M A R I O LO G Y
BY

REV.

M.

J.

SCHEEBEN

TRANSLATED BY REV. T. L M. J. GEUKERS

VOLUME ONE

LIBRARY
. 0ULPICIAN SEMINARY
WASHINGTON

B.

HERDER BOOK CO.

15 & 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. LOUIS 2, MO.
AND
S3 QUEEN SQUARE, LONDON, W. C.
1946

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Printed in U.S.A.

NIHIL OBSTAT

Sti. Ludovici, die 5. Mail, 1945

Fr. Innocentius Swoboda, O.F.M.

Censor Librorum

IMPRIMATUR
Sti. Ludovici, die 7. Maii, 1945

ψ Joannes J.

Glennon, S.T.D.
Archiepiscopus

Copyright 1946

B. HERDER BOOK CO.

VaU· Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton and New York

Translator’s Preface
NE of the outstanding characteristics of the Cath­
olic Church as contrasted with most of the other
Christian groups is undoubtedly her devotion to Mary.
The Church in her guidance and doctrine could leave un­
questioned the fact that the faithful themselves, par­
ticularly the great mass of ordinary Catholics, have a
number of special practices of their own to venerate the
Blessed Mother. Here we are not faced with a more or less
unreasoned expression or outgrowth of popular belief. It
is an important fact that in the official liturgy the Blessed
Virgin Mary occupies a place of honor, and that in the
Catholic Church no other single article of faith has been
so much developed and enriched in the course of centuries
as the doctrine about Mary. Although the dogmatic defi­
nition of the Immaculate· Conception is, relatively speak­
ing, still of recent date, among the theologians there are
some who are already zealously occupied in endeavoring
to obtain the dogmatic definition of the Blessed Virgin’s
bodily assumption into heaven and of her universal medi­
atorship of grace.
Among Protestants it has become a proverb that the
Catholic Church is no longer a Church of Christ, but a
Church of Mary. This is not the place to show the falsity
of their judgment. It is sufficient to point out how the con­
cept of Christ, which has faded more and more in the
iii

O

iv

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

Protestant Churches through denial of His divinity, has
been retained in all its purity in the Catholic Church, and
how this concept of Christ, precisely through its divine
excellence, keeps vivid the veneration of His mother as
truly Mother of God. Far from diverting attention from
Christ, the veneration of Mary has proved the most strik­
ing guaranty of the purity of belief in the incarnate Word.
This close relationship between faith in Christ and the
veneration of Mary is felt instinctively, as it were, by every
Catholic. The modern believer who wishes to account for
this feeling will undoubtedly find numerous indications
of it in most religious handbooks. No other theologian, in
our opinion, made such sound researches into the dog­
matic foundation of the Catholic devotion to Mary or elu­
cidated it so profoundly, as Scheeben. With the deep and
synthetic view that marked him as one of the greatest re­
ligious thinkers of the last century, he incorporated the
Catholic doctrine regarding Mary into the whole of Cath­
olic dogmatic theology. In doing so he showed in an un­
excelled way how the veneration of Mary takes root in the
deepest soil of Christian belief. His Mariology not only is
the best explanation known to us, of the doctrine about
Mary, but it also gives a deeper insight into the most im­
portant truths that ennoble and comfort Christian life.
A brief glance at the life and endeavors of this master
will facilitate a fuller understanding of the originality and
enduring value of his work.
The Theological Work of Scheeben

Matthias Joseph Scheeben was born March 1, 1835, at
Meckenheim near Bonn. He finished the study of the hu­
manities at the age of seventeen and presented himself for

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

v

the priesthood in the diocese of Cologne. Since he had al­
ready given evidence of possessing more than ordinary
talents at the grammar school, he was sent to Rome for his
seminary studies. For seven years he lived there among
the students of the Collegium Germanicum, garbed in the
vivid red cassock peculiar to this college, which even yet
attracts attention in Rome. He followed the lectures in
philosophy and theology at the papal Gregorian Univer­
sity, which, like the Germanicum, was under the direction
of the Jesuits. At that time Father A. Delacroix, a Fleming,
was rector of the Germanicum.
In this excellent educational center Scheeben could fol­
low the lessons and profit by the influence of such men as
Liberatore, Secchi, Perrone, Cercia, Passaglia, Franzelin,
Ballerini, Patrizi, Kleutgen and Schrader. Passaglia
worked with Schrader at a new publication of Petavius’
Dogmata theologica and tried to make the positive
method find acceptance again in theology, while Kleut­
gen, whose first two parts of the Théologie der Vorzeit ap­
peared in 1854, ushered in a fruitful return to St. Thomas
and old Scholasticism. A fellow student of Scheeben,
Father Tilmann Pesch, could tell later how the gifted
Rhinelander applied himself with exceptional zeal to the
study of St. Thomas. During his whole fife Scheeben kept
a grateful memory of the Germanicum and his professors
at Rome and continued to hold them in sincere affection.
On December 18, 1858, Scheeben was ordained priest
by Cardinal Patrizi, and in the summer of the following
year he returned as doctor of theology to his fatherland.
After a year as rector and teacher of religion at the
boarding-school of the Salvatorian Sisters at Muenstereifel, he was appointed by Cardinal Archbishop John von

Vi

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

Seissel as professor in dogmatics at the seminary of Co­
logne. There he remained until his too early death, July
21, 1888.
During the twenty-eight years of his professorship
Scheeben displayed an amazing energy. In his very first
year he published a booklet, in which he translated into
fluent German the most beautiful texts of the Fathers of
the Church and the finest writings of poets in regard to
Mary. He also wrote an article in the periodical Der Katholik on “The doctrine of the supernatural and its signifi­
cance toward science and life.” In it appear these
noteworthy words, which indicate the leading motive of
his whole dogmatic work of later years : “The doctrine of
the supernatural, taken in all its depth and extent, pene­
trates Christianity in all directions; it alone gives to
Christianity its really divine, specific, and mysterious
character; it forms the center of the glorious system of its
mysteries.”
The following year, the twenty-six-year-old theologian
published his first masterpiece: Natur und Gnade. Profes­
sor Grabmann, who brought out a new edition in 1922,
testifies about it as follows: “The young professor accom­
plished here a work which, in view of the contemporary
condition of theology, we must call an exceptional scien­
tific achievement, and it remains of the greatest impor­
tance to our own time, for the solid structure of thought
and its beneficial influence on will and life.”
In this book there appears clearly the great underlying
idea of the supernatural, which rules the author’s whole
thought and life, and the typical characteristics of his
theology. It shows a close continuity of thought with the
whole preceding theological tradition, with which he be­

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

vü

came thoroughly acquainted, having special preference
for the speculative nature of the Greek Fathers. A second
feature is his exceptional speculative ability and masterly
skill in penetrating the religious doctrines in their deepest
connections, ramifications, and conclusions, and in eluci­
dating the inner order and sublime beauty of dogma. He
thoroughly understands the art of developing in every re­
spect the philosophical ideas and doctrines of service to
theological speculation; and here the philosophy of St.
Thomas serves him as a standard. A third feature is his
keen sense of asceticism and mysticism giving the theo­
logia affectiva its proper sense and high value of life.
That the book sounded a new note in the theological
world of that time, is evident from the lengthy criticism,
laudatory in every respect, by Professor Aloysius Schmid
in the Theologische Quartalschrift of Tuebingen, to
which tlie editor subjoined the following remark: “The
review lying before us will make die readers acquainted
with a theological trend that is to the liking of many at the
present time because of the combining of the mystical
with the speculative element. One keeps this view of its
timeliness in mind as an explanation for the acceptance of
it in diis periodical.”
That very year Scheeben published another book which
gave an enlightening view of the serious preparatory work
that he spent on his Natur und Gnade. It is a republica­
tion, provided with numerous personal remarks, of a Latin
booklet by an Italian Jesuit of the eighteenth century,
Antonius Casini, entitled Quid est homo.1 In it the doc­
trine about the possibility of a purely natural state and the
1 Quid est homo, sive controversia de statu purae naturae, qua ratio simul
et finis oeconomiae Dei erga homines supematuralis uberrime demonstratur
ex Patrum praesertim sententia, Moguntiae (Mainz), 1862.

viii

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

essence of the supernatural are set forth according to the
teaching of the Fathers. Scheeben warns us that he looked
up in the original works the texts which had been often
incompletely cited by Casini, that he left out the incon­
clusive quotations and substituted others for them, indi­
cating this substitution by an asterisk. When we consider
that it contains several hundred texts of the Fathers, we
get an idea of the gigantic work behind it. We also under­
stand how Scheeben acquired his amazing knowledge of
the Fathers of the Church.
Scheeben wished not only to win back the professional
theologians to the study of the supernatural life, which
was pushed so much into the background through the
rationalist influence of the period of Enlightenment; he
also dreamed of acquainting the Christian people with the
treasures of the life of grace on a larger scale. He pos­
sessed, however, no ability for the task of popularizing his
writings. Therefore he conceived the idea of adapting into
German the splendid booklet of a Spanish Jesuit with a
German name, Joannes Eusebius Nieremberg (d. 1658).
This adaptation proved to be such a free translation that
we may almost speak of it as an independent work. It ap­
peared in the following year under the title: Die Herrlichkeiten der gottlichen Gnade, and became our author’s
most popular book. It went through ten editions, four be­
fore Scheeben’s death, the last in the year 1925. It was also
translated into various languages.
This book is the first work of Scheeben which was pub­
lished by Herder at Freiburg. He had met the gifted pub­
lisher in September, 1861, at Ostend. Benjamin Herder,
then forty-three years old, became a true friend of Schee­
ben, and their correspondence throws much fight upon

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

lx

the origin of Scheeben’s books and upon the method of
his work.
At first Scheeben intended to edit still other writings of
Nieremberg for the German public. In the meantime,
however, he had started a work in which his brilliant gifts
could be better utilized: a synthetic exposition of the most
important mysteries of Christianity. The first fruits of it
appeared under the form of a series of nine articles in Der
Katholik, 1861 and 1862. About the middle of October,
1864, he finished the great work, 772 pages. It was pub­
lished in 1865. Grabmann, who calls it “eine grosstat der
theologischen Spekulation,” says: “It brings before the
mind’s eye in an amazing fashion the fullness of Christian
truth, visualized as a unity, centered in the mystery of the
Blessed Trinity. It is no mere copy of the great medieval
syntheses, it is not an attempt to reproduce any past, it is a
masterpiece pointing to the future.”
Alas, minds were not yet prepared for such a high
flight. The work was given a cool reception. It throws a sad
light upon the condition of theology in the Germany of
those days. For example, we read the following criticism,
by Wenzeslaus Mattes, who had written tire article “Mysterien” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexicon ( 1st ed. ).
To him Scheeben’s book is not one about mysteries, but a
mystery itself. “Through the whole work,” he says, “there
reigns such an indistinctness, confusion, and unintelligi­
bility that it is almost impossible to read it through to the
end. So the author will have worked practically in vain;
some will read passages in the book, no one, except pos­
sibly the critics, will read it through. Even this may be
doubtful.’’ At first, therefore, the book did not sell well:
jScheeben did not live to see a reprint.

X

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

It speaks well for the broad mind of Herder, truly an
exceptional man, that he did not thereby lose faith in
Scheeben but urged him on immediately to new publica­
tions. From a letter of November 25, 1866, we learn that
Scheeben intended to turn out a book on moral theology
in Latin, “which would complete Gury by its thorough­
ness and scientific character.” This thought seems to have
occurred to him, because at the end of 1866 the editorship
of the Kolner Pastoralblatt came to him, or rather, as he
expressed it himself, “he was sentenced to it by the wishes
of higher authority.” But in May, 1867, he made known to
Herder that this plan seemed to him unworkable on ac­
count of his professorship in dogmatic theology.
In the meantime a new plan had matured in him, which
was at once endorsed enthusiastically by Herder: a com­
plete Handbook of Dogmatic Theology. The letter in
which he expressed himself about it to his friend Herder,
is of great importance, as he sketches in it the relation of
his book to the theological works then current in Ger­
many. It is to be concise and at the same time as rich as
possible in positive and speculative theology; strictly sci­
entific and based on the classical masters. The ideal had
been aimed at before but not attained.
Encouraged by Herder’s decision to introduce the new
dogmatics into his Theologische Bibliotek, Scheeben
started to work. He worked on it with entire devotion for
twenty long years, the last of his life, but left this standard
work unfinished as St. Thomas did his Summa theologica.
It reached three thick volumes of a thousand pages each.
After Scheeben’s death Atzberger added a fourth volume
to it, to complete the exposition of the dogma in accord

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xi

with the doctrines of the Church, the sacraments, and the
eschatology.
At first neither Scheeben nor Herder had thought that
the book would attain such proportions and would require
so many years of work. In their correspondence we see
how, time and again, the publisher urged limitation and
speed, but how, in spite of this, the brilliant theologian,
driven, as it were, by his intellectual power, still continued
to extend his researches, in every subdivision subjecting
each question anew to a thorough preparatory study, and
as progress became slower the work grew in length. The
battle about the Vatican Council and the infallibility of
the pope, into which he threw himself with heart and soul,
required all his energies. It began with a pamphlet against
Dollinger, followed by several others. After that he took
over the editorship of the periodical Das okumenische
Konzil von 1869, ushering in its second year of publica­
tion, 1870, with a foreword signed by himself and with
“far upward of 5,000 subscriptions.” After the Council he
continued this publication until 1882 under the title Periodische Blatter. Most of the anonymous articles are from
his pen.
At the end of 1872, to Herder, who is impatiently await­
ing to print the first volumes of the Dogmatic Theology,
he writes that, “precisely through the working out of these
articles a new concept of the entire doctrine about the
teaching authority of the Church has come to my mind. I
therefore had to rewrite this entire chapter a third, and in
part a fourth, time.” The preface of the first volume is
dated June 21, 1874, the feast day of St. Aloysius, patron
of the Germanicum. In this date, the sixth centenary of

xii

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

the deaths of the two princes of medieval theology, the
holy doctors Thomas and Bonaventure, he sees a favor­
able sign: those two masters also worked victoriously at
the temple of sacred science during an extremely stormy
period.
This first volume contains as the first book (pages 8-419)
a remarkable introduction to theology, under the signifi­
cant title, Theologische Erkenntnislehre. In it the objec­
tive principles of this knowledge are studied first, namely,
the divine revelation, laid down in Sacred Scripture and
tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church. After
that the theological knowledge by itself as intellectus
fidei, in the function of faith, is analyzed. An outline of
the history of theology is added to this (pages 419-62).
Professor Grabmann, who incorporated these pages of
Scheeben into his History of Theology, does not hesitate
to say that this historical summary, “with its rich content
and strongly marked characteristics of personalities and
schools of thought, gives evidence of an amazing com­
mand of the entire preceding theology.” The doctrine
about God in His unity and trinity is included in these
introductory dissertations ( pages 463-906 ).
More than three years passed before Scheeben was
ready with the sequel. As yet he could deliver only one
part of the second volume; the preface is dated December
8, 1877. The second part was again three years in coming,
May 2, 1880. Here we find as the third book the doctrine
“regarding God in His fundamental and original relation­
ship to the world, or the doctrine of the foundation of the
natural and supernatural order” (pages 1-514). The
fourth book deals with “sin and the kingdom of sin as a
contradiction of the supernatural order and as combating

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xiii

it” (pages 515-684). After a thorough study of sin in gen­
eral, it treats of the sin of the angels and original sin. Book
five, which could be included only in part in the second
volume (pages 685-941), deals with tire redemption of
fallen mankind by Christ. It was November, 1882, before
the first part of the third volume could appear. These 629
pages are the continuation of book five about the work of
redemption by Christ.
The fifth and last chapter (pages 455-629), finally
deals with Mariology: “The virginal Mother of the Re­
deemer and her relationship to the work of redemption.”
We return to this subject in the second part of this Intro­
duction.
The second part of the third volume was now five years
in coming. Scheeben complains in the Preface about “the
frequent sicknesses by which he was repeatedly forced to
interrupt the work completely, or to continue it when he
was only partly recovered.” This section (pages 631-1005)
contains the sixth book: “The redemption realized in the
individual through the justifying grace of Christ.” A part
of this doctrine about grace must be left for the fourth
volume on account of its extent. The Preface says: “The
material for it is practically all collected, sorted, and put in
order; therefore the following volume will be able to ap­
pear within a very short time, if God spares me.” God did
not preserve his health. On July 21, 1888, before a year
had passed, when Scheeben was only fifty-two years old
and was at the zenith of his genius, he was called by God
out of this world. It seemed that God wished to impress
the whole world with the lesson which Scheeben had ex­
pressed to Herder in his letter of November 29, 1881, as
follows: “As so often in the past, the Lord let me again

xiv

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

feel strongly that He is not in need of anybody, for He
makes a person unfit for work precisely when that person
is at his best.” His loyal friend, Benjamin Herder, joined
him in heaven the very same year.
Although the Dogmatic Theology of Scheeben, ambi­
tiously planned, remained incomplete, it may still cor­
rectly be called, with his other works, a monumentum
aere perennius, which marks its author as one of the great­
est, perhaps the greatest, dogmatist of these latter times.
However, Scheeben did not exercise on his contempora­
ries the influence that we would expect in view of his
many talents. The interest of the theologians, particularly
in Germany, went in another direction; the exact scientific
study of exegesis, patrology, and history of dogma forced
speculative theology to the background. After Scheeben’s
death, his works, except the “Glories” and the “Myster­
ies,” were little read, if they did not indeed fall into com­
plete oblivion. Only in later years there sprang up,
together with the liturgical movement and under its in­
fluence, a general urge to live the dogma more vividly,
and consequently there followed a more profound and
speculative insight into tire mysteries of faith. The result
was a spontaneous return to Scheeben. The appreciative
introduction of Professor Grabmann preceding the re­
print of Natur und Gnade, edited by him in 1922, indi­
cated and at the same time partially caused this return.
Karl Eschweiller, who in a perhaps somewhat too broad
synthesis contrasted Scheeben as a representative of a
“theology from faith” with Hermes as a “theologian from
reason,” also contributed toward renewing the apprecia­
tion of Scheeben among modern theologians.
In 1935, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xv

of Scheeben’s birth, the renewed interest in his theological
work was clearly expressed, particularly during the festiv­
ities organized in his honor in Cologne by the Katholische
Akademikerverband, in Freiburg by the publishing com­
pany of Herder, in Rome by the alumni of the Ger­
manicum.2
On this occasion the students of the Germanicum were
received in audience by the Pope. Pius XI recommended
to them in warm words the study of Scheeben’s theology
and the imitation of his priestly virtues. He describes the
“high and brilliant” theology of Scheeben with these re­
markable words: “The entire theology of Scheeben bears
the stamp of a pious ascetical theology; as another great
theologian, Franzelin, said: Ί like ascetical books with
much theology and dogma, and dogmatic books with
much asceticism.’ This is as it should be.” 3
In this concise outline of Scheeben’s theological studies
we could touch only the most important points. To be
complete we really should have a look at his contributions
to various periodicals and the Kirchenlexicon (second
edition), and also at his controversies, reviews, and so on.
The little we have mentioned may be sufficient, however,
to put the Mariology, which we will now study more
closely, in its place in the whole of his work.
Scheeben’s Mariology

The Mariology is generally considered the most beauti­
ful and original part of Scheeben’s Dogmatic Theology.
His uncommon knowledge of the Fathers of the Church
2 See memorial volume, M. J. Scheeben, alumno suo eximio, centesimo
ipsius redente natali, Collegium Germanicum Hungaricum, Rome, 1935.
3 See the circumstantial account of this audience in Osseroatore Romano,
March 11, 1935.

xvi

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

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

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xvn

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

xviii

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

thought I must conceive and develop it, practically no ex­
amples were at my disposal, that could lighten the labor of
laying the foundation, and of consistently carrying
through the main thought.”
We cannot resist the temptation to quote here the fol­
lowing passage from his Preface, in which he presents, as
it were, his Mariology to the reader.
“Mariology can and must be considered a link connect­
ing the doctrine of the Redeemer and His work with that
of the grace of Christ and its distribution by the Church.
Mariology, thus conceived, is called to occupy an impor­
tant place in the system of dogmatic theology. From this
viewpoint it appears as the development of the profound
concept manifested in the early Christian era, which
ideally beholds Mary in the Church, and the Church in
Mary (Apoc. 12:1). . . . As a treatise on the personal
bride of Christ and the personal mother of mankind, Mari­
ology becomes a rich source from which light is shed on
the doctrine of tire Church as a supernatural organism.
. . . Hence the treatise on Mary, so dear to the heart of
the faithful, must be treated scientifically, to avoid pos­
sible critical errors of spir itual writers and sacred speak­
ers, which damage religion itself. For the real sources and
principles of theology constitute the sound foundation for
solid piety.”
Scheeben, therefore, is indeed aware that he is perform­
ing pioneer work: great merit is due to him for having
changed the Mariology into a scientific whole, forming an
independent part of dogmatic theology. In this we see, as
it were, two main ideas that give Scheeben’s Mariology
its originality and a lasting significance. First of all he re­
alized that the exposition of the truths which revelation

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xix

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

1. Mariology
in

as an Independent Treatise
Dogmatic Theology

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

XX

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

systematic unity by itself and have an organic connection
with the main whole. The question, then, of whether
Mariology can and must be considered an independent
treatise in dogmatic theology, comes to this: Do the re­
vealed data about Mary really form a vital point in the
organic whole of dogmatic truths?
The answer depends on the position we ascribe to Mary
in the work of redemption, i.e., the position of mediation
and intercession of the supernatural life on behalf of man­
kind. If we attribute to Mary no other significance than
that she is the physical instrument of the Incarnation of
the Son of God, she can, of course, appear in theology only
on the occasion of the Incarnation. In that case a space
can be given to Mary only in a first chapter of the Christology, which, as in the Pars tertia of the Summa of St.
Thomas, would bear the title: De ingressu Christi in mun­
dum.1 Most theologians who follow tire plan of the Summa
in their scheme of exposition, have therefore inserted at
that place alone a treatise on the privileges of Mary. This
does not mean, however, that these theologians, any more
than St. Thomas, have limited the greatness of Mary to
her bodily motherhood; to the extent that they were
guided by the living tradition of the Church, they had to
treat in that narrow space the privileges of Mary, which
no longer corresponded to the limiting title.
Mary’s significance, limited solely to her physical func­
tion of mother, was advanced and maintained only by
Protestants. Hence their complete failure to comprehend
the Catholic devotion to Mary. Scheeben sketched in clear
outline their attitude toward Mary. To those among them
who no longer accept the godhead of Christ and have
1 Illa, q.27, Praeambulum.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xxi

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

xxii

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

serves every attention, even if we do not always agree
with the explanation given. However, we cannot follow
his opinion in the assertion taken from the last chapter,
that Mary’s entire dignity is conclusively expressed in the
title “Theotokos.” From this the writer concludes that, ex­
cept for the fact that she gave life to the Redeemer, no
other part was intended for her in the economy of salva­
tion than that of intercession with the application of the
merits of redemption, in the same manner as the other
saints in heaven, she being in that case at their head. The
profound contemplatiorf of Scheeben regarding Mary’s
cooperation, subordinate to Christ, in the work of re­
demption, is consequently dismissed with a slighting
remark about the “Roman Mariologies” that had influ­
enced him. We must hasten to say that Rartmann aban­
doned this narrow view of the matter, in his later writings,
as will appear further.
The concept of the Mother of God, as it is approved by
the Church today and lives in the hearts of the faithful, ex­
tends far beyond the boundaries of the idea that sees in
her only the instrument of the Incarnation. Modem theo­
logians must deal with defined, or at least commonly be­
lieved, truths regarding Mary, which can scarcely be
deduced from the simple fact that she was the means by
which Christ entered the world. In a complete dogmatic
theology one must speak, for instance, of her Immaculate
Conception, perpetual virginity, absolute sinlessness; of
the “hyperdulia” due to her, of her mediatorship of grace,
and of her bodily assumption into heaven.
Many authors treat these privileges of Mary apart from
the Christology proper and present them in other trea­
tises, as exceptions to general rules, e.g., as exemption

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xxiii

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

xxiv

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

Mary’s universal mediatorship of grace. However they do
not yet agree about the best formulation. This is not the
correct place to pursue the question further. It is enough
to refer the reader to the book Marialia by Cardinal Bittremieux.
In general, not only the great mass of the laity, but also,
in numerous instances, the ordinary teaching authority
honors Mary with such titles as the following: the new
Eve, Mother of divine grace, Mother and Queen of Chris­
tians, Mediatrix, Coredemptrix. Whatever may be the ex­
act degree of theological certainty belonging to those
various names, one thing at least may be affirmed with
certainty, that under all those expressions there lies a basic
truth, which the Church maintains as an inalienable part
of the depositum fidei. We think that we cannot formulate
that basic meaning better than in the words of Professor
Bartmann himself, taken from a much discussed article,
in which a more profound study of the tradition regarding
Mary led him to abandon the negative thesis of his book
mentioned above. He remarks: “The Fathers do not stop
at the fact that Mary gave the Redeemer to the world,
. . . they ascribe to her a certain personal, moral partici­
pation and cooperation in her Son’s work of the redemp­
tion as well. . . . These ideas must have been spread
throughout the Church of the second century, since Justin
already presents them in such a solid form, and they found
a general continuance in tradition.” After he has traced
this tradition, beginning with the patristic writings,
through Scholasticism, on to the latest papal documents,
he comes to the following conclusion: “One may con­
sider it a dogma, held in the Church since the oldest times

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

XXV

of Christianity, that Mary is for us mediatrix of the grace
of salvation.”
We may therefore safely consider as de fide this con­
cept of the participation of Mary in the work of redemp­
tion, taken by Scheeben in its entirety as the foundation
of his Mariology; and this concept establishes sufficiently
die perfect right of Mariology to be treated as an inde­
pendent treatise of theology.

2. The Fundamental Principle
of

Mariology

The fact that theologians have now generally come to
realize that Mariology must be conceived as an inde­
pendent theological treatise, proves diat the problem of
the basic principle of Mariology holds the center of inter­
est.2 Nothing can contribute more to the understanding
of the lasting value and originality of Scheeben’s basic
thesis dian a glimpse of the most important solutions,
which were presented following his. We can take as a
guide in this the remarkable study of Professor C. Feckes,
who at present occupies Scheeben’s chair in the Cologne
seminary, and is attached with heart and soul to the ideas
of his great predecess'or.
It was evident that the first truth, which would be con­
sidered the main principle of Mariology, must be the title
Theotokos (Mother of God), which expresses Mary’s
highest dignity and which had already been declared a
dogma at the Council of Ephesus. Suarez had declared
that the divine motherhood is the foundation of all Mary’s
privileges and had formulated the following thesis:
2 See Bittremieux, Marialia, pp. 313 f.

xxvi

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

“Comparatur haec dignitas matris Dei ad alias gratias
creatas tamquam prima forma ad suas proprietates, et e
converso aliae gratiae comparantur ad ipsam sicut dis­
positiones ad formam.” 3 On the first Mary-days at Tongerloo, Belgium, in 1931, Professor C. Philips treated of “the
divine motherhood as the source of all Mary’s privi­
leges.” 4*Monsignor lanotta evinces the same conviction
in the title he gave to his recently published Mariology:
Theotocologia.6
However, if we examine how these authors connect the
various privileges of Mary with the divine motherhood, it
is at once evident that the latter cannot count as a proper
distinguishing principle of the former. E.g., the Immacu­
late Conception may be viewed as a material preparation
for this motherhood, but not as a necessary disposi­
tion. We can, therefore, connect it only by means of an
argumentum convenientiae with the proposed main prin­
ciple. From this principle we can deduce no more than a
convenientia with regard to the active role of Mary in the
work of redemption and in the distribution of graces.
Some theologians think they can maintain the divine
motherhood as a basic principle by extending the concept
of it. Instead of the abstract concept applying the formal
ingredients of motherhood in general to being the Mother
of God, they place the concrete ( others say “adequate” )
divine motherhood. But not all define this concrete moth­
erhood of Mary in the same way. Cardinal Lepicier, for
instance, premises the following stipulation: “Divina maternitas adaequate sumatur, scil. pro illo omni gratiarum
3 De Incarnatione, q. 27, disp. I, sec. 2; Venice, 1746.
* Report on the first Mary-aays (Tongerloo, Belgium, 1932), pp. 30-42.
3 Theotocologia catholica seu scientia de Virgine Maria Deiparente, 1925.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xxvii

et donorum cumulo, quem Matris Dei dignitas de lege
Dei ordinaria secumfert.” 8
But how shall we determine which graces or privileges
really belong to the dignity of the divine motherhood?
For this motherhood itself cannot be taken as a norm for it,
since the issue is precisely about those graces and privi­
leges that are not contained in the formal concept of it and
cannot be deduced from it by convincing proof. Therefore
this norm again can be only the convenientia.
Father Bover 7 would define the concrete motherhood
of God differently. To him, the supreme principle of Mariology is the divine motherhood such as it was historically
realized, and is really represented in revelation, which
makes of the Mother of God, the new Eve. But no matter
how closely this state of being the new Eve may appear
intertwined with that of being the Mother of God, the
concept “co-operation with the Redeemer” which lies in
the tide of “new Eve,” is and remains formally different
from die concept of “motherhood of God.” So that, as was
remarked elsewhere by Professor Bittremieux,8 we have
here to deal with a double principle, and come to a solu­
tion diat will be further discussed.
The second concept, “new Eve,” by itself, is taken by
some other Mariologists as a fundamental principle of
Mariology. Billot had moved in that direction already. In
the foremost part of his Mariology, or rather in the part of
his commentary on the Pars tertia of St. Thomas (De in­
gressu Christi in mundum), he states the following thesis:
8 A. M. Lepicier, Tractatus de B.V. Matre Dei, Paris, 1901.
7 J. M. Bover, S.J., Sintesis organica de la Mariologia en funcion de la
Asociacion de Maria a la obra redentoria de Jesucristo, Madrid, 1929.
8 Bittremieux, “De principio supremo Mariologia,” in Ephemerides theo­
logicae Looanienses, VIII (1931), 250.

xxviii

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

“De Virgine Matre generaliter tenendum est, quod in
ordine reparationis eum locum tenet, quem tenuit Eva in
ordine perditionis, . . . quo fit ut novo Adae, id est
Christo, indissolubili nexu ad dissolvenda diaboli opera
coniungi debuerit nova Eva, id est Maria.” 9
In a scholarly report at the Mary-days of Tongerloo,
Belgium, in 1936, Father Deneffe defends the “new Eve”
as the basic principle of Mariology;10 he qualifies the title
by adding, “considered in the full sense, as she is shown to
us in thé Sacred Scriptures and tradition,” i.e., as Mother
of the God-man also.
We have difficulty in evading the impression that we
have here a sort of petitio principii. In the concept of Mary
as it appears concretely in revelation, there lies contained
all that theology will ever be able to teach about Mary;
but we are not for that reason allowed to take that concept
itself of Mary as the basic principle of the theology re­
garding her. Theology seeks, as the ground for its syste­
matic unity, a formal concept from which can be deduced
and built up to an intelligible whole the entire complex of
truths that form the concrete figure of the Mother of God.
Certainly the concrete figure of Mary, taken from Sacred
Scriptures and tradition, is the starting point of the theol­
ogy concerning her, just as the revealed data is for every
theological treatise; it is also the starting point in which
that same figure, now penetrated with intelligibility,
stands before us as a systematic whole. But it cannot be at
the same time the inner principle of this intelligibility, any
more than the revealed fact of the three Persons in the
9 Billot, De Verbo Incarnato commentarius in tertiam partem S. Thomae
(7th ed., Rome, 1927), p. 386.
10 A. Deneffe, S.J., Report on the 6th Mary-days (Tongerloo, Belgium,
1937), pp. 70-82.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xxix

unity of the divine Being, and their mutual relations, is the
supreme principle of the doctrine of the Trinity, but in­
deed, as Scheeben remarks, the principle that there is in
God a processio realis per intellectum et voluntatem.
“Starting from any article whatever of the revealed data
about the Trinity,” he says, “we can deduce from it a cer­
tain number of other truths, but only the proposition in­
dicated contains a principle from which all other doctrines
about the Trinity, objectively and completely, arise as
from their root.”
Formally speaking, we must say of Father Deneffe’s
principle as well as of that presented by Father Bover,
that the concept of divine motherhood, although blended
in the Sacred Scriptures and tradition into one concrete
figure with the “New Eve,” differs formally from the lat­
ter. To maintain the formal concept of the “New Eve” as
the basic principle of Mariology, the task consequently
rests on him to deduce from it the formal concept of the
divine motherhood, which certainly cannot come about in
any other way than on grounds of convenientia. Is it de­
sirable, yes, even suitable, that we should give to Mary’s
highest privilege, that of being the Mother of God, the
place of merely a deduced thesis in Mariology?
It is not surprising that at present many theologians,
realizing the insufficiency of all these attempts to syste­
matize Mariology under one main principle, come to the
conclusion that we must absolutely accept two basic prin­
ciples in Mariology: the divine motherhood and the con­
cept of “New Eve,” or, according to the formula of Father
Terrien: Mary, Mother of God and mother of mankind.
Professor Bittremieux was largely instrumental in making
the principium consortii, as he calls it, find acceptance

XXX

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

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

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xxxi

est motherhood which excludes the cooperation of a male
principle, the most complete, loving, and mutual sur­
render between the mother and Son, who gives Himself to
her as semen divinum? Because among men the complete
and essentially indissoluble mutual surrender of love of
two persons has its solid form in the relationship between
the bride and bridegroom, Scheeben does not hesitate,
any more than does the liturgy in interpreting the Canticle
of Canticles, to call this relation of Mary to the incarnating
Word, which is inherent to her motherhood, a bridal one.
In order to call Mary’s basic privilege at the same time the
main principle of Mariology, he speaks of a bridal mother­
hood of God, or a maternal state as bride of God. He thus
unites into one formal principle the two qualities, which
allowed the supporters of the last-mentioned solution to
group all the Mariological truths: that of being tire Mother
of God, that and of being the new Eve. These two basic
truths, which were regarded by them as two separate prin­
ciples which could not be deduced from each other, are
intrinsically united by Scheeben, as two truths really
combined in Mary, but without essential connection, to
one characteristic feature of Mary with two complemen­
tary aspects.
We take the liberty of stressing this unity, because it has
been presented as if Scheeben united two formally dif­
ferent basic principles with words only, as if the formula
“the bridal motherhood of God’’ were really synonymous
with “Mary, Mother of God and bridal helper of Christ.”
But, according to Scheeben’s concept, this separation is
impossible: Mary’s motherhood is essentially bridal, and
her state as bride essentially maternal, just as man is in­
separably a being of body and soul, and Christ a unity of

xxxii

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

God and man. Not the individual formalitates, “mother”
and “bride,” are considered by him as the principle of the
Mariological systematization, but their formal unity in the
one basic principle. For Scheeben this being inseparably
bride and mother, as contrasted with the one divine Per­
son of the Word Incarnate, forms the distinguishing mark
belonging to the person proper of Mary (her personal
character), in which all her other privileges take root—
the human interpretation of the eternal, simple idea of
God, which underlies her creation and predestination.
Now, how much truth is in this principle? Is it so unas­
sailable that we can safely take it as basis of the entire
Mariology? Let us first prevent a misunderstanding: the
one and only basis of certainty of all truths about Mary is
and remains the divine revelation, as authentically pre­
sented to us by the infallible teaching authority of the
Church. But a logical, characteristic principle of a theo­
logical treatise does not need to be a revealed truth: the
theoretical basic principle of tire doctrine about the Trin­
ity, as mentioned before, is only theologically certain. It
is sufficient that such a principle proceeds from revelation
through an irrefutable reasoning. Its real use as a basic
principle must be judged from the fact of whether it per­
mits or forbids the arrangement of all truths which mateterially form a certain treatise, into one intrinsically
coherent whole. With regard to the data about Mary, it
will no doubt appear to all those who spare no pains to
work their way through his masterly treatise, that the
fundamental principle of Scheeben’s Mariology does this
indeed.
Scheeben’s Mariology is by no means easy reading; it is
a book to be studied. Therefore a reader will not find in

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

xxxiii

it material ready to hand for sermons on Mary; many
thoughts, and even the fundamental principle, will per­
haps never be accessible to the mass of simple and unedu­
cated faithful. But we venture to promise confidently that
whoever tries to enter into Scheeben’s train of thought will
find in it, together with a deeper insight into Mary’s sub­
lime significance for salvation, an inexhaustible treasure
of vital worth and a firm foundation on which to build
up in self and in others a solid devotion to the Queen of
Heaven.
To make the reader acquainted with Scheeben’s Mariological synthesis, we have thought it better to lay before
him the original thesis almost in its entirety. Only a very
small number of texts, which certainly were out of date
have been left out. On the other hand, we have added to
the Mariology proper those parts of the Christology that
appeared indispensable to the complete understanding of
the specifically Mariological theses, and that Scheeben
himself refers to in the introduction to this part of his Dog­
matic Theology. These parts were inserted under the title,
“Christological Foundations of the Mariology,” after the
chapter with the introductory considerations.
In the translation, the greatest possible fidelity to the
original was adhered to. To make the reading easier,
Scheeben’s long sentences were almost everywhere di­
vided into shorter ones; with the same end in view, many
paragraphs also were divided.
The references to the Fathers of the Church or to theo­
logians, that appear with Scheeben in the text itself, are
placed as footnotes, often amplified or rectified without
mention of this alteration. As to the patristic quotations,
we refer to volume and column of the Greek or Latin Pa­

xxxiv

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

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

Contents
FAGX

Translator’s Preface....................................

iii

PART i

THE CONCEPT AND SOURCES OF MARIOLOGY
Introduction...................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER

I. Mary in the New Testament.......................................... 9
IL Mary in the Old Testament........................................ 17
III. Mary in Tradition............................................................. 42
IV. Literature about Mary..................................................... 49
part

π

CHRISTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF MARIOLOGY

V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.

The Virginal Conception...............................................61
The Virginal Motherhood............................................. 102
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity...................................... 110
The Divine Motherhood............................................. 132
The Bridal Motherhood............................................. 154
PART III

THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MARIOLOGY

X.
XI.

The Distinguishing Mark of Mary’s Person . . . 187
The Source of Mary’s Dignity....................................... 219

APPENDIXES
I. The Protevangelium................................................... 241
II. The Human Procreation............................................. 245
III. The Actio Unitiva Ascribed tothe Holy Ghost . 247
IV. The Annunciation by theAngel................................... 249
XXXV

PART I

THE CONCEPT AND SOURCES OF
MARIOLOGY

Introduction1
N THE Dogmatic system o£ the Catholic Church the
Mother of Christ appears next to Christ, the new
Adam, not merely as the living earth, of which He is
formed, but, as the protevangelium 2 has given us to
understand, she comes also into the foreground as the
new Eve, i.e., a person who is connected with Christ
through the most intimate and living communication, and
who, in and by Him, presides over the whole universe, as
Eve with Adam presided over the earthly world. With
Christ she forms the cornerstone, the root as well as the
crown of the supernatural order, and through her activity
she has an intimate share in His work of redemption. ·
On the other hand, the mother of the Redeemer is the
first and most perfect fruit of the redemption, through the
personal richness of her supernatural life and through her
activity. With regard to her dignity, virtue, and activity,
she prefigures the grace of redemption, to be distributed
to all other redeemed persons. In other words: Mary, the
spiritual mother of each individual redeemed soul and of
the Church as a whole, is the model both of the divine
filiation of grace of redeemed persons and of the heavenly
motherhood of the Church.

I

1 Scheeben refers to the following literature: Suarez, De Incarnatione, II,
q.27, disp. I in prooem.; Theoph. Raynaud, Diptycha Mariana, prooem.;
Malou, L'Immaculée Conception, especially chaps. 8-9.
’Gen. 3:15.
3

4

MARIOLOGY

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

INTRODUCTION

5

her, and from her the benign hand of God re-created that which
He had created.3

Mary’s exalted position in the dogmatic theology of the
Church in the face of all heresies, forms the main idea of
the old adage: Thou alone hast destroyed all The heresies
in the whole world, or, she alone has brought to dust every
heretical depravity. This thought corresponds with the
protevangelium; the heresies are regarded as the seed, or
the head of the serpent. Such expressions are found in the
Fathers of more ancient times: e.g., “scepter of right
faith” in Cyril of Alexandria, in a discourse delivered at
Ephesus.4 This happened because of the fact that the old
heresies attacked Christology and that through the wellestablished position of Mary the clearest light was shed
on all the aspects of Christology.5
This not only applies to the more modern heresies, so
far as, by denying the ancient doctrine of the godhead of
Christ, they deny in general the supernatural order in
Christianity, but also to the specific Protestant heresies
about grace and the Church. So far as Protestantism still
believes in the divinity of Christ, it regards Mary only as
the earth from which the first Adam has been taken, and
not as a person who has the closest, mutually spiritual
relations with Christ. This fits in completely with the doc­
trine of the Reformation, according to which human na­
ture in general is as a “lump of clay,” which was not
changed through grace to its very essence and which
could not cooperate in the reception of grace. According
3 Senn. 2 de Pentec., 4; PL, CLXXXIII, 327. In St. Bernard the sentence
begins with Tunc iam.
* PG, LXXVII, 992.
s For the meaning of the proverb, see in detail St. Peter Canisius, De
Deipara Virgine, Bk. V, chap. 9.

6

MARIOLOGY

to the Catholic concept, however, Mary represents the
living, passive and active susceptibility to the regenerat­
ing grace. The Fathers acknowledge the significance that
Mariology gives the doctrine of the Church to the extent
that they delight to picture the latter in the image taken
from the former.
As for the name “Mary,” there can be no doubt, accord­
ing to the whole analogy of revelation, that it must pos­
sess, as much as the name of the Redeemer, a meaning by
virtue of divine inspiration, which corresponds to the dig­
nity and position of her who bears it. Especially as the
Fathers also attach such meaning to the traditional names
of Mary’s parents: Joachim (“preparation of the Lord”),
Anna (“grace”). Yet it is not settled what this meaning is
according to the etymology of the word.
The ancients considered the Hebrew “Mirjam” as a
compound of two words: jam (“more”) and mar (from
marar, “to drop, drops”; or marah, “to be bitter”). The
meaning of both words inclines toward mor (a bitter,
dripping resin). Hence this explanation was given: “ama­
rum mare, myrrha maris, stilla maris”; but, as it was
rightly felt that “stilla” here does not imply much, it was
later changed into “stella maris.” Philologically all these
explanations are weak, and theologically can be utilized
only with difficulty.
The etymologists agree that the name has only one root.
If the root marah is the basis of it, its meaning becomes
either “bitterness” or “fatness.” According to the modern
way of speaking, this does not give an elegant meaning, it
is true, but in its Eastern meaning it would fit in splen­
didly as characteristic of her who, as the seat of the
“Anointed” pre-eminently, represents the “fullness of

INTRODUCTION

7

grace” in an eminent manner. Others have recourse to the
root rum (“to be exalted”), and interpret from it, “the ex­
alted one,” the “mistress”; in this way they apply the ex­
planation of the Syrian Fathers.
The best and richest explanation undoubtedly is the
one that St. Jerome 6 gives, viz.: “enlightening” or “their
enlightening,” from jarah (“jacere, effundere guttas et
radios,” hence “irrigare, illuminare”). It characterizes
Mary’s own position and activity, that is, her divine moth­
erhood. In virtue of this privilege, according to the expres­
sion of the Church, she reflects as a spotless mirror the
eternal light of the world, which is first poured into herself
and illuminates her; as mother of the spiritual and heav­
enly life she is the mediatrix of the fight of grace to man­
kind.
In this way the meaning “stella maris” is also sub­
merged in the name “Mary.” However, the full signifi­
cance of the name “Mary” is first reflected in the “aurora”
of the Canticle of Canticles and in the “woman clothed
with the sun” of the Apocalypse. Besides, the name is
closely related and is analogous to the names of the Re­
deemer, “Jesus” and “Christ.” On the other hand it char­
acterizes strikingly the one who bears it, as the antithesis
of Eve; it formally places the new Eve as mother of the
heavenly and spiritual life of men in contrast with the first
Eve as mother of a purely natural life, and also of sin. For
that very reason it represents Mary at the same time as the
prototype of redeemed mankind and of the Church.
The term “Mariology,” conceived in this way, would,
e St. Jerome, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, PL, XXIII,
789; but in sec. 842 he gives preference to stilla maris sive amarum mare.
From stiUa originated later stella.

8

MARIOLOGY

like “Christology,” indicate not only the material object,
but also the formal one, i.e., the complete content of this
part of theology.7
The Starting Point of Mariology

The dogmatic doctrine regarding the mother of the Re­
deemer, so far as it is expressed in the definitions of the
Church, may be regarded as the explanation and develop­
ment of the words of the Apostles’ Creed ( in the old Ro­
man form) : “Natus de Spiritu Sancto e’ Maria Virgine.”
For this proves that Mary, as true Mother of Christ, is
truly Mother of God; and on the other hand that, not only
in this motherhood itself but also for the sake of this moth­
erhood, she is in general and simply a virgin espoused to
the Holy Ghost, one who in every respect, in spirit and in
body, in a narrower as well as a broader sense, has always
remained spotless and inviolate. In this way the definition
of the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be correctly
regarded as the ultimate explanation of her absolute
virginity.
7 To this day no further meaning of Mary’s name is found. It was a girl’s
name much in use at that time. Probably no particular meaning was attached
to it any longer. In any case the parallel Mariology-Christology could not
hold, because “Christ” was an official name (the Anointed, Messias), added
to his proper name “Jesus.” In that case the parallel should at least be
Jesuology.

