, M., 420, 421
John of Euboea, 359
Hillion, G., 108, 324
John Geometra, 358
Hindo, P., 227
Jones, E. M., 203
Hippolytus of Rome, St., 6, 119, 128,
Jones-Monroe, 223
>34“’35, 138-139, 349
Jones, R., 286—287, 363
Hitz, P., 337
Joseph Hymnographus, 357
Hocedez, E., 314, 315, 3’9
Josephus, 414
Hoffer, P., 309
Holweck, F., 250, 252, 259, 261, 273- Jouassard, G., 7, 10, 14, 17, 121, 128132, 134, 140, 141, 145, 148, 151,
276
154, 163, 186, 325, 348
Holzmeister, U., 83, 85, 105, 401, 403
Joüon, P., 60, 401, 404
Homes Dudden, F., 131, 142
Jovinian, 11, 123, 124
Hopfl-Gut, 52
Jugie, M., 7, 27, 147, 149-! 53, 166,
Howell, C., 246
168, 171, 174, 185, 188, 201, 203,
Huber, R., 77, 292-293
33°, 332, 336, 346, 352, 359-360,
Hugh of St. Victor, 287, 376
376, 388, 390, 393, 401
Hughes, Ph., 7
Julian, J., 274, 277-279
Hugon, E., 299, 32°, 347, 377, 382,
Julian of Edanum, 144, 351
383, 389, 39°
Julius Firmicus, 123
Hugueny, E., 410
Julius Π, Pope, 20
Jiirgens, H., 170
Justin, St., 34, no, 118, 120, 133, 155
Ignatius of Antioch. St., 118, 186
186, 346-347
Ildephonse of Toledo, St., 279, 361
Innocent III, Pope, 14, 4>7
Kannengieser, J., 313
Innocent IV, Pope, 27
Karalevskij, C., 170
Innocent XI, Pope, 275
Kelly, J., 323
Irenaeus, St., 34, 110—113, 115-116,

43°

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Kennedy, D. J., 366-367
Keuppens, J., 321, 383. 389
King, A., 203, 209, 210, 214-217, 229,
232, 239, 244, 262
Kippes, A., 390, 393
Kirsch, J. P., 209
Kischpaugh, M. J., 158
Knabenbauer, J., 69, 104, 416
Knox, R., 72, 108
Koch, H., 121, 127, 325
Koehler, T., 320
Koenig, H. C., 47
Kosters, L., 60, 120
Kyriakos, M., 242, 244
Lactantius, 121
Lagrange, M. J., 403
Lajeunie, E., 297
Lambert, Dom, 161
Langenstein, H., 305
Larsson, R., 209
Latbaud, D., 190
Lattey, C., 63, 68-69, 108
Laurentin, R., 36, 296, 314, 318, 3253*7
Lawler, W. R., 2, 29, 33, 37, 46
Lawrence of Brindisi, St., 51, 310, 408,
411
Leal, J., rot, 104, 108
Le Bachelet, X., 18, 131, 138, 142, 144,
145, 288, 289, 295, 302-305, 307,
310, 330, 39°, 405
Lebon, J., 114, 121, 127, 320
Lechner, J., 3°4
Leclercq, H., 248, 288—291
Ledvorowski, E., 326, 344
Lefort, L. Th., 141
LeFrois, B., 107, 324-325
Legg, J. W„ 258
Legnani, E., 104
Leloir, L., 57, 326
Lennerz, H·, 104, 115, 147, 321, 327
Leo I, St., 12, 13, 15, 17, 126, 132,
137, 146, 406
Leo III, Pope, 2, 14
Leo IV, Pope, 27
Leo X, Pope, 20
Leo XIII, Pope, 28, 33, 37, 39, 4!>
210, 256, 271, 315, 319
Lépicier, A. H., 105, 34o, 377, 378(
382, 390, 392, 398
Lercher, L., 3O1> 321, 332, 378, 380,
391

Le Saint, W., 126
Lesêtre, FL, 411, 414, 417, 42i
Levie, J., 56
Levy, J., 415
Lewis, A., 161, 178
Liddel-Scott, 177
Lladô, J., 62
LocatelE, A., 292
Loch-Reischl, 104
Loisy, A., 325
Longpré, E., 3°4> 306, 329, 368, 36q
377, 389
Lorenzin, P., 304
Ludolf, J., 219
Luis, A., 9, 45, 155, 175
Lull, R., 304
Lusseau-Collomb, 104
Lynch, T., 5
Lyonnet, S., 85