CHAPTER I

Mary in the New Testament
PART from the history of the infancy and boyhood
of Christ, the New Testament does not often men­
tion the Blessed Virgin. We find Christ Himself refraining,
as do the apostles, from definitely pointing out her exalted
and influential position. On the contrary, some of His ut­
terances, superficially considered, seem even to obscure
the exalted state of Mary.
The reasons for this comparative obscurity of Mary in
the books of the New Testament lie elsewhere. It does not
mean in the least that Christ and the apostles have not
recognized Mary’s exceptional dignity; the seemingly dis­
paraging utterances have in view only this end, to pre­
clude an all too human conception of her motherhood.
On the other hand the praises of Mary from the lips of
the angel at the Annunciation and of Elizabeth at the first
acknowledgment of Mary’s divine motherhood, hold in
embryo all that can be said to glorify her. The picture that
St. John draws of her at the beginning of the second part
of the Apocalypse, where he borrows from her the fea­
tures for his vision of the Church, is so magnificent that
human imagination has never found words to improve
upon it.
In the historical narrative of the New Testament, Mary
often comes to the foreground significantly in circum­
stances such that she could and must show her exalted

A

9

10

MARIOLOGY

position. It was thus she appeared at the presentation of
Jesus in the Temple, and on the occasion of His first mir­
acle, which took place at her intercession; again, at Jesus’
expiatory death and in the upper room at Jerusalem,
where the disciples came to pray before and at the time
of die descent of the Holy Ghost.1
That Christ and the apostles do not explicitly throw
fight upon and celebrate the glory of Mary, is abundantly
explained by the fact that the complete attention of the
faithful was at first directed to Christ Himself; or rather,
that His glory and therefore His personal eminence above
that of His mother had to be established first, before there
could be any question of the glory of the mother, which
from His glory alone overflows on her. At the same time it
is obvious that during Mary’s lifetime her humility was to
be respected, shielded, and secured.
Some explain the apparently disparaging utterances of
Christ in this way, that they must serve to safeguard Mary
from the danger of pride in her greatness. This is not cor­
rect. Just as in the case of Christ’s glory and eminence, so
was it here only a matter of practicing the virtue of humil­
ity, which was the more fitting to Mary since Jesus also
wished to practice it to the fullest extent. Christ intended
to show quite definitely that He stood toward Mary not
in tlie same relation as an ordinary man to his mother; and
He wished this shown not for her sake but for the sake of
mankind. By making His own divine dignity felt, He
pointed at the same time to the true form and meaning of
Mary’s modierhood as a divine motherhood.
1 About the comparative obscurity of Mary in the Gospels, Scheeben refers
to St. Peter Canisius, De Deip. Virg., Bk. IV, chap. 24. See J. Spencer Northcote, Mary in the Gospels, London, 1867.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

11

It is absurd to find something derogatory or a denial of
Mary’s maternal dignity in the fact that the Savior ad­
dresses her as “woman” at various times—at Cana and
from the Cross—particularly since Christ, when He ad­
dressed her in that very manner from the Cross, gave evi­
dence of His filial love toward her. The address merely
implies that Christ did not speak as a child, placed under
Mary’s maternal care and authority as at Nazareth, but in
the exercise of His divine dignity and mission. The He­
brew expression ( corresponding to “What is it to me and
to thee, woman?”), intended not so much for Mary herself
as for the bystanders, means simply that Christ, with re­
gard to His mission, is withdrawn from the law of filial
obedience: more correctly, that He will not comply with
the request of Mary as Son of man, who depends on her,
but as a more exalted son, the Son of God. For the words
do not exclude the favorable response, but include it. This
is proved by the issue of the request as well as by the hint
given by Mary to the waiters.
When, during the exercise of His ministry, Jesus was
sought by His relatives who wished to speak to Him, He
said: “My mother and My brethern are they who hear the
word of God and do it.” 2 Again, when the woman from
the crowd called the body and the breasts of His mother
blessed,3 He pointed out that all without exception are
blessed, who hear the word of God and keep it. On both
occasions nothing was farther from His intention than to
slight His mother. He preferred to discourage an all too
human and carnal idea of the relationship of His mother
to Himself, for this idea was linked up with a defective
2 Luke 8:21; cf. Matt. 12:49; Mark 3:34.
•Luke 11:27.

12

MARIOLOGY

and an entirely false understanding of His higher, divine
nature; and in referring to the true character of this re­
lationship He offered at the same time a practical lesson
for His listeners.
In the first case (Luke 8:19 ff.), Christ’s higher char­
acter as Son of the heavenly Father was apparently ac­
knowledged by those present. But from this character it
followed inevitably that Mary could become Mother of
Christ, not as other mothers through the will of a man,4
but only through obedience to the heavenly Father; her
whole maternal relationship to Christ bears the character­
istic of perfect surrender to the Father.
In the second case (Luke 11:27), the divinity of Christ
was indeed not excluded in the exaltation of Mary. Nei­
ther was there any particular stress laid upon the fact that
her motherhood distinguished itself from any other natu­
ral motherhood through anything else than the fact that it
had as its final term a man who performed miracles. Hence
Christ gives us to understand that the loftiness of mother­
hood rests in Mary on this, that she did not receive and
bear a mere human being but tire real Word of God; that
she not only received it in her body but also in her spirit
and spiritual love, or, that she also took it into her body
and fed it rather through her spirit and spiritual love.5
The observation is rightly made, even by Luther in his
commentary of 1518 on the Magnificat, that the Gospels
in reality exalt Mary enough, inasmuch as they call her by
the name “Mother of Jesus” eight different times. When
this fact is observed, the praises of the angel and of Eliza­
beth speak for themselves.
4 John 1:13.
s For all these texts, see St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., Bk. IV, chaps. 18-23;
Northcote, op. cit., chaps. 8-11.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

13

In the salutation of the angel, “Hail, full of grace, the
Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women,” 6 are
indicated the supernatural privileges granted to Mary in
virtue of her destiny to be the Mother of Jesus, which
would be completed and sealed through the conception
of Jesus: viz., an entirely exceptional state of grace,
through which she stands in special connection with God,
and is blessed by God above all other women.
The angel does not use the first predicate, “full of
grace,” as apposition to the name Mary, which he only
later pronounces, but as an appelative name of a person.
In the salutation of Elizabeth the elevation of Mary’s state
of grace is most closely connected with the one of the
blessing of the fruit of her womb. Hence in former times
Mary’s state of grace was, with every right and for merely
exegetical reasons, always considered exceptional and
without a peer in its kind as the sanctification of Christ; to
her the most perfect likeness to this latter was ascribed.
The trifling distinction, already brought forward by
Erasmus, and afterward time and again exploited by
Protestants, is very weak, namely, that nothing is said in
the Greek text of the fullness of grace and that there is no
question at all of a fulfillment with grace, but only of a
certain, vague favor or well-pleasingness. For, according
to the analogy of Eph. 1:6,7 the Greek word κΐχαρι,τωμίνη in­
dicates in reality a person to whom grace has been granted
•Luke 1:28.
7 Eph. 1:6: “Unto the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath
graced us in His beloved Son.” Lagrange (Evangile selon St. Luke, Paris,
1921, pp. 28 ff.) remarks, regarding Luke 1:28: “Si Erasme a traduit gratiosa,
tous les modernes expliquent le mot par Eph. 1:6.” Cited by C. Dillenschneider, La Mariologie de S. Alphonse de Liguori (Fribourg, 1931), I, 8-15,
where one finds a most readable characteristic feature of Erasmus’ Mariological thesis.

MARIOLOGY

14

in the theological sense, i.e., a person who is equipped
with grace, made pleasing to God through grace; “fullness
of grace” is only a correct expression for the exceptional,
entirely unique wealth of grace which is meant here.
Again, this entirely exceptional blessing of Mary above
all other women is not lessened through the fact that the
following is also said of Judith: “Blessed art thou, O
daughther, by the Lord the most high God, above all
women upon the earth.” 8 In both cases the aim and reason
of the blessing differ tremendously, and what is still more,
Judith was only a prototype of Mary.
The three attributes in the salutation of the angel may
be defined as follows: through the first one, “full of grace,”
Mary is characterized as daughter of the heavenly Father;
through the second one, “the Lord is with thee,” as bride
of the Logos; through the third one, “blessed art thou
among women,” as temple and instrument of the salutary
power of the Holy Ghost; or further, as the likeness of God
and as adorned by Him, united with God and protected by
Him, filled with God and endowed by Him with the great­
est riches.
The words “thou hast found grace with God” 9 indicate
that the described privileges of Mary have connection
with the divine motherhood as with the highest and most
exceptional gift of grace given to her, and that the Son,
destined for the salvation of the world, was in the .first
place and in an entirely unique manner given to Mary for
her own glorification and salvation. Consequently as the
three praises in the angel s salutation stand in proportion
to this gift of grace, reversed, this gift of grace also gives
ejdth. 13:23.
9 Luke 1:30.

MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

15

these praises their completion: for it is the highest state of
grace, benediction and communication with God.
This passage from the Apocalypse has reference to the
Church: “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman
clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on
her head a crown of twelve stars.” 10 The features of the
vision are borrowed from Mary; Mary is not taken merely
as an ordinary example or even as a prototype of the
Church, but as a prototype that is organically united to
the Church and radically concerns and represents it, and
also works both in it and through it.
We should note: (1) the woman brings forth a son, who
is none other than Christ, “who was to rule all nations with
an iron rod.” 11 This can be applied to Mary only. (2)
Next to the woman the dragon (the serpent) appears,
which persecutes her and her Son, without being able to
harm them. A clear allusion to the protevangelium. (3)
Then it is not in the style of Sacred Scripture to personify
abstract things in any other way but through real persons,
who are treated as types.12 (4) The typical and organic
mutual relations between Mary and tire Church lie, in
general, and in particular also with regard to this text, in
tlie firm and universal tradition of the Church.
Accordingly the heavenly glory of the woman, ex­
pressed in this great sign, must in the first place be traced
to Mary, who is prophesied by Isaias as the divine sign.13
In her each single feature of the vision is of itself obvious,
having almost no ground without the thought of her. The
•main feature is the woman being clothed with die sun,
10Apoc. 12:1.
la-Apoc. 12:5.
12 See Newman, A Letter to Pusey, London, 1866.
13 Isa. 7:14.

16

MARIOLOGY

through which she receives her place in the sun, thus be­
ing in the center of the heavens, and for that very reason
the moon lies under her feet, while she carries the twelve
stars of the zodiac above her as a crown. These grand fea­
tures find in Mary their realization in the fact that she was
clothed with the sun of tine godhead in the conception of
the Logos. As a result of it she is exalted above the base­
ness and changeableness of the sublunary world and also
excels its beauty. Finally, all heavenly beings and powers,
the angels in particular, but also the human beings, of
whom first of all the twelve apostles come to mind, gather
round her, just as the apostles were also outwardly united
with her during the beseeching for and receiving of the
Holy Ghost.
The pains of childbirth, ascribed to the woman, find
their application in Mary, only so far as she has cooperated
through co-sufferings in the second birth of Christ,
through His death and Resurrection, and at the same time
in His third birth in the faithful.

CHAPTER II

Mary in the Old Testament
HE Old Testament speaks less explicitly about Mary
than the New. Yet she is not only definitely prophe­
sied as the Mother of the Emmanuel;1 but in the prote­
vangelium of Genesis 2 she is already thus presented as
the Mother of the Redeemer, that she must be, in and
with Him, the guaranty and instrument of redemption.
So far as Christ is concerned, the contents of the protevangelium are indeed defined through later prophesies;
though the protevangelium has the preference with re­
gard to the connection of Mary with Christ and her
relationship to the work of redemption. In general it
throws so much light upon the later prophesies that, in
connection with Isa. 7:14, it is rightly used as the classic
text for Mariology.
The concrete application of “woman” to Mary in the
protevangelium is absolutely sound not only dogmati­
cally, but also exegetically.3 It is difficult to understand
how Catholic theologians have at times called in question
its strictly scientific use in favor of the privileges of Mary.
Exegetically much more open to dispute would be the
contention, advocated by the greater number of theo­
logians and particularly by St. Jerome, that in the text

T

lisa. 7:14.
2 Gen. 3:15.
3 Here Scheeben refers to his explanation of the protevangelium. See Ap­
pendix 1.

18

MARIOLOGY

“there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a
flower shall rise up out of this root,” 4 the “rod” refers to
Mary and not to Christ as “flower” does. In view of the
protevangelium, tire thought contained in this figure, viz.,
that Mary forms a whole with Christ, which, as one divine
work and one heavenly plant, had to be the guaranty and
principle of the salvation of the world, is in complete
agreement with Sacred Scripture.
In Jeremias, “tire Lord hath created a new thing upon
tire earth: a woman shall compass a man,” 5 the direct
Messianic meaning is generally contested, by Catholic
theologians too. Particularly as there is here, according to
the Hebrew text, no question of mother “and child.” The
Hebrew term used here for “woman,” viz., neqêbhah
( from the same root as nequêb, “cave, cell” ), points to the
opposite, and the evident analogy with Isa. 7:14, together
with the counterpart from the Apocalypse, “a great sign
appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun,” justi­
fies still more the Mariological application of the new
creation “on earth” presented here. When he who is en­
compassed by the woman is called “man” and not “child,”
it includes so little the idea of “encompass in the womb,”
that the “new thing” rather consists in just that which the
prophet points out. The word “man” characterizes the be­
ing, enclosed in the mother’s womb, as a person who, ac­
cording to the spirit, is not subjected to development, but
who already possesses the full maturity of a man. It is a
* Isa. 11:1; Jerome, PL, XXIV, 144.
5 Jer. 31:22. This interpretation, which is also defended by Knabenbauer,
among others, in his commentary on Jeremias (Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, Paris,
1889), is at present discounted by many, among others by Condamin, in
Revue biblique, 1897, pp. 396—404. In the translation by Canisius: “The
Sacred Scriptures, O.T., IV (1936), 269, this last explanation is advocated:
The woman (Israel) returns to her man (Jahweh).

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

19

person who does not at all stand toward the woman in the
dependence of a child, but is to her as bridegroom to
bride; and rightly so, since this person himself also makes
the woman his mother. Thus “a woman shall compass a
man” runs according to the form and contents quite con­
currently with “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son : and
his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
Absolutely undisputed is the Mariological application
of the text from Micheas: “The time wherein she that
travaileth shall bring forth.” 6
Apart from the direct and formal prophecies, the
Church has used a great many other references from the
Old Testament to throw light upon and partly also to
prove Mariological theses. Often they have been used
without difference as proper and independent proofs, e.g.,
in the question of the Immaculate Conception—and thus
their real demonstrative force has been lessened. On the
other hand, notably in recent years, all conclusive force
has been denied to these same texts, and their application
to Mary has been considered a mere adaptation. Hence
only the value of a witness has been attached to the ex­
planation of the texts, as found in the Fathers and theo­
logians, and also in the liturgy, for the conviction of those
who thus adapt them.
Both sides went too far: here also truth lies between the
two. The more important texts serve, according to the
mind of the Holy Ghost, to be applied to Mary as to their
immediate object, partly in immediate, partly in indirect,
spiritual or virtual sense. Thus Mary appears: in the
Psalms as the “sanctuary”; in the Canticle of Canticles as
the “bride”; in the Book of Wisdom as the “first bom
0 Mich. 5:3.

20

MARIOLOGY

daughter of God” and as the “heavenly Queen and Mother
of the world.”
The application to Mary of “bride” from the Canticle
of Canticles comes closest to the literal sense; and it is
partly understood in this sense. Consequently the Canti­
cle of Canticles, with regard to its formal conclusive force,
ought to be dealt with first. But according to the associa­
tion of thought, the order of time of the texts and in gen­
eral the genetic order, the division indicated above
naturally aserts itself. The thought of the living temple of
the Lord’s Anointed and of God Himself, attaches itself
immediately to the prophetic conception: a virgin shall
bear Emmanuel and “a woman shall compass a man”; on
the other hand it tends to the notion “bride of Christ” and
“daughter of God.” Just as the idea “bride of Christ” is
present in the Psalms, the thought of “temple” is found in
die Canticle of Canticles, in which die bride is compared
to a garden, and in die Book of Proverbs.7
The Psalms

Of old, those texts from the Psalms which celebrate the
glory and holiness of die chosen and privileged “temples
of God,” were already used in a Mariological sense. In a
direct sense these temples meant: on earth, the city of
Jerusalem or mount Sion, on which the King’s stronghold
stood; and die temple situated there, particularly the ark
of the covenant; above the earth, die sun or the heavens.
These pure material and lifeless dwellings are clear types
of die spiritual and living temples of God: die Church of
die New Testament and in particular of Mary, the temple
’ Ps. 44; Cant. 4:12; Prov. 9:1.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

21

of God pre-eminently. Hence these texts point to Mary
in a typical sense. Apart from this, all that is said about the
glory and holiness of the other dwellings of God, applies
to Mary intrinsically, a fortiori and in the highest manner.
There we have a typical and a virtual sense at the same
time.
The most important psalm which belongs here is psalm
86: “The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains.
The Lord loveth the gates of Sion above all the tabernacles
of Jacob. Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God.
. . . Shall not Sion say: This man and that man are born
in her? And the Highest Himself hath founded her.” Supplementarily the following texts belong to it: “The stream
of the river maketh the city of God joyful; the Most High
hath sanctified His own tabernacle. God is in the midst
thereof; it shall not be moved; God will help it in the early
morning” (Ps. 45); “The Lord hath chosen Sion: He hath
chosen it for His dwelling” (Ps. 131); “The mountain of
God is a fat mountain, a curdled mountain, ... a moun­
tain in which God is well pleased to dwell; for there the
Lord shall dwell unto the end” (Ps. 67). From psalm 18,
which undoubtedly has reference to Christ and the
Church in a typical sense, the Fathers used the words:
“He hath set his tabernacle in the sun, and He, as a bride­
groom coming out of his bride chamber, hath rejoiced.”
From the connection of “tabernacle” with the “bride
chamber,” from which the bridegroom comes forth, this
text derives a particular typical relationship to Mary and
still more so according to the Hebrew text, where the
analogy also shows forth “the woman clothed with the
»
sun.

22

MARIOLOGY

The Canticle

of

Canticles

The Canticle of Canticles represents in allegorical and
literal sense the marriage of Christ with mankind, or with
the Church in its entirety and in each individual soul.
Without doubt Mary in particular is understood by the
“bride.” What is still more, in all expressions describing
the glory of the bride and the closeness of her union with
the royal bridegroom, Mary is to be understood before
the Church. For the marriage of mankind, or the Church,
with Christ is first and chiefly solemnized in Mary in the
most real and ideal manner; the name of the bride, “Sulamitess,” i.e., queen of peace and peace-bearer (derived
from the name of the Bridegroom, Solomon), is realized
in her in the fullest meaning.8 Hence the description of the
bride ( Cant. 1:8-16; 2:2-10; 3:6; chap. 4; 6:3-9) is with
every reason applied to Mary. The first two references and
6:9 can easily be traced to her alone.
In tire same way the second half of psalm 44 has also re­
lation to her, for it contains a “hymn to the beloved one,”
which constitutes the Canticle of Canticles in embryo.
The Sapiential Books

Those texts 9 from the Sapiential Books which describe
the origin and position, glory and activity, of Wisdom
personified, are applied to Mary in the liturgy of the
Church. This occurs so far as Wisdom is represented as
the beginning of all the ways of God and the first-born of
8 The word sulamith has nothing to do with salem ("to be complete”), from
which is derived salom (“peace”); here it is only a different reading of
sunamith, inhabitant of Sunem. See Szezespanski, Geogr. Hist. Palestinae
Antiquae (Rome, 1928), pp. 137, 207.
0 Prov., chap. 8; Ecclus., chap. 24; Wisd., chap. 7.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

23

God’s whole creation. In virtue of her first and highest
origin from God, she is His most perfect image and like­
ness, partner and helper, thus in an eminent manner
“daughter of God,” i.e., child and bride at the same time,
the one in the form of the other, and as such she is to the
world queen of all things and mother of fife and light.
The application of these texts to Mary is a formal testi­
mony that the Church considers Mary an image of Wis­
dom personified. According to an entirely unique likeness
to her prototype, Mary so closely resembles the latter that
all the qualities of the prototype, described here, are also
proportionally hers. Thus the picture of Mary’s qualities,
as flowing forth from the application of these texts, may
be considered justified, at least on the strength of the'authority of the Church.
The Church does not fix offhand the real equality and
similarity of the individual features of our description,
merely through a comparison with the stated individual
privileges of Mary from other sources. Undoubtedly from
the close relationship of Mary to the person of Wisdom
the Church has gathered that this representation must
proportionately befit Mary as well. It may properly be ac­
cepted that the application of these texts to Mary as a
sensus consequens has been the intention of the Holy
Ghost.
The relation of Mary to the person of Wisdom consists
in this. As the “aurora of the light of wisdom” and the
“woman clothed with the sun,” she is to the “incarnate
Wisdom,” in an entirely unique manner, His “seat,” “ves­
sel,” and “abode” and at the same time His bride. In this
quality she forms a whole with Him, in an analogous way
to that of Eve with Adam. Eve and Adam in contrast with

24

MARIOLOGY

the visible world belong together so essentially from die
point of view of natural “image and likeness of God,” that
in this respect the description of the qualities of the man
naturally also embraces die woman in a proportionate
way; that is, so far as she is with and next to the man as his
image, an image of God as well. This holds good of the
image and likeness of God in the incarnate Wisdom with
regard to Mary.
Indeed, in the Canticle of Canticles, where the bride­
groom under the term “oil poured out” 10 is none other
than the incarnate Wisdom, the bride is throughout de­
picted as die most perfect image of the bridegroom, for
the greater part even widi the same features, with which
Wisdom also is represented: the sweet-smelling garden,
rich in oil, and the well of living waters.11
Only one difficulty presents itself. In these texts 12 Wis­
dom is not merely depicted as the incarnate Wisdom, but
predominantly in its being and workings before the In­
carnation, i.e., in its supernatural origin and being. One
conclusion alone follows, that the entire description, in all
its parts, does not suit Mary in the same way, and that
with regard to the features referred to, a further link and
reason to do so are still required.
Both link and reason are available. For the qualities
which belong to Wisdom by itself likewise proportion­
ately belong to the incarnate Wisdom and are reflected in
10 Cant. 1:2.
n Cf. Cant. 4:10 ff. with Ecclus. 24:17 ff.
i2 The thoughts developed here on the Mariological meaning of the Sapien­
tial Books are taken from the personal study of Scheeben. They have an im­
portant and timely meaning, because they introduce us into a sphere of
thought which is being scrutinized profoundly, sometimes almost recklessly
so, by the modem Russian Orthodox theologians (e.g., Solowjew, Florenski,
lljin, Bulgakow). See on that point among others Dom Lilialine, “De debat
sophrologique,” in Irenikon, XIII (1936), 168-205.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

25

it. Moreover, the description of these qualities in the Sapi­
ential Books is so carried through that their application to
the incarnate Wisdom as such and to Mary not only is
made possible, but has become self-evident. For the de­
scription is of such a nature that it presents Wisdom, al­
though before its incarnation, not formally in its eternal,
divine being, apart from and above all relationship with
the world, but as a person who has come forth from God,
who stands in actual relation to the world, and who lives
and works in the world apart from God and next to Him,
and likewise subject to Him. It thus occupies a place
which is similar to that held by the incarnate Wisdom and
which also can proportionately belong to a created person.
Here again, the description presents Wisdom specifi­
cally in the form of a female person, springing from God.
In virtue of her procession from God and her relationship
with God, this female person assists Him as a daughter
assists her father; and toward the world she exercises an
influence as does a mother in the home of the father. In
other words: Wisdom appears as a principle, springing
from God and resembling Him, which is “seat,” “vessel,”
and “instrument” of God in His vivifying and enlightening
influence upon the world.
Furthermore, in the literal meaning of these texts Wis­
dom 13 does not exclusively represent the Sapientia
genita in the person of the Logos, but embraces also the
Sapientia spirata in the person of the Holy Ghost under
the combined idea of “Wisdom proceeding from God and
poured out from God into creation,” namely, to vivify and
enlighten creation.
From this joining of Logos and Spirit it follows that
18 Especially in Ecclus., chap. 24 and Wisd., chap. 7.

MARIOLOGY

26

here in particular the Sapientia genita also appears under
the image of a female principle, because it is clothed in the
qualities which especially belong to the Holy Spirit, the
Ruah or Neschamah of God. On the other hand, the ap­
plication of these texts to the incarnate Wisdom as such
does not limit itself naturally to the person of Christ; but
at the same time it has in view another person who stands
in relationship to Christ analogous to that relationship of
the Holy Ghost to the person of the Logos in the Divin­
ity.
This description of the qualities belonging to Wisdom
before its incarnation, namely, the predicates “image of
God” and “first-born of creation,” by whom, in whom, and
for whom all things are made, maintained, and completed,
is held by the apostles 14 as prototype of the glory of the
Sapientia incarnata. Ecclesiasticus (24:3 ff.) has already
drawn an analogy between the indwelling and working of
Wisdom in the first completion of the visible creation—
under the form of a mist which covers the earth and makes
it fertile and of a heavenly source of light—and its resid­
ing and working among men—under the form of a sweet­
smelling garden and a salutary well of living waters. Thus
the sacred Scriptures themselves show us that we have a
right to apply to Mary the entire contents of these texts
and make clear the precise manner of their application.
Holy Writ gives us the right, in so far as the glory of
Wisdom personified must reveal itself in its own human­
ity, which is united to it by hypostatic union as sedes and
sponsa, and likewise in the maternal sedes and sponsa
Sapientiae. It also shows us tire precise manner of applica­
tion. It teaches us that the glory of Wisdom belongs es“ Col. 1:17 ff.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

27

pecially to its human soul, since the latter’s origin from
God is inseparably connected with the procession of Wis­
dom from God, in its realization as well as in God’s eternal
ordinance; and since that soul, in value and rank and es­
pecially in quality of its final end, is the beginning of all
God’s ways; and lastly, since in the natural creation the
working of Wisdom which creates, vivifies, and enlight­
ens, is reflected in the analogous working of the soul of
Christ in the order of grace.
Finally a historical representation underlies the entire
description of Wisdom in Ecclesiasticus, namely, the fig­
ure of the cloud of light, the Schekhinah or Kebhod
Jahweh, in connection with the symbol of the dove de­
scending from heaven. Symbolically it points back to the
invisible habitation and operation of Wisdom in the world
at the*completion of creation, as much as it typically points
forward to the visible and corporal appearance later in
the world as incarnate Wisdom.
This symbol finds its complete, striking, and living ful­
fillment in the flesh of the incarnate Wisdom. It also char­
acterizes in a marvelous manner its supernatural, spiritual,
and heavenly being as “daughter of God” and “mother of
the world,” and embraces also in its typical and symbolic
meaning, but itself and in the most natural way, the
mother of Wisdom incarnate, especially since she is ex­
cellently characterized in the very Canticle of Canticles
by the name “aurora” and “dove,” while her own name
proves it as well.
The application of these texts to Mary is very old and
reaches beyond the Middle Ages to the time of the Fa­
thers. So far as we know it is textually used only in the
Latin liturgies, particularly in the Roman and Mozara-

28

MARIOLOGY

bic.15 The Greek liturgies advocate the idea of this appli­
cation with more emphasis through the very frequent use
of the name ή Θ«ίπαΚ, die child of God, which is as typical as
Ocotokos■

In the earlier Fathers the application of die texts is but
seldom found; however there is more than one indication
in favor of diis application to Mary in the above-men­
tioned manner. Among diese indications belongs the con­
cept of the ante-Nicene Fathers in particular, which was
wrongly explained by the Arians. According to the view of
the Fathers, Wisdom’s proceeding from God, “being
born” of Him, and “being created” by Him cannot be ap­
plied in an abstract manner to its substantial origin and its
being by itself or in God; this can only be applied in a con­
crete manner to a going forth and “existence” of this Wis­
dom next to, apart from, and in a certain sense also tinder
God, in the midst of God’s creation, which is to be com­
pleted by Wisdom. From die outset of Christianity the
position of Wisdom is dius conceived as a central place
between God and creation.
According to diis concept the eternal Wisdom already
from the beginning of creation, notably as the “Male’akh
Jahweh” 16 who acts between God and man, and as die
Wisdom who liturgically officiates witii the people of Is­
rael (Ecclus. 24:10), occupies a place which resembles that
of the “Sapientia incarnata,” typifying and introducing it
and finding in the latter its most perfect expression.17 By
15 Cf. C. Passaglia, De immaculato Deiparae semper virginis conceptu
(Romae, 1854).
ieCf. in the Vulgate Angelus Domini, e.g., Gen. 16:7 ff.; 21:17 ff. See on
this point Touzard, art. “Ange de Yahweh,” in Diet, de la Bible, Suppl. (Paris,
1928), I, 242-55.
17 St. Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, PG, X, 817 (cf. 812 ff.), characterizes
her as nais tom Θοομ.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

29

inversion of the process, the post-Nicene Fathers have es­
pecially brought the creation of Wisdom directly in con­
nection with the origin of the incarnate Wisdom, here
pronounced against the Arians. These Fathers explained
this pre-historic origin by means of the eternity of the
divine ordinance, on which it depends and which put it
in connection with eternal Wisdom’s going forth from
God.18
More than one of the ante-Nicene Fathers understood
by Wisdom, not Logos, but the Holy Spirit. Since several
post-Nicene Fathers specifically consider the origin and
position of Eve as ectype of the Holy Ghost, this holds a
fortiori of the new Eve. St. John Damascene explicitly
makes the application to her.19 Furthermore the symbol
of Wisdom, the cloud of fight, prevails with the Fathers
of all ages as a lasting symbol, or rather as a typical figure,
of Mary.
To throw more light upon the applicability of these
texts to Mary according to these doctrines of the Fathers,
we will enter a little deeper into their beautiful and sig­
nificant meaning. If Wisdom were depicted here under
the names of Logos and Son of God as equal to the Father
and the principle of the Holy Ghost from which it is
sharply distinguished·, or formally in its eternal existence
with the Father and in Him, with its action ad extra in the
same manner as the Father’s—that is, as first principle
permitting all things to proceed from itself or calling them
18 For these views of the Fathers, see especially St. Athanasius, Or. 3
contra Arianos (PG, XXVI, 11-468); Cornelius a Lapide, in Prov. 8:23;
Thomassinus, De Trinitate, chap. 23. For the present state of this question,
cf. Lebreton, S.J., Histoire du dogme de la Trinité, Les origines, 6th ed., Paris,
1927.
18 See St. John Damascene, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, no. 30;
PG, XCV, 68.

30

MARIOLOGY

into existence from nothingness by its authoritative utter­
ance—the application to Mary would either be absolutely
impossible or possible only in a quite artificial way.
Evidently this text does not deny this concept of the
Second Person of the Deity, as die Arians claimed; on the
contrary it is obviously implicit in it. But the full signifi­
cance of this text would be lost if this representation
would be considered as its formal meaning. The formal
meaning is rather the one which die ante-Nicene Fathers
have attached to these texts.
The Book of Proverbs 20 does not formally present die
origin of Wisdom as an internal origin from God and in
His substance from all eternity, in contrast widi the origin
of creatures apart from God, which in time were called
into being from nodiingness. The origin of Wisdom is
radier taken together with the origin of creatures under
the combined idea of an ad extra procession from the
power of God. It is distinguished from the origin of other
beings by this, that it is first among the creatures proceed­
ing from God, tempore, dignitate, et causa, and that it
conditions and operates on all the others.21
The bringing fordi of Wisdom is dius regarded as a
creation or, still more clearly, as a coming forth from the
spirit of Him who creates. In this sense it is characterized
by the expressions creare (= procreare'), condere (= fun­
dare), constituere, and parere, which, as more often in the
Old Testament, are formally used as having die same
20 Prov. 8:22. Scheeben does not follow here the translation of the Vulgate:
“Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum . . . ,” but the one which
he himself drafts as the correct rendering of the original text, “Dominus crea­
vit sive genuit me initium seu principium viarum suarum.”
21 The “ways of God” are called by the Fathers πρόοδοι, by the theologians
processiones ex Deo.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

31

value. So the expression of Ecclesiasticus, “the first-born
before all creatures,” 2223
i.e., first-born among all that by
God is brought forth ad extra, answers to the principium
viarum Dei from the Book of Proverbs (8:22).
It must be noted that Wisdom itself here speaks to men
about itself in order to make clear to them the position it
occupies toward them, and not to explain its being in an
abstract way. Hence it does not wish to justify its position
by its being. Wisdom explains the fact that it occupies this
position by referring to a divine act which in concreto and
per modum unius simultaneously established the orgin
and actual position of its person. So also with man: birth
includes in a concrete manner both the exterior appear­
ance and the act of being brought forth from within.
Thus the position of Wisdom answers to that of the λόγος
προφορικός in contrast with the λόγος èi'8iàdcroi,~:> inasmuch as
it has proceeded from God to the outside. More correctly
it corresponds to the position of an aid brought forth by
God from Himself and equal to Him, of a “help like unto
himself,” 24 simile, which, by virtue of its own proceeding
from God, is enabled and called to apply the influence of
the Creator to the forming and ordering of the world; like­
wise to impart to all tilings, through the power given to it
by the Creator, that perfection of being and life which the
decree of creation ordained for them.
Wisdom thus occupies a central place between God and
creation in which it appears as existing and working out­
22Ecclus. 24:5. Cf. Col. 1:15.
23 By applying to God certain Stoical terms for the human psyche, many
early Greek Fathers distinguish the internal word ( Λόγοι ëriiâteros, Verbum
insitum ) from the Word spoken to the outside in creation ( Λόγο! προφορικόν,
Verbum prolaticium).
21 Gen. 2:18.

32

MARIOLOGY

side God, not haphazardly, e.g., under the name of the
Son of God sent ad extra, but in a most particular way,
similar to the essential characteristics and working of a
mother. It is like a mother, who in the fulfillment of her
task, the arrangement of her household, the care and gov­
ernment of the inmates, and above all the care of the chil­
dren, acts as die main figure of the family and becomes a
child with and among her children. In such a position
Wisdom, too, with regard to its origin, ought to be thought
of not as “son” but as “child,” more correctly, as “daughter
of God.” In this quality it is indeed represented here in a
beautiful way, and rightly so, for its affectionate habita­
tion and association widi men comes forward as the con­
tinuation and crowning of tiiat action by which with God
it constructed the cosmos in die beginning and continu­
ally rules and governs it, “playing before Him,” 25 i.e.,
lighdy and lovingly.
This train of thought is more deeply and richly ex­
tended in Ecclesiasticus, where the origin of Wisdom is
described as something appearing ad extra from the
mouth of God,20 not in the form of words but as aspiration,
namely, the breathing out or pouring forth of die breath of
God ad extra. The procession ad extra here assumes the
character of inspiration and infusion into an outside sub­
ject. The full meaning must be understood in accord­
ance with the representation of the entire chapter and in
consideration of Wisd. 7:25 f. also as a pouring out of
“vapor” and “fragrance,” and of “water” and “oil,” and
of “brightness” and “light.” Here one thinks instinctively
of the pouring out of the vapor virtutis and splendor lucis
2» Prov. 8:30.
28 Ecclus. 24:5.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

33

aeternae; for, by an allusion to Genesis,27 Wisdom at once
becomes active in the visible world as an inexhaustible
source of light from heaven and as a mist which covers the
earth and makes it fertile.
Consequently under this double form Wisdom was rep­
resented in the light-giving cloud (Schekhinah) in which,
as in its tabernacle, it established itself among the people
of Israel as Maleakh Jahweh.28 As it had lived and worked
in the world from the beginning, so henceforth it would
live and work there forever, as a priest in “the holy dwell­
ing” and as a king on mount Sion.20 The Schekhinah, it is
true, is not explicitly mentioned in this text, but the con­
text makes possible the allusion to it, even demands it.
This figure brings us particularly to the contents of the fol­
lowing verses and defines their meaning as follows:
through its planting and establishment among the people
of God, analogous to the implanting of the soul in the
body, Wisdom has made for itself on the earth a fragrant
Paradise and a spring of living waters, just as, at the time
of creation, floating over the earth as a mist, which
drenched the entire face of the earth, it covered the earth
with plants and poured out, as the breath of God, the sun­
light over the earth.
So Wisdom very significantly appears in this figure as a
spiritual being which, by virtue of its proceeding from
God, is related to Him by nature and resembles Him.
Likewise it is at the same time image and likeness, the
abode of God and His instrument in vivifying and enlight­
ening the world and making it fertile. Toward the world,
Wisdom acts as a heavenly principle of life and fight
Gen. 1:3; 2:6.
28 Exod. 40:32-36; cf. 13:21 and 14:19 f.
23 Ecclus. 24:14 fi.

34

MARIOLOGY

poured out over it by God and from God. In this way the
position of Wisdom in relation to God as “daughter” and
to the world as “mother” is elucidated in the most beauti­
ful manner. This is especially shown when we consider
that to the figure of the “cloud of light” answers also that
of the dove of light, which proceeds from God and moves
between God and the earth. Attention must likewise be
given to Gen. 1:2, where the Ruah Elohim sat brooding
over tlie waters as principle of light and life, and also to
the resemblance between the two revelations of the
Blessed Trinity at the river Jordan and on Mount
Thabor.30
Both symbolic representations, taken togedier, again
reflect die metaphysical analogy of the central position of
Wisdom between God as its principle and the world as
the sphere of its activity, namely, the analogous place of
the soul, Nephesch, more correctly, of the spirit-soul,
Neschamah, in man. In its function as the life-giving prin­
ciple of the body, i.e., its spiritual essence by itself, the
soul stands in relation to the spirit as a force which arises
from it, or as a breath which spreads itself from it over the
body, and is its daughter; in relation to the body, however,
it is, as the immanent principle of its formation and life,
its mother.31
80 For the dove at Jesus’ baptism, see Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22;
John 1:32. It is not clear to us how Scheeben can see in that a “dove of light”;
perhaps because in tire narrative of the transfiguration there is mentioned a
^light-giving cloud” from which the same words rang out as at the baptism:
“This is My beloved Son” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:6; Luke 9:34 f.).
81 The fact that this analogy, which completely corresponds to the spirit
of the Sacred Scriptures, was wrongly used or understood in the teachings
of the pagan philosophers about the world soul, is no reason to deny or
ignore its profound tnith. Even in the wrong form, such as is found in the
Pythagorean and Platonic, the world sold still reflects the sublime doctrine
of the holy philosophy of Wisdom, and it is the best, the most beautiful and
fruitful, product which both mentioned schools delivered.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

35

In reality the soul in man, to which the figure of the
cloud of light splendidly applies in this quality,32 is also in
a very special manner an effect and reflection of the effica­
cious indwelling of the Wisdom of God in the world. It is
effected, in contrast with all other created principles of
life, in an unusual way, through the breathing in of the
breath of God. It is in its own way breath of God, and in
that respect, as daughter of God, it is queen in relation to
the world.
It is self-evident that this description from Ecclesiasti­
cus, chap. 24, and from tire Book of Wisdom, chap. 7, is
principally applicable in form to the Holy Ghost as it re­
flects His qualities, even as tire texts from the Book of
Proverbs, chap. 8, are applicable to the Logos. How­
ever, the Logos is not thereby excluded. On the contrary,
He is the immediate subject of it, but in such a way that
He acts in the form of the Holy Ghost, both with regard to
His inner origin from and in God through mere emana­
tion, and with regard to His proceeding from God, ef­
fected by the Holy Ghost.38 In this effusion the Holy
Ghost is also poured forth and the Logos appears with the
Holy Ghost as a force of life and fight which pours out
from God. Hence what is said of Wisdom in chap. 24 of
Ecclesiasticus refers in the virtual or typical application
to the incarnate Wisdom, directly indeed to Christ, but
indirectly also to Mary, the living sedes and sponsa of
Wisdom.
The Prototypes

of

Mary

Finally, a great number of prototypes were taken from
the Old Testament to illustrate this doctrine. These pro82 Only the non-spiritual principles of life correspond to the cloud.
88Ecclus. 1:9 f.: Ipse creavit illam in Spiritu sancto ... et effudit iUam
super omnia opera sua.

36

MARIOLOGY

totypes, almost in their entirety, are found in the Fathers
from the fourth century on, and have since then remained
in common and lasting use. In general they possess the
particular value of holy symbols, and as such they have
the significance of a witness for those who attach to them
a relationship to Mary. If we presuppose the common pre­
paratory character of the divine dispensations and revela­
tions in the Old Testament, the most important ones can
be more or less considered as proper “types,” i.e., proto­
types willed by the Holy Ghost Himself. As such they can
be recognized, partly by their clear likeness to their coun­
terpart. The most genuine in this respect and at the same
time the most significant are: Eve and Paradise, the ark of
Noe and the dove with the branch of an olive tree, the
burnng bush and Gedeon’s fleece, the ark of the covenant
and the throne of Solomon, and lastly, Esther and Judith.34
The symbolism of Eve has been used in a theological
sense since Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. It follows
from the protevangelium, compared with Rom. 5:14 f.,
where Adam is represented as a prototype of Christ. Like
Adam, Eve also is a prototype: partly as a positive and
immediate figure in her unity and association with Adam
and in the privileges belonging to herself before the Fall,
in her supernatural purity and virginity, as well as after
her fall, in her position as “mother of all the living,” 35 or
as one who communicates natural life to all mankind;
partly also as a negative and contrary figure in her fall
with its pernicious results.
81 See a choice of these prototypes in the bull Ineffabilis (Dec. 8, 1854).
Most of them are collected by Theodore Studita, Or. 2 de natw. oirg. (under
the works of John Damascene), PG, XCVI, 680-97. The patristic material
is collected by Passaglia, op. cit., Vol. I, sec. 3.
88 Gen. 3:20.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

37

Taking into consideration that the new Adam as seed of
the woman (cf. Gen. 3:15) had to be formed of the
woman, dwell in the woman, and be born of her, the
Fathers complete the figure of Eve with the one of the
earth not yet desecrated and cursed, of which the first
Adam was formed by God Himself; or also with the figure
of Paradise, planted by God and designated to Adam as
his dwelling-place.30 Moreover, since the new Adam, in
contrast with the first Adam, was prefigured by the tree of
life or by its fruit, we find Mary represented by the earth
of Paradise. According to Genesis the earth had then not
yet been made fertile by rain and human labor, or even by
natural seeds, but only by the mist of the primordial
waters. In this earth Christ had to be planted by God as
the tree of life. And in this tree we also find Mary repre­
sented, so far as she was to bear Christ as the life-giving
fruit.
The use of the symbol of the newly created earth, sub­
jected only to die hand and breath of God, out of which
was formed Adam, or the tree of life, is in tradition as early
as the symbolism of Eve. In addition to the epistola pres­
byterorum Achaiae, it is found in Irenaeus and Tertullian
and quite frequently in later writers.37 As heavenly prin­
ciple of the celestial life of mankind, Christ is also repre­
sented in the first creation by the sun as the source of light.
Mary is likewise represented by the light of the aurora,
which precedes the appearance of the sun; and also by the
moon, as the second light in the heavens, which receives
se Cf. Passaglia, op. cit., sec. 3, chap. 4, art. 1 and 2.
37 An account of the martyrdom of the Apostle St. Andrew which originally
was probably written in Latin and which did not exist before the year 400.
Text in PG, II, 1217-48.

38

MARIOLOGY

its light from the sun; and finally by heaven itself as the
abode of the sun.38
As the counterpart of sinful Eve, Mary, the instrument
of the redeeming victory over the enemies of God, is
clearly represented by the women of the Old Testament
who at various times had an important part in the delivery
of Israel—more especially by Esther and Judith; for all
victories over the temporal enemies of the people of God
represent the spiritual victory of Christ. These illustrious,
victorious women, who were instrumental in the saving of
God’s people, have a special relationship to Mary, who by
prophecy was to be partner of Christ in battle and in
victory. Indeed the most significant allusions to the privi­
leges of Mary are found in both these figures, which mu­
tually supplement each other.
In agreement with the part Mary played in the salva­
tion of mankind, the symbolic meaning of the Noe’s ark
presents itself in a natural way, inasmuch as it floated on
the waves of the Deluge and saved the people who were
in it, and again as it released the seeds from its bosom for
the repopulation of the world. Likewise in the symbol of
the dove with the branch of an olive tree, which an­
nounced to the people who had escaped from the Deluge
the deliverance of the earth from the curse of sin and its
renewed blessing, the seed of the woman mentioned in
the protevangelium seems to be very significantly repre­
sented as the filius olei30 as symbol of the offspring of God
which had to be given to the world by the virgin mother.
88 See Passaglia, op. cit., art. 3.
80 It alludes probably to Isa. 5:1: Vinea facta est dilecto meo in cornu
filio olei. The original text, however, means: “My beloved had a vineyard
on a hill in a fruitful place.” Cf. A. Van Hoonacker, Het boek Isaias, 1932,
p. 57.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

39

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

40

MARIOLOGY

lamp of eternal light and the bread of eternal life.40 With
these figures is also associated that of the “gate that looked
to the east,” described in the Ezechiel’s vision of the
Temple, by which the glory of the Lord entered the
Temple and which, for that reason, had to remain closed
to all men.41
In connection with the ark of the covenant and the
Tabernacle as a place of meeting, the symbolism of the
ancient signs or means by which God came to men follows
of itself. We should note especially Jacob’s ladder touch­
ing heaven, and the words: “Quam terribilis est locus iste;
vere non est hic aliud nisi domus Dei et porta coeli”;42 the
“holy ground,” where God appeared to Moses in the burn­
ing bush, and also tire bush itself;43 lastly the “holy moun­
tains,” those of the south: Sinai, Seir, and Pharan, on
which God revealed Himself to the entire people,44 as well
as the “mountain of the Lord” at Jerusalem, that is, Sion,
which at the same time is tire symbol of heaven as the
throne of God.48 Related to the symbols of the sanctuary
are those of the royal glory of David and Solomon, espe­
cially the throne of Solomon, made entirely of gold and
ivory.40
Through a striking resemblance the familiar types con­
nected with miraculous occurrences are justified; namely,
the blossoming staff of Aaron, Gedeon’s fleece bathed in
heavenly dew, and the “little cloud” which Elias saw rise
40 Cf. Passaglia, op. cit., chap. 2, art. 1 et 2.
« Ezech. 43; 1-4; 44:1-3.
« Gen. 28:17.
« Exod. 3:2.
44 Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3.
45 Cf. Ps. 67; Isa. 2:2; St. Gregory the Great, in I Kings, I, no. 5; PL,
LXXIX, 25.
44 ΠΙ Kings 10:18 ff.

MARY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

41

out of the sea “like a man’s foot” and from which the de­
sired rain fell.47 The typical character of several other
common symbols lies deeper. With them belong tire stone
tables of the law, the sealed book in Isaias, the sundial of
Ezechias, the cloud of light48 that guided the Israelites
into the Promised Land.
*r Num. 17:7 ff.; Judg. 6:37 fi.; Ill Kings 18:44 (cf. Bren. Rom., July 16,
2nd noct., lect. 4).
48 Cf. H. Marracci, Polyanthea Mariana, s.v. “nubecula” and “nubes”; ed.
Bourassé, Summa Aurea, Vol. X (Paris, 1862), sec. 24-34.

CHAPTER III

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

W

42

MARY IN TRADITION

43

nity, position, and wealth of grace. With regard to the Im­
maculate Conception and Mary’s preservation from all
sin, this docrinal development is acknowledged; but with
regard to Mary’s assumption it is still often overlooked.
Whatever, besides these three truths, is handed down
opart from Sacred Scripture, concerning further details
ol Mary’s early life and death, does not belong to the doc­
trinal tradition of the Church and is in general very un­
certain. From earliest times the Apostolic See has taken a
stand to reject detailed information of this sort, which
claims to be a historical supplement to the facts we know
concerning Mary. On the other hand, many Greek Fathers
of the Church and, since the Middle Ages, also many
Latin theologians admitted much of the contents of these
narratives to be historically reliable.1
Books bearing the names of several apostles and pur­
porting to give detailed information about the early life of
Mary, and also the book ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis re­
lating to the end of her life,2 were declared not only un­
reliable, but objectionable, both by Pope Innocent I and
by Pope Gelasius.3 After enumerating the canonical
books, Innocent I says: “However, the rest, which have
been written under the name of Matthew or James the
Less ... or under the name of Thomas, . . . must be
not merely rejected, but even condemned.” Gelasius:
1 The attitude of the Fathers and theologians toward the Marian apocry­
pha has been thoroughly examined. The conclusion may be drawn that no
historical value can be ascribed to tire facts related in these books, unless
these facts are confirmed by trustworthy testimonies apart from the influence
of the apocrypha.
2 De transitu B.M. Virginis, PC, V, 1231—40.
8 Innocent I, Epist. ad Exuperium, no. 7; PL, XX, 502. The so-called De­
cretum Gelasianum ( PL, LIX, 175 ff. ) is certainly not from Pope Gelasius; it
was compiled by an unknown person, probably in the sixth century; it was
confirmed by Pope Leo IX and included in the Corpus Juris of Gratian.

44

MARIOLOGY

“The Catholic and Apostolic Church does not at all accept
the rest, which have been written either by heretics or by
schismatics. A few of these, which come to our mind and
must be avoided by Catholics, we believe to be spurious.”
After that follow, among others, the collection of Gospels
or narratives concerning the early life of Mary and the
book De transitu.
Although the Greeks frequently used these legends in
their liturgy, the Latin liturgy has taken only one event
from the early life of Mary, the presentation of Mary in
the Temple. Here the object of the feast is less the outward
ceremony than its significance, that is, Mary’s complete
dedication to God at an early age, which can be concluded
from the Gospel narratives and from the very nature of
the event. The fact has nothing incredible about it, and
it is not at all necessary that the tradition regarding it be
based on the protoevangelium Jacobi.
For lack of reliable historical sources, the writing of a
life of Mary embracing the periods before and after the
earthly life of her divine Son is an impossible task. It has
often been tried in the past. Trombelli’s volumes form the
best strictly critical work of this kind. But the results in
most cases must be called merely conjectural history.4
In all such instances and also in devotional writings we
should always point out the legendary character of the
“traditions” referred to. The expression “tradition tells us”
should be avoided lest someone confuse mere historical
traditions and the dogmatic. We should avoid giving the
impression that tradition, embracing facts outside the
4 J. C. Trombelli, Mariae sanctissimae vita ac gesta, Bononiae, 1761, re­
printed in Bourassé, Summa Aurea, Vols. I and II. In Vol. II is also reprinted
De Castro, Historia Deiparae V. Mariae (exceptionally uncritical).

MARY IN TRADITION

45

frame of the Gospel narratives, has no better support than
these legendary sources. Likewise we should refrain from
presenting as historically probable matter which before­
hand appears fabulous, by introducing this or that testi­
mony, disregarding whether it is true or fictitious.
As for the development of Mariology in tradition, the
person of Mary quite naturally remains more in the back­
ground during the first four centuries in both the doctrine
and the worship of the Church.6 Yet significant allusions
to her position, in particular to her share in the work of re­
demption, are by no means wanting. In the controversies
of that period about the natures in Christ, the person of
Mary came to be more particularly considered. Mary as
Virgin Mother pointed on the one hand to the godhead, on
the other to the true humanity of Christ. In the fourth
century the perfect and perpetual virginity of Mary was
explicitly declared to be a privilege demanded by the god­
head of her Son and as such was defended against here­
tics. The perfect holiness of her interior life was likewise
upheld.
Finally in the fifth century Mary’s true greatness is fully
recognized in the fight against Nestorius regarding the
way Christ is composed. The divine motherhood was con­
sidered as a criterion of the hypostatic union in Christ.
The definition of the hypostatic union of the human na­
ture of Christ to the Logos was understood to glorify the
person of Mary, as against the doctrine of the Arians; and
die definition of the divine sonship of the Logos placed
the person of Christ in His full glory. In the definition of
the hypostatic union, the humanity of Christ was pre­
sented as lacking its own personality, but the divine pers Cf. E. Neubert, Marie dans l’Eglise anténicéenne, Paris, 1908.

46

MARIOLOGY

son of Christ as communicating, or hiding, His eternal,
personal glory, not as receiving the same. In these defini­
tions Mary, not Christ, stepped into the light as the per­
son glorified through this privilege.
Thus it is true and significant that the first three general
synods of the Church have glorified in a natural succession
the honor of the Son of God, of the Spirit of God, and of
the Mother of God,® the honor of the two divine persons,
who proceed from God, and of the created person who is
taken up by God in the closest union and who appears in
the Apostles’ Creed as third next to both of these, united
with them in a wonderful alliance.
Since the Council of Ephesus Mary appears in the doc­
trine and public worship of the Church in full splendor as
the mulier amicta sole. As she was celebrated in public
worship by a series of feasts, these again brought about a
thorough discussion of her privileges, until in the twelfth
century such festive sermons particularly represent the
development of tradition. From then on, in addition to an
unlimited number of edifying writings, a more thorough,
scientific, dogmatic, and theological treatment of Mari­
ology was developed.
This scientific treatment had as its first aim the question
of the sanctification of the person of Mary,7 as befitting the
dignity and position of the Mother of God. It focused on
the question whether this sanctification of Mary, as that
of Christ, coincides with the first moment of her existence
and henceforth preserves her from all stain of sin.
Through the decision of this question by the Apostolic
9 Council of Nicaea (325), Council of Constantinople (381), and Council
of Ephesus (431).
7 Cf. St. Thomas, Summa theol., Illa, q. 27.

MARY IN TRADITION

47

See, the foundation of Mariology has been firmly estab­
lished. The bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pius IX, which is rich
in its contents and refers to this dogma, sets forth the en­
tire concept of the Church regarding Mary through the
explanation of this one point.
The most ancient noteworthy allusions to Mary’s sub­
lime position are found in the writings of Ignatius of Anti­
och and in the Epistola ad Diognetum, in which Mary is
brought into prominence in the Christian Church. St.
Ignatius declares:
Our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary
according to God’s dispensation, of the seed of David, but by the
Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized that by His Passion He
might purify the water. Mary’s virginity was hidden from the prince
of this world, as was also her offspring and likewise the death
of the Lord: three famous mysteries which were wrought by God
in silence.8

The closing words of the Epistola ad Diognetum read
thus:
Bearing this tree of the true Word inwardly received and dis­
playing its fruit, you shall always reap those things that are
desired by God, which the serpent cannot reach and which de­
ception does not approach. And Eve is not then corrupted, but is
trusted as a virgin; salvation is manifested; and the apostles are
filled with wisdom; and the pasch of the Lord approaches. The
choirs are gathered together and arranged in proper order, and
the Word rejoices in teaching the saints, by whom the Father is
glorified.’

Henceforth such a contrast between Eve and Mary is
often found, even before tire Council of Ephesus, but still
more frequently after it.
8 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Ephesios, PG, V, 659.
9 Epistola ad Diognetum, PG, II, 1185.

48

MARIOLOGY

During the first four centuries the relative obscurity in
which Mary remained caused a positively misleading
picture to be drawn of her, sometimes even by significant
Fathers, through a misunderstanding of some of the bibli­
cal texts, notably with regard to her moral perfection.
After the Council of Ephesus every trace of such stains
disappears.

CHAPTER IV

Literature about Mary
COMPLETE collection of Mariological literature
has been made by Marraci, Bibliotheca Mariana
(1648), and Roskovany, Beata Maria Virgo in sua con­
ceptione immaculata (1873-81). However, Parts I and
HI of the latter work have embodied the more ancient
writings without any critical discrimination. There is
also an encyclopedic work of Marraci, Bolyanthea Mari­
ana, in which the titles and dignities of Mary are alpha­
betically arranged together with abundant texts relating
to each, taken from the Fathers and the writers of the
Middle Ages; this is to be found in volumes IX and X of
the Summa aurea de laudibus Beatae Virginis, which is
likewise a sort of Mariological encyclopedia in thirteen
volumes, containing the best works on Mary. Unfortu­
nately the judgment of the editor of the later edition is not
always correct.1 The work of Dr. von Lehner, in spite of
some theological oversights, is a highly valued account
of Mariology prior to the Council of Ephesus, from the
viewpoint of the history of the dogma of Mary’s divine
motherhood. Most of the Fathers’ material on this sub­
ject, with a few exceptions also critically discriminated, is
collected and arranged in Passaglia’s De immaculato dei­
parae semper virginis conceptu (3 vols., 1854).

A

1 Compiled by J. Bourassé; ed., Migne. The work was published in Paris,
1862-66.
49

50

MARIOLOGY

As in some of the more ancient works, so also in almost
all Mariological writings of the present time, even in those
which are regarded as having scientific value, some texts
from the Fathers are indiscriminately quoted. Sometimes
under the names of highly esteemed Fathers of early
times, writings are cited of which some undoubtedly,
others at least probably, belong to a later period; whereas
the genuine writings are richer and more beautiful
sources.
Indeed some of these documents are, through their age
and contents, so valuable that they cannot be completely
neglected; but they must be presented in their real char­
acter. In general it is certain or at least more probable that
a later origin is to be accepted for all the sermons for
special feast days of the Blessed Virgin bearing a date
earlier than the fifth century, for these feasts came into
existence only later. This is unquestionably true for the
feasts of the Nativity and Assumption. On the other hand,
the argument that the feasts of the Annunciation ( or the
Incarnation) and of the Purification or the Presentation of
Jesus in the Temple—usually called occursus, i.e., “meet­
ing” (with Simeon and Anna)—cannot otherwise be
traced to that time, is not convincing proof for the later
origin of the sermons in question, especially when the title
alone and not the text itself points to the special feast.
Many Christmas sermons dating from that time are formal
sermons on Mary, and it is probable that on some days of
the festive seasons of Christmas and Epiphany attention
was directed to the mysteries connected with the Christ’s
nativity and manifestation, as, for example, the mystery of
the annunciation and others mentioned in Sacred Scrip­
ture. As a consequence of the special consideration given

LITERATURE ABOUT MARY

51

these mysteries, an honorable place was ascribed to the
mother of Christ.
Thus the excellent sermon De hypapante can still be
credited to St. Methodius of the third century, as is stated
in the text.2 On the other hand, the origin of the homilies
of Gregory Thaumaturgus De annuntiatione3 is very
doubtful, as are the homilies of Gregory of Nyssa, Amphi­
lochius,4 Eusebius Emesenus,5 Athanasius, and Epiphanius.® All the homilies on Mary under the name of St. John
Chrysostom,7 and also the sermons and letters De nativi­
tate and De assumptione which are ascribed to St. Je­
rome 8 and St. Augustine 9 are undoubtedly spurious and
2 PG, XVIII, 348-81. For the following annotations of Scheeben, see J. de
Ghellinck, “Une programme de lectures patristiques” in Nouv. rev. theol.,
1933, pp. 434-36, assimilated in Bittremieux, Marialia, 1936, pp. 13-16.
3 There are three of them in PG, X, 1145-77. Cf. M. Jugie, “Les homélies
Mariales attribuées à S. Grégoire le Thaumaturge” in Anal. Boll., 1925, pp.
86-95.
♦ Pseudo-Gregorius Nyssenus, De occursu Domini, PG, XLVI, 1151-81;
Amphilochius, PG, XXXIX, 44-60.
5 Under tire name of Eusebius Emesenus a series of 145 homilies came
into circulation, edited for the first time by Fremy (Paris, 1554). They are
taken from the Gospel commentary of St. Bruno of Asti (1045-1123).
6 Pseudo-Athanasius, Sermo in occ. Dom., PG, XXVIII, 973-1000; PseudoEpiphanius, De laudibus B.M., PG, XLIII, 485-501; a Coptic sermon on the
Blessed Virgin by Epiphanius was published by Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic
Texts, London, 1915, pp. 120-38; English translation, pp. 699-725.
7 Pseudo-Chrysostom, In annuntiationem, PG, L, 791-96; In occursum, L,
807-12.
8 Pseudo-Jerome, De nativitate Mariae (as epist. 50 in the appendix of the
letters of St. Jerome), PL, XXX, 308-15. It is a free compilation of Pseudo­
Matthew, De ortu beatae Mariae, made by Paschasius Radbertus. Cf. D. C.
Lambot, “L’homélie du Pseudo-Jérome sur l’Assomption et l’Evangile de la
nativité de Marie d’après une lettre inédite d’Hincmar” in Rev. Bénédict.,
XLVI (1934), 265-82; De assumptione (epist. 9 ad Paulam et Eustochium,
beginning with the words, Cogitis me), PL, XXX, 122—17.
9 Pseudo-Augustine, De assumptione B.V.M., PL, XL, 1141—48 (by an un­
known writer, probably directed against the Pseudo-Jerome letter Cogitis me
of Radbertus). By Pseudo-Augustine, De nativitate B.V.M., Scheeben perhaps
means Serm. App. 194 (PL, XXXIX, 2104—7), which appears in the breviary
on September 8 in the second nocturn. It is from Ambrosius Autpertus (PL,
LXXXIX, 1275 If. ). Cf. Dom G. Morin, “Les leçons apocryphes du bréviaire
romain” in Rev. Bénédict., VIII (1891), 278.

52

MARIOLOGY

of a much later date, being either compilations in part or
deliberate forgeries.
But a great deal of reference to Mary is found in the
Christmas sermons,—both the Theophania and Epipha­
nia sermons—especially in those of Ephraem of Syria,1011
Theodotus of Ancyra, which was read out in the Council
of Ephesus,11 and of Augustine.12 However, some of the
Christmas sermons attributed to St. Augustine are not
genuine. The first of the famous homilies of St. Proclus,
who as disciple and friend of St. Jerome may be said to
represent his point of view, appears to have been given at
Ephesus in the presence of Nestorius on the “feast of the
Virgin.” 13 Of the homilies ascribed to Proclus, the sixth
at least is certainly spurious on account of its partial lack
of taste. Many beautiful passages concerning Mary can
be found at other places in the works of Augustine, Je­
rome, and Ambrose, e.g., in their writings about
virginity.14
For a long time after the Council of Ephesus the liter­
10 Regarding St. Ephraem of Syria (ed. Assemani, Rome, 1732-46; Lamy,
Malines, 1882-1902), it is not settled how much of this is for certain authentic.
See De Ghellinck, op. cit., p. 435.
11 Theodotus of Ancyra, Hom. 1 and 2 in die nativitatis Domini, PG,
LXXV1I, 1349-85. See also Hom. 3 contra Nestorium, ibid., 1385-89; Hom. 4
in Deiparam et Simeonem, ibid., 1389-1412.
12 Here Scheeben refers to St. Augustine, Sermones de natali Domini (serm.
184-96). G. Morin gives still another: S. Augustini sermones post Maurinos
reperti, in Miscellanea Augustiniana (Rome, 1930), I, 209-11.
13 St. Proclus of Constantinople, Laudatio in ss. Dei Genitricem Mariam,
PG, LXV, 680-92, is not genuine according to some theologians. It is the first
of the twenty-five sermons given in Migne; the fifth one is also about Mary
(ibid., 716-21).
14 St. Augustine, De sancta virginitate, chaps., 2-7; PL, XL, 397—400;
St. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae adversus Helvidium; PL,
XXIII, 183-206; Adversus Jovinianum; ibid., 211-338; St. Ambrose, De
virginibus, PL, XVI, 187-232 (especially Bk. II, chap. 2, sec. 208-11); De
institutione virginis et S. Mariae virginitate perpetua, PL, XVI, 305-34;
Exhortatio virginitatis, chap. 5, nos. 31-33; ibid., 345.

LITERATURE ABOUT MARY

53

ature becomes much richer, especially the Greek liter­
ature, partly because in the East the number of feast days
of Mary increased at that time, e.g., with the feasts of the
Immaculate Conception and of the Presentation. Of fore­
most excellence are the sermons of Hesychius, Modestus,
and Sophronius, all of Jerusalem;15 Andrew of Crete,
John Damascene,16 Germanus of Constantinople, and
Theodore Studita.17 The Latin literature grew richer only
in the eleventh century. The sermons on Mary ascribed to
St. Ildefonse are of a much later date; only one, De per­
petua virginitate Beatae Mariae, is genuine, but in every
respect it is an important document.18
In the eleventh century Fulbert of Chartres, who in­
vestigates legends of Mary, and Peter Damian, who is
important for his dogmatic depth and the loftiness of his
ideas, excel as preachers of Mary.19 Then follows St. An15 Hesychius, De S. Maria Deipara homiliae duae, PG, XCIII, 1453-68;
In praesentatione Domini, ibid., 1468-78; Modestus, In occursum, PG,
LXXXVI (II), 3276 £F. ; In dormitionem, ibid., 3277-3312; Sophronius, In an­
nuntiationem, PG, LXXXVII (III), 3217-88; De hypapante, ibid., 32873302.
18 St. Andrew of Crete, In diem natalem ss. Deiparae orationes quatuor,
PG, XCVII, 805-81; In annunt., ibid., 881, 913; In dormitionem or. très,
ibid., 700-61. Of this last one alone the authenticity is certain (De Ghellinck,
op. cit.„ p. 436). See also C. Chevalier, La Mariologie de S. Jean Damascene,
Rome, 1936.
17 St. Germanus, In praesent. B. Mariae puellae biennis horn, duae, PG,
XCVIII, 292-320; In annunt., ibid., 320—40; In dormitionem or. très, ibid.,
340-72; In S. Mariae zonam, ibid., 372-84; St. Theodore Studita, In ss.
Deiparae obitum, PG, XCIX, 539 ff.; In annunt. serm. duo, ibid., 592-97;
In dormitionem, ibid., 720-29. It may have been owing to distraction that
Scheeben does not mention under the Greek Fathers St. Cyril of Alexandria,
the great champion of the dogma of Ephesus. One must especially read
his Homiliae Ephesi habitae, particularly the fourth one (PG, LXXVII, 99196).
18 St.. Ildefonsus Toletanus, De perpetua virginitate Mariae, PL, LUI, 110.
19 St.. Fulbert of Chartres, Serm. de purificatione, PL, CXLI, 319; De na­
tivitate B. M., ibid., 320-25; De ortu B.M., ibid., 325-31; De annuntiatione,
ibid., 3136—40; St. Peter Damian, In natio. B.V.M. serm. duo, PL, CXLIV,
740-61. The other Marian sermons printed there are from Nicholas of Clairvaux, a;s a note of Bassanus remarks, sec. 505 ff.).

54

MARIOLOGY

selm with his Orationes ad Beatam Virginem,20 some of
which develop into grand and profound panegyrics.
Among the other works ascribed to him is the beautiful
little book De excellentia Beatae Virginis, by his disciple
Eadmer, and also the opusculum De conceptione Beatae
Virginis.21
The pre-scholastic Mariology reached its height in St.
Bernard of Clairvaux.22 These works remain classics for
all time, because they are always accurate and thorough
as well as vivacious in sentiment and language. He is
joined by his disciple St. Amadeus, bishop of Lausanne,
by Guerric, abbot of Igny, and Arnold, abbot of Bonneval,
and by the unknown writer of the beautiful Sermones
super Salve Regina, which are wrongly ascribed by many
to Bernard of Toledo, who lived before St. Bernard.23
At the beginning of Scholasticism, St. Albert the Great
20 St. Anselm of Canterbury, Orationes (ad beat. Virg.), PL, CLVIII, 94266. Those which are genuine were published in a French translation by
D. A. Castel, Méditations et prières de S. Anselme, Maredsous, 1923; see also
D. A. Wilmart, Auteurs spirituels et textes dévots du moyen-âge latin (Paris,
1932), pp. 162-72.
21 Eadmer, De excellentia B.M. Virginis, PL, CLIX, 557-80. It is now defi­
nitely certain that the Tractatus de conceptione sanctae Mariae (ibid., 301-18)
is also from Eadmer. Cf. H. Thurston and T. Slater, in the foreword to their
critical edition of this treatise (Fribourg, 1904).
22 St. Bernard, Super “Missus est” horn, quatuor, PL, CLXXXIII, 55-88;
Serm. Dom. infra Oct. Ass. de duodecim praerogativis B.V.M., ibid., 42938; Serm. in nativ. B.V.M. de aquaeductu, ibid., 437-48. There has been
much written about the Mariology of St. Bernard. See A. Raugel, La doctrine
Mariale de S. Bernard, Paris, 1935. A concise compilation of the Marian
sermons of St. Bernard is offered by Hurter, Opuscula selecta Patrum, Vol.
XH (Innsbruck, 1894).
23 Amadeus of Lausanne, De Maria virginea Matre horn, octo, PL,
CLXXXVHI, 1303—46; Guerric, In festo Purificat., serm. sex, ibid., 187 ff.;
In nativ. B.M. serm. duo, ibid., CLXXXV, 199 ff. ( cf. D. De Wilde, De beato
Guerrico abbate Igniacensi eiusque doctrina de formatione Christi in nobis,
Westmalle, 1935); Arnold of Bonneval, De laudibus B.M.V., PL, CLXXXIX,
1725-34; De cardinalibus operibus Christi, cap. I; De nativitate Christi, ibid.,
1616-21; De septem verbis Christi in cruce, tract. Ill; De verbo "Mulier, ecce
filius tuus,” ibia., 1693-98; Anonymous, In antiphonam “Salve Regina” serm.
quatuor, PL, CLXXXIV, 1059-78.

LITERATURE ABOUT MARY

55

carried out a thorough, scientific study of the Mariological
question, complete to the smallest detail, which excels in
originality, depth, and wealth of thought.24 Yet he often
allows himself the liberty of a mere edifying representa­
tion, often unites the pro and the contra, and inserts many
superfluous details. The contemporary work, De laudibus
Beatae Virginis, of Richard of St. Lawrence, which is
sometimes ascribed to Albert and has been printed among
his works,25*27
gathers all conceivable features, figures, and
symbols, systematically grouped, to describe the glory of
Mary. St. Thomas has thoroughly dealt with the Mario­
logical questions 20 as also has St. Bonaventure in the
Speculum Beatae Virginis.21
Most of these writings have a predominantly edifying
tendency and an oratorical form. The following especially
possess these characteristics: the treatise De gratiis et
virtutibus Beatae Virginis by Engelbert of Admont
( d. 1331 ) ;28 the Mariale by Archbishop Ernst of Prague,29
a contemporary; the treatise De Beata Virgine in the
24 St. Albert the Great, Mariale rive quaestiones super Evangelium Missus
est (often appears under the title: De laudibus B.M.V.), in Opera omnia, ed.
A. Borgnet, 1890 ff., Vol. 38. See further, among others, Genevois, Bible
Mariale et Mariologie de S. Albert-le-Grand, Saint-Maximin, 1934; Bittremieux, Marialia, Brussels, 1936.
25 Ed. Borgnet, Vol. 36; about this see Genevois, op. cit., pp. 24 ff.
28 St. Thomas, Collationes de Ave Maria, ed. by Parmensi (1852 ff.), XVI,
133 ff.
27 This work is not genuine, as Scheeben himself remarks; it is by Conrad
von Saxen and was carefully published in Bibl. Francise, asc. medii aevi, Vol.
II, Quaracchi, 1904. From the genuine works one should consult the Sermones
de B.M.V. in the Opera omnia, ed. by Quaracchi, 1882, IX, 633-721; his
Commentarium in Lucam, the first two chapters, ibid., VII, 3-69, and in 3
Sent., dist. 1, p. 1, ibid., Ill, 60-80.
28 Published by Pez, Thesaurus anecdotorum novissimus, Vol. I, Augsburg,
1721.
29 St. Ernst of Prague (1297-1364), Mariale sive liber de praecellentibus et
eximiis SS. Deigenitricis Mariae . . . praerogativis, ex arcanis S. Scripturae,
SS. Patrum, Theologorum et Philosophiae naturalis mysteriis concinnatus,
Prague, 1651.

56

MARIOLOGY

Summa of St. Antoninus (d. 1459);30 several opuscula of
Denys the Carthusian ( 1471);31 the extensive Mariale of
the Franciscan, Bernardine dei Busti (d. 1500),32 which
together with the work of Richard of St. Lawrence was
later used as a main source by preachers and ascetics; and
in the seventeenth century the even more extensive work
of die Franciscan, John of Carthagena,33 and a shorter one
by the Capuchin, D’Argentan.34
Toward the close of the Middle Ages, Bernardine of
Siena and Thomas of Villanova 35 distinguished them­
selves as preachers on Mary by their deep and sublime
conception of die matter. Against Protestantism, St. Peter
Canisius delivered a classical defense of die entire Catho­
lic doctrine on Mary in his five books De Maria deipara
Virgine.36 Medina and Suarez 87 wrote a sound treatise
30 St. Antoninus, Summa theol. (1740), pars 4, tit. 15; sec. 916-1270.
31 Dionysius Carthus., especially De praeconio et dignitate Mariae and
De dignitate et laudibus B.M.V., in Opera omnia, XXXV, 479-576 and
XXXVI, 13-176 (Tournay, 1908).
32 Bernardine dei Busti, Mariale sioe sermones 63 de bb. V. Maria non
modo per singulas eius festivitates, sed et per omnia anni sabbata ad con­
donandum accomodatum, 4 vols., 1494.
33 John of Carthagena, Homiliae catholicae de sacris arcanis Deiparae
Mariae et Josephi, Paris, 1614.
34 Louis-François d’Argentan, Conférences sur les grandeurs de la T. S.
Vierge, Paris, 1877, translated into various languages. See Dillenschneider,
La Mariologie de S. Alphonse de Liguori (Fribourg, 1931), I, 187-94. In the
first volume, which we shall cite in the following notes, Dillenschneider
places the work of St. Alphonse in its proper historical background.
33 St. Bernardine of Siena, Sermones de b. Virgine, in Opera omnia ( Lyons,
1650), IV, 73-138; separately Nuremberg, 1473 (a critical edition does not
yet exist). See P. Thureau-Dangin, Vn prédicateur populaire dans l’Italie de
la Renaissance, Paris, 1896; A. G. Ferrers-Howell, St. Bernardine of Siena,
London, 1913; Emmerich Blondeel, L’influence d’Ubertin de Cassale sur les
écrits de S. Bernardin de Sienne, in Collectanea Franciscana (Assisi, 1935),
V, 5-44. S. Thomas de Villanova, Opera omnia, Augsburg, 1757 (Marian
sermons, pp. 499-512; 545-664).
30 Published in Bourassé, Summa Aurea, Vols. VIII and IX. Cf. Dillen­
schneider, op. cit., 1,109-13.
37 For Suarez as Mariologist, see Dillenschneider, op. cit., I, 157-61.
Summa theoL, III, 27 fi.

LITERATURE ABOUT MARY

57

based on St. Thomas’ treatment of the question. On this
treatise Rodez in his Summa later built a rich scholastic
system.38 Petavius 30 collected the material of the Fathers
regarding the main questions of Mariology.
The seventeenth century produced a vast number of
Mariological works,40 written for the greater part in a
scientific form, though frequently lacking scientific sin­
cerity and circumspection. Among these the writings of
Spinelli, Thronus Dei, and of Novatus, De eminentia Dei­
parae,41 have the reputation of excelling because of their
soundness. On the other hand, the Theologia Mariana
(1866) of the Jesuit, Christopher de Vega,42 strikingly
represents the eccentric “wig-theology” which at that
time was prevalent, permitting much that was arbitrary
and in bad taste and making a display of new and fanciful
ideas.
Against the frivolity and search for novelty, the learned
Jesuit, Théophile Raynaud, whose taste did not com­
pletely escape the influence of the “wig-period,” then
wrote in his caustic way the solid work Diptycha Mari­
ana,43 so called because in it the farina and furfur in Mari­
ological teaching are distinguished. In the seventeenth
century, Mariology is treated in a sound and profound
38 Georges de Rhodes, S.J., Disputationes theologicae scholasticae, tract.
8, De Maria Deipara. For this excellent work, see Dillenschneider, op. cit., I
178-82.
38 Petavius, Dogmata theol., ed. by Vives, 1866, Vol. VII, De incarnatione,
Bk. XIV, chaps. 1-9. See Dillenschneider, op. cit., I, 167-70.
10 The mere enumeration of the works produced during this period occu­
pies 500 pages in Roskovany’s catalogue.
41 Spinelli, Maria Deipara thronus Dei, 1613; Novatus, De eminentia
Deiparae Virginis, 2nd ed., Rome, 1637; much praised by Dillenschneider,
op. cit., I, 160-66.
42 Of. Dillenschneider, op. cit., I, 176-78.
43 Théophile Raynaud, Diptycha Mariana, quibus inanes B. Virginis prae­
rogativae plerisque novis scriptionibus vulgatae a probatis et veris apud Patres
theologosque receptis solide et accurate secernuntur, Lyons, 1654. In VoL

58

MARIOLOGY

way in some of Cardinal Bérulle’s opuscula and in Bossuet’s 44 Marian sermons, which next to those of St. Ber­
nard and St. Thomas of Villanova are indeed the most
important of their kind.
Of the eighteenth century works, the Theologia Mari­
ana of the German Benedictine, Sedlmayr,45 is fairly
sound theoretically, but from a critical viewpoint it is
rather naïve.
Of modern writings the following should be pointed
out as particularly valuable monographs: Passaglia, De
immaculato deiparae semper virginis conceptu (3 vols.,
1854); Ventura, La Madré di Dio (2 vols., 1841); Borgianelli, La maternita divina (1874); Ludovico di Castelplanio, Maria nel consiglio dell’ Eterno (1872), of which,
unfortunately, only two of the four volumes have been
finished; Auguste Nicolas, La Vierge Marie (4 vols., 1856);
Haine, De hyperdulia (1864); Bishop Laurent, Die heiligen Geheimnisse Maria (3 vols., 1856-70); Morgott, Die
Mariologie des Hl. Thomas (1878).
VII of his Opera omnia (Lyons, 1665), under the general title Marialia, are
also collected his Nomenclator Marianus and De retinendo titulo immaculatae
conceptionis Deiparae Virginis. See Dillenschneider, op. cit., I, 170-76.
44 For Bérulle as Mariologist, see Dillenschneider, I, 230-34; A. Molien,
Les grandeurs de Marie d’après les écrivains de l’école française, Paris, 1936,
where the texts of Bérulle and his school regarding Mary have been collected.
For Bossuet, cf. Dillenschneider, op. cit., I, 134-39; Bourdaloue is also men­
tioned, ibid., I, 139-45.
45 Theologia Mariana (1758), published in Bourassé, Summa Aurea, Vols.
VII and VIII.

I

PART II
CHRISTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER V

The Virginal Conception1
HE doctrine about the incarnation of the Logos by
the Holy Ghost implies in its full extent that the
union itself is accomplished by a supernatural action of
God, and also that the assumed “flesh” did not exist be­
forehand, but that it is especially formed and produced
for the incarnation at the very moment of the union. This,
again, is brought about through a supernatural action of
the Holy Ghost, and not through the action of a natural
principle of production. Thus in the realization of the
incarnation of the Logos, or in the begetting of Christ, the
actio productiva humanitatis and the actio unitiva com­
bine to form one complete divine action.
At the same time the doctrine indicates that the Holy
Ghost formed Christ’s flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in
such a way that Christ according to His humanity is truly
produced and bom of her. Hence the supernatural action
of the Holy Ghost did not exclude the cooperation of a ma­
ternal process in producing the humanity of Christ, or
Christ himself, but rather explicitly intended it and di­
rectly brought it about.
According to the Creed, the divine action of the Holy
Ghost and the action of Mary as mother appear next to

T

1 Literature: Lombardus, In 3 S., dist. 3; followed by St. Bonaventure,
Estius, St. Thomas, ibid., and Summa theol., Illa, q.9, a. 31-34; and Suarez,
Sylvius; Thomassinus, Dogmata theol., Bk. II, chaps. 3 f.; Raynaud, Diptycha
Mariana, Bk. ΙΠ, sec. 2, chap. 3.
61

62

MARIOLOGY

each other and in each other. Mary is a principle of
Christ’s humanity, or of Christ Himself according to His
humanity—a principle subservient to the Holy Ghost, in­
fluenced by Him,2 and working in union with Him.3
To elucidate the character and meaning of these differ­
ent actions, each one by itself and in its relation to the
other, and also in connection with those actiones through
which the person whom they have in view as their object
became Christ, namely, the actio unitiva and the genera­
tio aeterna, we begin with the lowest and from it ascend to
the highest. Taking first the principle which presents the
matter for the forming of Christ, from it we proceed to the
principle out of which comes the form which makes Christ
the Christ.

I. The Virginal Conception from the View­
point of the Actio Productiva Humanitatis
The Role

of

Mary in the Incarnation
of Christ

Considering Mary’s part in producing Christ’s human­
ity, the Nicene formula “born of the Virgin Mary” means
especially the following: (1) Mary was the principium
materiale of the flesh of Christ, His matter or substance
being thus taken of her flesh and not brought from heaven
or directly formed of the earth as was the flesh of Adam.
This origin alone, at least in a general way, is not sufficient
to enable one to say, according to the Apostles’ Creed, that
Christ is brought forth from and by Mary. Otherwise it
2 Natus de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine (ancient Western form of the
Apostles’ Creed). Cf. Denzinger, 1937 ed., no. 2.
3 Natus ex Spiritu sancto et Maria Virgine ( Eastern form of the Creed ). See
ibid., no. 9 and no. 86 (the Greek text of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan
Creed).

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

63

must also be said that Eve is brought forth from Adam.
(2) In forming Christ’s body Mary cooperated mainly by
her natural activity, in the same manner as every other
mother cooperates in forming a human body.
The cooperation consists in this: (a) The natural activ­
ity of the mother prepares the formation of a human body,
even before the influence of an external principle which
cooperates in procreation. For that formation it delivers
an organic seed susceptible of impregnation as materia
proxima, which then needs only a fitting determination
from without to effectively become a human body and
thus to develop into a living fruit of the mother, (b) The
natural activity of the mother accomplishes the complete
formation and development of the fruit, thereby enabling
it to live independently and apart from the mother, and
then bringing it into the world.
The first of these actions, the one through which the
mother at conception, i.e., in receiving the impregnating
influence, cooperates in the originating of the fruit, is the
fundamental and most important; and this cooperation is
therefore preferably called “productive action.” The sec­
ond action, however, that of developing and bringing into
the world, is secondary. As bearing (parere), or preparing
for the birth (parturire) of the fruit, it differs from produc­
tion in the strict sense, as regards both the mother and the
father. Yet, even in the parturire it is a productive action,
because it includes a continuous communication of the
substance of the mother to the fruit. Together with the
first, the fundamental action, it thus forms the complete
productive process natural to the mother.
Even the “bearing” in a narrower sense, the bringing
into the world, as the conclusion to the mother’s produc-

64

MARIOLOGY

tive action, is sometimes called “producing,” particularly
in the old languages. Vice versa, the entire productive
activity, since it is natural to the mother, can also be called
“bearing,” for it is intended to give full form and develop­
ment to the seed of a living being assumed into the mother
from an external source, and then to bring it into the
world.
To understand the dogma of the motherhood of Mary
it is important that we measure her productive activity,
not according to the abstract idea of propagation, as it
belongs also to the father, but according to the specific
idea which belongs to the mother as mother. Almost all
the difficulties that heretics raised against the motherhood
of Mary, and all the reasons why many took offense at the
expression “Mother of God” and wished to take this
merely as a figurative way of speaking rather than as a
true Deipara, essentially arose from the fact that the spe­
cific character of all maternal production was left out of
consideration.
Unlike the paternal production, the maternal produc­
tion according to its essence is only a cooperation with
another principle, a principle which in reality determines
the existence of the fruit and on which, therefore, the ex­
istence of the person principally depends. The mother’s
relation to the principle acting upon her and to the person
whose mother she becomes, is merely that of one serving.
Through her productive activity, she prepares or forms
a body for him and thus contributes not directly to his ex­
istence as a person, but only to the material side of his
being or substance, according to which she brings him
into the world.
For these reasons, in reference to God Himself we speak

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

65

not of a maternal but of a paternal production; and for
the same reasons the maternal production can without any
difficulty be referred to a person who already exists by
himself before this process and who through it receive
merely a second, a bodily existence.
The Fathers usually consider the purport and form of
the productive activity of Mary according to its primary
element in this way: Mary supplied the materia proxima
for the flesh of Christ through the preparation of her
blood, or through secretion of a part of her blood. Many,
however, definitely deny that with regard to her we can
say: “seed of the woman.” But this term is used in the
protevangelium. Without the underlying idea of a ma­
ternal seed, which by nature is directed to the fruit to be
formed therefrom, the concept of production, as with
natural mothers, can but insufficiently be maintained in
regard to Mary. Many theologians have realized the fact,*
and in agreement with the observations of modem physi­
ology we must strictly adhere to it.5
Since the Fathers as a rule speak of the forming of the
body of Christ from the blood of Mary, there can be no
objections to this theory. For, in accordance with the
Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers understand by “blood” in
general, as also in the case of the male production, the
materia generationis, thus likewise the “male seed.” It
should be noted that many of the more ancient theolo­
gians express the opinion that the body of Christ should
at least be considered as formed “out of the flesh of the
Virgin,” 0 as the Fathers often do.
4 See Raynaud, op. cit.
8 Scheeben refers to a concise Latin explanation of this processus physiolo­
gicus. See Appendix 2.
8 Cf. Frassen, De incarnatione, disp. 3, art. 3, sec. 3.

66

MARIOLOGY

Theologically the forming from the blood” appears
most questionable if we accept with Scotus 7 that blood
does not receive its form through the soul, and if this
theory is carried to the extent that in our case it is said:
the matter of the body of Christ was never “informed”
through the soul of Mary, and thus was never constituent
of her nature. Thus the real production of Christ from
Mary is completely excluded. Scotus can escape from this
conclusion only by his theory about the active coopera­
tion of the mother in production at the moment of con­
ception.
What the theologians, together with the more ancient
physiologists, formerly called seminatio mulieris, is not
admissible in the case of Mary, for it corresponds to the
seminatio virilis, with which only it can concur. On the
other hand it is a beautiful thought that in the immediate
and complete forming of the body of Christ by the Holy
Ghost the lifeblood of the mother was also used, just as it
was later used for die feeding and development of the
conceived fruit.
The appropriateness of Christ’s humanity according to
the ordinary way of human production lies, for the greater
part, in the close relationship of Christ’s material sub­
stance with the human race, upon which His substance is
based in His visible and most complete union with man­
kind, and in His position as “Head” and “Mediator.” 8
Nevertheless diis reasoning does not require a pater­
nal propagation; for the latter is contrary to Christ’s dig7 Scotus, In 3 S., d.3, q.2; ed. Vives, XIV, 177.
8 The temporal and corporal origin of Christ also had to be a special re­
flection and glorification of His eternal origin, which had been effected
through a real production.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

67

nity and His pre-eminence over man, which is necessary
for tire redemption. From the viewpoint of the active re­
lationship to the existence of the fruit, the paternal propa­
gation is much more a figure of the eternal production;
but for that very reason its cooperation with the eternal
creation in reference to the same product would tend to
obscure rather than to glorify the same. God the Father
would, in that way, no longer be the only Father of the
Son, but His Son would seem dependent on yet another
father. More easily and naturally can a human maternal
production accord with the divine paternal production,
since the former is naturally subservient to the latter.
Moreover, from a double standpoint, the human maternal
production is a more complete figure of the eternal crea­
tion than is the human paternal production because of the
communication of the personal substance of the producer
to the fruit and of the consummation of the production in
the bosom of the productive principle. And precisely in
these two factors consists the significance of the human
production of Christ in relation to His visible and com­
plete union with the rest of mankind, and further in rela­
tion His position as Redeemer of man.
Lastly, the maternal production of Christ offers this fur­
ther advantage. As in the fall of man, so likewise in the
redemption, the woman appears coactive with the man;
furthermore, the female sex receives its own share in the
elevation and glorification of human nature effected
through tire Incarnation, in which the male sex is repre­
sented by the fruit of the production. The last point is of
still greater significance; for through this distinction of
the woman the highest conceivable elevation of a created

68

MARIOLOGY

person (Mary) was achieved, surpassed only by the high­
est conceivable elevation of a created nature in the man
(Christ).
It is not accidental that for the highest elevation of
nature the male sex was chosen, and for the elevation of
the person the female. This nature, hypostatically united
to God, must represent God Himself in His position of
royalty and as bridegroom of the creature; the male sex
alone could do this. On the other hand the highest eleva­
tion of a created person to the union with God finds its
expression in the relationship of the bride to the bride­
groom, and for that reason it is naturally represented in
the female sex.9
The Determination

of the

in the

Maternal Principle

Incarnation

Although in producing Christ’s flesh Mary accom­
plished all that natural mothers accomplish, there is still
an essential difference in the principle through which and
in the manner in which the required determination of the
female principle took place from without.
When the doctrine of faith asserts that Christ is “con­
ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” the
natural determination through a material male principle
and a material male seed is excluded. On the other hand,
a supernatural determination is established through a
purely spiritual principle and a purely spiritual power.
In this way this production receives, besides the nat­
ural human privileges, those also which are attached to
the production of the children of God, as is written in the
• Cf. Thomassinus, op. cit., Bk. II, chaps. 1 f.; St Thomas, Illa, q.31, a. 4;
St Bonaventure, In 3 S.» d. 12, a. 2.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

69

prologue of the Gospel of St. John.10 It is: (1) not of the
will of man, but directly of the will of God; (2) neither of
the will of the flesh on the part of the mother, since the de­
sire of the flesh, being only in the production, is directed
to the union with the man; finally, (3) neither “of blood,”
or more correctly, of the mixing of blood,—the latter here
taken in a general sense—but of a seed formed and vivi­
fied, or brought to bud, by a spiritual influence of God.
Moreover, by this production the origin of Christ re­
ceives, without detriment to the reality of the female pro­
duction, a special likeness to the directly divine origin of
the natural ancestor of mankind. This likeness holds also
an essential difference; for, befitting Christ’s position as
the second and spiritual ancestor, sprung from the same
race, this origin makes Him appear at the same time as
Son of man by true production.
Since, besides the origin by direct creation and that by
natural production, there is still a third manner of coming
into existence, namely, the origin of Eve from Adam, the
Fathers refer to the Christ’s origin as the fourth mode. It
completes the series of all conceivable modes, and, as the
most perfect, bears in itself what is most perfect in each.11
The supernatural and purely spiritual manner of de­
termination which really took place in the origin of Christ
was indeed so fitting that the natural way would have
been inappropriate. The reasons adduced for this are usu­
ally in reference to the honor of the mother. It would
have conflicted with the sublimity of her divine mother­
hood had she lost her virginal honor and purity through
the act which exalted her to that highest dignity. And,
« John 1:12 f.
11 Cf. St. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, Bk. II, chap. 8; PL, CLVIII, 406.