Mabillon, J., 288
Macaire, C., 223
Madonna, M., 44
Mahieu, J., 351, 373, 375, 393
Maier, J., 279
Makarios, C., 210
Maklouf, M., 229
Malo, A.-M., 88
Malou, J. B., 315
Maltzev, A., 209
Manser, A., 274
Mansi, J. D., 405
Manteau-Bonamy, 408
Mariani, B., 56
Marius Victorinus, 123, 141
Mark II Khouzam, 210
Marmol, B. del, 256
Marracci, H., 284, 312
Martin, A., 373
Martin I, St., 13, 15, 45
Martindale, C. C., to, 63
Martinelli, A., 389
Martinez y Ferrer, R., 337
Martini, C., 129
Martinov, J., 190
Mascall, E. L., xi, 63
Masella, A., 49
Massonat, A. M., 241-243
Maszl, F. X., 104
Maurice, Emperor, 230
Maximus of Turin, St., 146, 3^1, 4O1
May, E., 53, 54, 56, 61, 62, 77, lo4>
107, 337, 341

INDEX OF AUTHORS
Mayer, A. M., 390
Mayer, V., 332
Mayronnes, F., 305
McClellan, W., 65
McDermott, W. C., 151
McKenna, B. A,, 18, 346, 366
McPherson, D. C., 189, 197
Meersseman, P., 296
Menzinger, O., 185, 188, 242
Mercenier, F., 132, 271
Mercer, S. A. B., 185, 223
Mercier, D., 32, 320
Merk, A., 108, 324, 414
Merkelbach, B., 302, 303, 320, 329,
33b 333> 337, 339, 34*, 37°, 37*,
39*, 394, 396, 98, 411, 419
Messenger, E. C., 72, 77
Michael Cerularius, 360
Michael von Neukirch, 58
Michel, A., 35, 326, 398
Michel, C., 158, 160
Miechow, J., 312
Mildner, F., 303, 363
Miller, M. S.-Miller, J. L., 93
Mitchel, V., 355
Modestus of Jerusalem, St., 153, 355
Moeller, C., 55, 56, 71
Moholy, N. F., in
Mondor, C., 18
Monheim, L., 322
Montague, G., 155
Moore, K., 45, 266
Moral, C. del, 312
Morenz, S., 161
Morgott, F., 298—300
Morin, C., 261
Morin, G., 123, 142
Morineau, B., 291
Most, W. G., 42
Moulton-Milligan, 414
Mullaney, T. U., 35, 45, 377
Muller, A., 155, 249, 326
Müller, F. S., 62, 145
Müller, M., 286, 303, 304, 3°7> 308
Musters, A., 311

431

Newman, J. H., 5, 15-16, 34, no,
282, 314
Newton, W., 104
Nicephorus of Constantinople, 14
Nicolas, A., 316
Nicolas, M. J., 313
Nicollet, G., 211, 217-222
Niessen, J., 114, 149
Nilus a S. Brocardo, 9
Nogues, D., 288
Norbert G. da S. Marcello, 368
Notker Balbulus, 417
Nottingham, W., 305
Novati, J. B., 311
Novatian of Rome, 135
Noyon, A., 315, 398

Nauwelaerts, M. J., no
Navarro, S., 279
Neckam, Al., 292, 303
Nestorius, 7, 9
Neubert, E., 83, no, 118, 128, 3,3,
321

O’Boyle, P., 45
O’Briain, F., 363
O’Connor, W. R., 40, 298, 308, 310
Ogara, F., 88
O'Leary, D. L., 223
Olier, J., 313
Oller, L M., 330
O’Neill, F., 390
Onofrio, A., 254
Oppenheim, P., 245, 248
Optatus of Mileve, St., 141
Origen, 157, 159. 167, 282-283, 401
402
O’Shea, W., 28
Otten, B., 284, 308
Otten, J., 279

Pagnamenta, A., 114
Paladini, A., 271
Palanque, J.-R., n, 131
Palmer, P., 2, 6, 7, 9, Ia> i3> 15. 16,
20, 21, 37> 3*5> 335> 366, 370
Palmieri, D·, 34θ, 35 b 354> 364-366,
370, 376> 38*> 388, 390, 392
Paquet, A. A., 393
Parente, Paschal, 70
Parente, Peter, 25, 372
Pascasius, Radbertus, 161, 362
Passaglia, C., 315» 33°
Paul the Monk, 206
Paul III, Pope, 16, 20
Paul IV, Pope, 14
Paul V, Pope, 21
Paulinus of Nohi, St., 149