70

MARIOLOGY

indeed, that Mary, like ordinary mothers in the fallen
state, should be subject through that act to sensual lust,
would altogether conflict with her sublime dignity. Nor is
any form of humiliation compatible with it, such as would
have pertained to sexual production even in the original
state. The Mother of God may never be tainted with sens­
ual lust; she must not be subject to the will of man. Lastly,
there, precisely where she becomes the temple of God, she
may not in any manner whatever lose her bodily integrity.
More profound reasons for the appropriateness of
Christ’s supernatural determination are found in the ex­
alted dignity of the product and in its position and signifi­
cance.
1) First of all, the divinity of the Person for whom the
flesh was formed and the dignity of His eternal production
demand that no paternal principle, apart from God,
should cooperate in the forming. For, in human produc­
tion, the paternal principle determines through its will the
actual existence of the fruit in general and the existence
of the soul in particular, and through it also, in a natural
manner, the existence of the person himself. The temporal
existence of a divine Person must not, however, be de­
termined through the will of a creature; especially as re­
gards His soul, He must not stand in a relation of essential
dependence on a creature.12
2) Christ’s temporal production by the mother must not
be in contradiction to His eternal production, but must be
a perfect reflection of it. This temporal production can be
such a reflection only if it is effected by a holy and purely
spiritual power from a single principle. In other words, as
12 Furthermore, He must not enter into a relation with a created principle
that would make Him dependent on that principle, if not actually, at least
in appearance.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

71

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

Ί2

MARIOLOGY

6) Lastly, with this is connected the fact that the flesh
of Christ must, above all other flesh, be distinguished as
vivifying, that is, as the seat and instrument of the power
of God’s vivifying Spirit; and for that purpose it must be
specially formed. It must, therefore, be formed only by
Him who alone has the power to make it a vivifying flesh
and for whom it should serve as seat and instrument. The
Fathers like to express this as follows: the bread of life,
which bears in itself the power of the Holy Ghost, had also
to be prepared through the ardor of the Holy Ghost.13
The Divine Influence on the Incarnation
of Christ

In contrast with the natural influence which the semen
materiale exerts on the mother and by which the father
thus bestows the very substance of the flesh, the super­
natural influence of God on the maternal principle ap­
pears before and in the production of Christ’s flesh as the
influence of a purely spiritual principle and of a purely
spiritual power on the forming and vivifying of the sub­
stance of the flesh, which alone is taken of the mother. In
this sense the supernatural influence is clearly character­
ized in the angel’s annunciation of Christ’s conception, as
a coming of the Holy Ghost upon the virgin and an over­
shadowing of the virgin by the power of the Most High.14
At the same time there is herein contained an allusion to
the most beautiful symbols of a higher influence that
leaves its substratum intact, namely, the light, the breath,
and the dew.
Significantly the Holy Ghost appears here not simply
ls Cf. Thomassinus, op. cit., Bk. II, chaps. 3 f.; St. Thomas, Illa, q.28, a. 1.
“Cf. Luke 1:35.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

73

as exercising an influence upon the virgin. He Himself is
infused into her as the substantial bearer or vehicle of the
forming power radiating from the heavenly Father; and
to that extent He takes the place of the semen materiale,
which in natural propagation issues from the human fa­
ther and carries in itself his power. For that reason the
Fathers sometimes call Him semen divinum, the divine
seed.
In this manner both the heavenly and the earthly pro­
duction so concur, even in their differences, that the
former leads back to a heavenly Father just as the latter
leads back to an earthly father, and the production proc­
ess with the heavenly Father is completely represented
according to the analogy of the earthly father. However,
as contrasted with the material seed, the infusion of the
Holy Ghost concerns merely the forming of the body of
Christ, not the constitution of Christ through the sub­
stance of the Holy Ghost; and for that very reason it does
not make the Holy Ghost an element of the production.
In this instance the Holy Ghost acts only upon another
production principle without Himself becoming the prin­
ciple of the production or the paternal principle of the
humanity of Christ.
For three reasons the Holy Ghost cannot be considered
under these aspects. (1) He does not constitute the flesh
of Christ through His own substance. (2) The humanity
of Christ is not brought forth by Him as a nature consubstantial with His nature or specifically similar to it. (3) The
Holy Ghost in His own person does not occupy a position
which belongs to Him alone; He must be understood as
working in union with the other Persons and in particular
in the power of the Father. Still less in regard to His in-

MARIOLOGY

74

fluence may He be called Father of the man Christ. This
is evident from the fact that otherwise Christ too, as God,
could be father of Himself as man.15
In the coming of the Holy Ghost upon the Virgin the
influence upon the production of the flesh of Christ is
attributed to the third divine Person as the author, per ap­
propriationem. This attribution is quite proper and signi­
ficant for the following reasons. (1) First of all, the
forming and vivifying of matter, particularly the creating
and producing of the first man, is generally ascribed to
the Holy Ghost as the finger and breath of God. (2) Next,
the influence of God, particularly with the forming of the
flesh of Christ, has the closest relation with the actio
unitiva; for it forms this flesh precisely to make it the flesh
of the Logos. Also for that reason the divine action like­
wise occupies the position of the human paternal influ­
ence, because it alone can form the flesh in a manner
appropriate to that end. Hence the production of the flesh
of Christ must be appropriated to the Holy Ghost for all
those reasons for which the actio unitiva is attributed to
Him.10 (3) The very name of the Holy Ghost clearly in­
dicates how He in an eminent and entirely unique manner
truly takes the place of the natural vehicle of production.
(4) To these reasons must be added those advanced for the
appropriateness of the divine influence upon the virginal
production and set forth above.17
The words of the angel, “The power of the Most High
shall overshadow thee,” are understood by some as in­
dicating a terminus generations, which can be applied in
15 See also p. 99.
16 See Appendix 3.
1T See Appendix 3.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

75

natural production to the relation of man with woman,
and from this latter relation was applied to the production
of Christ’s flesh by the Holy Ghost. But this supposition is
hard to prove. Apart from it, the very connection of “the
overshadowing” with “the power of the Most High” for­
bids this explanation. The analogy of this overshadowing
must lie in the cloud which elsewhere in the Sacred Scrip­
tures serves as a symbol of God’s power which descends
from above, impregnates, vivifies, and invigorates, and
which is also applied to the origin of Christ in the sign of
the prophet: “and let the clouds rain the just.” 18
Understood thus, the “overshadowing” means the di­
vine influence in its analogy to the natural action of the
man, and at the same time, and still more, in its exalted­
ness above this; that is, as an influence of a heavenly,
spiritual principle upon an earthly and material one. It
also maintains the closest relation to the “coming of the
Holy Ghost,” which must be understood as analogous to
the moving of the Holy Spirit over the waters of the pri­
meval world. In this manner we derive the following
beautiful meaning: the Spirit of God which originally de­
scended over the chaos as principle of light and life and
which formed the first creation, now forms the second and
higher creation out of the virgin.
Moreover, this idea paves the way for a yet deeper ex­
planation of the words we have been considering. This
explanation is taken from the cloud which overshadowed
the ark of the covenant and symbolized the habitation of
God. Further, this idea has a natural relation to the deeper
meaning of the “overshadowing” or of the words “let the
« Isa. 45:8.

76

MARIOLOGY

clouds rain the just,” which include the uniting action as
well.18
The Complete Forming of the Bodily Organism
of Christ in the Incarnation

In the production of Christ, instead of a natural princi­
ple of determination, “the Holy Spirit” and “the power of
the Most High,” that is, of the Almighty Creator of nature,
determine the origin of the bodily fruit. From this it nat­
urally follows that this determination not only gave the
first stimulus to the gradual forming of the bodily organ­
ism of the fruit which had to be completed under the co­
operating influence of the mother, but also could immedi­
ately and of itself achieve the entire organism, at least in
its essential parts.
That this happened can readily be presumed from the
character of the principle. The same, however, may also
be concluded from the fact that otherwise the body could
not be the worthy seat of the divine Person and of the soul
which was spiritually active from the first moment. The
first forming of Christ’s body was thus carried out, both
on the part of the principle and on that of the object, modo
creatwo, in the same manner, if not in the same measure,
as the forming of the body of the first Adam.20 In this
respect Mary’s cooperation could not be entirely the same
as that of a mother in natural production.
Hence the first stimulus in producing the organism for
the body of Christ lies entirely in the divine principle, so
that by it “Wisdom hath built herself a house;” 21 and to
19 See infra, pp. 80 ff. and 92 ff.
20 Cf. St. John Damascene, no. 24.
21 Prov. 9:1.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

77

that extent Mary is much more passive and receptive to
the influence of the Holy Ghost than a natural mother is
to the influence of a man. But for that reason she was no
less a party to the production of her fruit than is a natural
mother. In another respect she is even more active than an
ordinary mother. For, though she acts less upon the form­
ing of her fruit, on the other hand she receives no material
influence whatever from an external source; she is by her­
self the sole and complete material principle of her off­
spring.
The lack of an active material influence upon the Virgin
does not prevent her product from being a fruit brought
forth by her in the same way as that in which the produc­
ing of the fruit is attributed to other mothers. In natural
production the seed becomes a fruit at the very first mo­
ment that the determination is received from an outer
source, and the maternal process in the very origin of the
fruit is essentially only to receive the principle that will
complete what the mother by her activity has prepared for
this purpose.
To secure the doctrine of Mary’s motherhood some
theologians 22 hold the view that at the moment of con­
ception there is still another generative activity which
only then comes into operation and is subject to a super­
natural influence. This influence, as a final preparation of
the matter, effects God’s immediate cooperation in the
production of the fruit. Because of the perfection of
Mary’s motherhood, most theologians, including St.
Thomas, do not find this supposition necessary. On the
22 Foremost among these are St. Bonaventure, In 3 S., d.4, 2. 3, q. 1; and,
work by Migne (PL, XLII, 1211 ff.; LVIII, 979 ff.; LXXXIII, 1227ff.),
In 3 S., d.4, q.2.

78

MARIOLOGY

contrary, because of the divine action they regard this
view as unacceptable and therefore place the generative
activity of the mother before the moment of conception.
On the other hand, by the cooperation of the mother,
which takes place immediately at the moment of concep­
tion, we can also understand the vital and voluntary ab­
sorption and accommodating spirit which must mark that
conception as an active one and not merely a passive one.
Such a cooperation should be accepted with regard to
Mary as well as with regard to a natural mother, but in a
higher manner, as a spiritual and supernatural absorption
and accommodating spirit.
In natural conception the sensual passion—carnal ap­
petite—cooperates with it and makes it a vital deed. With
regard to Mary, however, there is instead of this carnal
appetite an activity of the mother answering the divine
action: the supernatural subjection of her spirit to the will
of God and the surrender, borne by a heavenly love, of her
flesh to tire influence of the Holy Ghost for the purpose for
which He desires to use it. Thus we can say of her that she
has conceived both in spirit and in body.
This vital and voluntary offering of the matter previ­
ously prepared for the formation of a human body is nec­
essary and also sufficient to place the foregoing prepara­
tion of the matter in organic connection with the “form­
ing” of the matter, which is derived from an external
source and to give to the latter its relation to the prepara­
tion.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

79

II. The Virginal Conception in Connection
with the Actio Unitiva and the Generatio
Aeterna Verbi
As die body of Christ is directly formed by divine ac­
tion, His entire humanity comes forward as an immediate
work of God, or particularly of the Holy Ghost; for His
soul also is created and infused into die body by God Him­
self. Hence the bringing forth of the complete humanity
is traced to the same influencing cause by which the hypo­
static union of the humanity with the Son is effected; the
actio productiva together with the actio unitiva thus forms
one undivided and all-embracing action of God: the pro­
ducing of the entire Christ. In passive form the Nicene
Creed declares: incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, and the
Apostles’ Creed: conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto.
Full Meaning of conceptus est de Spiritu

Sancto
With regard to this complete action, the phrase in the
Creed, de Spiritu Sancto, has a double meaning according
to St. Thomas, who follows the example of many Fadiers.23 The preposition de indicates the Holy Ghost not
only as the principle of an effect created and produced by
Him, but also as die principle of the introduction of His
own divine substance into the fruit, and thus into die
womb of the Virgin, where this fruit comes into being. The
personal action of the Holy Ghost in the actio unitiva con­
sists precisely in this, that He Himself through the Son
ushers the divine substance into the humanity which He
23 St Thomas, Illa, q. 32, a. 2; for the Fathers, see Thomassinus, op. cit.,
Bk. VI, chaps. 1 fi.

80

MARIOLOGY

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

of the

There lies a further, deeper significance in the “over­
shadowing” of “the power of the Most High.” Together
with the descent of the Holy Ghost, “the power of the
Most High” overshadowed the Virgin, not only as the
divine power communicated to the Holy Ghost by which
He could and must form the flesh of Christ and unite it
with die Son, but also as the personal “power of the Most
High,” from which the Holy Ghost Himself arises—the
Son of the Most High Himself. As Son “the power of the
Most High” descended into Mary as into the true ark of
the covenant, in order to dwell in her in a more perfect

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

81

way than this power had once dwelt in the cloud above
the old ark of the covenant. For from Mary and in Mary,
it formed its own body for itself.
This thought was also present in the mind of the Fathers
when generally they indicated, not the Holy Ghost, the
third person of the Godhead, but the second Person or the
Son, represented according to His spiritual and holy na­
ture, Himself the “offspring” and “fruit” of the divine pro­
duction, as the divine seed which is in Mary and from
which Christ is born. Accordingly the “overshadowing”
of “the power of the Most High” means not only that in the
production of Christ the influence of God on the forming
of the body takes the place of the influence which belongs
to the seed in natural propagation, but also that in the
person of the Son the substance of God unites itself with
the product of this action and forms the original nucleus
of the being which proceeds from this production.
From this point of view the Fathers distinguish with
regard to Mary a double receiving in the conception of
Christ, in view of the formal contents of the passive con­
ception or assuming: on the one hand the receiving of the
substance of the Logos, in which the humanity must be
formed; on the other hand the receiving of the divine in­
fluence by which this humanity must be formed. They
consider the first element as prior natura; for the sub­
stance of the Logos not only exists before the humanity,
but also forms the seed to which this humanity to be pro­
duced should be joined, as well as the foundation on
which it is to be placed.
From this distinction there immediately follows a sig­
nificant contradistinction between the substantial con­
tents of the natural and of the supernatural conception.

82

MARIOLOGY

In the former the mother receives from the father merely
a material and seedlike nucleus of the fruit. This nucleus
contains that principle which makes the fruit a person,
namely, the spiritual soul only intentionaliter, or also in a
certain sense virtualiter, so far as the soul must be infused
by God in a natural way into the body to be formed
through the natural power of the nucleus. On the other
hand, in the supernatural conception of Christ, the mother
receives the spiritual nucleus of the fruit which already
exists as a person, indeed as a divine Person, and as such
through His own spiritual power He forms and vivifies
His own body in the mother.
The object and end of the natural conception is thus
only the person, while its immediate and substantial con­
tents are simply a material seed. In the supernatural con­
ception the reverse is tire case, the divine Person being the
substantial and indeed the entire contents, for to this Per­
son nothing material belongs. The body formed is the only
object of that conception as fruit and end.
In connection with this the assuming and giving ac­
tivity of the virginal mother in conceiving is immediately
directed to the influence of tire Holy Ghost or to her prod­
uct, and also to the person of the Logos. She embraces
the latter, as it were, with arms of heavenly love in order
to lay Him in her womb, gives Him her flesh in order to
clothe Him with it, and thus again receives her Son first
in spirit and then in the flesh.
This entire doctr ine is precisely expressed by St. John
Damascene: “After the Blessed Virgin had given her as­
sent the Holy Ghost came upon her, cleansing her and
giving her abundant strength to conceive and bring forth
the godhead of the Word. Then, the truly abiding wisdom

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

83

and power of the Most High, the Son of God who is cosubstantial with the Father, overshadowed her in the form
of divine seed, and formed for Himself from her spotless
and most pure blood a body adorned with a rational and
intellectual soul, the first fruit of our besprinkling—this,
however, not by a procreation of seed, but, in accordance
with the will of the Creator, by the Holy Ghost, so that the
figure of the body was not achieved gradually by acces­
sions, but was completed in one and the same moment—
the same Word of God being made the hypostasis and
person of the flesh; whereas the Word is not united with
flesh in a person who already exists. . . . Wherefore it is
flesh at the same time as it is the flesh of the Word of God,
as it is die flesh adorned with a rational and intellectual
soul.” 24
The application of “the power of the Most High” to die
Son of God is common to many odier Fathers of the
Church, from whom Damascene borrowed it.25 Several
Fathers even went so far as to understand by Spiritus
Sanctus in St. Luke not the third Person in the Divinity,
but the second.20 Although this is not theoretically false,
the exegesis does not allow it. On die other hand, the ap­
plication of “die power of the Most High” to the Son is
also exegetically permissible and most probable. It an­
swers more perfectly to the depth and harmony of the text.
The Holy Ghost in His descent thus appears as mediator
of the action and the descent of that Person from whom
He Himself proceeds; and the Person represented as “the
24 St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, Bk. Ill, chap. 2; PG, XCIV,
985 ff.
25 Cf. Lequien, publisher of the works of St. John Damascene, in the afore­
mentioned quotation, PG, XCIV, 985 ff.
2n Cf. Constant, Praefatio ad opera S. Hilarii Pictaviensis, sec. 1; PL, IX,
35-40.

MARIOLOGY

84

power of the Most High” prepares for Himself a body in
and by the Holy Ghost.
For good reasons the Fathers generally lay particular
stress on the fact that the divine Person who assumed the
flesh has, in this assumption, at the same time effected the
formation of His humanity, or the building of His “tem­
ple.” They do this in order that this Person may not ap­
pear as passive and dependent on the relation brought
about by the passive conception, but would in this very
relation step forward in His divine majesty and power.
For not the purely voluntary subire, or sustinere genera­
tionem carnalem, as the Fathers express themselves, but
only the powerful jacere sibi generationem carnalem 27
shields the carnal birth of the Logos from every shadow of
humiliation to His being, or from an imperfection which
might be supposed in it.
With these arguments the Fathers met the objections of
the pagans and Nestorians against the possibility or pro­
priety of the birth of the eternal Word from a woman. The
concept of the Logos as semen in the bringing forth of
Christ most emphatically secures the Catholic doctrine
against that of Nestorius. For the Logos was hereby repre­
sented, not merely as though He belonged to the composi­
tion of Christ in an unimportant way, but simply as its
nucleus and foundation.
Mutual Relation of the Actio productiva and
the

Actio unitiva

Not only do these two actions by which Christ comes
into being proceed from one principle and lead to one end,
but their union is also much closer in Christ’s conception
27 Cf. Constant, op. cit.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

85

than in natural propagation and occurs in a manner
slightly different from the natural forming of the body and
the infusion of the soul into it. The relation of the produc­
tive action to the uniting action is, in regard to their end
and completion, common to both kinds of conception, as
is also the dependence of the latter on the former in their
realization. The differences are the following:
1) In natural propagation the two actions, of prepara­
tion and completion, can indeed be separated in time, and
it probably was the opinion of the theologians of olden
times that they really are. According to the common
teaching of the Fathers and theologians it is definitely es­
tablished that in the case of Christ the production of the
entire humanity and its union with the Logos both took
place at the same moment. As to the time, the forming of
the body does not precede the union with the soul, nor the
union of both with the Logos. Hence the production of
the entire humanity of Christ with all its elements, and
the union of the same with the Logos, exactly coincide in
time, just as in the propagation of the first man or, as in
natural propagation, the creative production of the soul
and its infusion into the body.
With regard to the completed humanity, the proof lies
in this, that Christ would otherwise have been a human
person before tire union. As to the body, the proof lies
particularly in the fact that the conception was the con­
ceiving of God from the very first moment. The striking
equality and similarity are further found in the fact that
the separation and forming of the substance of the body,
carried out by the Logos Himself, must, in view of His
divine power and dignity, at the same time be attended
by His most perfect possession of it.

86

MARIOLOGY

Compare with this the many texts from the Fathers in
Petavius and Thomassinus;28 in particular Sophronius in
his “epistola synodica,” approved by the Sixth Council.29
The old translation of this classical text is very defective.
For that reason we venture a new one: “The Word of God
becomes man by accommodating Himself to a body not
previously formed or to a soul not previously subsisting;
but the moment they are brought into existence, the same
Word of God and they unite. Hence simultaneously with
their existence this body and soul unite physically with
the Word. They did not exist before their real union with
the Word. Their existence runs concurrently with their
physical union with the Word, so that the one does not
precede the other, not even by a wink of the eye. It be­
comes flesh at the same time that it becomes the flesh of
the Word; it becomes flesh which is animated with a ra­
tional soul at the same time that it becomes the Word’s
animated body, because it finds its existence in the Word
and not in itself. Together with the conception of the
Word, this body and this rational soul, whereby it be­
comes flesh animated with a rational soul, are brought to
consistency, that is, in one nature of animated flesh, and
(together with this adduction to consistency) they are
united with Him in a most real and indivisible hypostasis.
They are produced by, constituted in, and form part of the
same conceived Word.” See also Fulgentius.30
2) The temporal coincidence of the productive and
uniting actions with regard to Christ’s humanity bears an
28 Petavius, op. cit., Bk. IV, chap. 11; Thomassinus, op. cit., Bk. Ill, chap.

28 Hardouin, Conciliorum collectio, III, 1267; PG, LXXXVII, 3161.
80 Fulgentius, De incarnatione et gratia, chap. 3, no. 7; PL, LXV, 455.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

87

analogy to the temporal coincidence of both actions in the
origin of the human soul; however, the organic relation­
ship of both actions is reversed. For the creation of the
soul ratione et natura precedes the infusion of it into the
body in the same way as the first forming of the body
precedes the assuming of the soul. With the infusion of
the Logos into the humanity of Christ the uniting action.
ratione et natura precedes in a certain sense the produc­
tive one; the uniting action is to the productive action as
the infusion of the seed is to the forming and vivifying of
the fruit, which through it has come into being or has
been prepared.
The infusion of the Logos clearly precedes the produc­
tion of the entire humanity, so far as the latter comes into
being through the union of body and soul or through the
vivifying of the body by the soul. Both imperfect sub­
stances are not united with the Logos for the first time
through this union with one another. But in and with their
origin—the body in its formation and the soul at its crea­
tion—they are already united with the Logos; as they are
united with the Word, so are they united with one an­
other.
This alone is sufficient reason why it can and must be
said with the Fathers that the conception of the Logos—
i.e., the receiving of the Logos, who forms for Himself His
own flesh and, to vivify it, creates for Himself His own
soul—ratione et natura precedes and forms the basis for
the origin of Christ as man in the womb of the Virgin, and
consequently also the conception of Christ as man. On the
part of the mother the first and proximate element in the
conception of the Logos is again the receiving of the

88

MARIOLOGY

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

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

89

entire humanity. It is particularly used by Suarez to ex­
plain the divine motherhood. It should also be under­
stood as the prior inference, when Leo I,31 as also
Augustine,32 says: “Our nature is not so assumed that
it was first created and then assumed, but that it was
created by the same assumption.” This priority of the
actio unitiva is clearly expressed by Sophronius.33
However, the second sense is also elucidated by both
the Latin and the Greek Fathers. See especially Dama­
scene and Fulgentius, and also Genaddius of Marseilles:
“Hold most firmly that Christ’s body, before being taken
by the Word, was not conceived in the Virgin’s womb
without the godhead, but that the Word itself was con­
ceived by the acceptance of His body and that the body
itself was conceived by the Incarnation of the Word.” 34
Ferrandus says: “God did not assume a human being’
already formed or conceived, or one that was at a certain1
age in life or that had already begun life in his mother’s
womb. But, before Mary conceived anything, and quite
apart from the ordinary means or manner of forming any
human being, God, willing to become man, entered the
temple of the virginal womb, and, bestowing the gift of
fecundity by virtue of His godhead, He assumed from her
whom He willed as His mother a real body of our spe­
cies.” 35
81 St. Leo I, Epist., 35 ad Julian. Coens., chap. 3; PL, LIV, 807.
S2 St. Augustine, Contra serm. Arian., chap. 8; PL, XLII, 688.
88 Cf. supra, note 29.
34 St. John Damascene, op. cit., and Fulgentius, op. cit. Gennadius of
Marseilles, Lib. eccles. dogmatum. This sentence is not found verbatim, but
as far as the meaning is concerned, it is seen in the various editions of this
work by Migne (PL, XLII, 1211 ff.; LVIII, 979 ff.; LXXXIII, 1227 ff.),
neither in the text of C. H. Turner, in Journal of Theological Studies, VII,
89-99.
85 Ferrandus, Epist. 5 ad Sever., no. 3; PL, LXVII, 912.

90

MARIOLOGY

Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene express
it still more clearly when they speak of the infusio seminis
divini, or tlie conceptio Verbi, as prior not only with re­
gard to the divine subsistency or deification, but also with
regard to the physical reality of the flesh of Christ, and
from this priority precisely deduce the necessary simul­
taneousness of both the physical reality and the divine
subsistency of the flesh of Christ. Maximus says: “The
Savior’s humanity was made in and for Him according
to one and tire same hypostasis, and not produced, as we
are, separately in and for itself. Hence, the Word had His
own seed, while the divine subsistency and the physical
existence began in Him at the same time.” 38 John Dama­
scene is more explicit: “The Word is made flesh, truly
conceived of the Virgin by the assumption of her flesh.
He appears, indeed, as God in His own flesh which He
deified the moment He brought it into existence; so that
the following three happened simultaneously: the as­
sumption, existence, and deification of the flesh by the
Word. Hence the Blessed Virgin is perceived as, and is,
the Mother of God, not only because of the conceived
Word’s own and originally divine nature but also because
of the deification of the produced human nature, the
conception and existence of which were wonderfully
effected at the same time: that is, the conception of the
Word and the existence of the flesh in the same con­
ceived Word (in which case the deification of the flesh
is ipso facto included).” 37
This profound idea of the conceptio Verbi as the
foundation for the existence of the assumed flesh has re38 St. Maximus, Ad Ceorgium; PG, XCI, 61.
37 St. John Damascene, op. cii., Bk. Ill, chap. 12; PG, XCIV, 1032.

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

91

mained rather unfamiliar to the Scholastics. At first sight
it seems, indeed, to lead to the Thomistic doctrine, also
applied to the explanation of Mary’s motherhood. Ac­
cording to that doctrine the humanity in the divine per­
son received both its subsistence and its full existence in
and through this one action, in so far as this means that
the production of the humanity, or of its elements, re­
ceives its completion only through the actio unitiva.
Thereby is indicated essentially only a relation analogous
to the one existing between the human body and the hu­
man soul; the realization of the body by itself is not con­
ditioned through its union with the soul and precedes
natura et ratione the full human subsistence and existence
of the body.
In fact, most theologians teach with St. Thomas that
the actio productiva humanitatis, so far as it is brought
in connection with the component parts of the humanity
and effects their esse essentiale, logically precedes the
assumptio. Thus this theory is significant to Mary’s di­
vine motherhood only when it is already applied to truly
human motherhood in the natural sphere, i.e., the ma­
ternal relation to the person of the child. On the other
hand, the Fathers mentioned above speak of a conceptio
Verbi or of an “assumption of the flesh,” which underlies
not only the divine subsistence and the divine existence
of the flesh of Christ but also the realization of the flesh
by itself, or His esse phijsicum ( the esse essentiale of the
Thomists), precisely as the esse subsistentiae et existentiae divinae. Unlike the Thomists, the Fathers do not base
their theory simply on the idea of the substantial union
of a formal with a material principle. They base it on the
fact that the formal principle here is at the same time the

MARIOLOGY

92

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

of Both Actions in Time to the
Eternal Production

The uniting action combines with the eternal produc­
tion of Christ and achieves with it an external birth of the
Son of God and a production of Christ from God the Fa­
ther. So also the productive action, in virtue of its close
relationship to the uniting action, is linked with the eter­
nal production, so that it can be taken together with the
latter to form one total action directed to the birth of the
Son of God ad extra and the production of Christ from
God; and as such it can and must particularly and ex­
clusively be ascribed to God the Father.
From this point of view one can understand by the
“power of the Most High,” which descends in and with
the Holy Ghost as through its vehicle, not only the very
personal power of God or of the Son of God, but also the
productive power of the eternal Father, who reveals Him­
self in this Person and makes Him the personal power of

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

93

God. This productive power of the Father then over­
shadows the bosom of the Virgin in order to combine His
spiritual product with the flesh taken from her, and to
form and vivify this very flesh. For the productive power
of the Father is not only really identical with the power
by which God works ad extra, it is also this very power in
which all other productive and communicative powers
are pre-eminently included, as in the principle of the
first, highest, and richest production and communication
of God. Hence to the fruit brought forth by it, it com­
municates all other powers of God, of whatever kind, in
such a way that this latter itself becomes the personal
power of God.
Consequently this particular concept of the over­
shadowing of the “power of the Most High” underlies
the view of the Fathers, that in tine origin of Christ the
Logos is the divine seed of which Christ was formed. For
the idea of this divine seed comprises in itself the fact
that it is the fruit of a divine production and precisely as
such is deposited in the mother by the principle of this
production in order to appropriate her flesh and, as ap­
propriated to Him, to form and vivify it.
Thus perceived, the conception in the Virgin is a con­
ceiving or receiving of the Son of God through the re­
ception of the power of His eternal Father, who produces
Him. Accordingly the entire Christ does not appear
simply as a common fruit of two productions which flow
into His one person. These productions themseves also
come to the foreground as organically united with each
other in a manner analogous to the process of father and
mother in the producing of natural offspring: the process

94

MARIOLOGY

of the mother presupposes that of the father and is so de­
termined by it and so depends on it that it is completely
at its service.
Consequently this explains in the most simple and per­
fect way why, in virtue of its origin, the fruit of the Virgin
is truly the Son of the Most High. Therefore the arch­
angel rightly announced, “the power of the Most High
shall overshadow thee.” This also explains how the eter­
nal Father gives His Son to the Virgin as her Son, by mak­
ing her His mother; and conversely, how the Virgin gives
her Son to the eternal Father as His Son, by giving birth
to the latter by the Father and for Him.
There certainly is an essential difference between the
cooperation of the two principles of human production
and the collaboration of the human with the divine. In
tlie first case a perfect son is brought forth only through
die cooperation of both principles. In Christ’s production,
however, die Son comes forth from die paternal principle
alone as a perfect son and as such exists and lives in the
Father Himself, while the human principle is likewise the
sole productive one in its domain.
Nevertheless, in complete accordance widi the spirit
of revelation and the language of the Church, the second
production in its organic relation to the eternal one lends
itself to consideration as a supplement, so far as the Son,
produced from the Father and in Him, comes forth from
the Fadier ad extra by being born of a mother in such a
way that He has His own being and life apart from the
Fadier. For, although the eternal production includes
also a birdi of the Son, so far as in its own manner it is
perfect by itself, the production in time is still a birth in
a narrower sense. Consequently the word nasci in the

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

95

Apostles’ Creed is used simply in connection with the
temporal birth of the Son of God.
Inasmuch as the temporal birth from the mother is un­
der the influence of the eternal production and, therefore,
the birth of the Son ad extra is also a work of the eternal
Father, the temporal birth of the Son of God from the
mother appears as an extension and completion ad extra
of the eternal production of the Son, wrought and in­
tended by the Father Himself. Through the mother He
brings forth ad extra His Son, whom He Himself has
begotten; or, as the Apostle says, “God sent His Son, made
of a woman.” 38
Conversely, however, the eternal origin and birth ap­
pear even more clearly as a supplement of the temporal
production and birth from the mother. Precisely through
the union of the personal product with the human nature
this union makes the human being whom the temporal
production has as end not merely a human being but
Christ, the perfect image of the principle of the eternal
production.
Still another difference exists between these two forms
of collaboration of the two principles of production. In
natural propagation the paternal principle is substantially
connected with the fruit only through a material seed
which proceeds from it. Hence it has lesser relations with
the fruit and is merely a preparatory cause of its life, not
the real effecting cause. In the supernatural production
of Christ the paternal principle is connected with the
product of the maternal process through a spiritual seed
which remains in Himself. Thus it maintains closer rela­
tions with the product but, in virtue of the divine vital
38 Gal. 4:4.

96

MARIOLOGY

and vivifying power communicated by Him to the spirit­
ual seed, it is at the same time in the most proper and
strict sense the principle of the divine life of this fruit,
and also of its human life.
According to the common definition, production is
regarded as origo viventis a vivente conjuncto, namely,
emanatio substantiae ab hoc in illud. In other words, it
is a communication of life effected through the com­
munication of the substance of him who produces. To
that extent, therefore, the production of Christ as man
may as truly be called a production from His divine Fa­
ther as can the production of the natural man from a hu­
man father. This fact is true not only with regard to the
communication of the uncreated life to this certain per­
son, but also in view of the communication of the created
life to His human nature or to His flesh. This is the more
evident since the natural spiritual life communicated to
the humanity of Christ is a figure of the divine life, as also
is the supernatural spiritual life communicated to His
humanity immediately at its origin and in virtue of its
substantial union with God and proportioned to the same.
Although this does not constitute a formal and real re­
semblance in nature with the producing person, it is an
outcome and reflection of this resemblance bestowed by
God on the person who subsists in this humanity.
The Vivifying of the Flesh of Christ through
the Infusion of the Soul

For a better understanding of the organic side of the
production of Christ and the views expressed in the Sa­
cred Scriptures and in the Fathers, special consideration
should be given to the position in this production occu­

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

97

pied by the vivification of the organically formed flesh
through the infusion of the spiritual soul. The key to this
consideration is given by the Apostle, who connects the
words of the psalm, “This day have I begotten thee,” 39
with the Resurrection of Christ from the dead and always
ascribes the latter to the Father, acting through the Holy
Ghost.
By the production of Christ is here understood the
communication of life through the influence of the soul;
more correctly, the communication of the glorious, di­
vine life through infusion of the divine, glorified soul,
which in the case of all other human beings also bears the
name of rebirth. In view of the fact that He is Son of God
in an entirely unique manner, this communication of life
is, with Christ, called production in a very special sense,
since it occurs in virtue of the substantial relation of the
eternal Father to the flesh of Christ through the divine
seed, which placed in His flesh the person of the Logos,
or inasmuch as this production is communicated and
borne through this relation with the eternal Father. It
thus appears as a development and extension of the eter­
nal inner communication of life, or as its external expres­
sion and revelation. The Father communicates His life
to His Son, who rests in His bosom, in order to make the
Son, who exists in the assumed flesh, participate while
in this flesh in the divine fullness of life of the Logos, or
make this flesh itself participate in this life.
In the very resuscitation of Christ, the complete super­
natural fullness of life, which in virtue of the hypostatic
union is due to His flesh and reveals power of tliis union,
is communicated through an extension of the eternal
” Ps. 2:7; cf. Acts 13:33.

98

MARIOLOGY

communication. Hence we understand why the Apostle
could find it expressed in the production of Christ by
God, or, again, could particularly consider it an outcome
and termination of the eternal production.
In a manner analogous to the reunion of Christ’s soul
with His body at the Resurrection, so at His conception
was effected the creation of His soul and its union with
the flesh formed by the Holy Ghost and assumed by the
Logos. Through this union the flesh was originally vivi­
fied and formed to a living humanity.This act of vivifying
is directly of itself a creating act of God, as was the natural
origin and creation of the first man. It must also be con­
sidered a communication of life through production, so
far as it is essentially directed to the production of the
living flesh of the Son of God and is brought about through
the substantial connection of the Son with the Father. In
other words, it is an extension of the eternal communica­
tion of life originally given to the Son in the bosom of
the Father and now given to the same Son as He is formed
according to the flesh in the bosom of the mother.
When the very act of vivifying Christ’s flesh is con­
nected with the “overshadowing” of “the power of tire
Most High” as the productive power of the Father, we
have the most beautiful and complete organism in the
producing of Christ by the Blessed Trinity. On the other
hand we obtain the richest representation of the relation­
ship of Christ’s eternal Father to His human mother. For,
as the producing of the Logos Himself, so the completion
of His humanity is ascribed likewise to the Father, par­
ticularly the producing of His soul in union with the
Logos, to vivify the body prepared by the Holy Ghost.
Here God the Father, on the grounds of His power of

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

99

production, appears as the principle of tire personality
and the spiritual life of the fruit produced in the mother
in a much more sublime sense than the human father.
Lastly, in the case of Christ the production and infusion
of the human soul is considered from the viewpoint of an
extension and revelation of the internal communication
of life in God. Hence the soul of Christ, which is con­
nected in its origin with the Logos and through Him with
the Father as the source of divine life, participates also by
origin and nature in this life. It thus enters into tire body
as both naturally and supernaturally living, i.e., as the
natural and supernatural image of the eternal Father.
From what has been said it follows that in the words
of the angel both expressions by which he indicates the
divine influence upon the producing of Christ comprise
the productive action as well as the uniting action, al­
though the words differ according to their formal con­
tents and complete each other, forming a marvelous,
complete representation. However, the productive action
has a direct and special reference to the origin of Christ
from the mother, the uniting action to His origin from the
eternal Father.
This distinction and mutual completion also appear
from the expressions which correspond to that double in­
dication of divine influence and which indicate the spe­
cific character of the fruit of Mary. That the fruit of Mary
will be essentially a “holy” one corresponds to the descent
of the Holy Ghost. For in this finit the earthly matter taken
from Mary must be united with the holy substance of the
Logos through the influence of the Holy Ghost, and be­
cause of this union must also be sanctified in itself. That
this fruit “will be called the Son of God” or “of the Most

100

MARIOLOGY

High” corresponds to the “overshadowing” of “the power
of the Most High,” inasmuch as this fruit is produced by
the power of the Most High by which the Son of the Most
High is brought forth from eternity.
Thus these words significantly indicate that Christ,
although as man and as Christ brought forth through the
influence of the Holy Ghost, is for that reason not yet His
Son. The action of God ad extra, which reveals itself as
producing and sanctifying in the origin of Christ, does
not bring about independently a divine sonship of Christ.
Rather this action can and must communicate merely an
extension of the existing, eternal sonship to the fruit of
Mary. Her holy fruit becomes Son of the Most High as a
result of the sanctification of this fruit and its personal
completion by the personal product of the eternal pro­
duction, which originally and in itself is the Son of God.
From die whole doctrine about the supernatural origin
of Christ it follows that the unique holiness of His being
expressed in His very name may not be considered merely
as a sanctification of die humanity already completed in
nature through its union with the divine person, much
less through die accidental sanctity given to it. It is found
in die very composition and origin of the humanity. The
constituent parts are already sanctified at dieir very
production through the hypostatic union and, being sanc­
tified precisely in this way, they are united to form the
holy humanity.
Moreover, even the material element from which the
flesh of Christ was formed possesses, even before it re­
ceives its form, a holiness such as is found nowhere else
except in some degree in the forming of Eve from the

THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION

101

bone of Adam; for that element belonged to the holiest
being after Christ.
A fortiori the supernatural production of Christ’s flesh
excludes its pollution by original sin. On the other hand,
most superficial is the opinion advanced by Scotus, who
seeks to exclude all holiness as well as all unholiness from
the materia corporis Christi as from the earth from which
Adam was formed, because this matter for the body of
Christ consisted only of the blood of the mother and thus,
according to his physiological theory, was never informed
by the soul of Mary.40
40 Scotus, In 3 S., d.3, q.2

CHAPTER VI

The Virginal Motherhood
The Virginal Birth 1

N tlie eternal origin of the Son of God the birth from
the Father coincides with His production, and hence
there is only one nativitas in utero Patris. On the other
hand, in the human production of Christ from the mother
there is also a nativitas in utero, but in a natural way it
forms only the foundation of die nativitas ex utero, which
in short is called birth.
The supernatural influence on the birth of Christ, which
the older form of the Creed expresses by the formula
natus est ex Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine, certainly has
reference, in the first place, to the basis of the birth of
Christ in His conception or the nativitas in utero. Accord­
ing to the traditional explanation of the Church, this ac­
tion must be connected with the birth ex utero. The latter
took place through the supernatural influence of the Holy
Ghost in such a manner that the bodily integrity of the
mother was in no wise violated, and Mary retained her
virginity in bringing forth as she did when she conceived.
Usually this distinguishing feature of the birth of Christ
is determined with reference merely to the privilege of
the virginity which had to be guaranteed for the mother

I

’Literature: St. Thomas, Illa, q.28, a.2; with it Gregorius a Valentia and
Suarez; Petavius, Dogmata theol., Bk. XIV, chaps. 5-6; Franzelin, De Verbo
incantato, thés. 15.
102

THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD

103

and which consequently had to be kept as the natural
supplement of her virginal conception. According to the
Creed it must be considered a privilege which character­
ized the very origin of Quist, and the natural supplement
of the supernatural action of the Holy Ghost and of the
“power of the Most High,” which determined this origin,
and of the eternal Father, who worked through both and
in both. The eternal Father Himself formed and vivified
Christ in the bosom of the Virgin and from Himself
brought forth Christ. Thus He was directly instrumental
in having Christ come forth from the bosom of the Vir­
gin in a manner harmonizing with His dignity and first
origin.
Hence it follows that the supernatural form of the ex­
ternal origin of Christ consists in His appearance from
the bosom of the mother. It corresponds with His eternal
production as lumen de lumine, as a light poured forth
into the world from the bosom of tire Virgin; and his qual­
ity of virtus Altissimi, in the way God by His own power
penetrates the limits of nature without violating them;
and also the forming of His body by the Holy Ghost, who
made it corpus Verbi, in the way spirits penetrate bodies
without resistance. In this sense the Fathers therefore call
the birth of Christ, and likewise His conception, a miracu­
lous and supernatural birth, a heavenly, divine, and spirit­
ual birth.
The first and most essential element in the supernatural
birth of Christ lies in the fact that He appeared from the
bosom of His mother utero clauso et obsignato, as He
later appeared at His Resurrection ex sepulchro clauso
et obsignato, which formed as it were His second bodily
birth. As a second element, naturally consequent upon

104

MARIOLOGY

the first, the birth of Christ was also effected without pain
to the mother, just as it took place without the violation
of the bodily integrity of the mother through effractio or
violatio claustri virginalis. The third element lies in the
fact that the birth involved for neither the mother nor the
child the so-called sordes nativitatis naturalis. The last
two points are a consequence of the first, but still find
their special reasons in the dignity of the mother and in
that of the child.
On the other hand the supernatural character of the
birth does not exclude the fact that it took place in a natu­
ral way, inasmuch as the mother cooperated in this natu­
rali nisu edendi prolem; or rather, that she herself carried
out the editio prolis with supernatural assistance, just as
the exitus prolis ex matre also took place in the natural
way.
That Mary kept her virginity even at Christ’s birth is
strict dogma, and especially so is the uterus clausus. Some
recent theologians do not sufficiently bear this in mind.
It was formerly expressed in the Apostles’ Creed and also
in the prophecy of Isaias: “Behold a virgin shall conceive
and bear a son”; it is prefigured by the “closed gate” of
Ezechiel.2 This is evident from the fact that Jovinianus’
denial of this thesis was opposed by the Church with great
firmness. The real reason for this denial was not in the
vagueness of the Church’s doctrine but, in spite of the
great clearness of this doctrine, merely in the rationalist
opposition to the miracle of the dogma.
Thus Ambrose writes to Pope Siricius in the name of the
Council of Milan: “In a false sense it is related that she
conceived as a virgin but did not bring forth as a virgin.
«Isa. 7:14; Ezech. 44:1 ff.

THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD

105

Could she, then, conceive as a virgin but not bring forth
as a virgin, when conception always precedes birth? But
if tire doctrines of the priests are not believed, let us be­
lieve the admonitions of the angels who say: ‘because no
word shall be impossible with God’ (Luke 1:37); let the
Creed of the Apostles be believed, which the Roman
Church has always kept and guarded inviolately. . . .
Isaias (7:14) says that it is not only a virgin who will con­
ceive, but also a virgin who will bring forth. Who is that
gate of the sanctuary, that outward gate which looks to
the east, which remains shut, and through which no man
shall pass, except the God of Israel alone (Ezech. 44:2)?
Is Mary not that gate through which the Redeemer en­
tered into this world?” 3 And Augustine says: “. . . that
we should believe in tire only begotten Son of God the
Father Almighty bom of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary . . . and so, if her integrity was violated by His
birth, then surely He was not born of the Virgin, and it
would be wrong for the whole Church to profess, as it
now does, that He is born of the Virgin Mary, whereas the
Church itself in imitating its mother, daily begets its mem­
bers, yet remains a virgin.” 4
Indeed tire natus ex Virgine of the Apostles’ Creed as
well as the Virgo pariet of the prophet can be understand
only in sensu composito, as is customarily said. Otherwise
the connection of the virginity with the bringing forth
has no longer any meaning. On this point Isaias is even
more conclusive. For the prophet announces the conceiv­
ing and bringing forth by the virgin as a great sign or
miracle. In the original text he also uses the participial
8 St. Ambrose, Epist. 42, nos. 4—5; PL, XVI, 1125 ff.
* St. Augustine, Enchiridion, chap. 34; PL, XL, 249.

106

MARIOLOGY

construction: Behold a virgin pregnant and giving birth.
The first observation makes it superfluous to express our­
self regarding the philological question whether the He­
brew expression Haalma can mean only virgo. Hence we
cannot say with Oswald that the Sacred Scriptures leave
this question “unsolved.” Oswald ignored this scriptural
text no less than he did the patristic explanation of the
Apostles’ Creed and the vigorous opposition of the early
Church against Jovinianus.
On the contrary, when St. Luke represents the offering
of Jesus in the Temple as the fulfillment of the precept of
Moses regarding every male opening the womb,5 we must
not take these words too strictly or argue that this law
was strictly applicable to Jesus. Otherwise we would
have to conclude from the preceding text, in which St.
Luke states that “the days of her purification, according
to the law of Moses, were accomplished,”0 that Mary did
not virginally conceive.
Besides the words of this text quoted by St. Luke re­
garding the law, many of the Fathers also speak of the
apertio vulvae at the birth of Christ. They thus wish to
stress the reality of the birth and in particular the fact that
Christ was the first-born. In this sense aperire vulvam
stands in opposition to the claudere vulvam of the Sacred
Scriptures, but never in order to indicate the effractio
vulvae.1 The Fathers who use this expression declare em­
phatically, sometimes by the use of the word, sometimes
in other places of their works, that in the ordinary sense
the apertio vulvae cannot be said of Mary.
Moreover, there are more witnesses for this last point
» Luke 2:23; cf. Exod. 13:2.
β Luke 2:22; cf. Lev. 12:2 ff.
7 Tertullian is an exception; see De came Christi, chap. 23; PL, II, 790.

THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD

107

than for many others.8 Note in particular in St. Leo I:
“He is conceived of the Holy Ghost within the womb of
the virgin mother who brought Him forth without viola­
tion of her virginity, just as she conceived Him without
violation of her virginity.” The Council of Chalcedon,
which accepted the letter of St. Leo, explained this in the
oratio prosphonetica as follows: How is she the Mother
of God? Because of Him who bestowed virginity upon
her also after the conception and who sealed her womb as
is fitting God.®
In the third canon of the Council of the Lateran under
Martin I, it was defined : If anyone does not profess that
Mary is truly and appropriately the holy Mother of God,
immaculate and ever a virgin, since the Word of God is
conceived of the Holy Ghost without seed and is brought
forth incorruptibly, while her virginity remained intact
also after the birth, let him be anathema.10
Ratramnus later held as guaranty for the reality of the
birth, a literal apertio vulvae; at least he seems to hold
this view and he was at that time thus understood by
Paschasius Radbertus.11 Unlike others who, probably
through misunderstanding, as he thought, accepted an
exitus ex matre non per communem viam, he wished
merely to demonstrate that Christ’s birth into the world,
8 See Gregorius a Valentia, op. cit. and Petavius, op. cit., Leo I, Epist., 28
ad Flavian.; PL, LIV, 759.
9 Scheeben does not give here any reference to sources. Dublanchy, art.
“Marie” in Diet, de théol. cath., IX, 2380, says that the Council of Chalcedon
repeats merely for the virginity of Mary the general confirmation of the Creed:
natus ex Maria Virgine. But the virginitas tn partu is explicitly mentioned
in tlte Tomus of St. Leo (PL, LIV, 757ff.), to which the Council assented
unconditionally.
19 Denzinger, Ench. symb., no. 256. Cf. Paul IV, Constit. "Cum quorum­
dam,” Aug. 7, 1555; Denz., no. 993.
11 Ratramnus, De nativitate Christi, PL, CXXI, 83-85. Paschasius Radber­
tus, De partu Virginis, PL, CXX, 1367-86.

108

MARIOLOGY

since it had happened with the natural cooperation of the
mother, had also taken place in the natural way. This is
obvious from the following. His opponents who accepted
another form of the bringing into the world for the sole
purpose of avoiding any violation of tire womb of the
mother were shown by him to be absurd by the remark
that in every other way a violation of the bodily integrity
must take place, if one wished to regard as a violation the
giving birth in the natural way.12 Our doctrine encoun­
tered serious opponents only later in the case of heretics,
namely, the Calvinists, against whom it was defended by
Catholic theologians as a characteristic dogma.
The way Christ was born is by its very nature a true and
sublime miracle, and has always been considered so. To
facilitate belief in it, it is compared to the natural pene­
tration of light through bodies, and to analogous super­
natural effects explicitly mentioned in Sacred Scriptures,
such as the coming forth of the glorified Christ from the
tomb or His passage through closed doors. Both compari­
sons are united in the préfiguration of the burning bush
which was not consumed by the fire.
To explain the miracle in greater detail it was sometimes
considered to have been effected through a momentary
anticipation of the gift of subtlety proper to glorified
bodies. But, according to St. Thomas,13 this gift does not
suffice of itself for the co-penetration with other bodies,
and neither is it necessary. Such an anticipation should be
accepted in Christ’s condition of humility merely for
urgent reasons. With St. Thomas we must here confine
ourselves to ascribing the miracle directly to a special
12 See Natalis Alexander, O.P., Hist. Eccles., in Saec. IX, diss. 13, sec. 3.
11 St. Thomas, Illa, q.28, a. 2, ad. 3.

THE VIRGINAL MOTHERHOOD

109

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

CHAPTER VII

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity1
NLIKE all other mothers, with whom motherhood
is incompatible with virginity, the mother of the
Redeemer remains a virgin consecrated to God in her
very motherhood as well as in her whole life. Indeed, on
account of the unique perfection of her virginity and of
the unique sacredness of her person and whole being,
which lays the foundation of her virginity and makes it
complete, this woman must be called not merely “virgin”
but specifically “the Virgin.”
She had been so called already in the prophecy of Isaias
regarding the mother of the Emmanuel and again in the
Apostles’ Creed, where the virgin is placed with the Holy
Ghost as one principle of the human birth of Christ. Both
texts likewise define the objective and highest form of the
sacredness of Mary’s person and entire being, which is the
basis of her virginity. As bearer of God and instrument
of the Holy Ghost she is taken possession of by God in
the most sublime sense of the word and, as a chosen “spirit­
ual vessel” and spiritual bride of God united to Him by
marriage, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve.
The highest perfection of the quality of virginity, as
it is contained in the Christian idea of “the Virgin,” com-

U

1 Literature: St. Thomas, Illa, q. 28-29, and Suarez, op. cit., disp. 5-8;
St Peter Canisius, op. cit., 1, 2; Petavius, op. cit., De incam., 1, 14; Trombelli,
Mariae ss. vita ac gesta, Part I, diss. 9 and 10. Especially for Mary’s marriage:
Lombardus, In 4 S., dist. 30; and St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.
110

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

111

prises permanence. Otherwise Mary cannot be called
“virgin,” much less “the Virgin.” She is virgo perpetua.
This perfection of virginity comprises three essential
parts: (1) bodily integrity and purity (virginitas corporis
or carnis'); (2) the virtue of virginity or the permanent
virginal inclination (virginitas mentis); (3) the virginity
of heart, i.e., freedom from all carnal motions and sensa­
tions (virginitas sensus seu animae).
Mary’s perpetual virginity was denied only by those
heretics who denied also the divinity of Christ, such as
the Ebionites, Arians, and rationalist Protestants, or by
those who display a great wantonness in the domain of
morals, such as Helvidius and Jovinianus. The Reformers
opposed the perpetual virginity of spirit, at least so far
as the vow is concerned, and partly also the virginitas in
partu, without denying the divinity of Christ. But they
minimized the living efficacy of the divinity of Christ,
even for His own humanity, and they wished to avoid in
the vow of Mary the ideal of consecrated virginity.
Mary’s Bodily Virginity

The absolute perfection of the bodily virginity of the
mother of Jesus, with regard to that act through which
she outwardly appeared as the mother of Christ, is usually
thus defined: Mary was a virgin in the birth, before the
birth, and after the birth. This order shows that, whereas
with other mothers the violation of the bodily integrity
is strikingly obvious in the birth, Mary’s integrity was
miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son and sup­
poses and reflects the virginal conception of her Son. Fur­
thermore it guarantees the perpetual continuation of her
integrity to the exclusion of any other human conception.

112

MARIOLOGY

The absolute bodily virginity can also be determined
with reference to the conception which made her the
mother of Christ, namely, that her virginity was not vio­
lated in, before, or after the conception of Christ. Thus it
is shown that the basis of her motherhood is also the
basis of her perpetual virginity, just as in the first case the
external revelation of her motherhood comes to the fore
as a sign and guaranty of her perpetual virginity.
This permanent and perfect virginity of the body of
Mary is de fide, especially since the definition by the Fifth
Ecumenical Council (can. 2), and by the Lateran Coun­
cil under Martin I (can. 3).2
Mary’s virginity as an attribute of the divine mother­
hood, i.e., in the conception and at the birth of Christ, has
been treated before. Thus we will consider here only her
virginity after the birth of Christ, since in view of the clear
indication of Sacred Scriptures, her virginity before the
birth of Christ was never contested.
In Holy Writ the constant and perpetual virginity is
indicated merely by several details: e.g., by the mention
of the vow of virginity;3 again, by the fact that Mary is
always called the mother of Jesus, and that, for want of
other sons, the dying Christ gave St. John to her as her
adopted son and from among all His disciples chose this
one who was a virgin.
More definite is tradition, in which Mary is always
called simply “virgin” or rather “the Virgin.” Long ago
Epiphanius 4 brought this point to bear against the Antidicomarianites. With due allowance for this fact and for
2 Denzinger, nos. 214, 256.
11 See pp. 115 ff.
* St Epiphanius, Panarion; PC, XLII, 705-8.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

113

the essential connection of Mary’s perpetual virginity
with her dignity and position, the Fathers ever treat the
denial of this truth with the greatest indignation. They
call this denial insane,5 “God’s robbery”;0 scelus et blasphemia, caecus furor.'1
The intrinsic reason for the necessity of the perpetual
virginity was of old based on the interpretation of the
“closed gate” which Ezechiel saw and concerning which
God said to the prophet: “This gate shall be shut. It shall
not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because
the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it.” 8
St. Thomas 8 sets forth the absurdity of the contrary
supposition under a fourfold view, each view in connec­
tion with one of the persons concerned. ( 1 ) Christ, the
Son of Mary, who must be the only-begotten as well as
the first-born; ( 2 ) the Holy Ghost, Mary’s divine bride­
groom, who must keep her as His exclusive temple; (3)
Mary herself, who would have been guilty of the greatest
ingratitude by forsaking her virginity; (4) Joseph, Mary’s
human bridegroom, who would have been guilty of the
greatest temerity by violating the temple of the Holy
Ghost.
The exegetical difficulties brought forward by heretics
are hardly worth discussing and have been sufficiently
solved by St. Jerome.10 The heretics chiefly quote from
Sacred Scripture three expressions which, according to
them, indicate that Mary, after the birth of Christ, had
0 Origen, in Luc. horn. 7; PC, XIII, 1818.
8 St. Ambrose, De instit. virg., chap. 5; PL, XVI, 313.
7 St. Jerome, Adv. Helvidium, PL, XXIII, 195, 200.
8 Ezech. 44:2.
• St. Thomas, Illa, q.28, a. 3.
i® Op. cit.

114

MARIOLOGY

conjugal relations with Joseph and had sons by him.
1) The expression, “And he knew her not till she
brought forth her first-born son.” 11 The merely negative
implication of “not till” obviously follows from the previ­
ous statement, “and took unto him his wife.” This implica­
tion even more clearly appears from the preceding text,
which is likewise quoted: “before they came together she
was found with child, of the Holy Ghost,” 12 although
coming together does not even necessarily answer to
“knowing’’ but rather to “taking unto him,” i.e., keeping
or taking home in the other text.
2) The expression “first-born son,” 13 which St. Luke
uses in reference to Christ. This by itself excludes only
former sons and does not at all indicate later ones, par­
ticularly in biblical parlance, according to which the first­
born (bekhor'), precisely in that negative sense, was
bearer of special rights aiid duties, and had to be con­
secrated to God.
3) The mention of several persons as “brothers of
Christ.” According to the Hebrew language, this expres­
sion does not require that these “brothers” should be con­
sidered children of the same parents. It is also used in a
wider sense for relatives in general; e.g., Gen. 13:8, where
Abraham calls Lot his brother. In fact, several of these
brothers, such as James and Joseph,14 are indicated as
sons of another Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus
and wife of Clopas.16 James, who particularly is men­
tioned as the brother of Jesus,10 is regularly named in the
” Matt. 1:25.
12 Matt. 1:18.
i’ Luke 2:7.
n Matt. 27:56.
i6 John 19:25.
18 Gal. 1:19.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

115

enumeration of the apostles as the son of another father,
Alphaeus.17 Clopas in St. John’s Gospel18 (by mistake
the Vulgate has Cleophas) and Alphaeus in the Synoptics
are one and the same person. Both names rest only on a
different pronunciation of the Hebrew word “Halphai.”
If, according to Hegesippus,18 Clopas was a brother of
St. Joseph, there existed a double cousinship between
Jesus and James. For the solution of this difficulty we are
not at all obliged to accept, with some of the Fathers to­
gether with the Apocrypha, that the “brothers” of Jesus
were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This was
already rejected by St. Jerome.20
Mary’s Virginity of Spirit

The perpetual virginity of Mary not only consisted in
bodily integrity, but was always understood as embracing
also virginity of spirit, i.e., a steadfast will to keep her
bodily integrity for the honor of God. The virginal dis­
position after the conception of Christ is a necessary re­
sult of this conception. The absence of it would have
been a lack of spiritual perfection and a grievous sin. But
this responsibility did not oblige Mary before the con­
ception of Christ. Mary did not know her sublime calling,
at least not explicitly and distinctly.
On the other hand it must be supposed a priori that
God prepared her for her vocation by the infusion of the
17 Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15.
18 John 19:25.
18 St. Hegesippus, Fraem. apud Euseb., PG, XX, 248.
20 St. Jerome, in Matin., chap. 12; PL, XXVI, 84 ff.; Adv. Helvid., no. 19;
PL, XXIII, 203. Origen, who definitely champions the perpetual virginity of
Mary (Hom. 7 In Luc.; PG, XIII, 1818; In Jo., Bk. I, no. 6, PG, XIV, 32), is
rather inclined to accept children from a first marriage of Joseph (in Matt.,
Bk. X, no. 17; PG, XIII, 8760).

116

MARIOLOGY

virginal inclination. But the Sacred Scriptures offer us
also a positive standpoint for the fact that Mary really
had this disposition in the most perfect manner. The an­
swer to tire angel: “How shall this be done, because I
know not man?” 21 does not permit any other comprehen­
sible meaning than this, that Mary had already bound
herself by vow to keep her virginity.
Here we may ask whether this vow had been condi­
tional or unconditional, whether taken before or after
her marriage; and, in the event that Mary took it before
her marriage, how long it antedated that event.
According to the idea of the Church, which presents
Mary as the model of all virgins, the ideal perfection of
the love for virginity must be presumed in her, namely, on
the ground of her vocation as Mother of God, or rather,
of her consecration as bride of God solemnized by God
Himself from the beginning. Having observed this fact,
we must accept: ( 1 ) that this vow was simply perfect and
therefore also unconditional, since there was no condi­
tion attached to it which was derogatory to the moral
decision of the will; (2) that, in any case, it had been
taken as soon as the question arose in Mary’s soul concern­
ing her future state of life.
1 ) The fact of the vow of chastity follows from Luke
1:34 so clearly that tire Protestant opponents of it have to
take refuge in the most insipid and contradictory subter­
fuges.22 Referring to this text, the early Fathers, such as
Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine, have upheld the vow.23
21 Luke 1:34.
22 St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., Bk. II, chap. 14.
23 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermo de nativ. Domini, PG, XLVI, 1140 ff.; St.
Augustine, De sancta virginitate, chap. 4; PL, XL, 398.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

117

The intrinsic possibility of the vow can be disputed
only by those who either do not wish to accept virginity
as a possible object of a vow, or who from a rationalist
point of view completely overlook the fact that Mary has
to be prepared for her sublime vocation under the guid­
ance and enlightenment of the Holy Ghost. We know that
even before the time of Christ the thought of freely chosen
perpetual virginity was not strange to the Israelites, as the
example of the Essenes shows; but we cannot prove or
suppose that others before Mary had both made the reso­
lution and taken the formal vow of virginity.
For this reason some of the Fathers thought that in the
Old Testament the entering into marriage and its con­
summation were generally even commanded. This opin­
ion, however, is based on a misunderstanding of some
texts whose true implication is a promise of fecundity to
the marriages of the Israelites, and also on the generaliz­
ing of a text which is not found in the Vulgate: maledictus
qui non fecerit semen in Israel.2* The latter does not
mean an obligation to marriage in contrast with virginity,
but to a certain marriage, namely, the levirate marriage.
It need only be conceded that in the morals of the Israel­
ites the higher appreciation of virginity does not generally
find expression. In consideration of the divine decree that
the Messias should arise out of Israel, the striving for the
propagation of the people of God had a relative preced­
ence over the observance of virginity.
2) The perfection of the vow. Partly because of this
notion of the people of Israel, partly because of Mary’s
24 This text, for which Scheeben refers to Deut. 25, is not found in the
Hebrew or in the LXX. It must be a gloss which crept into some manuscripts.
St. Thomas, In 4 Sent., d.30, q.2, art. 1, refers to Deut. 7:14.

118

MARIOLOGY

subsequent marriage, some theologians2S*have taught
that her vow was at first conditional, since she was not
certain that the keeping of her virginity under all cir­
cumstances would be most pleasing to God. For that
reason she should have added to it the condition: so far
as God’s pleasure is not otherwise.
But even if such an uncertainty is accepted, the vow
loses nothing of its moral perfection. The willingness to
keep her virginity is not impaired by this condition. In
fact, by the conditional vow the unconditional and com­
plete surrender to God, which forms the soul of the vow,
shines still more splendidly.28
Moreover, we are not compelled to accept this uncer­
tainty. A priori the contrary must rather be presumed.
This uncertainty, therefore, need not be accepted be­
cause only after entering into the engagement with Jo­
seph could Mary be entirely certain that the steadfast
observance of the vow was pleasing to God. Even before
the betrothal she could have known this through divine
revelation, just as she could have been certain, through
such an inspiration, or even through a previous agree­
ment with her bridegroom, that she did not expose her
virginity to danger in this marriage, but rather would
find a protection. Nothing refutes diis presumption. On
25 Cf. St. Thomas, In 4 S., d.30, q.2, a. 1, qla. 1, and Illa, q.28, a.4, re­
ferring to a remark of St. Augustine, which is quoted by Gratian (PL,
CLXXXVII, 154) and Lombardus (Sent., lib. 4, dist. 30), but which cannot
be found in the writings of St. Augustine.
20 Scheeben here makes the following note: It is common knowledge that
it is a favorite theme of Marian preachers to find expression in the question
to the angel, “How shall this be done, etc.”, that Mary would have pre­
ferred her virginity even to the divine motherhood. St. Bernard (horn. 4,
super Missus est, no. 3; PL, CLXXXIII, 80) understood the meaning of the
answer quite differently; he emphasizes the complete surrendering to God
which forms the soul of the vow of virginity. See Appendix 4.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

119

the contrary it may well be presumed that Mary took the
vow not only out of love for virginity in general, but also
because of a clear knowledge that God had called her
to take it. For otherwise this vow is usually taken with
the knowledge that God will not merely accept it with
complacency, but will also expect it of the person who
takes it. This view must be accepted still more with re­
gard to Mary, who was predestined by God from the be­
ginning to be His bride and mother.27
Taking these circumstances into consideration, we may
say that Mary’s vow eminently bears the character and
force of a “solemn vow.” 28 It included both a subjective
engagement, simply accepted by God, and an objective
consecration, being taken possession of by God. It is a
consecration which is not consequent upon the acceptance
of the vow, but which rather precedes the vow as a dedi­
cation that Mary, on her side, must accept through her
vow. In other words, Mary was already a virgin conse­
crated to God, one whom God united to Himself in mar­
riage. But through her vow and her own will she also
entered subjectively into the relationship of the bride of
God, as Eve through her consent contracted her marriage
with Adam which had been decreed by God.
We may dispute the term “solemn vow.” However, the
matter speaks for itself. As the conception of Christ, which
followed after Mary’s vow, is rightly regarded as the
27 For Mary’s bridal relation to God, see also chap. 5.
2S Scheeben follows here the idea of solemn vows which St. Thomas gives
in his Summa; they differ from the simple vows by a sort of consecratio or
being taken possession of by God Himself (Ila Ilae, q.88, a7), who makes
them indissoluble (ibid., a. 11). For this doctrine and its relation to the present
ecclesiastical judicial idea, see I. Mennessier, O.P., in the French translation
of the Summa, La religion (Paris, 1934), Π, 423—41; Prummer, O.P., Bull,
thorn., Ι-ΠΙ (1924-26), no. 296; Em. Bergh, S.J., “Eléments et nature de la
profession religieuse” in Eph. th. Loo., XIV (1937), 5-32.

120

MARIOLOGY

consecration of herself and her virginity, this consecra­
tion may very well be taken as a solemnisatio voti.
3) For the time of the vow, we must assign it to the
earliest possible period of her life. Other saints have taken
it in their earliest days, e.g., St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi.
Sexual, bodily, or spiritual maturity is not required. The
feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple likewise
points to this conclusion. The chief thought and meaning
of the feast is Mary’s complete consecration to God.
4) As a special quality of Mary’s vow, it is usually
thought to have been the first ever taken. This opinion
cannot positively and satisfactorily be proved. Yet it is
very probable. For not only can no former vow be pointed
out, but according to the concept and morals of the Israel­
ites, who alone are here taken into consideration, such
a vow is not to be presumed without reason.29
Mary’s Virginity

of

Heart

Finally, in accordance with the mind of the Church
regarding the absolutely perfect virginity of Mary, we
must accept that virginity of heart, i.e., freedom from
all motions and sensations contrary to purity, is an essen­
tial part of that perfect virginity. This virginity is in­
cluded in the moral perfection and holiness of Mary’s will.
Hence this point comes under the general notion of free­
dom from material sins or motions of sensual concupis­
cence in general.
Because of the union in her of these three elements of
perfect virginity, Mary is called not merely “virgin,” but
even “Virgin of virgins,” i.e., the ideal of virginity. For a
double reason she deserves this name. First of all, with
28 For further details on this point, see Suarez and Trombelli.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

121

her the love for virginity stood in direct relation to the
excellent fullness of grace and love of God, through which
she excels all saints. For this reason her virginity not only
consists of actual integrity and immaculateness protected
merely by human will, but at the same time must also be
considered as the most perfect inviolability and purity.
Secondly, by consecrating Mary to be His motherly bride,
God bound Himself to prevent every violation and defile­
ment of her purity and, in particular, to make the interior
violation of the virginity of Mary impossible.
Mary’s virginity had this characteristic, at least after
the conception of Christ, as the result of the physical com­
pletion of her marriage to God. But this characteristic
existed previously as well, since Mary was already mar­
ried to God by His unconditional decree from the begin­
ning, or at least was chosen and called as His bride.
Mary’s Marriage

and

Her Virginity

In apparent contradiction to Mary’s perfect virginity
as a woman consecrated to God, the fact remains that,
according to the Gospels, she was the wife of Joseph. On
account of this fact her virginity has been disputed. But,
on the contrary, her virginity and particularly her quality
of virgin consecrated to God could with equal reason
make it appear that her marriage to Joseph was not a true
marriage. Considered carefully, the marital character of
this relationship is not only not in contradiction to her
quality of “the Virgin,” but in miraculous harmony with
it; and rightly so, since here a form of marriage is present
which indeed is very peculiar, but which, far from being
considered imperfect, must rather be regarded as most
ideal.

122

MARIOLOGY

First of all, the expressions of Holy Writ in which
Joseph is presented as the “husband of Mary,” and Mary
as “the wife of Joseph,” absolutely demand that the rela­
tion of Mary to Joseph be in reality a true marriage, not
merely a bond of friendship or protection or a simple
betrothal. According to the literal sense of their words,
some of the Fathers seem to deny this fact, and instead
of a marriage appear to accept a mere engagement. It
can easily be proved that they had in view only the ex­
clusion of an actual and sexually consummated marriage,
or of a marriage in the ordinary form, which in every re­
spect is incompatible with the vow and sacred state of
virginity. In fact, Holy Writ itself here avoids the term
“marriage” (nuptiae) to which the Fathers take excep­
tion, and always uses the expression desponderi. How­
ever, this word is not used in the wider sense of being
engaged, but in the narrower sense of being married, for
otherwise it could not answer to the idea of “wife of
Joseph.”
The possibility of a real marriage is not excluded
through Mary’s virginity. For the virginity of the body
merely removes the actual, bodily consummation of the
marriage, which supposes the latter as already existing
by right. The vow and virginity of mind annul, indeed, the
intention to consummate or use marriage in a sexual way,
but not, for that reason, the intention to give or obtain
the jus mutuum in corpus proprium. The latter intention
can also exist in a lawful manner, when the will of the
bridal couple is exclusively directed to the other blessings
of marriage which are connected with their belonging to
each other.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

123

We can rather say that the state of virginity, like the
vow, excludes also the possibility of the right of a legal
pledging of the jus in corpus proprium and thus abolishes
the nature of the tie proper to marriage. By state of virgin­
ity in that case is meant the characteristic of Mary as a vir­
gin, consecrated to God. In her this characteristic is not
less perfect, but rather, particularly after the conception
of Christ, is undoubtedly more perfect than that which
is brought about through a solemn vow. From the point
of view indicated, it is beyond dispute that the mutual
right to the body of the other, understood as with ordinary
marriages, that is, as jus utendi corpore alterius, is here
no more conceivable as a radical right than as an actual
and formal one. Thus in the relation of Mary to Joseph
the marriage tie is not entirely of the same nature as in
ordinary marriages.30
Even if we grant all this, a real marriage in contradis­
tinction to every other union of two persons, still remains
conceivable with Mary. This is so not only only in regard
to the more general idea of the oneness of man and woman,
brought about through the will and power of the Creator,
with the mutual rights and duties of undivided and indis­
soluble connection of life, but also with the more special
idea of jus in corpus alterius. For this right is not simply
excluded under every form. Not only may it be imagined
as a right of disposal to beget the fruit, but also as a right
of pleasure with regard to the copossession of the fruit,
to be won by God. For a natural marriage the last men­
tioned right is dependent on the first. Nothing, however,
30 This also seems to be indicated by the Fathers, when they refuse to
acknowledge any nuptiae in the case of Mary.

124

MARIOLOGY

prevents God from granting the last right independent of
the first in a marriage, contracted only for an entirely
unique end and with His special authorization.
A real marriage was necessary, under the form in which
it was possible with Mary without damage to her vir­
ginity. Indeed so necessary was it that the same end for
which virginity was required in Mary, namely, the worthy
realization, exercise, and revelation of her divine mother­
hood, demanded at the same time the marriage state with
the virginal mother.
Hence the contracting of her marriage must be ascribed
not less to a special command and inspiration of God
than was her vow of virginity. Thus it is evident that God
also ensured the virginity in that marriage in a more or
less miraculous manner.
Likewise it follows that Mary’s authorization to con­
tract such a marriage does not at all bear the same char­
acter as in other cases, where a virgin, dedicated to God,
receives permission for this end. This means that it does
not bring to the virgin in any way a release from obliga­
tions, nor a ceasing of rights on the side of God. It rather
has the express end in view, to support the virgin in the
fulfilling of her vocation and to protect the rights of God.
For it grants to the human bridegroom only those rights
which enable him to render the necessary services to the
bride of God and to her divine fruit.
Lastly, it is also clear that the close relationship be­
tween Mary’s marriage with her human bridegroom and
her virginal motherhood must not be regarded merely as
outward and accidental, but as an inner and organic one.
Thus this marriage has a consecration and dignity higher
than all others, and also an exceptional perfection of

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

125

marriage, that is, in relation to the two most important
bona matrimonii; the bonum prolis and the bonum sacra­
menti.
As for the bonum prolis, this marriage was, not less
than any other, intended by God who made it, and there­
fore fundamentally and essentially to make possible a re­
ceiving of the fruit. Over every other virginal marriage it
possesses this privilege, that it shares with a consummated
marriage without damage to its virginity the blessing of
fruitfulness. For in this marriage a fruit had really to be
given to the married couple and put under their charge.
Although the fruit was not produced through the carnal
use of the marriage by husband and wife, it still had to
belong to both according to the decree of the divine Fa­
ther, by virtue of the spiritual unity of husband and wife,
just as the natural fruit of a marriage usually belongs to
them.
This marriage possesses still another privilege above
every non-virginal marriage: the fruit of it is entirely and
essentially holy; and at the same time husband and wife
have cooperated in a higher manner by their common
and virginal surrender to God to win the fruit than is the
case through carnal relations with regard to a natural
fruit.
The bonum sacramenti directly defines in marriage the
bond which, according to its nature, is elevated above all
other unions among men. This consists in the fact that a
person is so connected with or so bound to another by the
will of God that they form one indissoluble whole, and
in and through it, as an instrument belonging to God, are
taken possession of by God Himself for the joint achieve­
ment of a service.

126

MARIOLOGY

The perfection of this bond is thus the higher according
as the service of God, to which the one person is united
with the other, is holier; and the belonging to God, in vir­
tue of which the one person elevates the other, is more
sublime. Thus the relationship of Joseph to Mary incom­
parably excels in both respects not only the natural mar­
riage before and apart from Christianity, but also the
other Christian marriages. It exceeds them in the same
measure as the production and care of Christ is a higher
design than tliat of mere human beings who must become
members of Christ, and as Mary is an instrument belong­
ing to God and a member of Christ in a manner more
sublime than any other human being who is ordained by
baptism to be an instrument of God and member of
Christ.
It cannot be said here, as with a marriage of two Chris­
tians, that each party is sanctified by the other. The higher
sanctity, previously mentioned, of the marriage tie of
Joseph and Mary does not suffer under it, for it is thus
solely because Mary cannot receive her ordination as
Mother of God through marriage with a human bride­
groom: here the marriage had rather to derive its higher
ordination from the highest ordination of the woman, in­
dependent of the bridegroom.
The often repeated expressions, άνήρ αυτής, γυνή αύτοΰ, are
decisive for tire reality of the marriage of Mary and Jo­
seph. The Vulgate translates γυνή sometimes by uxor,
sometimes by conjux.31 The expressions are clear and do
not allow another meaning.
According to this, we must explain the other term,
S1 Matt 1:16, 19 (oir); Luke 2:5 (uxor); Matt. 1:20, 24 (coniux).

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

127

μνηστευζάσα, desponsata,32 with which Mary is indicated
after, as well as before, the “acceptation” by Joseph. This
verb can, indeed, mean a mere engagement, but does not
possess that meaning exclusively. It is used rather in the
sense of being married. Hence the exact translation is not
“betrothed,” but “married,” i.e., bound by marriage.
The given expression has, according to its nature, the
tendency to show formally the marriage relationship ac­
cording to its spiritual and ethical side, as matrimonium
ratum. It is also used in Scripture with regard to Mary
in three texts in a restrictive sense for matrimonium pure
ratum, to indicate the exclusion of carnal relations, more
correctly, to throw the right light upon Mary’s conception
and pregnancy as supernatural in contrast to her rela­
tionship to Joseph.
We cannot discover any reason why the marriage of
Mary and Joseph had not already taken place before the
conception of Christ, since, before as well as after, Mary
is usually called μνηστευξάσα, even on the occasion of the
journey to Bethlehem. In that passage the Vulgate trans­
lates it uxor. All who accept a real marriage with Mary
regard it as lawfully solemnized by that time.
Moreover, in Joseph’s deliberation with the angel about
the “taking unto him his wife,” it is not excluded, but
supposes that Mary was already “the wife of Joseph,”
thus united to him through marriage. Yet the “taking unto
him,” which followed later, is the only positive indication
from which it could be concluded that the marriage was
solemnized after the conception of Christ. To explain the
scriptural text, we need not even have recourse to the
«Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5.

128

MARIOLOGY

fact that with the Jews there was not such a sharp line
drawn between engagement and marriage as in Chris­
tianity.
As to the possibility of a real marriage, those theo­
logians who stress the fact that the preceding vow of
Mary was made conditionally, also hold that, with the con­
tracting of her marriage, she had the conditional will to
make the use of marriage possible if God so wished it. But
this conditional will is not necessary for the validity of
the marriage.
The reasons why marriage was fitting for Mary are
listed by St. Thomas.33 He mentions twelve reasons, ac­
cording to these three categories: in relation to Christ, to
Mary, and to us. As to the text of the Gospel, these reasons
seem partly to require that the real marriage, and not
the simple engagement, already existed at the time of the
conception of Christ. They seem further to require, par­
ticularly for the complete safeguarding of Mary’s honor,
that the external cohabitation of husband and wife should
have also already begun before the conception. In any
case no definite and intrinsic reason can be advanced for
the opposite.
We may regard as conclusive the reason by which this
meaning is confirmed: the angel’s admonition to Joseph
“to take unto him Mary his wife” and the following men­
tion that the command was obeyed. For this “taking unto
him” stands in contrast to the previously mentioned “to
put away.” As this latter expression indicates a living to­
gether as already in existence, the former can also be
understood as the abandoning of the idea of sending
’* St. Thomas, Illa, q.29, a. 1.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

129

away, or the firm resolution to live together continually.34
As for the perfection of this marriage, read the text of
St. Thomas, where he explains how the proles is truly a
bonum matrimonii here.35
Generally, even with ordinary marriages their relation­
ship to the “fruit” is better and more ideally expressed
through susceptio prolis per Deum ( on behalf of God ) ,30
than through the joint procreation. Thus the child is
marked as the fruit of the divine blessing, from which its
soul originates, and the productive function of the par­
ents is considered in its relation of service to the divine
cooperation. From this point of view and for this reason
the child in ordinary marriage is first given and appro­
priated by God to the mother, and by the mother to the
father, and this not only for the sake of the physical in­
fluence of the father upon the production of the child,
but at the same time by virtue of the father’s corporeal
proprietorship of the mother, or also in virtue of the unity
of both.
As from this point of view the perfection of the mar­
riage between Mary and Joseph remained more easily
safeguarded, the real form also of this marriage is an
instructive example for the ideal view of marriage in
general.
From it, finally, there follows a deeper understanding
of the paternity of St. Joseph. It is certainly more than a
merely apparent paternity in the form of guardianship or
84 For the opposite opinion, see Caietanus M. Perrella, "B.V.M. cum coel­
estem excepit nuntium, S. Joseph sponsalibus solum non vero nuptiis iuncta
erat” in Divus Thomas (Piacenza), XXXV (1932), 378-98; 519-31.
85 St. Thomas, In 4 Sent., dist. 30, q.2, a. 2 ad 4.
88 Cf. Gen. 4:1.

130

MARIOLOGY

adoption. For it rests upon the perfection of the marriage
of Joseph with the bodily mother of the child.37
It is not dogmatically established and can therefore not
be so defined that Joseph, as well as Mary, had always
been a virgin before and after the solemnizing of their
marriage. It certainly may be presumed, partly from the
sublime vocation of Joseph and the analogy with the vir­
ginal disciple who was assigned a similar and close rela­
tionship to Christ and Mary, partly from the fact that
the virginal marriage of Joseph with Mary required from
him also a vow of virginity. The latter then indicates a
virginal inclination which ruled his whole life.
Whereas many of the Fathers, the larger number
Greek, but some also Latin, have not acknowledged the
perpetual virginity of Joseph, since they ascribed to him
sons of a former marriage, they did this chiefly because
they thought this supposition could explain more easily
“the brothers of Jesus.” This opinion finds an actual mo­
tive in tire Apocrypha only. These, however, partly
denied the marriage of Joseph with Mary, for which pre­
cisely his virginity was required. According to them, he
was merely appointed as protector of Mary. For the rest,
Jerome already strongly defended the perpetual virginity
of St. Joseph.38
The best that can be theologically defined with more
or less trustworthiness regarding the dignity, position,
and qualities of St. Joseph, is found in Saurez,3’ with
whom the better ascetical writers of modem times agree.
87 See Suarez, op. cit., disp. 8, sert. 1.
88 See references quoted under note 20.
88 Op. cit.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

131

The blind zeal of some modem pious writers is deserving
of serious disapproval, for they exaggerate both the like­
ness of St. Joseph to Mary and the authority of his pa­
ternity toward Jesus. In regard to the first, one writer has
even envisioned an immaculate conception for St. Joseph,
and this is at least implicitly supposed in certain pictures
and representations, which unite the heart of St. Joseph
with that of Jesus and Mary. Such pictures and images
were therefore rightly condemned by the Holy See.40
Concerning the second point, the authority of Joseph
toward Christ, an analogous explanation is fitting.
40 Reser. S. Congr. Ind., February 19, 1879.

CHAPTER VIII

The Divine Motherhood1
The Doctrine

AITH teaches that Christ, in particular the human
Christ, truly and really brought forth from a human
mother, is as much the son of a human mother as is every
other human son. Notwithstanding the supernatural or­
igin of His person, a true and real human sonship is due
to Christ.
Because of the maternal principle which actually par­
ticipates in the production, this human sonship of Christ
and also the motherhood corresponding to it must even
be called natural, for, so far as the producing of the hu­
man nature and its communication to the person of Christ
through conception and birth are concerned, everything
is positively accomplished from the mother’s side, which
she does in a natural way in the production of her child.
With regard to the virginity of the maternal produc­
tion and the pre-existence of the personal principle of
Christ, His human sonship differs from the natural sonship of other human beings essentially in this, that no
human fatherhood corresponds to it. It thus forms exclu­
sively a relationship with a maternal principle.

F

1 Literature: Peter Lombardus, Sent., 1.3, dist. 4, 5, 8; with it St. Bonaven­
ture and St. Thomas; St. Thomas, Illa, q.35; with it Gregorius a Valentia and
Suarez; Petavius, op. cit., 1.5, c. 14 ff.; Tnomassinus, op. cit., 1.3, c. 15; Ludov.
Le Grand, De incam. Verbi divini (reprinted in Migne, Curs. theoL, Vol. IX),
diss. 4, c.2, a. 2.
132

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

133

In Scripture, Christ is indeed pictured as son of the
forefathers of Mary (e.g., David), and these, therefore,
as His forehears; but, with Christ, this sonship differs es­
sentially from that of other human beings. With them it
includes a continuation of the paternal influence, cul­
minating in the origin of the son, who depends on it in
his entire existence. The sonship of Christ maintains re­
lations with the forefathers through His virginal mother
only, and thus it imprints on the ancestral descent the
character of a mere maternal relation. It brings Christ in
relation to His forefathers to the extent only that the sub­
stance of His body is taken from them. Through His su­
pernatural conception in Mary, He is given to them in a
higher sense than children brought forth in a natural
manner: He is their son, conceived through their longing
and their faith in the divine promises.
The result of this circumstance—which is not the case
with a natural sonship—is that the human sonship of
Christ can be and is extended to the whole of mankind.
For mankind forms, with the first ancestor of Christ (who
is also ancestor of all) one whole from which the sub­
stance of the body of Christ is taken. In Adam, Christ
was also given to the whole of mankind as the longed-for,
promised, and expected son, in the sense of the prophecy
of Isaias: “A child is born to us, and a son is given to us.” 2
In this manner Christ, precisely on account of His super­
natural origin, is even pre-eminently the son of man, as
Adam is pre-eminently the father of mankind.
According to the explicit dogma of the human sonship
of Christ, it is to be further defined and explained thus:
that it simply must be ascribed not only to Christ, or to
2 Isa. 9:6.

134

MARIOLOGY

the man Christ, but to the Logos incarnate, i.e., the divine
person of the Logos, as to its subject. Therefore, accord­
ing to the dogma it can and must also be said truly and
really: the divine Logos incarnate is the maternal prod­
uct of Mary, i.e., conceived by her and born of her; conse­
quently He is her Son, and she is His mother, as it is said
of other mothers that they are the mothers of human
sons.
This truth lies immediately, through simple analysis
and necessary deduction, in the other truth that Christ
is tlie son of Mary. For, Christ is no other being than the
compositum of the Word incarnate, no other than the in­
carnate and divine person of the Logos, or the man per­
sonally constituted by the Logos. His production cannot,
indeed, be that of the person of Christ, without it being
die production of the divine person of the Logos in die
flesh, or in His personal identity with die man personally
constituted by die Logos.
The production of Christ would not, then, be truly and
really the production of the divine person of the Logos,
were Christ not truly and substantially the same person
as the divine person of die Logos; or again, had He come
into being as a mere man to be later united, in whatever
way, to the Logos, and had He not, vice versa, come into
being through the incarnation of the Logos.
In reality die Nestorians denied the human birth and
sonship of the Logos, precisely because they denied the
identity of the person of Christ with the Logos. On the
contrary, on the Catholic side man premised die human
birth and the sonship of the divine Logos, just as the cor­
responding tide in Mary of “Mother of God,” as a neces-

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

135

sary and correct expression for the divinity of the man
Christ.
To express the sublime and exceptional nature of this
motherhood, the term Χριστοτόκοτ (Christipara) can also be
formed. This word was purposely made by the Nestorians
as a shibboleth of their heresy and is therefore rejected
by holy Church as suspicious. The Church uses the term
Theotokos (Deipara), “Mother of God,” as a technical
expression for the sublime and entirely personal nature of
Mary’s motherhood. The Latin Fathers and councils usu­
ally render ©«oto'kos as Dei genitrix, while the Greeks
seldom use the analogous expression ®ΐογεννητωρ Indeed,
the latter term does not give so clearly as Dei genitrix the
maternal character of the production, and is therefore
not as appropriate as the first one.
The dogmatic definition of ©«στόκος on the ground of
the maternal production of the ©«os Λόγος σαρκωδά·, from
Mary, is found in the first canon of the Council of
Ephesus,3 the sixth canon of the Fifth Council,4 and the
third canon of the Lateran Council in 649.5 In the last
two canons it is also explained that the name ©«στόκος
should be understood, not καταχρηστικών (abusive), but
άλ-ηδί* and κυρίως ( vere et proprie ) in the following sense.
( 1 ) The man brought forth from Mary is truly and really
God, not merely according to the name and figuratively,
as the Nestorians said. He did not later become God, but
came into existence in His very origin as God. (2) Vice
versa, the incarnate God is truly and really brought forth
s Really the first Anathematismus of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Cf. Denzinger,
no. 113, with the note at that place.
4 Second Council of Constantinople ( 553), Denzinger, no. 218.
5 Denzinger, no. 256.

136

MARIOLOGY

from Mary, not only according to the name and figura­
tively, as the Nestorians said, i.e., through attributing to
God the production of a human being normally united
with God.
Facundus Hermianensis says: “If God is truly man, and
truly man not otherwise than by being born of the Virgin,
why cannot God be said to be truly born of the Virgin?
And if, strictly speaking, God became man, and became
man not otherwise than by being born of the Virgin, why
cannot He be said also strictly to be born of the Virgin?” *
Many Fathers connect otherwise the veritas of the gen­
eratio and of the maternitas Dei with the maternal co­
operation of Mary at the birth of Christ; the proprietas,
on the other hand, with the fact that Christ is really God.
This, however, does not coincide with the trend of
thought of the Fifth Council.
In Sacred Scripture we do not find the expression
“Mother of God,” not to mention the expression ®£Otôkos .
But apart from their entire doctrine concerning the be­
ing and origin of Christ, they formally contain also all
the elements included therein. (1) In the prophecy of
Isaias and the declaration of the angel: that which is con­
ceived and born of Mary, will be the “Emmanuel” ( “God
with us”) and “Son of God.” 7 (2) In the words of the
Apostle: the Son of God was made and brought forth of
Mary.8 (3) In the salutation of Elizabeth: Mary is
greeted as “the Mother of the Lord.” 9
In tradition,10 long before the Council of Ephesus,
8 Facundus Hermianensis, Pro defens, trium capit., c.4; PL, LXVII, 546.
7 Isa. 7:14; Luke 1:35.
8 Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4.
0 Luke 1:43.
10 For this see A. Janssens, Theotocos (Brussels, 1928), II, pp. 106-93.

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

137

mention was often made of a “second production, in
time,” of the God-Logos by Mary. In the Apostles’ Creed
this is consequently connected with the Son of God as
directly as with Christ. Even the expression Θεοτόκο·; was
already in use long before. Julian the Apostate re­
proached the Christians with not ceasing to call Mary
“Mother of God”;11 and Gregory Nazianzen had already
pronounced anathema against the opponents.12
The people of Antioch, who in die beginning were
friends of Nestorius, in their letter to Nestorius before
the Council of Ephesus testified concerning the numerous
examples in which this expression appears in the more
ancient tradition: “A word which has often been used,
written, and pronounced by many Fathers do not thou
find hard to employ nor proceed to reject a word which
expresses a pious and correct notion of the mind. For this
word theotokos none of the Church doctors ever rejected.
But those who have used it are found to be both numerous
and truly renowned, and even those who did not use it
never insinuated any error in those who did. For, if we
do not accept what is proposed by the meaning of the
term, we proceed to fall into the most profound error;
nay, we actually deny the inexplicable economy of the
only-begotten Son of God. Indeed, if this word is taken
away, or rather the notion of this term repudiated, it im­
mediately follows that He is not God. We expose our­
selves to no danger when we feel and speak those things
which we know for certain that the most celebrated
doctors of the Church of God have felt and thought.” 13
11 See St. Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum, PC, LXXVI, 901.
82 St. Gregory Naz., Epist. 101 ad Cledon., no. 1: PG, XXXVII, 177-80.
See the texts referred to in Petavius, Dogm. theol., c. 14 and 15.
18 St. John of Antioch, Epist. 1 ad Nestorium; PG, LXXVII, 1456.

138

MARIOLOGY

It is, therefore, entirely unwarranted that Cyril is intro­
duced as the originator of the term Θεοτόκος. It can be at­
tributed only to absent-mindedness, that the otherwise
excellent Ephraem of Antioch has even held that Leo I
claimed this expression as decisive.14
Against this doctrine the Nestorians raised the point
that the production of a divine person by Mary neces­
sarily also includes the producing of the divine person by
itself, or even of the divine nature out of Mary. As Cyril
remarks, this objection is refuted by the fact that even
the production of the natural man does not include on the
part of the mother the producing of all that forms the
whole man, e.g., the spiritual soul. It might rather be said
that the production of God out of Mary includes at least
that the divine person received existence first in conse­
quence of His production. For in this way man in general
and the soul in particular comes into existence in the
natural and human procreation; not, indeed, through the
sole activity of the producing principles, but still only on
account of these and in consequence of them.
So far as here the issue would be a paternal produc­
tion, this thought would certainly be more obvious, but
the fact that the human production precisely in its nature
is a communication of the human nature, would, even in
that case, point to this, that the divine person is the object
of the production, not according to His divine being, but
only according to the human nature which had to be
given to Him. Here, however, the issue at hand is a
maternal production, which essentially is directed merely
to aid a person whose existence was determined from
14 St. Ephraem of Antioch, Fragmenta; PG, LXXXVI, 2103-10 (the text
to which Scheeben alludes is not found in it). Cf. Dublanchy, art. “Marie”
in Diet, théol. oath., IX, 2351-55.

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

139

elsewhere in the bringing about of his human existence.
In our case the generatio Dei especially rests on the conceptio-susceptio Dei, which, according to the Apostle, de­
pends upon a missio Filii Dei.15 There will be more about
this subject in what follows.
No one need fear that the honor of God and Christ will
be infringed by the stressing of Mary’s divine mother­
hood. But great danger threatens the honor of Christ,
where His mother is not gladly and loudly proclaimed
Mother of God. As the Nestorians opposed this title be­
cause they did not acknowledge Christ as true God, so
Protestantism has slowly lost the full knowledge of the
divinity of Christ because it refused to Mary the honor
which is due to the Mother of God, supposedly for the
sake of God and Christ.
The dogmatic meaning of the idea of the divine moth­
erhood of Mary is the greater, because, as the Fathers
often elucidate, ®α>τόκος has, for the entire doctrine of the
being of Christ, a meaning as well-balanced and conclu­
sive as ό/ζοοΰσιος has for the doctrine of the divine Logos
and of the entire Trinity, ‘o/wovoios presents the Logos as a
person, distinct from the Father, yet identical with Him
in being, and it thus contradicts Sabellianism and Ari­
anism. Θεοτόκοϊ characterizes Him, whose mother is Mary,
at the same time as true God and as true man, and indeed
as a man consubstantial with other people. Hence it is
directed against Eutychianism and Apollinarianism as
well as against Nestorianism.16
As the human sonship of the Logos or of God is for­
15 Gal. 4:4.
16 See St John Damascene, De fide orth., Bk. 3, chap. 12; PL, XCIV, 102832; Petavius and Thomassinus, op. cit.