432·

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Paulus Wamefridus, 362
Pauwels, P., 369
Peeters, P., 161
Peinador, M., 57» 108
Peirce, F. X·, 58, 59. 61, 64, 336, 400
Pelagius, 15, M3. 35’
Pelster, F., 304
Penna, A., 4’6
Perlinus, J., 380
Perrella, G. M., 107, 363
Perrone, J., 5, 3’5
Petau, D., 311
Peter of Argo, 358
Peter Bardus, 387
Peter Canisius, St., 310, 407, 411-412,
418
Peter Chrysologus, St., 114, 126, 132,
146, 361, 417
Peter Damian, St., 374, 417
Petitalot, J., 3’6, 393
Philippe, M. D., 251
Philips, G., 308-309, 326-327
Philo of Alexandria, 411, 415, 416
Photius, 357. 359, 360
Piana, C., 27, 308
Pirot-Clamer, 404
Pius IV, Pope, 20
Pius V, St., 16, 21, 27, 275, 276, 370,
398
Pius VI, Pope, 63
Pius VII, Pope, 42
Pius IX, Pope, 17, 21-24, 28, 30, 32,
35, 39, 40, 41, 46, 59, 73-74, 76,
243, 256, 276, 301, 314, 324, 328,
332, 334-335, 338, 369-370, 400
Pius X, St., 24, 29, 35, 36, 39, 42, 46,
274
Pius XI, Pope, 4, 9, 29, 32, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 226, 250,
282
Pius XII, Pope, 1, 8, 24, 25, 26, 28,
29, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 47, 5°, 57,
77, 79, 117, 175, 210, 247, 261, 281,
292, 299, 306, 308, 315, 322, 400
Plessis, A., 321, 366, 390
Plumpe, J. C., 120, 122, 160
Pohle-Gierens, 321
Pohle-Preuss, 321, 384
Poiré, F., 399
Pollera, A., 223
Polycarp, St., in, 130
Pope, Η., η
Pouget-Guitton-Lilly, 70

Poupon, R. P., 373
Power, E., 63, 64, 71, 4°3
Prado, J., 104
Proclus of Constantinople, St., 353
Prosper of Aquitaine, St., 247
Prudentius, 143
Prümmer, K., 410
Przybylski, B., in
Pseudo-Evodius, 169, 170, 178, ’®3
Pseudo-James, 158, 175, 180, 183
Pseudo-John, 162, 164, 165, 168, 171,
177, 182
Pseudo-Matthew, 159-161, 176, ’80
Pseudo-Melito, 149-150, 152, 162, 164,
168, 171, 172, 177, 180-182
Pulcheria, Empress, 13

Quain, E. A., 139
Quasten, J., 6, 119, 120, 157, 161, 167,
281, 282
Quintillian, 417
Râbanos, R., 89, 103, 104
Rabanus Maurus, 417
Rabban, 244
Raes, A., 209
Rahal, E., 224, 229-230
Rahmani, E., 229
Rahner, H., xi, n, 117, 134, 135
Rahner, K., 318
Ramôn, F. S., 376
Ranwez, E., 410
Raugel, A., 288, 364
Raymond, P., 302
Raynaud, Th., 311, 399
Recla, E., 148
Régamey, P., 290, 314
Repetti, G., 58
Rhodes, G. de, 311, 396, 399
Rhodes, P. G. M., 14
Richard, P., 396
Richard of St. Lawrence, 293, 296
Richard of St. Victor, 406
Riley, L., 34, 36, 115, 308, 310, 319
Rios, B. de los, 311
Risi, F., 319
Rivera, A., 70, 107
Rivière, J., 115, 171
Robert, A., 58, 68, 324
Roberts, C. H., 132
Robert-Tricot, 157
Robichaud, A., 20, 323, 334,
Robinson, F., 161, 163, 169

INDEX OF AUTHORS
Rodriguez, Ο., ιοζ
Romeri, C., 2.93» 369
Rondet, H., 117, 283, 309, 315, 318,
322
Rongy, H., 87
Rosales, E., 66, 71, 72
Rôsch, C., 107
Roschini, G. M., x, 2, 17, 28, 36, 52,
53, 58, 104, 105, n 5, 147, 249,
266, 282-313, 315-317» 320-323.
333, 366, 378, 383, 395-396, 399,
403, 408, 411, 418, 420, 421
Rosini, C., 222
Roskovany, A., 284, 315
Rozo, G., 396
Rupert of Deutz, 417
Rush, A. C., 45, 150, 166, 167, 168,
174, 175