140

MARIOLOGY

mally based upon the supernatural realization of the pro­
duction of Christ by Mary, notably on the reception of
the Logos or of God in the womb of Mary, it is not al­
lowable to extend it without reason to the ancestry of
Mary. One cannot, for instance, say that the Logos is the
grandson of Anna or of David or, vice versa, that Anna
is the grandmother and David the ancestor of God. At
the very least one should have to add “according to the
flesh,” 17 which is not necessary with Mary. But even at
that, these expressions are not at all becoming. They seem
to lower the divine person to a common link in the chain
of posterity to a human ancestor, while the virginal moth­
erhood raises Mary herself above the rank of common
mothers. The Church has never made use of such expres­
sions. It is true that some Greek Fathers call David
θίοττάτωρ,18 but this should rather be excused than imitated.
Closer Inspection

of the

Human Motherhood

To clear away all difficulties and to exclude at the same
time and often noticeable diminishing of the idea of the
human sonship of God and of the divine motherhood of
Mary, one must enter further into the being and the con­
dition of the sonship and this motherhood. This can be
fruitfully done only if first we fully elucidate the idea
of the natural and human motherhood.
Repeating our former remarks,19 we elucidate the fol­
lowing for die present purpose. Before everything else,
we must remark that the theologians as a rule speak, not
« Rom. 9:5.
18 Cf. Joh. Gaspar Suicerus, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus e patribus graecis
ordine alphabetico exhibens quaecumque phrases, ritus, dogmata, haereses
et huiusmodi alia spectant, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1682; sub verbo AartS.
18 See supra, pp. 38 ff.

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

141

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

142

MARIOLOGY

considered in contrast with man. It answers to the double
understanding of the personal hypostasis, or the personal
suppositum, as res naturae and as persona.
With man, motherhood can first of all be considered
from the point of view which man has in common with
all other living products of nature, that is, as a relation
of the maternal principle to its “fruit,” i.e., to a material
and living being which is formed of the mother, since it
comes of her and proceeds from her. From this point of
view the man produced constitutes the term of the rela­
tion of the motherhood so far as he is an animal rationale,
i.e., a natural being, completed through a spiritual prin­
ciple. Thus he is also the term of the maternal process,
so far as the latter materially cooperates in the bringing
about of this natural being.
By this is not meant that anything which can be con­
sidered in one way or another as “fruit,” and in this sense
as “something produced,” is also brought forth, so that
it should be tire “term” of the motherhood. To this it is
especially necessary that the fruit produced be an in­
dependent and living being. This condition is lacking in
the fruits of a plant so long as they remain connected with
the mother plant, and also in all parts of an organism pro­
duced from that organism. It is also lacking in that fruit
which is brought forth only as a part, or as a form of be­
ing, of a being which is separated from the maternal prin­
ciple, e.g., in a human body.
Theologians call the independent being which pro­
ceeds from the production, terminus completus genera­
tionis, the part, or the form of being, of this being which
is brought about through the material cooperation of the
mother, terminus incompletus, or terminus formalis gen-

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

143

erationis. St. Thomas,20 on the other hand, called the
independent being proceeding from the production, sub­
jectum generationis, because this is the subject or bearer
of the form of being, communicated through the produc­
tion. He called the form of being itself simply terminus
generationis.
Consequently that fruit only is “brought forth,” in the
sense of correlativum of the motherhood, which can be
called “child,” in Latin approximately but not entirely
identical with proles, natus, genitus.
Just as for this reason the fruit, not in the merely vege­
table kingdom, but first in the anmial kingdom, becomes
in one way or another correlativum of motherhood, it is
this, in this respect, first entirely in the human domain:
here alone motherhood constitutes a relation between
two personal beings.
The idea of “fruit” in general and of “child” in particu­
lar does not require that with a human being the prin­
ciple of life and subsistence in the product be brought
over by the mother. Nor is it thereby brought to the fore­
ground or formally supposed that the principle of life
and subsistence in the product has a proper and spiritual
subsistence of its own, in virtue of which the terminus
formalis of the production passes into this principle and
is appropriated to it in such a way that it comes under
the latter’s rule. This principle rather appears here as a
mere completion or completing form in the compositum
of the fruit or of the child. In a word, when that which is
produced with human beings is considered from tire view­
point of “fruit” and “child,” which it has in common with
other natural beings, the proper relations between form
20 St Thomas, Illa, q.35, a.l corp.

144

MARIOLOGY

and matter are, with man, in that case not expressed as
such.
When die proper relation of man toward other natural
beings is taken into account, motherhood as well as ma­
ternal production may be considered in man under a
proper point of view, since, directly and formally, both
refer to man as a person, or with regard to his personality.
Formally considered as a person and according to his
personal function, man is spiritus habens carnem per
ipsum animatam. From this viewpoint he is to the mother
not as her fruit, but as something which is given her by
God, which she clothes with her flesh, or to which she
communicates and appropriates her flesh, and with which
she herself is connected through this communication.
Hence the producing activity of the mother is to him not
simply a cooperation in the bringing about of a being, but
a cooperation in the material forming and the bringing
into the world of a spiritual being that has proceeded from
God.
Precisely where motherhood is taken as a perfect and
proper motherhood, or as a personal relation between
persons, the producing activity of the mother, on which
it is based, does not appear as the production of the per­
son, but, under the form of concipere and parere, it rather
formally supposes, on the part of the mother, the higher
origin of the person. Thus the “producing” is nothing but
the “bringing something to the outside,” something which
is given to the mother and is received in her. Particularly
fitting are the expressions πΡοψίΡαν, edere, as used by the
Fathers in relation to the Logos, while παράγαν, as pro­
ducere and our “to produce,” has exclusively the meaning
of achieving.

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

145

“The son” or “the produced one” differs from “child”
in this, that the first indicates “what is produced” as alto­
gether equal to the father and hence as “personal” in gen­
eral, and also as “entirely” personal, i.e., not destined by
nature to be subordinate to any other person. Thus it is
the purely complete or ideal term of the motherhood.
Consequently this expression entirely represents the correlatwum of the motherhood or the subjectum genera­
tionis from the viewpoint here considered. For it repre­
sents this subject as one not only that is independent, but
that is independent “as person,” and rightly so, in contrast
to the producing activity of the mother, formally as a
subject which appropriates and takes possession of the
formal contents of this activity. Thus the contrast be­
tween the subjectum and the terminus formalis genera­
tionis is much more sharply accentuated than from the
first viewpoint.
This second consideration, under which the term of
motherhood and of maternal production can be consid­
ered in human beings, is usually not elucidated expressly
by the theologians, neither is it by St. Thomas. By the
latter, and also by many other theologians, it is casually
expressed in connection with the motherhood of Mary.
Indeed, with the natural man the second viewpoint does
not find a completely pure and perfect expression. It is
thoroughly mingled with the first one and changed by it.
For as part of nature, the personal principle in that which
is produced is here of itself not a complete person.
Further, it simply does not exist before the producing
activity of the mother and it is not the primum conceptum
which underlies this entire activity, but it first comes into
existence as part of the fruit.

146

MARIOLOGY

This indeed is the reason why we can say that with
man the mother receives and brings into the world a
human person, but not that she conceives and produces
a human spirit, although the person as person, or the
proper “I,” lies in the spirit of man. But in order to main­
tain and to explain fully that the human mother is really
and truly, formally and directly, the mother of the per­
son with whom she is connected through her production,
this second viewpoint must be brought forward with the
natural man. And the more because otherwise the most
important element in the divine motherhood of Mary
would be without a natural analogon.
Indeed, with regard to the supernatural motherhood,
the first point of view is not excluded either. For Christ
is not the “Son” of Mary in such a way that He is not at
the same time her “fruit.” He could not even be the former
if He were not the latter. Both viewpoints stand here in a
reverse relation to that of other people. The relation of
the son exists here wholly pure and perfect through the
pure union of person, of the “flesh” with the “spirit.’ The
relation of the fruit is so altered by it that the principle
which constitutes the person is not included in the living
flesh as a direct principle of fife, but only completes it
through a higher and holy existence.
The application of this distinction to Christ is antici­
pated in Sacred Scripture, where Isaias indicates Christ
as fruit of the earth and bud of the Lord, and says of Him:
“A child is born to us, and a son is given to us.” 21
21 Isa. 4:2; 9:6.

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

147

The Application to the Motherhood of Mary

Observing these remarks, we may consider the mother­
hood of Mary in the relation to Christ or to the incarnate
Word in a two-fold manner: according as we regard Him
as the fruit of Mary’s womb, or as her child, and in a
strictly personal form, as her Son.
Under the first aspect, Christ must be regarded as
άνθρωποί θεωθίκ in the sense of the Greek Fathers, and as
such He is indeed represented in the expression of the
angel: “the Holy, which shall be born of thee.” 22 Under
tlie second aspect, He must be considered as the θά?
άνθρωπήσατ of the Greek Fathers, and as such He appears in
the expression of the prophecy which characterizes the
son of the Virgin as “Emmanuel.” 23
A closer inspection of both these viewpoints will not
only show in general that the motherhood of Mary, like
her maternal activity, has really and truly its term in a
man who is truly and really God. Sometimes also it will
exclude the more or less clearly expressed thought that,
strictly speaking, it should be said: Mary is the mother
of a man who is God at the same time; as if her maternal
activity, immediately and directly, formally and of it­
self, were directed only to the human part in Christ and
only mediately and indirectly, materially and per acci­
dens, to the divine part.
However enchanting this thought may appear, it de­
tracts too much from the motherhood of Mary. For this
latter would differ, with regard to its term, not intrin­
sically and essentially, but merely externally and acci22
23

Luke 1:35.
Isa. 7:14.

148

MARIOLOGY

dentally, from the common, human motherhood. On the
contrary, it will become clear that Mary’s motherhood has
directly and formally as tenn the God-man as such; and
precisely with tire strictly personal concept of this rela­
tion, this term must simply be called “God,” as occurs
also in the name ©«στόκος.
From tlie first point of view, where Christ is consid­
ered “fruit” and “child” of the mother, He is considered
first and foremost in the capacity of a human being. But
this human being is fully the “fruit” of die production and
really “child,” only inasmuch as He is an independent be­
ing. Since the principle of His existence is divine, He is
only as divinely existing the real “child” of His mother.
Hence Mary is really and truly the mother of a “divine”
child, i.e., a child subsisting in a divine person; or as the
angel, widi regard to the holy character of the divine
personality, calls it, a “holy child,” a “holy fruit,” not less
dian a natural modier is mother of a spiritual living
child.
Consequently Mary’s maternal activity is directed to
the production of a really holy fruit, at least as distinctly
and formally as that of ordinary mothers is to the produc­
tion of a mere human one. The tendency of this activity
is a merely cooperative one and as such it is directed ac­
cording to the striving of the principal agent, under whose
influence the cooperating agent works. Under the super­
natural influence of God, the maternal activity of Mary
was as distinctly and formally directed to the union of the
flesh given by her with the divine Logos (principle of
His hypostatic completion ), as the cooperation of another
mother is, under the influence of a man, directed to the

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

149

union of the flesh with a spiritual soul. But, unlike the case
in a natural production, here the union of the flesh with
its subsistence was immediately brought about by the
same influence which gives the motherly activity its di­
rection. Thus the union of the flesh, taken of Mary, with
the Logos ordine naturae even precedes the union with
the spiritual soul which vivifies it.
It is entirely wrong, therefore, to represent with the
Scotists and Vasquez the maternal cooperation of Mary
as if by itself it were directed merely to the bringing about
of the human nature of Christ, or of a mere human be­
ing, to be later the God-man, who came about through
the union of this human nature with the divine person.
This could be true only had Mary conceived, not from
the Holy Ghost, but from a human father; or when “the
conception by the Holy Ghost” did not include the divine
person of the Logos as first and proper contents of the
conception.
On the other hand, according to the teaching of the
Fathers,24 the foundation of Mary’s maternal activity
with tire coming into being of Christ, was the conception
of the Logos as a semen divinum. It is thus from the be­
ginning intrinsically and essentially directed not to the
production of a mere human being, that rather for this
very reason it is directed to the coming into existence of
a man, because it is directed to the God-man.
As Mary’s maternal activity aims directly at produc­
ing as fruit a divinely subsisting human being, it is also
directed to bring forth such a fruit, which by itself is a
divine person through her participation in the subsistence
24 See supra, pp. 84 ff.

150

MARIOLOGY

of a divine person. The aim, then, is as truly the “being
God” of the human being as it has his “being man” as re­
sults.
From the second point of view, where Christ is con­
sidered as a son, given by God to His mother, this son
first and foremost appears as the God-Logos who is the
eternal God and the only Son of God; and precisely as
such He became directly and formally the term of the
Mary’s maternal activity, not less, but rather more than a
mere human son.
For the eternal God-Logos appears here precisely as
contents and object of the conception from the mother’s
side inasmuch as He assumes His flesh of her and in her;
and indeed so as first and most direct contents of the con­
ception. Likewise He comes by Himself to the fore as the
direct end of the mother’s activity of producing and
bringing forth, so far as this is entirely directed to clothe
Him and Him alone with the flesh, or to develop and to
form fully the flesh belonging to Him, or still further to
form Him in that flesh as in His own flesh.
Consequently the relation of the divine motherhood
refers here directly and formally to the divine person of
the Logos, so far as He is the very bearer of the flesh taken
of the mother. This is true still more, since in Christ the
divine person is the only and adequate principle of His
subsistence, and as bearer of the human nature He loses
nothing of His complete independence, but rather in it
He shows His complete and highest independence.
Therefore as the person of Christ, formally considered,
is purely divine and not human, not even divine and hu­
man, neither can the motherhood in His regard be called

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

151

a divine and human one, which indeed is never heard of.
It must be clearly marked as a divine motherhood.
Likewise it is not a mere rhetorical figure; rather is it
a more or less audacious figure of speech, when Mary is
called “Mother of the Word.” For that very reason rather
the real term of the motherhood is elucidated, and this
very motherhood is characterized as a spiritual relation to
a person, of itself divine.
In connection with the latter point a modem theologian
remarks: “As the mother of Christ has not formally and
directly 25 a part in the eternal and spiritual origin of the
Logos, and the name ‘Mother of the Logos’ might seem to
insinuate such a thing, we had better refrain from its use,
since it is little or seldom used in prayer formulas of the
Church. Yet, in tire sense of mater ejus qui est Verbum, it
does not deserve disapproval. That it can also be used in
some cases without too much objection, is shown by the
Memorare of St. Bernard.” 20 The objection, raised here,
is already solved. It should, moreover, be remembered
that the expression ®£os Λόγο« is repeatedly used for the
term of the motherhood of Mary by the Fathers and in
the councils. The same objection should be raised as well
against the expression Mater Dei or Mater Filii Dei.
The Fathers even note the direct relation of the moth­
erhood and maternal activity to the divine person as a
divine person to the extent that they sometimes put “the
godhead of the Logos” instead of “divine person.” They
25 Scheeben remarks here: “nor materially and indirectly.”
28 “Noli, Mater Verbi, verba mea despicere.” The Memorare was certainly
not composed by St. Bernard. It is nowhere found before the end of the
fifteenth century, and then first as part of a longer prayer: “Ad sanctitatis
tuae pedes, dulcissima Virgo Maria’f (Bricout, Diet. prat, des connais, relig.,
4, 887 ff.).

152

MARIOLOGY

do not indeed do so in an abstract and strictly reduplica­
tive sense, since they distinguish the divinity as nature
from the Logos as person, but in a concrete and specificative sense in which the “divinity of the Word” means the
“very Word as divine person.”
The specific, maternal character of the producing ac­
tivity of Mary in her relation to the person of the Son
need only be borne in mind, in order to find this expres­
sion explicable. Nowadays, or in general apart from the
particular question as it was put by the Nestorians, it is
better avoided, as also is the expression, that there is in
Christ una natura divina Verbi incarnata.
Against Nestorianism the expression, “the natura di­
vina Verbi itself is bom of Mary as incarnata,” must
mean: not only the human being who bears the Logos in
himself, but the very Logos in His divine being in which
He has been truly clothed with the flesh, forms the term
of the maternal production. In the famous text of the
deacon Ferrandus against the objection that two sub­
stances could not have been generated from a single
substance, we read: “He speaks truly who understands
generated separately. But in that great and wondrous
sacrament which was manifested in the flesh, the divine
substance united to the human substance was strictly
born, because it was not separately born. The pure divin­
ity was strictly born of the Father, the same incarnate
divinity was strictly bom of the mother.” 27
In the natural motherhood the viewpoint of the “fruit”
is of itself predominant. One must, however, not be
tempted to place it with Christ also in the foreground,
not to mention considering it as a unique measure. The
27 Ferrandus, Epist. ad Anat., 17; PL, LXVII, 906.

THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

153

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

CHAPTER IX

The Bridal Motherhood1
HE explanation we have given about the divine term
of Mary’s motherhood and her maternal activity
which conditions and determines it, enables us to under­
stand more easily and completely the relation which here
exists between the Son and the mother: that is, from the
viewpoint of its specific form and meaning to the sub­
ject, both on the part of the Son and that of the mother.

T

The Relation Considered
the Son

on the

Part

of

If we consider the relation on the part of the Son, its
meaning to the subject depends on the way this subject
is modified. With regard to this, there are two views
among the theologians.
The first sees in Christ the subject of the human sonship inasmuch as He is this particular human being. So
that He forms the subject of the sonship not only through
His humanity, but also in and with His humanity. In this
case the latter is a real relation in Christ as much as His
divine sonship toward God the Father, for it immediately
and formally rests upon His origin from Mary and in­
cludes a certain inner dependence on the subject, or the
1 Literature: Georg, de Rhodes, Disputationes theol. scholast., tract 8, De
Maria Deipara; Christoph. Vega, Theologia Mariana, palaestra 31 (useful
only as material); Passaglia, De imm. cone., sec. 6, c.3-4.

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

155

fact that His being is conditioned through the term of
the relation.
This view considers the relation of Christ to His mother
under the aspect previously explained, namely, that of
“fruit” or “child,” or of a “perfect personal fruit,” which
is also called “son.” But it is deficient in this, that it takes
merely and simply this relation into consideration as sonship and regards it as the real relation of the sonship.
On the other hand, the second view considers the strict
concept of the sonship. According to this concept the son
has formally as “person,” and indeed as a person equal to
the father, relation to the mother so far as he is bearer of a
nature communicated to him by her; more especially in
our case so far as the Son, the equal of God the Father, is
bearer of a nature with which the mother has clothed
Him and which He Himself has assumed of her; in other
words, so far as the Son of God, by taking possession of a
nature which materially comes of the mother, is born in
this nature of the mother.
According to this view the person of the Logos (with
due allowance for the humanity appropriated to Him, but
not in and with it, that is, as forming a whole with it ) is
by Himself the real subject of the sonship, as He is by
Himself, as existing in the constitution of man, the subject
of the assumption and possession of the humanity.
So can the sonship in its subject be no longer a real rela­
tion: for the subject can no longer stand in any depend­
ence on the mother. In the Logos it is rather only a relatio
rationis which, however, has a foundation in the real pos­
session of the humanity on the part of the Logos, and in
the real origin of the humanity of Mary.
Still further: as the other relations of God to the créa-

156

MARIOLOGY

ture, it is so much a relatio rationis that a real relation of
dependence of the creature toward God conforms to it.
For Mary comes in relation to the Logos as to her Son
through the fact that she was assumed by Him and made
His mother, and that for this very reason she as mother is
influenced by Him and united with Him, and not He Him­
self by and with her as hex· Son.
This latter idea of the human sonship of Christ is in
itself not only well founded, but also the only one which
completely represents the sonship as the specific correlativum of the motherhood of Mary.
Further, it alone clearly elucidates the specific char­
acter which distinguishes the human sonship of Christ
from that of other sons of man. It formally represents it
as a filiatio dignatwa, i.e., as a benevolent condescension
of the Son of God to His human mother and as an eleva­
tion, full of grace, of the mother to the connection with
the Son of God.
Lastly, it alone completely elucidates the relation be­
tween the human and the divine sonship in Christ Him­
self. Since it shows the same divine person as immediate
subject, it distinguishes both sonships with equal clarity
as it harmoniously unites them. It distinguishes both in
the clearest manner, because it represents merely one
sonship, the divine, as fixed and at the same time as a
real relation, one that is purely innate to the subject and
is based on its origin; the other forms only a relatio ra­
tionis. In virtue of this distinction it unites one sonship
with the other in such a way that, in regard to the second
sonship, we are unable from the start to think of a second
person or even of an innate supplement of the first.

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

157

Hence the princes of real Scholasticism, St. Thomas
and St. Bonaventure, strongly asserted this concept of
the human sonship of Christ in the development of the
thesis that there are indeed two real nativitates, passive
productiôns or births in Christ, but for the same reason
not two real filiationes.'2
Other great theologians of the thirteenth century seem
to have shared the same opinion. It was first contested by
Scotus, and apart from his school by many others who,
like Suarez, joined him later. Toletus tried to reconcile
them.
From what follows it is evident that the opinion of
these theologians was inadequate and incorrect. In con­
nection with their theory they devised for the man Christ
and thus for tire Son of Mary as such, apart from the eter­
nal sonship of God which materially belongs to Him, still
a second and divine sonship, more or less analogous to
the supernatural and divine sonship of other men and
sons of men. The first theory is a necessary supposition to
the latter, and is necessarily its cause as well, so that it is
difficult to reject the second and keep the first as many do.
The first theory has a basis of truth inasmuch as the re­
lation of “child” (as “fruit”) toward the mother formally
belongs to Christ as to a human compositum which is
hypostatically completed and achieved by the Logos, and
not to the Logos as bearer of the humanity. As will be
pointed out elsewhere, the basis of truth in the latter
theory lies in this, that there is also in Christ a relation of
“child” to God the Father, which follows from the aspect
2 St. Thomas, Illa, q.35, a. 4 (and Greg, a Valentia and Salmanticenses,
disp. 33, dub. 4); St. Bonaventure, In 3 Sent. dist. 8.

158

MARIOLOGY

of “offspring from God” and differs entirely from the “eter­
nal” sonship, which belongs also to the man Christ as a
person.
If in the latter case the being a child of God, which is
not identical with the eternal sonship, should Constitute
a second sonship, a double human sonship would also
have to be accepted in Christ. This has certainly not oc­
curred to anybody and is altogether untenable. For, ac­
cording as the sonship is considered from the one or other
point of view, it appears under two concepts which do
not overlap though the one essentially includes the other;
they are merely two aspects of the position of the Son
toward the mother.
It cannot be denied that in particular the Latin Fa­
thers who sometimes speak of the assumptio filii hominis
in unitatem personae Filii Dei, conceive filius hominis in
the sense of the first opinion. This way of speaking is am­
biguous and not to be followed.
The Relation Considered on
of the Mother

the

Part

If we consider the relation of the human sonship on
the part of the mother, it appears in her to be a real rela­
tion to her divine Son, as much as the relation of other
mothers to their human sons. This is true particularly in
the more specific sense, that the divine motherhood must
be regarded as a relation of the most real appropriation
of the mother to the Son.
Its real character shows very particularly the relation
of the divine motherhood in Mary through the most real
and quite unique nobility which it grants to the person of
the mother. This raises her to a share in the dignity of

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

159

her divine Son, which, for a created person, is indeed the
highest attainable.
To understand fully this form and meaning of the rela­
tion of the divine motherhood, it must be considered from
a double point of view, according as it rests: (1) upon
the proper producing and natural bearing activity of the
mother; or (2) upon the spiritual and free action of her
Son.
If the relation is considered as based upon the proper
and natural activity of the mother, Mary’s divine mother­
hood appears as a most sublime relation so far as the
mother is considered the principle of her Son.
In the first place, her unique loftiness appears in this,
that the natural activity, i.e., the activity of created na­
ture which forms the being, reaches in Mary its absolutely
highest achievement, under the supernatural influence
of God. For Mary cooperates through her maternal activ­
ity in the production of the absolutely highest and most
perfect fruit which can be brought forth. The latter then
comes forth from her as a fruit, completely holy in its be­
ing and really filled with the fullness of the godhead. On
the other hand, Mary alone offers something to God which
is taken up into Himself and with which He is clothed
in His being. In this manner she exercises an activity
which quite alone as a natural activity fines deitatis atti­
git, as Cajetan 3 says, i.e., reaches the very godhead. Every
other activity of the creature toward God reaches the god­
head merely as an intentional activity, that is, through
knowledge and love.
The loftiness of Mary’s activity appears in a still clearer
8 Cajetan, in Ila-IIae, q. 103, a. 4 ad 2 (in the Leonine edition of the Summa
theol. of St. Thomas, IX, p. 382).

160

MARIOLOGY

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

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

161

St Thomas,4 we can say that, according to the analogy
of the second form of human relationship, it is spiritual
affinity to God, something like family relationship.
Affinity is a relationship which a person has to another
person through the marriage of a blood relation with the
latter. Marriage itself, as the admission of the married
subject into the person of him whom that subject marries,
takes place in the most perfect manner where there fol­
lows from it not only a moral and juridical unity of the per­
son, but also a physical one. Hence this relationship to
God into which Mary enters through the hypostatic mar­
riage of the humanity related to her by blood with the
Logos, is not only an equally true affinity but also a much
more perfect and closer one than that which can take
place among men.
This idea of the relationship of the Mother of God to
her divine Son corresponds to the stricter idea of the sub­
ject of the human sonship in Christ, which directly places
this sonship in the divine person of the Logos. For the
appropriation of the substance of the mother to the DeusVerbum includes directly also a substantial relation to
the Verbum Deus, i.e., the Word as God.
Through this the relationship between mother and Son
presents with Mary the opposite aspect of the natural re­
lation. For here the mother becomes related to a higher
person, who exists independent of her, as to the head of
her family and as taken up in His family. Moreover, Mary’s
relationship to God appears founded through the hypo­
static union of the human nature of Christ with the Logos
to the point that this same union also forms the bond
* St Thomas, Ila Ilae, q. 103, a. 4, and elsewhere.

162

MARIOLOGY

through which the human person of Mary is connected
with and related to God in His spiritual and holy being.
Mary’s relation to God essentially differs from every
other merely friendly relation of a created person to God.
The specific trait of that relation and thus the unique
nobility of the Mother of God and her participation in the
dignity of her Son, is expressed more fully and perfectly
through this than when it is formally based only on the
essential relation of the mother or on the blood-relation­
ship to the God-man.
Moreover, the thought expressed in the affinity ap­
pears still more clearly and strongly from the following
point of view, which originally is based completely on
the str icter idea of the sonship. According to this idea the
hypostatic union in Christ is notable as a bond and also
as a figure of the relation of the Mother of God to God.
The relation of the mother to her divine Son must be
traced not alone to tire mother’s natural activity, but pri­
marily to the activity of her divine Son Himself, who
makes and accepts her as His mother, and gives Himself
to her as her Son.
From this angle the motherhood of Mary is formally
founded on the idea of the divine Logos who infuses Him­
self in tire virginal womb of the mother through His
hypostatic infusion into the flesh taken from her. Through
this, Mary is as much anointed and made tire Mother of
God as the flesh, taken from her, is made the flesh of God,
for the Logos is so taken up in her that she herself is taken
up in Him in an analogous way as the flesh taken from
her.
Consequently the relation of the mother to the divine
Son appears as a marriage with His divine person. Here

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

163

now the Bridegroom gives Himself to the bride as her Son
and dwells in her in virtue of this gift. Thus tire union pos­
sesses the full force and closeness of that relation in which
the ordinary mother stands to the person of her child
taken up in her bosom. But this natural relation is at the
same time changed in such a manner through the con­
cept of the marriage with tire divine person, that it be­
comes a relation of the mother to a higher person, who
governs and influences her; a relation, too, arbitrarily con­
tracted by this person and intended to be a lasting asso­
ciation of the mother with Him, which is as perfect as
possible.
In reality, therefore, Mary is characterized not only
as “bride of the Word” but on the other hand as “dwelling­
temple” or “seat,” “ark-sanctuary,” of the Word. All names
are used interchangeably in such a way that they mutually
define and complete one another. For instance, this may
be seen in the description of the womb of the Virgin as
the “bridal chamber” or the “bridal bed” of the Word.
In Latin under the term matrimonium tire relation
which marriage brings about between the mother and
the bridegroom, is also called “motherhood.” Hence
Mary’s relation to her divine Son is characterized in a
striking manner as matrimonium divinum. But for the
sake of the purely spiritual character of that relation,
under this aspect no other name may be given to the
mother than “bride of God,” which of itself expresses a
purely spiritual relation.
In the sense of marriage thus viewed, the maternal
relation of Mary to her divine Son includes a union of
her created person with the uncreated person of the
Logos, effected by Himself. This union is a figure of the

164

MARIOLOGY

hypostatic union of Christ’s flesh with God. Such it is
even more so than that the natural marriage of a woman
with a man, with regard to her body belonging to his
person, is a figure of the hypostatic* union of the man’s
flesh with his spiritual soul.
In natural marriage the bride is taken up by the bride­
groom through his will which she accepts and which the
Creator sanctifies. This taking up is so intimate that she
ideally and really grows together with him to one whole
and, as though incorporated and united with him, forms
with him one moral body, in which both physical per­
sons belong to each other through mutual gift, in the most
perfect manner. Thus the virgin mother is united through
the will and power of the creating Logos with His own
person. Through the acceptance of the flesh of the mother
in the physical unity of His purely spiritual person, He
accepts her in a purely spiritual but most real manner
into a moral corporate unity of person and gives'Himself
to her just as He appropriates her to Himself.
According to the expression of the Oriental languages,
marriage is a mutual “clothing” of the married persons
through which the bride becomes the body and raiment
of the bridegroom, and the bridegroom becomes the head
and crown of the bride. Here also, as the Fathers fre­
quently indicate, such a mutual clothing takes place in an
eminent degree and in a manner analogous to that in
Christ Himself between His humanity and divinity.
There as well as here, the marriage occurs between the
“flesh” and the “spirit”: the flesh clothes the spirit ex­
ternally, and the spirit clothes the flesh interiorly. More­
over, it is a marriage between created flesh and creating
spirit: the flesh, according to its entire being, belongs to

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

165

the spirit and is subject to it; and on its side the spirit can
dwell in the closest manner in the flesh and fill it with
itself.
In a certain sense the pure union of grace with God
also forms a marriage with Him, and indeed a marriage
analogous to the hypostatic union. However, as it is not
communicated through the hypostatic union, it has not
the full specific strength of marriage. On the contrary, it
bears only the character of a simply friendly relation.
Although the expressions corresponding to this view
are used times without number by the Fathers as well as
by theologians,0 this representation is seldom scientifically
formulated and utilized by them. This representation
needs greater emphasis, as it offers many advantages for
a complete and clear exposition of the sublime position
of the Mother of God.
1) In the divine motherhood it first of all safeguards
the virginity of the mother as clearly as it definitely sup­
poses the independence of the Son toward the mother.
2) It further represents the motherhood as a grace
given to the mother by her divine Son, who descends to
her and raises her up to Himself, and not as a result of her
own activity only, as would be the case with a human
son.
3) Consequently the Mother of God appears from
the beginning as united with the divine Son, belonging
to Him and dependent on Him, and called to participate
in His dignity and in His possessions, while with ordinary
mothers the opposite is the case.
4) From this it is also evident that the relation of the
8 For “sponsa Verbi” or “Dei,” see numerous places in Marracci, Polyanthea Mariana.

166

MARIOLOGY

mother to the Son is a most perfect and eternal association
with Him, willed by Himself, an association essentially
closer and more unbreakable and lasting than the rela­
tion of a mother to her human son.
5 ) Since, in the case of the divine mother, the marriage
with the divine Logos, dwelling in her, continues after
His bodily birth and as, according to His divine being,
He does not leave His mother, likewise the relation of the
mother to the Son maintains permanently the same reality
and closeness as before the birth.
6) On die other hand the idea of marriage allows us
to consider die Modier of God before die conception of
her Son in a relation, not merely potential, to a person
who would be brought forth in the future. It becomes an
actual relation to a person who at die very moment al­
ready exists. It is analogous to the relation in a matri­
monium ratum ante consummationem, but such that it
is closer and more real by reason of the closest and most
intimate indwelling of the Logos in the mother.
7 ) On the strength of the idea of the marriage of the
mother with a divine person dwelling in her, the entire
relation of the modier to the Son, after as well as before
the conception, possesses the typical meaning and force
of the relation that exists between both in the time be­
tween the conception and the birdi. This relation itself
does not come to the fore as with a human son, in a taking
up of the child in die mother who feeds it with her blood,
but as a taking up of the mother in the holy, divine per­
son and as an anointing with the holy being of the latter.
Thus the divine motiierhood resembles the hypostatic
union, since it is a union with a divine person, which em­
braces the mother’s entire and most intimate being. It

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

167

ennobles and sanctifies the mother in the most perfect
manner and forms the basis of the most complete partici­
pation in the life and possessions of the divine person.
8) Lastly, from this point of view we may conclude
that, from the moment of her creation and in virtue of
the intention of her Creator, which underlies her creation,
Mary was specially intended for the union as bride with
the Logos and, as it were, was created in this union; and
also that, by virtue of this intention of God, the entire
existence of her person has grown together with her
relation to the divine person of her Son, in a manner analo­
gous to the existence of the flesh of Christ with His hypo­
static union.
The analogy between the relation of Mary and of the
humanity of Christ to the Logos, expressed in the “mar­
riage with the Logos,” is particularly revealed in this,
that Mary is characterized in a signal manner in the lan­
guage of the Church as “house and seat of the godhead”
or of the eternal Wisdom. She is as a house and seat in
which in the real meaning of the word, the fullness of the
divinity, is so infused as to dwell bodily therein. The eter­
nal Wisdom is so implanted and deeply rooted in her that
she seems to have grown together with Him. This, too,
is the deeper meaning of the representation of Mary in
the Apocalypse: the woman clothed with the sun.
By virtue of this relation to the Logos, Mary is in a
special manner the “mirror” and “image of God,” because
she is in the Logos illuminated through the radiation of
the light of the godhead and permeated with the essen­
tial dew of the strength of God. As she is compared with
the sun in the bride of the Canticle of Canticles, she ap­
pears also under both these names as assimilated to the

168

MARIOLOGY

Logos in the quality proper to Him which is characterized
by the same names.® She is consequently His “likeness”
or His “glory,” in the same way as, according to St. Paul,7
the woman is the likeness and glory of the man.
Finally, from the idea of the affinity and of the mar­
riage it follows that Mary’s relation to God, contained in
the divine motherhood, can also be considered from the
viewpoint of an eminent and unique position of child of
God. Hence Mary is called ή θεοτοκ as much as ή Θεοτόκος
by the Greek Fathers of later date and in the Menaea.8
Unlike other ransomed creatures, who are merely
adoptive children, Mary possesses such a relation to God
that the participation in His possessions, His life and bliss,
is, in her, based on the most perfect and substantial ad­
mission into the family of God. In other words, between
God and her there exists a necessitudo which brings with
it the absolute community of possessions and life. In her
case this relationship seems the more complete, as the '
seed of the Word of truth, from which the children of
God are born,® is implanted in her. Through the assuming
of her flesh the personal Word Himself entered into or­
ganic relation to her and, by virtue of this relation, made
her in a unique way the mirror and image of God.
Indeed, Mary’s divine relationship of child of God,
like her whole relation to God, goes back primarily to the
divine Logos. As the Logos Himself comes to the fore
• Wisd. 7:26: Candor est enim (Sapientia) lucis aeternae et speculum sine
macula et imago bonitatis illius.
7 I Cor. 1:7.
8 For the use of the expression ή Oetra<st see Passaglia, De imm. cone., sec.
6, cap. 3, a. 5. The Menaea are about the same as our Breviaria; they are
divided according to the twelve months of the year. See Nilles, Kalendarium
Manuale (Innsbruck, 1896), I, 49.
» Jas. 1:18; I Pet 1:23; cf. John 1:12 ff.

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

169

both as Son and as bridegroom, He therefore appears also
both as son and as father of the mother. Her daughter­
hood, however, can also be considered as a participation
in the divine sonship of the Logos, founded on the affinity
and the marriage, particularly since the sonship of the
Logos is communicated to Christ as man and here ap­
pears as sonship of the puer Dei and the agnus Dei.
Therefore the Fathers call Mary the “only beloved” and
“only-begotten” child, or daughter, of God. These titles
they give her not less often than they speak of her as the
“lamb of God.” 10 Together with the most perfect union,
the most perfect likeness also, and hence the most per­
fect community, between Mary and her divine Son is
revealed, the name “only-begotten daughter of God” can
in its full meaning be even considered the most adequate
summary of the community between Mary and God con­
tained in the divine motherhood.
The Church applies to Mary many texts from the
Sapiential books. This application rests also on the con­
cept of “image” and “child.” 11
In a sense common to other ransomed creatures, Mary
can, apart from her divine motherhood, be considered a
child of God since she is brought forth by God through
creation and adorned with sanctifying grace. From this
point of view she can be called a child of God in an
eminent and unique manner, because the sanctifying
grace bestowed on her surpasses incomparably that of
all other creatures. Her grace is particularly distinguished
from that of other mortals as a gratia perpetua; perpetua
a parte post, i.e., never ceasing, as contrasted with the first
10 Cf. Marracci, Polyanthea Mar., s.v. “Agna.”
** See supra, pp. 22 S.

170

MARIOLOGY

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

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

171

to God as exemplified in the divine motherhood, and also
of the analogous expressions chosen for it, a more de­
tailed exposition will follow.
Relation

of

Mary to the Blessed Trinity 12

Expressions descriptive of that union (affinity, being
the bride and child) can be applied in a wider sense to
all supernatural unions of the creature with God. As was
explained, they have here a specific meaning according
to which the Mother of God is in a unique manner “sis­
ter” and “bride” and “daughter of God,” and “temple” or
“seat” and “image of God” as well. Among them, these
three expressions bear this relation, that the meaning of
“affinity” receives its completion in “being the bride,” and
that of “daughterhood” its specific form through the “be­
ing of the bride.”
Figuratively all these relations find their striking ex­
pressions in the title columba Dei from the Canticle of
Canticles, applied to Mary. The Fathers frequently used
the expression “lamb of God.” It expresses particularly
the community between Mary and the man Christ. This
title characterizes more definitely and sigificantly the
mother of the Lamb of God as formal in her virginal and
maternal fertility toward the Lamb of God and also in
her likeness to Him, and especially in her participation
in His divine sonship.
Relations to the Son. These formulas express the union
of the divine mother with God. In the sense previously
explained, this union is directed to the divine person of
the Son, as He is the eternal Son of the Father, since it is
formally brought about through the hypostatic union of
12 Cf. Bittremieux, Marialia, Brussels, 1936, pp. 213-95.

172

MARIOLOGY

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

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

173

speaks of,13 is rather to be considered, as St. Ambrose
says, an officium liberae dignationis et pietatis, which
rests on the free will of Christ Himself. The relation also
to His mother which precedes the free will of Christ and
is the basis of His submission to His mother, is to be de­
fined only as the relation of the pietas naturalis, which is
due to the head of the family from each of its members.14
Relations to the other persons. Under the name of
“mother” the union of the Mother of God with God must
be confined exclusively to the divine person of the Logos,
and in general it essentially refers primarily to Him alone
and is only indirectly referred to the other persons. Yet,
through the other names, it is so characterized that it can
be brought under that name in connection not only with
the Logos, but simply with God, thus with the whole
Trinity, and consequently with each of the three persons.
According to the latter point of view, some names in
the language of the Church are almost as constantly
ascribed to one definite person, as the motherhood essen­
tially refers to the person of the Logos. According to cir­
cumstances these separate names obtain in this sense
such a specific meaning that they express a relation, which
can only be referred, under this definite form—precisely
as the motherhood—to a definite divine person and is
specifically proper to Him; e.g., that with regard to God
the Father. In that case the particular, relative character
of that person is entwined in the intended relation of
Mary to Him.
Relations to God the Father. The union of the mother
of the Logos is confined to God the Father usually under
« Luke 2:51.
14 St. Ambrose, In Luc., Bk. II, no. 65; PL, XV, 1575. Cf. G. de Rhodes,
op. cit., q.2, sec. 3, and Toletus, In Luc. ad h. 1.

174

MARIOLOGY

the name of “child” or “daughter,” also “image of the
eternal Father,” and in such a manner that these names
formally rest on a special union with the Son of this Fa­
ther and hence have in this case even a very particular
meaning and allude to the Father by means of the rela­
tion of the Logos to Him. Mary is there imagined as
“daughter of the Father” inasmuch as she is connected
with His Son through affinity and marriage, and main­
tains by and in Him relations to the Father Himself.
Moreover, she carries that name, since, as propria sedes
Sapientiae a Patre genitae, she is the most perfect image
of the Fadier ad extra, after the incarnate wisdom. Thus
she is to be regarded as a daughter whose daughterhood
is the most perfect participation in and the most perfect
image of the sonship of the eternal Son.
Such a special relation to the person of the Father does
not occur with the ordinary children of grace. Hence it
characterizes the divine daughterhood of Mary as a form
that differs essentially from the latter and is superior; to it.
Next to it, the mother of the Son of God can also be
called in a special manner “bride of the Father.” For, as
mother she has received tire Son of the Father through
donation from His side as her Son; she possesses Him con­
jointly with the Father and is therefore connected with
tire Father by His Son as being hers also. These expres­
sions indicative of the union of Mary with God are more
unusual, and rightly so. Through the very fact that the
mother of the Son of God is characterized as connected
through marriage with God as Father, the thought arises
that, as with a human marriage, here also not only the
dynamic influence of the Father on the mother, but also
the substantial relation of the mother to the Father, is the

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

175

foundation of the substantial relation of Mary to the Son
and precedes this one. In reality the former is first accom­
plished by the latter. We could even go so far as to think
that the Son of the Father is also first produced with the
cooperation of the mother, and that the mother is there­
fore also associated with the Father in the generatio Verbi.
Some modern writers have expressed themselves thus.
Precisely to obviate the forming of such erroneous
opinions is one of the reasons why the bridal state of the
Mother of God is usually referred to the Holy Ghost in­
stead of to the Father. Through the fact that the Holy
Ghost, who proceeds from the Logos, appears as bride­
groom, the production of the Logos is formally presented
as complete in itself. The relation also of the mother to
the Father is presented as effected by the Logos Himself.
This does not mean in the least that Mary as mother of
the Son of the eternal Father has absolutely no special
connection with the Father in His quality as Father, since
He is also the principle of His Son. For, with regard to
the Son of God, born ad extra in humanity, Mary pos­
sesses such a connection; and since she cooperates here
in the eternal production under’the influence of the Fa­
ther, she resembles in a special way the Father as the
principle of the eternal production in her own activity.
She resembles Him, first of all as she is the only pro­
ductive principle with regard to the human nature of
Christ, as much as God die Father is such with regard to
the divine nature, and through this she possesses in her
virginal motherhood die power of the male fatherhood;
secondly, as she produces Christ in the flesh through a
spiritual power without violation of her virginity, as much
as the Father produces Him according to the spirit.

176

MARIOLOGY

But this very resemblance of Mary to God the Father
is rather obscured than elucidated by the allusion of the
name of “bride of the Father” to the corresponding hu­
man relation. On the contrary, it stands out beautifully in
the name of “daughter of the Father,” as it includes the
idea of image of the Father. This idea, applied to Mary,
not only states that the divine daughterhood is the most
perfect figure of the sonship of the Son of God, but, ex­
tended without violence, it equally asserts that the
motherhood of Mary is the most perfect image of the pa­
ternity of God the Father with regard to tire Son of God
in His humanity.
In general the expression “image of the Father” sets
forth the particular relationship in which the mother of
the Son of God stands to God the Father, more clearly,
richly, and harmoniously than the expression “bride of
the Father.” For the relationship with God the Father in
the possession of His eternal Son appears in “image of
the Father” in such a way that the mother bears in her
bosom, as infused there, this Son, produced by God the
Father out of Himself and borne in His bosom. The con- *
nection, however, in the* producing and birth of the Son
of God ad extra appears here in this form, that the mother,
according to the expression of the preface of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, pours out into the world the everlasting
light, issued from the Father.
Relations to the Holy Ghost. The union of the Mother
of God with God is usually attributed to the Holy Ghost
under the name of bride, and the associated names of tem­
ple and sanctuary of the Holy Ghost. This is done in view
of the fact that Christ is represented in the Creed and in
the annunciation by the angel as conceived and born of

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

177

the Holy Ghost, or produced by the overshadowing o£
the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost is indicated in these texts as principle
of the actio productiva humanitatis Christi and also of
the actio unitiva. So the relationship of bride must be
traced back to Him in this double aspect. In the actio uni­
tiva the Holy Ghost works only in community with those
persons from whom He proceeds; and the union, pro­
duced by this actio tends directly to one of these persons.
Therefore the name of “bride of the Holy Ghost” must not
be understood in the sense of something innate to the
Holy Ghost, but only as an attribute, that is, it is adduced
in connection with the Holy Ghost as the representative
of the entire divine Trinity in its marriage with Mary.
The indication of the principle and of the terms of the
marriage of Mary with God under the name of the Holy
Ghost distinguishes this divine marriage specifically from
that which takes place among men and raises it above it
in dignity. For this name characterizes the term of the
marriage as a purely spiritual and completely holy state;
the marriage act appears as a purely spiritual act of the
amplest and holiest love, and the result of the marriage
is seen to be the closest indwelling of the holy bridegroom
in the bride as in His temple.
Further, the bringing into prominence of the person
of the Holy Ghost in the principle and the term of the
marriage causes the union of Mary with God to appear,
not as specifically limited to the person of her Son, and
still less to that of the Father, but as extending to the
entire Trinity. Moreover, in the marriage of Mary with
the Son or with the Father, it precludes the appearance
of a created person being forced between the persons

178

MARIOLOGY

of the Trinity and taking precedence of the Holy Ghost,
or at least of being placed on the same level with Him.
These and the other above-mentioned reasons for
ascribing to the Holy Ghost the actions of uniting and
producing, also justify and render significant the ascrib­
ing of Mary’s marriage to the same divine person. More­
over, it has a special value for the honor of Mary and of
the Holy Ghost Himself.
On the one side it reflects honor on the Mother of God,
when her dignity is brought into the closest relations with
each person of the Blessed Trinity. On the other, it re­
dounds to the honor of the Holy Ghost, when He appears
as in no way excluded from the glory, power, and benevo­
lence which the other divine persons reveal in their rela­
tion to Mary and when, on the contrary, a special relation
is attributed to Him which answers to His hypostatic
character. This all the more so, because the special rela­
tion is precisely such that it naturally causes and achieves
die relation of Mary as “sister of the Word” and “daugh­
ter of the Father.” Through this relation too, the Holy
Ghost, who in the Blessed Trinity is without fruit, is the
more clearly represented as principle of the extension of
the fruitfulness of the Trinity ad extra, accomplished in
the incarnation of the Logos, or as principle of the birth
ad extra of the Son, produced by the Father in His bosom,
in and from the bosom of a mother.
Hence, it is true, the marriage of the Mother of God
with the Holy Ghost is merely an attribution with regard
to the third person of the Blessed Trinity, and in that
very attribution this person appears less as term of the
relation than as achiever of the marriage with another
person, namely, the Logos, or with the Father. Yet the

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

179

union with the Logos, intended by the influence of the
Holy Ghost, includes implicitly and indirectly a strictly
personal relation to the Holy Ghost as the particular Spirit
of her Son and bridegroom, as much as to God the Father
as the Father of her Son and bridegroom. For, in virtue of
His coming forth from the Logos, the particular Spirit
of the Logos is in Him, and with Him given to the bride
of the Logos in a special manner as her own spirit.
This special and personal relation of the Mother of
God to the Holy Ghost is strikingly expressed in saying
that she, like the humanity of Christ, is called the temple
belonging to the Holy Ghost. Mary is a temple with which
the Holy Ghost is related through the grace that pro­
ceeds from Him, and through His own principle. In this
temple He therefore dwells in a certain sense corporaliter
and naturaliter. Hence the expression “temple” or “sanc­
tuary of the Holy Ghost” is as much in use for the relation
of the Mother of God to the Holy Ghost, as is the name
of sponsa Spiritus Sancti. It is also most significant. For,
in the communication and revelation of the inner divine
productions ad extra, as completed by the Incarnation,
or in the appearing ad extra of the persons, proceeding
in God, it assigns to the person of the Holy Ghost an outer
divine term in the woman, in like manner as the person of
the Son possesses one in the man. In a harmonious union
and interaction there appears next to the “holy one of
God” tire “temple of God”; next to the incarnate Logos
the carnal dwelling of the Holy Ghost, which in unity
with Him forms the adequate principle of the birth ad
extra of the Logos, produced in the bosom of the Father;
next to the “Lamb of God” the “dove of God.”
Further, in this connection Mary as “bride of the

180

MARIOLOGY

Logos” is also in a special manner an image of the per­
son of the Holy Ghost, that is, in His difference from and
His relation to the Logos; and this in a similar but more
perfect manner than Mary’s prototype, the first Eve, was
such an image in her relation to Adam. Therefore the
relation of the Holy Ghost to the Logos forms the par­
ticular image of that relation by which Mary is connected
with the Logos and through the Logos with the Divinity,
as much as the relation of the Logos to the Father is the
essential form through which is determined the relation
of the man Christ to the Father and to God in general.
The Holy Ghost is connected with the Logos because
the latter communicates to Him His entire essence
through His love and places Him therefore in a complete
unity of being with Himself. In like manner the mother
of the Logos is connected with Him through the fact
that the Logos through His love gives her His person and
assumes her into a union with His person, which is the
closest imaginable in the relation between two persons.
Just as the Holy Ghost, owing to His origin from the di­
vine love is also the specific bearer and representative of
the sweetness and vivifying heart of that divine love, the
Mother of God likewise bears this characteristic in her
own degree. Hence she bears the name of vita and dulcedo
nostra.
For all these reasons Mary, as well as the Church, is
called after the creature which is the symbol of the Holy
Ghost, that is, the dove. Moreover, with her the latter is
the symbol of the fecundity which proceeds from the
Holy Ghost and which therefore is virginal and maternal
toward the man Christ.
Under this name Mary also appears as resembling the

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

181

Holy Ghost and connected with Him, or rather informed
and inspired, as it were, by Him; thus as one moral per­
son with Him so that He forms the seal of her personality.
Therefore when Mary, like the Church, in the quality of
dwelling and instrument of the Logos, is not simply under­
stood as one person with Him, but as a person distinct
from Him, standing opposite Him and acting in her own
way, still with the character of a person worthy of Him
and equipped with supernatural privileges, thus really
a personal bride. This, then, happens because the Holy
Ghost is not taken as representative of the godhead of
the Logos, but as a person distinct from the Logos in
moral unity of person with Mary.
This idea appears wherever Mary, like the Church, is
represented as the mother of grace and of the ransomed
souls in a certain coordination with Christ as father of
eternal life and spiritual father of mankind. Hence the
Holy Ghost is so much the bridegroom of Mary that He
is the achiever, seal, and guaranty of her marriage with
the Logos and in this not less the bearer and representa­
tive of the relation of the bridegroom to the bride than
of the relation of the bride to the bridegroom.
From the preceding it follows that, with respect to the
entire Blessed Trinity and to each divine person, a unique
relation and likeness is due in a special way to the Mother
of God, in connection with which she is related in a cer­
tain manner with the Trinity and its image. If we wish to
express harmoniously the relations to the individual di­
vine persons, this is best done by the use of the formulas
which are already in use with the union of grace, namely,
■filia Patris, sponsa Filii, templum Spiritus sancti.
Many have wrongly understood the expression of

182

MARIOLOGY

Hesychius of Jerusalem 15 that, as there were three stories
in the ark of the covenant, the pleroma of the Blessed
Trinity is in Mary too, that is, that the entire Blessed Trin­
ity dwells in her and is united with her. Hence some writ­
ers, since the seventeenth century,1® have said that the
Mother of God herself is or represents a supplement of
the Blessed Trinity ad extra.
To this expression a tolerable meaning can certainly be
attached, analogous to the one by which the Apostle calls
the Church the pleroma of Christ.17 In this sense it can
even be said of Mary, that she is the pleroma of Christ, as
Eve is of Adam. But as applied to the Blessed Trinity, this
expression is too misleading, and its meaning is implied
more beautifully and clearly in the title of “image of the
Trinity.”
With Cardinal Bérulle we can certainly speak of a co­
operation of Mary to the bringing about of an ad extra
supplement to the relations of the Trinity. For example,
in Christ the relations of the Father and the Holy Ghost
to the incarnate Logos join, supplementing as it were the
internal relations of the divine persons among themselves,
and in particular the relations of the Father and the Holy
Ghost to the Logos. The Father obtains here a real author­
ity over the Son, who is fully equal to Him in the divinity;
the Holy Ghost, however, who has His principle in the
godhead of the Son, becomes in a certain way the princi­
ple of the Son and shares the authority of the Father over
the Son.
In reality this supplement of the relations of the Trin15 Hesychius Hieros., Sermo 5, PG, XCIII, 1461.
10 Vega, Theol. Mar. (1866), II, 448. Cf. Ferd. Quir. de Salazar, Comm, in
Proo. (in 8:23) nos. 300 f.
17 Eph. 1:23.

THE BRIDAL MOTHERHOOD

183

ity also belongs essentially to the highest glorification of
the entire Trinity in the Incarnation. But in that case it
must be directly ascribed to Christ alone, and we must
guard against expressing Mary’s cooperation in its accom­
plishment, in such a way as to make Mary herself appear
that supplement.
Lastly, as an entirely proper one, this union of the
Mother of God with God differs from the ordinary union
of grace as well as from that which, for the whole human
race, results or must result from the hypostatic union of
one of the members of that race with the Logos. Yet to
the union of the human race it is as much the prototype
as the means of connection. The Fathers express the
thought by saying that in Mary, as in His bridal chamber,
the Logos espoused human nature in its entirety. For, as
the human race brings forth Christ as its fruit in Mary and
by Mary, it shares also in and by Mary this union with
God, which is characterized in her through the expres­
sion of “marriage with God” and other expressions con­
nected therewith.
In the first respect Mary’s precedence is characterized
through the fact that in the name of all she cooperated
in the production of Christ through the offering of her
flesh as well as through her own natural activity. In an
analogous way her priority appears partly in the fact
that she is directly assumed by the Logos, or received
Him; partly also from the fact that the marriage with God
was contracted through her personal consent to the divine
motherhood in the name of the entire human race. St.
Thomas particularly notes this circumstance,18 when he
advances the reasons why the conception of the Son had
to be announced to the mother.
18 St. Thomas, Hia, q.30, a.1.

PART III
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE
OF
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER X

The Distinguishing Mark of
Mary’s Person1
N THE words of the Gospel (“Mary, the mother of Je­
sus” 2 ) and even more so in the concept and doctrine
of the Church, Mary’s maternal relation to the divine
Redeemer appears pointedly as the distinguishing mark
of her person. To begin with, in a general sense this ex­
pression distinguishes Mary from all others as a person­
age of quite excellent rank and station and of unique
dignity. At the same time, of its very nature and according
to the idea of the Church, it is used also in the sense that,
compared with all other characteristic qualities of Mary,
the distinguishing mark of “mother of Jesus” forms the
capital, fundamental, and central quality to which, as
subordinate attributes, all others are joined. Thus are the
accidentals of a being connected with its essence, by
which they are sustained and animated and from which,
therefore, they receive their mark.
As all the privileges belonging to the Mother of God
are of a supernatural character and thus find their princi­
ple in a supernatural gift of grace, so this applies par­
ticularly to the motherhood itself. This motherhood must
therefore be defined as a supernatural distinguishing mark

I

1 The literature is the same as for chap. 8.
2 John 2:1, 3.
187

188

MARIOLOGY

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

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

189

execution of which needed to be made possible and re­
warded by special graces.
The element which in the divine motherhood forms
the distinguishing mark of the person and the grace of
the divine motherhood is the following: a supernatural,
spiritual union of the person of Mary with that of her Son.
This union, brought about by the will of God, underlies
her maternal activity as contrasted with the humanity of
her Son and completes and perfects her bodily union with
Him.
This supernatural, spiritual union with the divine per­
son cannot be set forth more simply or clearly or with
more regard to reality than through the expression matri­
monium divinum or connubium Verbi in the strictest
sense of the words. It is a relation which, with regard to
God, forms the highest and most complete association
conceivable between a created person with Himself, as
a human marriage is the highest and most perfect union
between two human persons. It is thus a relation which
is the most perfect image of the union of a created
nature with God, as human marriage is an image of the
union of the body with the human soul.
Thus understood, this union includes, in accordance
with the nature of marriage, a solidarity of both per­
sons in an organic whole, in which they have grown to­
gether, and also a mutual belonging to and clothing of
both persons. Mary, as united with the Logos, is taken
complete possession of by Him; the Logos, as infused
and implanted in her, gives Himself to her and takes her
to Himself as partner and helper, in the closest, strictest,
and most lasting community of life.
Evidently, in the divine motherhood, such a divine

190

MARIOLOGY

marriage is really understood, in the same way as human
motherhood presupposes a human marriage when it
comes about in a manner worthy of a human being. No
other human relationship achieves a personal distinguish­
ing mark in such a thorough way as the relationship of
marriage for the woman, through which she is organically
united with another person. Neither does there exist in
the supernatural order another relationship to God, with
an equally formal and perfect supernatural distinguish­
ing mark, as is this marriage with God, through which the
person in question is organically united with God.
Consequently the supernatural gift of grace, through
which God makes Mary His mother and gives Himself
to her in complete and tangible possession as her own
Son, is manifested most fully and with great strength and
beauty in the idea of matrimonium divinum. For the
grace of the motherhood appears here as an analogon of
the grace of union in Christ, which forms the supernatural
distinguishing mark of the person of Christ Himself.
In this connection the divine motherhood must be
defined as a divine state as bride or a divinely bridal
motherhood. Likewise, to distinguish it from every other
relation of grace of the same name, the divine state of
Mary as bride must also vice versa be called a divinely
maternal state as bride, that is, a state as bride, specifically
calculated to achieve and complete the divine mother­
hood; for as such it first truly and completely bears the
character of marriage.
Certainly the divine state of Mary as bride first re­
ceives its completion by the divine Logos infusing Him­
self in her and thus making her actually His mother. So,
too, does the grace of motherhood here obtain the full

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

191

character analogous to the grace of the hypostatic union.
However, this completion of the bridal union must be
regarded as similar to the completion of the conjugal
union in the completed marriage.
Accordingly the bodily union, brought about through
the conception of the Logos, presupposes a prior spiritual
union in and through which it is perfected. On the other
hand this spiritual union with God, which in Mary pre­
cedes the actual consummation of the motherhood, must
be understood not as a simple, friendly union, or as a
mere intent to the conjugal union, or even as a simple
betrothal. It has to be understood in the full sense of a
matrimonium ratum, therefore as an objective and real
union. It is a union with God, achieved through the will
of the Creator; or also an objective ordination and anoint­
ing, through which the Logos is appropriated by right to
the Virgin and is spiritually united with her. Through
this ordination the divine motherhood not only is pre­
pared and placed in prospect, but is already adjudged vir­
tually and in embryo.
Under this form the grace of motherhood could have
been granted in that case naturally, not only before the
maternal conception, but even at the first moment of the
mother’s existence, and could henceforth form the dis­
tinguishing mark of her person, in the nature of the grace
of the hypostatic union. There is no reason why the grace
of this motherhood under this form should have been
given only later, particularly as, since the definition of
die Immaculate Conception, the original ordination as
die “bride of” stands beyond all doubt. This is so not as
if it formally existed in the granting of the original, ha­
bitual grace; but for the very reason that die ordination

192

MARIOLOGY

as bride demanded and brought with it this benefaction.
The “divinely bridal” element in Mary’s divine mother­
hood is now so perfected in its completion through the
conception of Christ, that to the spiritual relation to the
Logos a bodily one is joined. Moreover, this is effected
also since the Logos, being now incarnate in the fruit of
Mary according to the flesh, is, according to the soul, her
spiritual bridegroom and as such assumes her in the
closest community of His life and activity.
From this point of view the idea of mother of the Re­
deemer obtains at the same time its modification. This
is true in the sense that Mary, as bride of God, conceives
and bears the Redeemer. She is also, as bride of the God­
man, called upon and enabled to cooperate in a serving
manner in His work of redemption.
As indicated elsewhere, the various elements that come
together in the personal distinguishing mark of the di­
vine motherhood, appear in a harmonious unity and in
their full force when the distinguishing mark of her per­
son is placed in the organic unity of Mary with Christ.
This is particularly so when this union is considered ac­
cording to the standard of the relation of the heart to the
head. For here we have the unity of the root with the
fruit, of the head member with the Head, and of the
body with the spirit of the Head. At the same time Christ
is the fruit of Mary according to the body, the Head of
Mary according to the soul; but according to tire divinity,
the Spirit who dwells in her in a unique manner. But
Mary is as the root or origin, the head member, the sup­
plement to the humanity of Christ, and in and through the
latter the seat and instrument of His godhead.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

193

Some Protestants still believe in the divinity of Christ.
Hence they acknowledge that “the fruit of Mary is the
real Son of God.” 3 But they wish to consider little, or
even nothing, about the exceptional dignity, perfection,
and activity of the Mother of God in the order of grace.
In this respect they can hardly be distinguished from
those who deny the divinity of Christ. This idea can be
reduced to this formula; Mary is the Mother of God, but
not the bride of God. Expressed thus, such a view is evi­
dently unnatural and contradictory.
Therefore as the expression, the divinely bridal mother­
hood, possesses a great polemical dogmatic value, so it
has also a great constructive theological value for the
scientific explanation of the privileges of Mary.
The motherhood, regarded as a relation of the mother
to her fruit, or as bodily relationship with Christ, is not
of itself enough for our considering the divine mother­
hood the constituting principle of the only excellence of
Mary’s person. Theologians express this thought by dis­
tinguishing an adequate and an inadequate, or a moral­
physical and a purely physical, motherhood, and intend
only the first to be considered that principle. They usually
explain the motherhood in an adequate and moral-physi­
cal sense as follows: It consists in the whole of those
graces which are necessary for the worthy execution of
the maternal activity, or which were obtained through
this activity, or which achieve the worthy extension of the
relation of the mother to her fruit.
Such a widening of the idea of the motherhood will,
no doubt, be too vague and indefinite. It will not pro8 Luke 1:35.

194

MARIOLOGY

duce a more vivid concept nor is it a fruitful middle term
leading to the individual privileges that belong to the
divine motherhood.
On the contrary, the very expression, God’s bridal
motherhood, gives not merely a more or less adequate,
moral-physical concept of the divine motherhood; accord­
ing to its formal and intrinsic essence, the motherhood
is also thus properly defined through an easily susceptible
and clearly indicated element which is not lost in a mul­
tiplicity of things necessary or desirable for the worthy
extension of the mother’s relation to the fruit. It consti­
tutes, as it were, the substantial form or the soul of that
relation and therefore is the root and focus of all other
qualities of the mother.
Without this middle concept we can only gradually
and with difficulty discover the various privileges per­
taining to the Mother of God, such as domina omnium.
Of certain other privileges we can get hardly any idea; for
example, of the sanctification of Mary through the grace
of the motherhood. Thus this concept is the key of the
entire Mariology.
In reference to the original marriage, Peter Chrysologus says: 4 “A speedy interpreter (Gabriel) flies to the
bride to prevent and suspend a state of human betrothal
in the bride of God, not to take the Virgin away from
Joseph, but to give her to Christ to whom she is pledged
in her womb, when it should happen.” And again: “Al­
though Mary His mother had been betrothed, she is His
bride by virginity, and His mother by fecundity; His
mother not known by a man, and conscious of His birth.
And was she not mother before her conceiving, who, after
* St Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 140; PL, LII, 576.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

195

His birth, was both mother and virgin? And how could
she not be mother, who brought to birth the Author of
all tire years, the Giver of being to all things? 6
The Grace of the Divine Motherhood in
Relation to the Dignity of Its Subject

It must merely be mentioned that this gift of grace
could not be gained through Mary’s natural activity. Ac­
cording to tlie unanimous teaching of theologians, neither
is it possible diat diis grace could be gained in the proper
sense of de condigno through supernatural actions, hav­
ing their root in sanctifying grace; it could be gained in
an analogous way as the union with God in glory. The
reason is simple, that here it is a matter of a union with
God which belongs to die higher order of the hypostatic
union.
The meritum de congruo, to which the creature is en­
titled through sanctifying grace, can assert itself with
Mary only in the acquiring of that higher degree of in­
terior sanctity through which she is disposed in a worthy
manner, or by which she obtains the positive suscepti­
bility, to the possession of the grace of the motherhood,
that is, in a manner in keeping widi its dignity.
As such a disposition or susceptibility to die grace of
the motherhood, all meritorious acts relating to this mat­
ter can certainly be considered with regard to diis grace.
However, they are efficacious only in die same way as the
supernatural actions of others which precede sanctifying
grace and are performed in view of the latter. At best,
therefore, under the form of a meritum de congruo.
Now, every other supernatural merit, of whatever kind,
8 Ibid., Sermo 146 (in Matt. 1:18); PL, LII, 592.

196

MARIOLOGY

operates not in the sense that it brings about the right to
a definite good at the hands of God, but only in the sense
that the creature, for its own sake, is induced by God
Himself to strive for the obtaining of the good to which,
of His own accord, He has called it. This obtains still
more in the present case, where the supernatural actions
of life are not in the same inner connection and propor­
tion to the grace of the motherhood, as they are to the
graces through which the supernatural life is completed.
Assuredly, when the grace of the motherhood is taken in
its entire extent and to its root, as the marriage of Mary
with the Logos, achieved simultaneously with her crea­
tion, little room for any acquiring or disposing activity is
to be found because of this grace, as little as in the hu­
manity of Christ with regard to the hypostatic union.
There is room for such activity only because of the com­
pletion of this marriage and the actual conception of
Christ. In this respect it can perhaps be said also that, on
the ground of the already existing marriage and of the dig­
nity of the bride of God which is based on it, the meritori­
ous actions of Mary with regard to the conception of
Christ work in a manner analogous though not similar
to those of other saints with regard to the blessed union
with God.
Regarding the merits of Mary, St. Thomas says: “The
Blessed Virgin is said to have merited to bear the Lord
of all, not because she merited His becoming man, but
because through grace given her she merited such a de­
gree of purity and sanctity that she could fittingly be the
mother of God.” 6 From the liturgical “merited” a real
® St. Thomas, Illa, q. 2, a. 11 ad 3 (it is an allusion to the closing antiphon
of the daily prayer of the breviary in the Easter season: Regina coeli).

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

197

merit can still less be deduced, as it is often used only in
the sense of “to allow” or “to be deemed worthy.” Com­
pare the Exsultet of Holy Saturday: “O happy fault that
merited such and so great a Redeemer!” 7
With the foregoing as a standard, the frequent utter­
ances of the Fathers must be understood in the proper
sense when it is said, in connection with the text “the king
shall greatly desire thy beauty,” 89that Mary through her
beauty has made the Son of God descend into her bosom.8
Let us now consider the grace of the motherhood in
view of its principle, that is, the divine predestination,
and the relation to its subject brought about thereby.
Like all other supernatural graces the divine mother­
hood finds its principle in a benevolent, divine election
and predestination. The predestination to the grace of
the motherhood, in view of which Mary is called in a
special manner “vessel of election,” is distinguished from
every other divine predestination. It is thus distinguished
not only with regard to the excellence of the contents and
the salutary import of this grace, but also because of the
relation of this grace to its subject, as it is meant and
brought about through the predestination.
This predestination is unlike the predestination to
grace and glory, included in the general will of salvation.
It in no way possesses a hypothetical character whereby
its realization would be made dependent on the actual
accomplishment of the requisite acts on Mary’s part, or
7 See also A. Van Hove, “Per quam meruimus auctorem vitae suscipere,” in
Divus Thomas (Piacenza), XXXVIII (1935), 193-95.
8 Ps. 44:12.
9 Cf. Ballerini, Sulloge monumentorum ad mysterium conceptionis immac­
ulatae Virginis Deiparae illustrandum (2 vols., Rome, 1854, 1856), I, 144:
II, 153.

198

MARIOLOGY

the omission of the contradictory acts without making
sure in advance that these acts were really performed or
omitted. Analogous with the predestination of the hu­
manity of Cluist to the hypostatic union, it has a much
more unconditional and irrevocable character. All the­
ologians accept this or are bound to accept it. For they
all teach that, even before any personal activity, Mary
was enriched with a measure of grace specifically cal­
culated for her divine motherhood, and that the so-called
confirmatio in gratia is included in this.
This quality of predestination is easily explained. Be­
fore one condition could be fulfilled on Mary’s part, thus
making it simply an anticipating grace, she was from the
outset in a spiritual relation of marriage to God. This
must either be contrary to His will, or be so willed as to
receive its full realization. The end of this relationship
(that is, the bringing about of the Incarnation, the re­
demption and completion of tire world through a maternal
cooperation) is willed absolutely by God. Likewise it
must also hold true in the maintaining and consummation
of this relation in tire particular person whom God asso­
ciates with Himself to actualize these ends. This person,
therefore, was not simply elected as subject, but as co­
principle of the redemption and of grace.
Since God willed human marriage to be an indissoluble
union, with much more reason should He will the same
for this divine marriage. Through the contracting of this
marriage He bound Himself, in the same way as does the
bridegroom in a human marriage, to prevent its dissolu­
tion by every means in His power.
This being presupposed, we may add, and the Church
favors this view, that in God’s notion of creation, through

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

199

which He called into being the person of Mary, we find
inseparably connected the existence of this person and
her destiny as Mother of God, or rather her existence in
the quality of motherly bride of God.
What we have just said holds also in the sense that in
this idea, besides the decree to call this person into being,
there existed also in the mind of God from all eternity
the design of making her immediately and forever the
bride of God. It holds also in this sense, that the decree
to give existence to this person was organically connected
with the decree to call the bride of God into existence.
That is, it is intrinsically conditioned and stipulated
through this; therefore it existed only in and through this
decree, and without this it would not have come into
existence. Thus it was also formally directed to it to give
Mary existence as the bride of God.
It is with this as with the bringing about of a member
through the working of nature or of God: the insight to
give existence to the member is conditioned and stipu­
lated through the insight of its union with the head or
with the spirit. The appointment of Mary to the divine
brideship also must be imagined from the point of view
of an original union with the Creator, to be fulfilled by
Himself.
Hence Mary’s existence was actualized only as the
existence of the bride of God; and so we must say that
Mary is created not only in this state as bride, but also
particularly for this state as bride. In virtue of the act of
creation she appears as bride: creatione assumpta et
assumendo creata. And she has this distinguishing mark
of her person as a distinguishing mark grown together
with her personal existence, not indeed by virtue of the

200

MARIOLOGY

composition of her being but in virtue of her origin from
God.
The meaning and soundness of this thought are evi­
dent from the idea of the Church relative to Mary as con­
trasted with Eve, and also as the reflection of the incarnate
Wisdom. This thought is linked up with the association
of Mary with Christ in the same divine decree, indicated
in the protevangelium, through which was fixed the re­
demption of fallen man by a new, perfect human couple
and the effusion in time of the eternal Wisdom, arisen
from God.
The divine decree through which Eve was destined
to be the bride of the natural ancestor of the whole hu­
man race and mother of all mankind, evidently did not
simply stand beside the decree to which she owes her
existence. It ruled and stipulated this latter so that the
latter would not have come about without the former,
from which it also received its direction. For the aim of
the Creator in the creation of Eve was nothing more than
to give Adam a “help like unto himself.”
As Eve was created in bodily dependence on Adam,
she was, in virtue of the creation, also placed in com­
munity of body with him. However, Adam was not
thought of by God simply as a being for himself alone,
but as one whole with Eve through which the image of
God was fully realized and the complete principle of
the human race was brought about. The relationship to
Adam, which lay in the divine idea of Eve, can therefore
be thus expressed since Eve’s coming into being was
fixed by the same divine decree as the coming into exist­
ence of Adam.
When further the Church in her liturgy draws an

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

201

analogy between the origin of Mary and that of the in­
carnate Wisdom, the likeness is to be found first and
foremost in this: as seat or vessel of wisdom, Mary is cre­
ated entirely in and for the union as bride with the Logos,
analogously as the humanity of Christ is created entirely
in and for the hypostatic union. The physical being also
of Christ’s humanity was here determined and actualized
by the same decree as that through which its hypostatic
union with the Logos and the external manifestation of
the Logos were fixed and realized.
In the bull Ineffabilis the intrinsic justification of this
parallel is brought back to this, that the “origin of the
Blessed Virgin was prescribed by one and the same decree
as was the incarnation of the divine Wisdom.” 10 These
words can mean only that the very existence of Mary was
set by God per modum unius and in an analogous man­
ner with tire existence of the flesh of tire incarnate Wis­
dom.
This unity of the divine decree appears evident from
the protevangelium. There “the woman and her seed”
are promised as a new human couple bringing salvation;
like the original couple they thus appear as one whole in
the mind of God. Yet, in a certain sense the unity of the
decree is still more certain in this case than in the other
since Mary here receives existence not as an organic sup­
plement only, but also as a material preparation for the
existence of Christ or as inchoatis Christi. As for origin
and being, she stands in an analogous mutual relation
to Christ, as the heart to the head in a bodily organism.
Between the origin of Mary, on the one side, and that
10 Pius IX, bull Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854. See Acta et Decreta
conciliorum recentium . . . collectio Lacensis, Freiburg, 1870, Vol. VI.

202

MARIOLOGY

of Eve (or of Christ) on the other, there certainly exists
this difference, that Mary according to her entire being
did not receive her existence through a direct divine act,
but through human procreation. Yet the human procrea­
tion is not the producing principle of the spiritual soul
and does not define which soul shall be infused into the
body which it formed. For the spiritual soul does not
obtain its individuality from the body, but instead com­
municates thereto its own individuality. On the contrary,
as through creation God infuses souls and in them the
personal principle, He also defines which soul He wishes
to infuse, or which soul will come into existence in con­
nection with the human procreation. Hence He can also
allow Himself to be guided in the creation of a particular
soul by the view to create the latter, not simply as all
others in the execution and carrying through of the natu­
ral order to finish a fruit and member of the human race.
He can also grant it existence in virtue of the decree to
establish through Christ and in Christ a new and higher
order and to join to Christ a person who, in bridal organic
unity with Him, will be the principle and foundation of
this order. However, what prevails with the creation of
the soul as a personal principle, prevails also with the en­
tire person.
The Fathers often express the thoughts here ex­
pounded, when they call Mary a “temple” specially built
by God for Himself, or a “tree” specially planted by God
to produce a truly holy fruit. These figures are graphic
and intelligible. Yet they do not exclude in advance the
meaning that medieval opponents of Mary’s immaculate
conception attached to it, namely, that God combined
with die creation of Mary the view to ordain her “later

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

203

as His temple or to grant her the ennoblement necessary
to her supernatural fecundity. For, with a material tem­
ple the consecration certainly follows the building of it,
and with a plant the cultivation follows the planting. As
for the members, their formation and union with the head,
or the spirit, coincide with each other or have inward con­
nection with each other.
Furthermore, Mary’s origin must be imagined in rela­
tion to that of Christ in an analogous manner as the
forming of the central member in an organism, that is,
the heart, which in vir tue of the view and working of the
forming principle stands in inner relation to the forming
of the head and connection with it. This analogy, previ­
ously discussed, gives in general the clearest and most
perfect image of the inner connection of Mary’s entire
being with that of Christ, both in the divine thought and
in its realization. It also embraces perfectly the other two
since for the head in its corporal aspect the heart is the
root as much as, in the other sense, it is the dwelling for
the spirit of the head.
As already remarked, all that is essential in this idea
has been laid down by the Church in her liturgical ap­
plication of the Sapiential books to Mary. With regard to
the origin of Wisdom in the above-quoted words of the
bull Ineffabilis, this application is correctly based on the
unity of the decree.
The three expressions describing the egress of Wisdom
in the Book of Proverbs, “He possessed me,” or “He made
me,” “I was set up” or “I was anointed,” and “I was
brought forth,” or “I was born” 11 may in particular be
applied to the individual elements which come under
11 Prov. 8:22-25.

204

MARIOLOGY

consideration in Mary’s origin. To these expressions an­
swer the following in Mary’s origin: her creation, mar­
riage, or union, and, from the mutual relation of both,
the origin of a being which, in an altogether special way,
may and must be considered as born of God.
Not less strikingly are these various elements clearly
united in the figure of the fight-cloud,12 whether imagined
as “coming out of the mouth of the Most High” or as
formed from the waters of the earth together with the
light of the heavens.
The Perfection of the Distinguishing Mark
of Mary’s Person

Let us now consider the formal perfection of the super­
natural distinguishing mark of Mary’s person, constituted
through the grace of the divine motherhood. It may be
summarized thus: As the most perfect analogous case of
the gratia unionis in Christ, the grace of the motherhood
makes Mary a person of supernatural nature or order, in
the same way as Christ is constituted a truly divine per­
son through the grace of the union, it therefore forms
also in Mary the ground of supernatural privileges, as
does the grace of the union in the humanity of Christ.
It could be said that this distinguishing mark of her
person, as contrasted with the other one in creatures,
even with that of human marriage, is not purely an acci­
dental relation or a relatio rationis. In a measure it is a
hypostatic, substantial, or essential distinguishing mark,
that is, such a distinguishing mark as is due to a subject
through his relation with a higher principle which dwells
in him, with him is grown to a whole, and through which
« Ecclus. 24:5 f.; Wisd. 7:25.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

205

his dignity and perfection are defined, as his substantial
individuality is.
The grace of the divine motherhood is, analogous to
the grace of the union, of itself a substantial, or rather the
substantial grace. Essentially it is nothing else than the
divine being of her Son, granted to tire mother and in­
fused into her.
Further, the grace of the motherhood is a substantial
grace in a second sense, since the divine person is con­
nected also in a substantial or physical manner with Mary,
analogously as He is with Christ, that is, grown together
with her through taking root, and hence dwelling bodily
in her.
Moreover, this substantial grace is bestowed on Mary
at the outset of her origin and also forever. Through it
she is, from her creation and in virtue of her origin, also
assumed into the person of the Logos as His bride in such
a way that she exists only in and through her relation to
• the divine person of her Son. And this relation conditions
and defines her entire existence.
This idea of the person and being of Mary finds its
expression in the figure in the Apocalypse, the woman
clothed with the sun, in the typical figure of the light­
cloud, and in Mary’s honorary title in the Church, vas
spirituale, i.e., dwelling, instrument, and image of the
spiritual substance of the Logos. As such she is sym­
bolically represented by tire light-cloud itself, and also as
contrasted with Christ, still more so by the ark of the cove­
nant, filled and enshrouded with the magnificence of the
Lord.
In these figures and expressions Mary appears through
the grace of her motherhood as a being altogether heav­

206

MARIOLOGY

enly and spiritual. Under the form of an indwelling, en­
veloping, and penetrating light or spirit, the grace itself
is given prominence as a higher principle which, with its
substance, its force, and its influence, interiorly adorns,
enriches, magnifies, and spiritualizes the subject con­
nected with it and penetrated by it.
Since this principle is the divine Spirit and therefore
the Holy Ghost, the subject also in which He dwells be­
comes a completely holy being, an ens sacrum et sanctum,
and thereby in the fullest meaning a persona sancta et
sacra.
We say an ens sacrum et sanctum. By virtue of her con­
secration through the gratia unionis, Mary is sanctified
in a manner all her own, analogously as the humanity of
Christ is through the hypostatic union. Therefore the
gratia consecrans is with her also gratia sanctificans and
gratum faciens, analogous to that through which the man
Christ is made the Anointed of the Lord and the holy and
well-beloved Child of God. The gratia consecrans of it­
self virtually and formally, i.e., as root and soul of habitual
grace, makes its subject holy and pleasing to God.
This whole concept of the motherhood, which is based
on the analogy of the gratia unionis, is reflected by the
Fathers when they explain the expression with which the
angel addressed Mary, “full of grace.” This they do by
treating it as the distinguishing mark of her person, as
the name of Christ is with her Son.
By the expression “full of grace’’ as applied to Mary,
they mean in the first place the grace of the motherhood,
as by the “anointing of Christ” they understand the anoint­
ing of the hypostatic union. Therefore they trace the
unique loftiness of the person of Mary, not less than that

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

207

of the man Christ, to a “bodily indwelling of the entire
fullness of the Godhead.” 13
These same names still maintain the essential differ­
ence existing between “the one, full of grace” and “the
Anointed” of God. For, by the name “full of grace” we
are to understand that Mary, besides being endowed
with the highest fullness of grace, is also all that she is by
the grace of God, and not of herself. The name “Christ,”
however, according to the explanation already given in
the beginning of the Canticle of Canticles, finds its full
meaning in the fact that Christ is anointed by Himself
and is the effused oil itself.14 In other words, Christ, as
“Word incarnate,” constituted through the mingling of
the independent oil of the Logos with the flesh, is in His
own essence “divine” and “God,” and therefore also “the
holy of God” and the “vivifying spirit.” On the contrary,
“the one full of grace,” as “bride of the Word incarnate,”
clothed and filled with the light of the Godhead, is ac­
cording to her entire being a creature, and hence only
the “dwelling” of God, and as such only the “sanctuary
of God” and “spiritual vessel.”
As Mary is truly Θεοτόκο; and therefore not only θεοδόχο;
in the Nestorian sense, we must say that to her is due in
full truth the distinguishing mark of her person, which
the Nestorians wrongly applied to Christ, namely, the dis­
tinguishing mark of άνθρωπο; θεοφόρο·: (homo deifer) con­
nected with the Logos through συνάφεια and κόλλησε;, not
through κρασιά ’ and indeed so that this distinguishing mark
is still more true and full in the mulier deifera than it
18 See Passaglia, op. cit., nos. 1033 f.
14 Cant. 1:2: oleum effusum nomen tuum. The name of Christ (= Messias)
is equivalent to “the Anointed” by pre-eminence.

208

MARIOLOGY

would be the case in a vir deifer without the hypostatic
union.
The same analogy and difference are pointed out by
the Fathers, in particular by the Greek Fathers, in the
name with which they indicate the distinguishing mark
of the person of Christ and of Mary, from the viewpoint
of divine sonship and daughterhood, i.e., as a relation of
connection with God, given in and with their origin from
God. Christ, by virtue of His constitutive anointing with
the Logos, is in a unique manner “offshoot” and member
of God’s family, and, in this respect, is pre-eminently
called Puer Dei and Agnus Dei. So Mary, by reason of her
unique endowment with the fullness of grace, is pre­
eminently called the puella and the Agna Dei. The Puer
Dei is no one else but the Son of God, brought forth from
all eternity in the bosom of God as fruit of His being, bom
into the world in time. The puella Dei, however, is brought
forth by God only as a child of eternal election, as fruit
of His love and as bride of His Son.
In regard to tire figure of the Apocalypse ( the woman
clothed with the sun ), through which these thoughts are
graphically represented in connection with the kindred
figure of the light-cloud, St. Bernard says: “How intimate
thou art with Him, Domina, how close; how greatly thou
hast merited to be the intimate, how much grace thou
hast found with Him! He remains in thee and thou remainest in Him: thou vestest Him and art vested by
Him. Thou clothest Him with the substance of thy flesh,
and He clothes thee with the glory of His majesty. Thou
clothest the sun with a cloud, and thou art clothed by the
same sun.” Also: “By right Mary is called the one clothed
with the sun, the one who penetrated beyond the deepest

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

209

abyss of the divine Wisdom, more than can be believed,
so that, as much as such a position of a creature is per­
mitted without a personal union, she seems immersed in
that inaccessible light.” 15
Hence it is a rather weak, one-sided, and even com­
pletely wrong conception, if, as often happens, the grace
of the divine motherhood, considered in the abstract and
by itself, apart from the gratia habitualis, is simply placed
among the gratiae gratis datae; as if it were a position to
be used only for the benefit of others. The least it can be
considered is a gratia consecrans—in the nature of the
sacramental distinguishing mark—which includes a spe­
cial relation of the person endowed with grace, to Christ,
and therefore enables such a one to obtain sanctifying
grace and communicates the possession of it.
But even this analogy does not suffice. For the grace of
the divine motherhood consists, according to its inner­
most essence, in a wholly unique possession of the un­
created grace.
He who in this sense denies to the grace of the mother­
hood the quality of a grace which, of itself and as such,
next to and above habitual grace, sanctifies and makes
pleasing to God, must also refuse this claim in regard to
the gratia unionis in Christ, not to mention the gratia in­
habitationis Spiritus Sancti. Otherwise he denies the mat­
ter with words only. As maternal bride of God, Mary,
to whom He has given His Son as her Son and bride­
groom, possesses a special and holy dignity and is dear to
God beloved of Him in a unique manner. Moreover, the
act and state of sin, even of venial sin, are inconsistent
with her motherhood. Anyone who concedes these truths
*· St. Bernard, Serm. Dom. infra Oct. Ass., PL, CLXXXIII, 431.

210

MARIOLOGY

can hardly deny that the grace which makes her the
mother, bears the character of a forma sanctificans and
gratum faciens.
For this very reason most theologians dealt firmly with
this formula. Its meaning was questioned because it was
not put in the form here given, and because the repre­
sentation brought into vogue by Ripalda and afterward
defended by Christophorus Vega,1® was indeed unfortu­
nate and placed the matter in a wrong light. What these
theologians passed off for forma sanctificans was not what
we have called the “grace of the motherhood,” to which
this quality precisely belongs because it is analogous to
the gratia unionis in Christ. It was rather the maternal
relation to Christ, regarded physiologically only, as fol­
lowing formally from the cooperation of Mary with the
producing and birth of Christ, or from the fact that Christ’s
humanity was bodily grown together with His mother.
To the forma sanctificans thus construed are ascribed all
the operations of the gratia habitualis (which includes
the immediate dignity of the beatific vision and its merit)
in such a way that these effects also exist even were sanc­
tifying grace unavailable.
The first is a shifting and restriction of the essence of
the grace of the motherhood, which certainly does not
bear in it any longer the character of a forma sanctificans;
neither does it elucidate the deep and real reason of Mary’s
maternal dignity. The second is an exaggeration of the
effects of this grace, which is not admissible even when
correctly understood. The grace of the motherhood, as
sanctifying grace, motivates the dignity of the beatific
19 Ripalda, De ente supematurali, disp. 79 (ed. Vives, 1871), III, 72-144;
Christ. Vega., Theol. Mar., palaestra 26.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

211

vision and the ability to obtain it; but thereby it is not
said that it must and could do so adequately, of itself
alone, without the intervention and influence of the gratia
habitualis which it has as result. Therefore we definitely
repudiate a forma sanctificans built up in this way from
the divine motherhood, but we are of the opinion that
the arguments against it do not at all concern our concept.
Furthermore, the truth of the concept which is the
point at issue appears still more clearly from what fol­
lows. Since the distinguishing mark of her person must
be ascribed to a particular union of Mary with the Holy
Ghost, He must be thought of as the principle of her sanc­
tity in an analogous way as He is the principle of the
sanctity of the Church. For the Church, regarded as an
organic whole or as a principle of sanctification, has no
other formal principle of its sanctity than the Holy
Ghost Himself.
From what follows, the difference will also appear
more clearly between the substantial forma sanctificans
in Christ and in Mary.
Mary,

the

Counterpart

Prototype

of

of the

Eve and

the

Church

The most concrete and accurate definition of the super­
natural distinguishing mark of Mary’s person is its like­
ness to and difference from the distinguishing mark of the
person of Christ. This truth follows from the fact that, ac­
cording to the general and current conception of the
Church, Mary is the counterpart of Eve and the proto­
type of the Church.
As counterpart of Eve, Mary is to the heavenly and
spiritual Adam what Eve herself was to tire earthly Adam

212

MARIOLOGY

endowed merely with a soul, “a help like unto himself.” 17
That is, Eve was a personal likeness of himself, placed at
. his side, just as he himself was a likeness of God. But it
is a likeness which as “help like unto himself” has an en­
tirely particular form in which it expresses his common
nature, formed according to God’s image. Eve was such
a likeness of Adam only through the fact that she also
was constituted through a spiritual soul. In like manner
the heavenly and spiritual Eve can there appear as a like­
ness of the heavenly and spiritual Adam, only when she
is understood as imbued with a divine principle.
She appears in such a light when considered as taken
possession of by the divine Logos in and with His divine
nature, and as filled with His divinity. In this respect,
however, full justice is not done to the distinguishing
mark of the bride as of an independent person who re­
sembles the person of the bridegroom and at the same
time represents his being under a special form. On the
contrary, this likeness comes out clearly and vividly when
the distinguishing mark of Mary’s person is sought in her
quality of a living and personal bearer and representative
(dwelling, vessel, instrument, garment, and image); in
other words, as temple of the Holy Ghost, proceeding
from the Logos; or again, were the mark seen in the fact
that, in a manner equally special though not nearly as
complete, she forms one person with the Holy Ghost who
informs and animates her, just as the human nature of
Christ forms one person with the Logos.
In this respect Mary at once appears not only as a
person by herself next to Christ, but also, in this state,
as a person similarly constituted, yet forming a special
17 Gen. 2:18: faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

213

type. Toward the Logos the Holy Ghost represents the
divine nature in the same manner as the woman repre­
sents the human nature next to the man. In like manner
both these types unite in Mary as the woman animated
by the Holy Ghost to a supernatural figure of the heavenly
and spiritual Eve, in a manner analogous, in Christ, to
the “type” of the Logos and that of the man uniting to
form the type of the heavenly and spiritual Adam.
The meaning of this viewpoint becomes still more im­
portant as through it the subordination and relation to
Christ can also be defined more clearly and significantly.
The subordination as “bride” appears the more clearly
from the fact that Christ is really and immediately
anointed in the Logos—the source of the Holy Ghost—
and hence is Himself the principle of the Holy Ghost. On
the contrary, like other created persons endowed with
grace, Mary possesses in the Holy Ghost only a substan­
tial principle of holiness which proceeds from the Logos
and dwells in her through grace. Therefore the relation
as bride to Christ appears here under this form: Mary is
united with Christ through a product which is co­
independent with Him in the divinity which proceeds
from His godhead and dwells in her as a supernatural
principle of her being and life.
A double advantage lies in this. On the one hand, this
relation is of itself conceived under a more sublime point
of view than when it is only traced to Mary and Christ
as bodily grown together; for it appears conspicuously
as caused by a spiritual and divine tie. On the other hand,
it is quite naturally brought into closest connection with
the origin of Mary. For the Holy Ghost, who was infused
into Mary together with the creation of her soul as costa

214

MARIOLOGY

Verbi, as Methodius calls Him, places Mary in a relation
to Christ similar to that in which Eve stood to Adam by
having been formed from his rib.18
Finally, a double likeness with Christ, or with His
sacred humanity, answers to this double quality of the
relation of Mary to Christ, from the viewpoint of the re­
lationship of tire distinguishing mark of person to its sub­
ject.
On the one hand, the specific relation to God which
forms the distinguishing mark of Mary’s person when it
is understood as union with the Holy Ghost, is noted as
one in which the soul of Mary is connected with God by
means of her body, and also, and that primarily and
originally, her body through the soul. Therefore it is
connected with God through the medium of the soul. At
the same time it is understood that the influence of the
distinguishing mark of Mary’s person, in view of the
qualities and activities of its subject, which are based on
it, had to assert itself chiefly and first in and through the
soul of Mary.
On the other hand, the distinguishing mark of Mary’s
person, understood thus, may more easily be conceived
as a distinguishing mark that was present from the be­
ginning of her existence before the conception of Christ,
and later also, after the birth of Christ, and which actu­
ally continued during the entire duration of her exist­
ence.
The soundness and meaning of this idea of the distin­
guishing mark of Mary’s person appears still more clearly
from the fact that the supernatural essence of the Church,
18 St. Methodius, Convivium decem virginum, lib. 3, c.8; PG, XVIII, 73.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

215

whose prototype and root Mary is, is represented in the
language and concept of the Church herself precisely ac­
cording to this type.
This is evident in the individual members of the
Church. As temples, animated by the Holy Ghost, they
are understood as being in such unity with Him that He
Himself “prays in them with unutterable sighs.” 19 It is
still much more obvious in the Church, so far as the
Church as bride of Christ and mother of Christians stands
between Christ and His spiritual children; and also so
far as the Church as a supernatural and heavenly prin­
ciple, arisen from the side of Christ,20 similar and equiva­
lent to Him, forms an adjutorium simile which assists
Him.
In the Catholic concept, the Church is such a principle
as bearer and representative, i.e., dwelling, instrument,
and image, or as temple of the Holy Ghost. This must
be understood in the sense that the Holy Ghost not only
influences her through His working, but forms with her
one undivided whole and is embraced in her composition
as her soul.21 In other words it is as a kind of incarnation
of the Holy Ghost with whom therefore she shares His
symbolic name of being: columba Dei.
This concept is particularly essential to prevent the
vaporizing to a mere personification of our imagination
the sublime and significant idea, according to which the
Church is conceived as a supernatural, substantial, and
10 Rom. 8:26; cf. v. 15.
20 See the material from tradition collected by Seb. Tromp, S.J., “De nativ.
Ecclesiae e Corde Jesu in cruce” in Gregorianum, ΧΠΙ (1932), 489-527.
21 For patrisitc material see Seb. Tromp, De Spiritu Sancto anima Corporis
mystici, 2 fasc., Textus et Documenta (Univ. Gregor.), nos. 1 and 7, Rome,
1932, and Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia, Rome, 1937.