433

Sfeir, P., 225
Shea, G. W., 38-39. 4°. 4». 42, 43,
104, 323, 324
Shguanin, C·. 312
Siekaniec, L-, 3°4
Simon-Prado, 72
Simon Stock, St., 50
Siricius, St., 10, !I> I23> I24> >3o
Sixtus III, St., 10
Sixtus IV, Pope, 19. 20, 45, 256, 369
Sixtus V, Pope, 20
Smith, E., 72
Smith, W., 4r4
Smyth, K., 66—67, 69
Solâ, F., 115
Sophronius of Jerusalem, St., 354
Souben, J., 341
Spedalieri, F., 288
Spellman, F., 45
Staerk, W., no
Saavedra, S., 396
Stamm, Ch., 383
Salaville, S., 185-203
Stanley, Th., 313
Saltet, L., 145
Stano, C., 368
Sanchez del Villar, Μ., ιο8
Stegmüller, O., 133
Santonicola, A., 175
Steinmüller, J., 52, 4°4
Sardi, V., 341
Storff, H., 367-368, 387
Saydon, P. P., 70
Strack-Billerbeck, 83, 84, 94, 99, 413
Scaramuzzi, D., 306, 369
Stràter, P., ix, 284, 321, 324
Schâfer-Brossart, 63, 66, 69, 71, 108
Strohman, 223
Scheehen, M., 68, 75, 77, 260, 284,
Suârez, F., 299-300, 310, 314, 396, 408
316-318, 321, 324, 363, 364, 366,
Suârez, P. L., 66, 89
369, 396, 404, 408, 411, 421
Sutcliffe, E. F., 53, 58
Schegg, P., 420, 421
Schellinckx, A., 410
Talatinian, B., 239
Schmaus, M., 321
Tallachini, F., 105
Schmitt, F., 286
Tarasius of Constantinople, St., 357
Schmitz, J., 316
Teetaert, A., 305, 307
Scholz, A., 68, 69
Tekeyan, V., 233-238
Schônstein, E., 18
Temple, P., 403
Schueth, F., 317
Teôfilo de Orbiso, 58
Schuhmaier, A. M., 105
Temus, J., 167
Schuster, L, 187, 252, 263
Terrien, J.-B., 117, 283, 309, 320, 376,
Schwane, J., 305, 307
400
Schweitzer, V., 132, 163
Tertullian, 34, no, 113, 119-121, 126Scotus, John Duns, 19, 27, 302-304,
132, 134, 138-140, 155, 186, 401
306-307, 331, 366-369, 371, 382
Tfinkji, 244
Sebastian, W., 40
Theodosius, Emperor, 12
Sedulius, 114, 147, 176, 330, 361
Theodosius of Alexandria, 164, 165,
Segneri, P., 311
169, 172-175, 178, 179, 182
Seiler, H., 35, 39, 47, 323
Theodotus of Ancyra, 353
Serapio de Iragui, 268
Theophane Graptos, St., 201
Sergius I, Pope, 26, 263
Theophilus, Mar, 226
Sericoli, Ch., 19, 20, 369
Thérèse of Lisieux, St., 39
Setzer, F., 313

434

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Thiel, A., 149
Thomas Aquinas, St., 19, 27, 33. 248,
298-301, 306, 330-331, 342, 365366, 371, 373, 377, 387-389, 393,
406-409, 418
Thornton, L. S., 63
Thurston, H., 248, 249, 277
Tischendorf, C., 150, 158, 160, 164,
177, 4M
Tisserant, E., 223
Tognetti, M., 21, 309, 369
Tondini, A., 2, 17, 24, 33, 37, 41, 46,
50, 323
Torquemada, J., 306
Trinidad, J., 58
Tromp, S., 311
Tunnel, J., 325, 398
Ullathome, W. B., 374
Unger, D. J., 17, 24, 29, 36, 39, 46,
52, 53, 57, 59, 74, i°4, i°7, l47’
324-325

Vaccari, A., 63
Vaggagini, C., 4
Valerius, O., 357, 363, 364, 369
Van Crombrugghe, C., 320, 377
Van den Berg, 316
Van den Berghe, O., 319
Van Hoonacker, A., 419
Van Houtryve, I., 268
Van Hove, A., 391
Van Ketwig, J., 312
Van Lantschoot, A., 172, 214, 219
Van Noort, G., 384, 389
Vannucci, G., 133
Vanutelli, P., 403

Van Waes, H., 316
Varagine, J. de, 304
Varron, 417
Vecchierello, H., 62
Vega, Ch. de, 420
Venantius Fortunatus, 147, 361
Villeneuve, R., 48
Vincent of Lerins, St., 136-137
Vitti, A., 58, 66
Vogt, E., 418, 419, 421, 422
Vollert, C., 40, 301
Vosté, J., 395
Walafrid Strabo, 417
Ware, W., 19, 303, 304
Weber, 239
Weisweiler, H., 14, 152
Welykyj, A. G., 203
Westcott-Hort, 414
Widenfeld, A., 309, 312, 398
Willms, H., 296
Wilmart, D., 141, 171, 286
Wolter, A., 18, 323, 384
Wooley, R. M., 211
Wonnald, F., 257, 272
Wright, J. J., xii, 25, 314
Wright, W., 151, 171, 178
Ximenes, F., 422

Zahn, T., 402
Zamoro, J. M., 312
Zara-Yaqob, King, 219
Zatkovich, Th. A., 208
Zeno of Verona, St., 123, 129, 142
Zoili, E., 403
Zorell, F., 402, 413, 42I> 422