216

MARIOLOGY

personal being, or, with Methodius, as virtus subsistens.22
Indeed the Church has a supernatural essence and ex­
istence only so far as the Holy Ghost is her Spirit and
completes her in Himself, in a way analogous to the way
the human spirit perfects the human body. In many a
title ascribed to the Church, particularly when she is rep­
resented as an acting subject distinct from all her mem­
bers and at the same time something absolute and holy
in herself, she steps forward as rising, so to say, in the
Holy Ghost and identical with Him. This is analogous to
the way, in the natural man, the body as an animated
body, and the spirit as the animating principle of the
body, are bound up in each other and are identical with
each other.
When the Church, therefore, as a supernatural prin­
ciple, finds the prototype in the supernatural distinguish­
ing mark of the essence and existence of Mary, then this
distinguishing mark of person must certainly be looked
for in an analogous relation to the Holy Ghost and in unity
with Him. In the Church, however, only human nature
in general or as a unity of race, or the social organism of
a visible union, is manifest as the bearer of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore the idea of the Church is in no indi­
vidual of that nature and in no separate member of that
organism so realized that he stands to the Holy Ghost in
a way analogous to that of the humanity of Christ to the
Logos, and is thus animated by the Holy Ghost in his
entire being and is His instrument for this entire, super22 This is probably an allusion to the text of St. Methodius, Convivium, lib.
8, c.5; PG, XVIII, 145 (application of Apoc. 12:1 f. to the Church). See also
Jac. Farges, Les idées morales et religieuses de Méthode d’Olympe (Paris,
1929), p. 143.

THE MARK OF MARY’S PERSON

217

natural activity. But Mary is for that very reason the
prototype of the Church, as the idea of the Church is
originally realized in her person and in the most perfect
manner. Since she herself belongs to the Church and at
the same time forms the head-member as root and heart,
the idea of the Church as a supernatural principle assist­
ing Christ also obtains its full, concrete, and living figure.
Furthermore, when the Church is considered the
mystical body of Christ or caro Verbi in carne Christi coassumpta et conrepleta a Verbo, and in this quality is
placed in relation to Christ as her Head and to the Logos
as her spirit, she is, as known, quite naturally so con­
ceived that she is not, like the Head, immediately ani­
mated by the Spirit, i.e., the essence of being of the
Logos, but by the Holy Ghost as the breath of life which
proceeds from the spirit and spreads over the body.
Accordingly Mary also, as a member of the mystical
body of Christ and as caro coassumpta et conrepleta a
Verbo, must be thought of in a special manner as ani­
mated by the Holy Ghost and not by the Logos. As head­
member of the body she stands to the Head as well as
to the other members in a way like that of the heart. In
the human organism the heart is the bearer, organ, and
representative of the vivifying functions, as the head is
that of the spiritual functions and influences of the spir­
itual soul. Hence Mary also must be considered from this
point of view as bearer, organ, and representative of the
Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Logos.
Once again it appears here especially, how clearly
Mary, through this concept of the distinguishing mark
of the person, is distinguished from Christ and from the

218

MARIOLOGY

rest of men. For by it she appears at the side of Christ as
a supernatural being above other men, and toward Christ
she stands with the rest of mankind as a natural being de­
pendent on the influence of His grace.

CHAPTER XI

The Source of Mary’s Dignity1
HE assumption into the divine person of the Logos,
given to the human nature of Christ through the
grace of the union, is the highest distinction that was and
could be granted to a created nature. Likewise the dis­
tinguishing mark of person contained in the divine moth­
erhood is also the highest distinction with which a created
person can be endowed. For there is no higher function
of a creature than the immediate bodily and spiritual co­
operation in the most sublime work of God; neither does
there exist a more perfect association with God, and cer­
tainly no more perfect appropriation of God to the crea­
ture, than through the “divine marriage” which forms the
essence of the grace of the divine motherhood.
Hence the Mother of God is, next to Christ, the most
sublime work of God and also the noblest and most
worthy person in the created world; to the extent that in
nobility and dignity she surpasses, beyond comparison,
all other persons, however filled with grace. Rightly
named, therefore, is this loftiness of her nobility and dig­
nity when it is called infinite, not indeed in an absolute
sense, yet in a very real sense. Infinite it is so far as it
contains such a participation in the essentially infinite
dignity of God, or resembles it so closely that, apart from

T

1 Literature as in the former chapter, and Passaglia, op. cit., sec. 1, and
especially sec. 6, c.4; Haine, De hyperdulia, Louvain, 1864.
219

220

MARIOLOGY

God Himself, no higher is imaginable, neither can it be
equaled or measured through any other dignity possible
to a created person.
The entire unique sublimity and dignity 2 of the Mother
of God is often exalted by the Fathers in the most en­
thusiastic expressions, particularly through comparison
with that of the highest heavenly spirits.3
When St. Thomas in a certain passage quite simply says
that Mary is the most perfect mother imaginable, as the
beatific vision according to its essence is the most perfect
knowledge, he does not intend by that to exclude what
he explains in another place, that Mary, precisely as the
most perfect mother, is also simply the most sublime
created person.4
The comparison of the divine motherhood, in respect
to the dignity which is based on it, with the sanctifying
grace and the dignity of the state of the adopted children
resting on it, can cause difficulties only when one con­
ceives the motherhood inadequately as a physiological
relation between mother and child, or as an office, and one
makes an entire abstraction of it, that the sanctifying
grace is morally of necessity connected with it.
On the contrary it is not enough to say that Mary’s
state as adopted child is necessarily connected with her
motherhood. For, as bridal unity with the Son of God and
as possession of this Son, based on a divine appropria­
tion, the motherhood includes the positive contents of the
2 Excellentia, nobilitas, dignitas.
8 Cf. the passages quoted in Hurter, Theologiae Dogm. Comp. ( Inns­
bruck, 1877), II, 37611., thesis 155; Haine, op. cit., Part I, chap. 1; Passaglia,
op. cit., sec. 1 and sec. 6, c. 1 and 4.
4 St. Thomas, Ilia, q.27, a. 5 ad 2; In I Sent., dist. 44, q. unie., a. 3 corp.
See also Comad. Saxon., Speculum
lect 10 (ed. by Quaracci, 1904,
p. 134).

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

221

state of adoption in itself and in an eminent manner,
partly virtual and partly formal. Moreover, it defines the
filial relation of Mary to God so that it is really more than
a common state of adoption; for it shares in a particular
way the inherent nature of the essentially divine state of
Christ as child and son.
Formally and adequately taken as God’s bridal mother­
hood, the divine motherhood in its concrete realization
also implies the most vivid bridal relation of Mary to God.
Hence no difficulty is presented by these utterances of the
Fathers in which the physiological side of the mother­
hood and Mary’s union of love with God are so compared
that this latter is prominent as a more sanctifying good
than the former. When, e.g., St. Augustine says: “Mary
was happier when she conceived with her mind than with
her womb . . . she carried it more happily in her heart
than in her body,”5 he does not simply contrast the moth­
erhood of Mary with her spiritual, moral perfection; he
merely places one element in the functions of the mother­
hood opposite another which, in reality, is connected
with it and which, according to the same Augustine, pre­
cedes it as a condition: “she conceived first with her mind
and then with her body.”
Venerable Bede says: “And the same Mother of God
and thence happy indeed, because she is made the tem­
poral mistrss of the incarnate Word, but thence much
happier because she remained the eternal keeper of the
Word to love Him forever.” 0 He thus simply places a
passing, maternal activity in contrast with the permanent,
5 Cf. St. Augustine, Serm. 215, no. 4; PL, XXXVIII, 1078: Maria fide plena
Christum prius mente quam ventre concepit.
• St Bede, In Luc., lib. 4, c. 11; PL, XCII, 480.

222

MARIOLOGY

spiritual union of the mother with the Son, which is
merely the continuation of the maternal love with which
Mary has exercised her temporal ministerium.
As to the dignity of the Mother of God being infinite,
see St. Thomas In I Sent., dist. 44, a. 3. St. Albert the Great
says: “The Son adorns His mother with an infinite excel­
lence; an infinite excellence in the fruit discloses an in­
finite excellence in the tree.” 7 This latter expression is
significant, but can also be easily misunderstood. It would
be false if it meant that the godhead, i.e., the excellence of
the fruit, finds its adequate and most intimate principle,
from which it is drawn, in Mary’s inner constitution or
condition. The true meaning is more nearly this: in virtue
of the conception of the semen divinum from which this
fruit is produced, the infinite excellence of the fruit
premises such a union of the mother with the godhead
dwelling in her, that through it the godhead itself be­
comes the principle and the measure of the excellence of
the mother.
Compared with the rest of mankind, the unique excel­
lence of Mary, wrought through the grace of her mother­
hood, may thus be modified so that one discovers in it a
community and likeness with those privileges through
which tire excellent position of Christ is characterized as
contrasted with creatures. This may happen under a
threefold aspect, according as one considers Mary next
to, with, and immediately after Christ: ( 1 ) as standing in
an eminent likeness and a community with God simply
apart from all other beings and above them: transcen­
dental position; (2) as a member of mankind and of the
7 St Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 197.

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

223

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

of

Mary

In her transcendental position, by virtue of the grace of
the motherhood, Mary appears next to, with, and im­
mediately after Christ in such an eminent way as the
image and likeness of God, that the Church does not hesi­
tate to apply to her the scriptural descriptions relative to
the eternal Wisdom as the image and likeness of God,
which stands apart from all creatures and above them.
Accordingly a participation in tire gloria et virtus of the
divine persons, a certain communicatio idiomatum divi­
norum, takes place with Mary, analogously as with Christ,
in such a unique manner as with no other creature, to
whatever extent they are endowed with grace.
For that reason, however, the title of dea may not be
ascribed to the Mother of God. Although she really more
closely resembles God and is more connected with Him
than they who are called gods in Holy Writ, yet what is
exceptional with her in her likeness and community with
God would precisely cause the danger in understanding
this name in a pagan sense according to which dea and
deus are substantially on a par.
For the same reason Mary may not be called persona
divina or “divine being” or “divine woman” or “divine
virgin”; although in the last case this happens in Latin
under the form diva. One must rather characterize her
“divine” character through other expressions, as: the
holy, glorious, heavenly Virgin.

224

MARIOLOGY

On the contrary she is, analogously to Christ as man, the
“holy child of God.” Hence there lies also in the divine
state as child a particular reflection of the divine daugh­
terhood of the eternal Wisdom toward God the Father.
In the person of the Logos, and thus in the man Christ
also, this really coincides with His divine sonship and is
absorbed therein. But in the Holy Ghost, and thus in
Mary also, it is represented through the relation as co­
lumba Dei, arising from the breath of the divine love, a
relation which specifically differs from the sonship.
The name “daughter of God the Father,” based on this
reflection of the daughterhood of the eternal Wisdom,
and understood in the sense defined through it, is the
most excellent and powerful, and yet the most conceiv­
able and simple of divine titles with which we can sum up
the magnificence of Mary above all creatures. It contains
all the divine attributes that may be applied to Mary, and
gives them their clear and simple meaning and their
suitable form.
The specific meaning of this name is first of all that
Mary in her origin from the breath of the divine love, i.e.,
from the vivifying power of God, appears through His
loving decree as a spiritual living being. By virtue of this
origin she is herself as it were a divine breath through
which the Word, produced in the heart of the Father,
must be born and be clothed in the flesh assumed by Him
and animated by Him.
This name, therefore, contains a likeness of Mary with
the substantial “breath of God,” the Holy Ghost; and in­
deed in that quality and function through which His posi­
tion in the Trinity, belonging to Him in virtue of His
origin from God, is most beautifully characterized and

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

225

in which He preferably stands forth as the “dove” arising
from God.
With regard to such a divine daughterhood, Mary is
consequently, analogous to the eternal Wisdom, rightly
called in contrast with all creatures the only and the first­
born daughter of God. The only born, for such a daughter
does not belong to any other creature; the first-born, for
in virtue of the special character of this daughterhood
Mary is not only the first in rank among all the children
of God, but also the mother of all others.
Analogous to the eternal Wisdom Himself, Mary, as
daughter of God, is also the first-born of the entire crea­
tion. In God’s decree of creation she is intended, with the
incarnate Wisdom, to be the end and completion of the
works of God. The decree of creation which had in view
her existence, was conditioned and defined through the
will, not simply to produce things apart from God, but to
send ad extra and to effuse the eternal Wisdom Himself.
For that very reason Mary, as daughter born of God,
has above the other creatures of God who in time have
been called from nothingness into being, a further privi­
lege. Her origin supposes the eternal origin of the divine
Wisdom and, in virtue of its organic connection with the
appearing of this Wisdom ad extra in time, it is in God’s
thought connected in a particular manner with the eternal
and internal origin of Wisdom.
From the excellent and divine daughterhood of Mary,
or from her character contained therein as maternal bride
of the Son of God, there easily follows the participation
in certain divine attributes. We refer to the attributes in
which the divine glory and power which are due to the
eternal Wisdom in contrast with the rest of creatures in

226

MARIOLOGY

virtue of His origin from God, are perfectly revealed with
this Wisdom, that is, with the Son of God and the Holy
Ghost. These titles are: with the Son of God and the Holy
Ghost, Dominus, Sanctus, Vivificator; with the eternal
Wisdom, in the sense of the description from the books
of Wisdom, Regina, and Mater omnium.
Accordingly, in the language of the Church, Mary
bears a series of names that agree with those already men­
tioned. These names are Domina sancta, particularly
Domina nostra, Regina mundi, coelorum, angelorum;
Vita or Vivificatrix, Illuminatrix, Mater gratiae, Salus,
Paracleto, Consolatrix, etc.
The name Domina (“she who rules”), more correctly
Domina sancta, corresponding to the Dominus of Christ,
implies, in contrast to the state of servant, the right to
joint enjoyment of the glory and bliss of God. This right
is granted to the Mother of God in and with the person
of her divine bridegroom and Son. A further sort of right
is that of joint disposal of the goods of God in view of
their distribution to others. Furthermore the title Domina
nostra or Dominatrix implies the right to submissive ven­
eration and obliging obedience on behalf of all creatures
who depend on God. And rightly so, since Mary, next to
God and Christ, is tire end to which the entire rational
and irrational creation is directed, as the irrational and
earthly creation is to man.
The idea of Vita, Vivificatrix, or Illuminatrix implies
that Mary, in virtue of tire grace of her motherhood, is in
a perfect manner the seat, bearer, and instrument of the
principle of supernatural life and light of grace. This she
is both for herself and for others. This principle rather
exercises its influence as particularly dwelling in her, and

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

227

by her entering into relation with the rest of the world.
Hence she is, next to God and Christ, the secondary prin­
ciple of grace, and thereby of the supernatural comple­
ment of mankind and of the world in general.
Both ideas do not simply stand beside each other, as
having the same basis and as represented together in the
figure of the heavenly woman, clothed with the sun. They
also define and penetrate each other. Therefore Mary is
the more perfectly the domina of rational creatures as she
is likewise the secondary principle of their supernatural
fight and life. Consequently she is the perfect secondary
principle of this supernatural light and life, as she com­
municates the first principle of this life to the world as
appropriated and belonging first and uniquely to her­
self; and also as, in this respect, she is not distinguished
less from every other instrument of the distribution of
grace, than through the physical activity with the produc­
ing and birth of Christ.
The ideas of Domina and Vita or Illuminatrix belong so
much to the distinguishing mark of Mary’s person and
express its specific excellence so strikingly, that of old
many writers sought to find those ideas expressed in the
very name of “Mary”: the first according to the Syrian
derivation by the Syrian Fathers: the second according to
the Hebrew explanation of St. Jerome. Both titles were
united by some ( e.g., Ephraem ), with special stress on the
highest likeness with God, contained therein: “After the
Trinity she is the Domina of all; after the Paraclete she is
another paraclete.” 8
The name of Domina with its various nuances is in use
8 St. Ephraem of Syria, Oratio ad Deip., ed. by Assemani, graec.-lat.,
Ill, 528, cited by Passaglia, op. tit., Vol. Ill, no. 1399.

228

MARIOLOGY

in the older liturgies, and also with the Fathers,’ and in
the sense explained is wholly dogmatic. St. John Dama­
scene: “And thus Grace (the name of Anna signifies
grace) brings forth the Domina, for this is expressed by
the name Mary, because she is made truly tire Domina of
all creatures, when she appeared as mother of the Crea­
tor. . . . Indeed, she is properly the mother of God and
the Domina and, appearing as both the handmaid and tire
mother of the Creator, she exercises authority over all
creatures.” 10 Peter Chrysologus adds to the words of the
angel: “Fear not, Mary”: “Before the occasion the dig­
nity of the Virgin is made known by the name; for she is
called Mary in Plebrew, Domina in Latin. Thus the angel
calls her Domina to remove the trepidation of servitude
from the Lord’s mother whom her own authority made
and caused to be born as Domina and to be called Domina
from her birth.” 11
The title to this right contained in the attribute Do­
mina, is the personal community of Mary with God,
which lies in her divine state as bride and was completed
through the infusion of the Logos in His conception.
Thereby the infusion of the Logos into the Virgin can
also be considered her anointing and appointment as
domina.12 On the ground of this first title there comes
only as second into consideration the mutual communica­
tion, which agrees with the maternal activity with the
9 See Passaglia, op. cit., sec. 6, c.l, art. 1; Haine, op. cit., pp. 125 f.
10 St. John Damascene, De fide orth., Bk. IV, chap. 14; PG, XCIV, 1157,
1161.
11 St. Peter Chiys., Sermo 142; PL, LII, 579.
12 Scheeben refers here to the same place in Chrysologus. The latter sees
in the announcement of the angel the solemn appointment of Mary as Queen,
but gives at the same time to understand that àie was this in fact from her
birth.

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

229

loving care for the humanity of Christ, or the honor and
love which belongs to the mother on behalf of her child.
As it would, therefore, be incorrect to consider the ma­
ternal influence on Christ as man as the main title, it
would be still more incorrect to deduce from it a domi­
nium, through which Mary would be Domina Christi, as
it could appear in some zealous exaggerations of the
dominium of Mary. Neither can the maternal authority
of Mary over the humanity of Christ be called dominium
in Christum, for even in contrast with ordinary people it
is not really a dominium. Therefore by decree of the Holy
Office (February 12, 1878) the Holy See forbade the at­
tribute Regina Cordis Jesu, which in Poland had been so
translated from the French Notre Dame du Sacre Cœur,
and prohibited also those representations where the Child
Jesus stands before the knees of the seated mother.
With regard to Christ, one can speak only of a belong­
ing to Mary, whereby her participation in His goods and
her dominion” over His subjects are founded as condomi­
nium. This belonging to and this condominium have en­
tirely the form of die claim which the bride obtains
toward the bridegroom, through her acceptance as bride
and her services as bride. This idea extends to the farthest
bounds. But it has some necessary restrictions inasmuch
as the ideas of domina and handmaid do not exclude each
other here, but rather blend together harmoniously in the
idea of ministra Dei.
Neither does the idea of dominium universale of the
Mother of God mean that she can exercise a jurisdiction
over all persons or possess a proprietary right to all things;
for this belongs no more to the right of the bride than to
that of the mother. Furthermore, Mary’s right in this re­

230

MARIOLOGY

spect must not be measured simply according to the share
of an earthly queen in the rule of a king, but rather as the
participation of a mother in the family rights of the father.
The position of Mary next to Christ and under Him
over all mere creatures, as she is characterized through
the title Domina, appears strikingly through the union of
the scriptural texts according to which Christ “sits” at
the right hand of God on the latter’s throne, the Queen
“stands” at His right hand, the angels and saints “kneel”
or “lie upon their faces” before the throne.13
Under the names of the second category (“life”), “our
life” 14 is in accord with Scripture, for, as synonymous
with “Eve,” it is applicable to Mary, the counterpart of
Eve, and indeed in the particular meaning of secondary
principle of the supernatural, glorious life of grace.
But Mary is not simply such a principle in the sense that
she effects the application of the grace of redemption
through her prayer. This title means rather that Mary, by
virtue of the divine motherhood through which she
brought forth Christ, in Him gives the principle of grace
to the world. Hence in the Litany of Loreto, Mater di­
vinae gratiae is strikingly connected with Mater Christi.
For the same reason no one but she is called mother of
grace, although other saints may obtain grace for us
through their prayers.
On the other hand, Mary is distinguished from Christ
and God through the fact that she is called the mother
13 Ps. 109:1, Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis (cf. Heb.
1:3, 13); Ps. 44:10, Astitit regina a dextris tuis; Phil. 2:10, ut in nomine Jesu
omne genu flectatur, Apoc. 7:11, Et omnes angeli . . . ceciderunt in con­
spectu throni in facies suas.
14 Cf. the patristic texts in Passaglia, op. cit., sec. 6, c.4, art. 5, 6. In the
Salve Regina the Jansenists wished to make the title vita disappear by chang­
ing the text to vitae dulcedo.

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

231

of grace or the maternal principle of grace. The eternal
Wisdom is also represented in the books of Wisdom next
to God tire Father as maternal (i.e., mediating through
love, principle of grace ), and in His action on earth is de­
scribed as the source and channel of living waters.15 So
Mary also remains under this more particular name the
image of a divine person. From this point of view she is
more definitely the image of the Holy Ghost. With Him
she has in common the symbol of the “dove” which, par­
ticularly in this sense, is full of meaning, and also the
name and the quality of paracletus. Corresponding to the
Hebrew Menachem (consolator), this latter name has
not with the Holy Ghost the specific meaning of advo­
catus and intercessor but of consolator. Here it means a
consolator not only through words, but as causa laetitiae,
i.e., informant of the good, which forms the contents of
joy. This likewise is the case with Mary.16
The Imminent Position of Mary

In her imminent position as a member of the universe
and in particular of mankind, Mary appears next to
Christ, as the noblest and most important member, or
ratlier as a member of mankind raised to a higher order
through whom and in whom mankind stands in mystical
communication with Christ.
Considered as an offspring of mankind, she is its high­
est flower as Christ is its most excellent fruit. For that
very reason she is the highest and likewise the heavenly
spiritual and mystical flower, the “mystical rose,” the
15 Ecclus. 24:40; cf. the patristic material in Passaglia, op. cit., HI, nos.
1369 ff.
ie Passaglia, op. cit., no. 1393.

232

MARIOLOGY

“spiritual lily”; for Christ is brought forth in her and from
her as fruit of the earth and of heaven at the same time.
Mary, as the flower of mankind turned toward heaven,
further receives in the conception of the Logos the dew
and light of heaven for all mankind; she forms the throne
of Emmanuel, who descends as the principle of grace.
Thus she is also for all mankind the head member, the
instrument in the contracting of the mystical marriage
with the Logos, which was made in her and through her.
In this respect she may even be called, in a relative sense,
the mystical head of mankind, so far as this latter is
thought of, not as one body with Christ, but in contra­
distinction with Him, as His bride.
Still it is not Mary, but Christ Himself who is the real
mystical Head of mankind. As mother of this Head she
obtains toward the rest of men such a position by virtue of
which she is the mother also of the mystical body of
Christ; or as mother of Christ, mother of Christians also;
and as bodily mother of the Son of God, spiritual mother
of men with regard to their state as children of God.
This universal motherhood of Mary, which is usually
called the mystical motherhood, may not at all be con­
sidered a purely moral or so-called motherhood. In its
nature it is as equally real, organic, living, and substantial
a relation as that of the bodily motherhood. It rests on
the maternal relation of Mary to Christ and the organic
relation in which Christians stand to Christ as their Head.
Ultimately this mystical motherhood is derived from the
fact that Mary, as real bride of God, is seat and instru­
ment of the divine light of grace.
The cohesion of this secondary with the primary moth­
erhood is so close that we may say: Mary receives in the

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

233

conception o£ Christ the real, divine Word as semen di­
vinum, in such a way that in Christ and with Christ men
also must be born from it as children, and that conse­
quently all men are virtually brought forth in her bosom
through the conception of Christ.
In Christ Mary also receives and brings forth her own
spiritual Head. As His bodily mother she is subject to
Him as to her spiritual Bridegroom and is given to Him as
His partner because as man He is in His mother’s womb
“man,” not “child,” according to the spirit.17 Likewise, in
view of spiritual motherhood, she is also with regard to
men subordinate and coordinate to her Son as to their
spiritual Father. Therefore, as spiritual mother of men,
she takes a position between these latter and Christ, in a
way analogous to that which other mothers have between
the father and the children.
By her position as mother of Christ and of Christians,
Mary shares the quality of spiritual vine of that portion
of mankind which is endowed with grace. We may also
regard her in Christ and with Christ as the cornerstone
on which the latter rests; more closely, as that corner­
stone through which the whole structure is connected
with the primary cornerstone.
However, so far as mankind, built up on Christ as an
organic body, is connected with Him as with its Head,
Mary’s position in this body may be considered that of
the heart. This is true of the mother in the natural com­
munity of the family. In the mystical body of Christ the
analogy of the physical organism generally holds true in
17Jer. 31:22. The word “man” characterizes the being, enclosed in the
mother’s womb, as a person who, according to the spirit, is not subjected to
development, but who already possesses the full maturity of a man.

234

MARIOLOGY

a higher manner and in a fuller measure than in any hu­
man grouping. Christ is, therefore, in an exceptionally
deep and emphatic sense, the “Head” of His mystical
body. Mary also, in a sense no less deep and emphatic, is
the heart of this body.
As there exists between Mary and Christ the same or­
ganically mutual relation as there is between heart and
head, there also takes place in Mary an organic mediation
between the Head and the other members, as the heart
does in physical bodies. In particular, Mary, as the heart
of the mystical body, appears as the privileged seal of the
Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Head to animate the
entire body; as the member in whom the entire life of the
Head is reflected in the most perfect manner and whose
functions condition and support in many ways the influ­
ence of the Head on the other members.
Moreover, in Mary this representation strikingly char­
acterizes her personal position, full of life, in the internal
organism of the body of Christ, as contrasted with that
place which belongs to the official representatives of
Christ in the external organism of the Church.
Under the symbols mentioned, we often find with the
Fathers particularly those of “flower” and “root”; still
oftener, that of the “vine.” 18 That of the heart is some­
what rarely used, although it is present if we carry
through the thought of the mystical body.10 In any case
it is richer, deeper, and more characteristic than the name
sometimes used, collum corporis mystici.20 This title can
18 Cf. Passaglia, op. tit., nos. 1365 f.
19 A more detailed but also moralizing discussion is found in Ernest of
Prague, Mariale, chap. 83.
20 The expression is originated by St. Bernardine of Siena, Sermo 5 de nativi­
tate B.M.V., chap. 8 (ed. Venice, 1745, IV, 92).

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

235

indeed be justified and is even obvious to a superficial
view; but it sounds rather crude, in some languages more
so than in others.
The universal, mystical motherhood of Mary is often
explained too flatly and one-sidedly and is connected too
loosely with the bodily motherhood toward Christ. We
easily picture it to ourselves in such a way that it stands
in relation to the bodily motherhood like that of the
adoptive motherhood, foster motherhood, in the case of
a human mother, which a person could obtain apart from
the physical motherhood. The origin of the universal
motherhood is traced to the commission of Christ which
Mary received at the foot of the Cross. We see its func­
tions preferably in the intercession through which Mary
distributes the grace of redemption, which Christ gained.
Thus the divine motherhood stands forth partly as the
reason of her power of intercession and partly as the mo­
tive of her loving care for the redeemed. As we shall see
later, the moral motherhood is not adequately expressed
in this way. Mary’s participation in the actual deed of re­
demption is not thereby taken into consideration.
We approach the essence of Mary’s universal mother­
hood more closely when we take as an analogy the exten­
sion of the human motherhood of a human mother to the
bride of her son, or to their children. Here the second
motherhood is achieved through the first. Hence it shares
the nature of the first one so much that it rises above the
idea of a merely adoptive motherhood or foster mother­
hood. It contains a real relationship {cognatio) between
mother and child and an organic communication of life.
This point of view is present, therefore, to the mind of
the Fathers and theologians when they base Mary’s uni-

236

MARIOLOGY

versai motherhood on the fact that she brought forth in
Christ the Head of all mankind.
Yet this point of view is not sufficient. With regard to
the extension and broadening of the motherhood, there
exists with Mary an essential difference from other
mothers. In the case of the latter, the motherhood is ex­
tended as a bodily one; in Mary’s case her bodily mother­
hood establishes, opposite Christ, in relation to men not
a bodily, but a spiritual motherhood. St. Augustine says:
“Physically, Mary is of Christ only His mother; spiritually,
she is His sister and mother. Spiritually, she is not the
mother of our head, the very Savior, but the mother of us,
His members. But physically she is indeed the mother
of that head.”21 This special relation is conditioned
through the higher, supernatural character of the pri­
mary and secondary motherhood of Mary. Yet it disturbs
their organic and mutual relation so little that it forms
rather the basis of a much closer and more vivid connec­
tion between both than can be found with ordinary
mothers.
The most graphic picture of this connection is seen in
the physical organism: the heart in its double relation to
the head and members.
The Central Position

of

Mary

From the fact that the Mother of God shares Christ’s
own transcendental and immanent position, she partici­
pates also in Christ’s own central position between crea­
tures and God. She must, therefore, be considered the
mediatrix in a sense analogous to that in which Christ is
21 St. Augustine, De s. virginitate, chaps. 5 £.; PL, XL, 399.

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

237

the mediator. Between the other creatures and God,
Mary generally stands not merely close to God. As she
is connected through her being and origin with nature,
she is also, by her divine motherhood, so connected with
God through an organic tie that she is herself a substantial
link, which puts creation in relation with God. Her en­
tire maternal activity takes root in this quality of her
person or is most closely allied to it.
In contrast to all other merely created mediators, she
is further mediatrix in so unique a manner that Christ’s
being as mediator is simply attached to her motherhood.
For Christ was not given to the world without her co­
operation. Furthermore, He receives from her the flesh
in which and through which He exercises His office of
mediator. Lastly, He is, through her mediation alone, con­
nected with men as their Head.
Hence her office of mediatrix has this in common with
that of Christ, that it is in its kind both essential and uni­
versal; for in one way or another it comprises all per­
sons as well as all goods and all association with God to
which the mediatorship of Christ is extended.
In this sense Mary is called, in the language of the Fa­
thers, “the ring” or “the ladder,” connecting the earth
with heaven, the world with God; also “the ark of the
covenant,” or “the throne of atonement,” on which God
meets His creatures.22
Evidently through the mediatorship of Mary that of
Christ is not lessened, but is supposed and elucidated. For
Mary’s whole position as mediatrix and all her functions
of mediation point to Christ as to the mediator. They are
22 For numerous texts from the Fathers about the mediatrix, see Passaglia,
op. cit., nos. 1399 f., and Marracci, Polyanthea Mar., s.v. mediatrix, etc.

238

MARIOLOGY

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

We have explained Mary’s unique excellence, through
which by the grace of her motherhood she rises above all
other creatures, however greatly they may be endowed
with grace. To this excellence there evidently corresponds

THE SOURCE OF MARY’S DIGNITY

239

a worthiness of veneration all its own, or a right to ven­
eration. The latter is incomparably higher than that be­
longing to other saints. In comparison with the latter
honor, which we call simply dulia, it is usually called
hyperdulia.
The hyperdulia differs from the simple dulia in degree
and in essence, as also the privileges of Mary upon which
it rests, are of a different and higher nature than those
of the other saints.
In contrast with the personal holiness of the saints, the
dignity of the divine motherhood contains in particular
for all creatures a relation of dependence on Mary and sub­
ordination to her as to the mistress of creation, the queen
and mother of grace: in other words, a relation of sub­
jects. On the part of men there exists also a particular duty
of gratitude toward her and a need of her mediation. Con­
sequently the worship of Mary is a stricter duty and also
possesses a special form.
Evidently Mary’s eminent worthiness of veneration does
not harm the honor of God and of Christ. Mary is only
a reflection of the divine magnificence of Christ; and her
recognition is only a result of the honor paid to God and
Christ. Moreover, the worship of the Mother of God is
exercised in the Church precisely with the purpose of
honoring Christ and God more perfectly in her and by
her, quite as latria paid to the humanity of Christ, or of
Christ as man, serves to a more perfect adoration of His
divinity.
About the idea of hyperdulia, see particularly St. Peter
Canisius,23 and Suarez,24 who is much more fortunate
23 St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Deip. Virg., Bk. V, chap. 13.
24 Suarez, De incam., disp. 22, sec. 3.

240

MARIOLOGY

here than where he applies this idea to the humanity o£
Christ.
In view of the relation of the veneration of Mary to that
of Christ, we note here a fact which at first glance seems
strange to Protestants and also to many Catholics. Accord­
ing to Catholic custom, the Litany of Loreto is said dur­
ing the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Considering
the strictness with which Rome sees to it that during this
exposition the entire attention is centered on the Eu­
charist, we not only see in the recitation of the Litany of
Loreto no diminution of the veneration of Christ, but we
must rather recognize that the Litany here bears even the
character of a sacramental devotion, with direct relation
to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
We see that this litany is well suited to that purpose, if
we understand it in the spirit of the Church. We honor
God most perfectly if, during Mass, we make Christ in
His humanity the immediate object and example, the
means and bearer of our adoration. Likewise we honor
Christ here in His humanity most perfectly by giving the
person who stands closest to His humanity and who is
His throne, a place in our veneration to make her the
example, means, and bearer of our adoration. On both
counts the pious disposition is, therefore, subjectively
more strongly stimulated and elevated, and also objec­
tively a more worthy homage is thereby paid to God.

APPENDIX I

The Protevangelium
HE first and fundamental promise of the Redeemer,
correctly called the protevangelium, was made in
Paradise to our first parents after their fall. The redemp­
tion is the deliverance of mankind from the dominion
which the devil obtained through his victory over Adam
by means of the temptation of the woman. Therefore it is
here announced through the promise about “the seed of
the woman.” This means a future Son of the ancestress,
and at the same time and in the first place a mother, who
is prefigured by Eve and who produces the Son without
the seed of a man. Together with His mother this Son
must stand in perpetual and invincible enmity to the devil
and crush his head, i.e., overthrow his rule, while the devil
can only fie in wait for His heel, that is, attack Him in the
lower part of His being. Face to face with the first couple,
in whom mankind has fallen under the dominion of the
devil, there is thus placed one of their descendants, or
rather, a new couple, proceeding from them, in whom
and by whom this dominion will be broken. It is also in­
dicated that the head of the serpent will be crushed at
the very moment when the heel of the woman is wounded,
and precisely on that account.
The following is the text of the Vulgate: Inimicitias
ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius;
ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus
241

T

242

MARIOLOGY

(Gen. 3:15). In the Hebrew text the same verb suf
(= inhiare, infestare) is used where the Vulgate uses con­
terere and insidiare in this passage. In the first instance,
the word must mean, in the context, “a victorious pursuit,”
just as the “enmity” is an invincible enmity on the part of
the woman and the “seed of the woman.” Otherwise no
effective punishment would be inflicted on the serpent.
The Latin text uses the feminine form ipsa. The He­
brew text, at least the present-day one, gives the mascu­
line form for ipse, and the corresponding masculine form
for ejus. Thus it indicates, not the woman, but the seed
of the woman as the conqueror of the serpent. Since the
invincible enmity against the serpent is represented as
common to both, the victory must also be common to
both in one way or another; and this is shown by the text
which has the obvious purpose of making the punishment
of the serpent complete, since a woman is the instrument
of his defeat, as the first woman is the instrument of his
victory.
Considering the later similar promises about the seed
of Abraham and the explanation of the Apostle: Non dicit
et seminibus quasi in multis (i.e., posteris) sed quasi in
uno “et semini tuo,” qui est Christus ( Gal. 3:16 ), we must
understand by “the seed of the woman” a single and cer­
tain son only. In contrast with other sons, who according
to the order of nature proceed from the seed of the man
and are called after it, the expression “seed of the woman”
indicates him as a son who proceeds exclusively, hence
in a supernatural way, from the woman, i.e., is born of a
virgin. Interpreted thus, the expression is the more suit­
able because the “seed of the man,” that is, the entire off­
spring of the ancestors, was already conquered in them by

APPENDIX I

243

the devil, and subjected to his dominion. Accordingly
we must understand by “the woman,” who is referred
to here, that woman from whom this son proceeds imme­
diately. For He proceeds anew from the remote ances­
tresses through the seed of the man. All the more as this
woman, with regard to the enmity against the serpent,
appears prominently in such close community with her
seed.
Moreover, the expression “the woman” indicates this
woman as the ideal of womanliness and as representative
of all womankind, which would conquer the devil in a
later representative, even as it was conquered by him in
the first woman. Therefore, if the expression indicates
Eve also, it must refer to her as the prototype of the later
woman. Similarly, according to the explanation of the
Apostle ( Heb. 1:5), the words in the prophecy of Nathan
about tire Son of David, “I will be to him a father” (II
Kings 7:14), refer beyond Solomon directly to Christ.
In any event Eve by herself, in her circumstances, was
altogether incapable of being placed opposite the devil
as his conqueror. This is also the traditional explanation
of the Church, about which Pius IX expresses himself in
the bull Ineffabilis.1
1 Pope Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis: “With the words, 'I shall put enmities be­
tween thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed,’ God in His very first
announcement to the world gave the sovereign remedy His divine mercy had
prepared for the renewal of our human race. He thereby repressed the
audacity of the deceiver, the devil, and wonderfully lifted up the hope of
mankind. Interpreting these words, the Fathers teach us that this divine
announcement clearly and distinctly points to the merciful Redeemer of the
human race in the person of the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, and
designates the most blessed Virgin Mary as His mother. It expresses notably
the very enmities of both against the devil. Wherefore Christ, the mediator
between God and man, upon assuming our human nature, erases the hand­
writing of the decree which was against us, and fastens it as conqueror to
the cross. Likewise, bound to Him by the closest and most indissoluble bond,

244

MARIOLOGY

The fact that the crushing of the serpent’s head is placed
against his bite, expresses in a clear and magnificent way
the inequality of power between the woman and the ser­
pent, the excellence of tire seed of the woman, and the
humiliating impotence of the devil. The figure is still
more striking if we understand it as meaning that the head
of the serpent is crushed at the very moment when he
attacks the heel. Therefore it is pointed out that the devil
is conquered precisely where he wounded the Savior,
according to His earthly side, i.e., through the bodily
death of the Savior, caused by him.
As with all other prophecies, this prophecy is elucidated
fully only by its realization. However, the elements quoted
seem to follow from a sharper consideration of the text
itself.
the most holy Virgin carries into effect, together with Him and by Him, the
perpetual enmities against the poisonous serpent, is completely victorious
over it, and crushes it by her immaculate foot.”

APPENDIX II

The Human Procreation
T IS useful to observe here that modem physiologists
hold a doctrine, ascertained from experiments, which
can be of great theological benefit. Formerly it was held
that human generation is thus accomplished: the male
sex alone has of itself the germ and germinating power,
and the female sex supplies merely the matter and the
application of germination, and hence the female sex is
like the earth receiving the seed of a plant. Modem physi­
ologists hold that human generation takes place as it hap­
pens in the plant itself, by the insertion of pollen into the
germ-cell, while in the case of human generation atoms
take the place of pollen and are called spermatozoids.
Thus by union with that germ with which it must grow
together into one, the male seed determines the germ
( that is, the egg formed by the female, but not yet com­
plete) to unfold and bring forth the fruit, the fetus; hence
the male seed perfects and completes the germ which is
not yet complete to form a fruit-bearing germ. Conse­
quently we understand more fully and profoundly (1)
the perfect unity of nature between both sexes, so far as
for the very first formation of the fetus the woman meets
the man not in a mere passive but in an active way, by
truly generating; (2) the unity of flesh between the
couple as a substantial unity of the same flesh in the fetus
as if from each side the fruit is produced by both, that

I

245

246

MARIOLOGY

is, obtained materially and produced formally by both.
And while the flesh of the generating parties grows to­
gether into one fetus as into a common fruit, that same
flesh must be more regarded as one flesh, so far as they
are one by the act of carnal connection, the one using
the flesh of the other as his own, or as a mere mingling
of flesh; (3) the possibility of a virginal generation main­
tained in the virtue and manner of a real generation, so
far as by its very nature the maternal germ is prepared
either so that it does not need a determination and com­
plement from without ( as is the case with the queen bee
in the generation of milliferous bees, which therefore is
always held as the symbol of the virgin mother of God ),
or, although it needs a determinating and complementing
power from without, this power from without is em­
ployed not in a natural way by means of a material seed,
but in a supernatural way by applying the divine power
of the Holy Ghost According to the first opinion, as the
Fathers have it in their dissertations, it is not shown,
unless with difficulty, how the Blessed Virgin is not some­
how a mother, but a real producing mother, and espe­
cially, how the protevangelium speaks of Christ as the
seed of the woman; for he is called the seed not simply
of anyone, as if he is in and from anyone who furnished
the matter, but as the seed formed by and from that same
person.

APPENDIX III

The Actio Unitiua Ascribed to the
Holy Ghost
T IS evident that there are important reasons for
ascribing the actio unitiva to the Holy Ghost, and that
is why this ascribing has a rich and deep meaning. We
shall here summarize the most important reasons.
The fact that the actio unitiva is ascribed to the Holy
Ghost as its principle characterizes it as an action differ­
ing from that of creatures and from that of God Himself
in the natural order as much as from the intrinsic action
of God proper to His nature. Thus the actio unitiva ap­
pears in the first instance as an action of God, and indeed
of a supernatural character, the aim of which rises above
the natural order; in the second instance, as an actio
which proceeds from God as an influence exerted because
of a free and infinite love.
The accomplishment of the union by the Holy Ghost,
who proceeds from the very person who assumes hu­
manity, shows that this person is absolutely complete in
Himself and assumes the flesh, not because anything is
lacking to Him, but by virtue of the fullness of life and
power, which reveals itself in the Holy Ghost.
As the Holy Ghost is produced last of the persons in the
Blessed Trinity, it is likewise He who appears as the natu­
ral author of the relations of God ad extra. And as He
forms the crowning tie between the Father and the Son,
247

I

248

MARIOLOGY

so He effects the tie between the Son and His created
nature.
The incarnation of the eternal Word considered as the
actual “becoming flesh” presents a further analogy with
the embodiment of the interior word from the spirit of
man into the spoken word of the mouth. As the spoken
word becomes related to the interior word through the
breath, which brings forth, so the flesh of the eternal
Word is formed by this Word and is united with it
through the breath of God.
In its full essence the achieving of the union is an in­
fusion and inbreathing of a principle of life by God,
analogous to the natural and supernatural completion of
of the first man: an infusion and inbreathing into human
nature, of the eternal Word according to His own sub­
sistence. As such it appears most distinctly when rep­
resented as being effected through the effusion of God’s
eternal breath of life, and this in a much deeper sense
than the completion of the first man.
Lastly, we must understand the Incarnation as the
highest form of God’s communication of Himself to the
creature, and therefore of the deification, of the endow­
ment with grace, and of the sanctification of the creature.
All these effects now are such that they are naturally
ascribed to the Holy Ghost and through that fact are strik­
ingly elucidated in their essence.

APPENDIX IV

The Annunciation by the Angel
EHOLD thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His
name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son
of the Most High ( He shall be acknowledged and hon­
ored as the Son of the Most High); and the Lord God
shall give unto Him the throne of David His father ( the
kingdom promised to David); and He shall reign in the
house of Jacob (to whom He was promised) forever.
And of His kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke
1:31 ff.).
At the question of tire Blessed Virgin, how this will
happen without violation of her virginity, the angel con­
tinues and explains the way the conception would take
place and brings out also the excellence of the promised
Son: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And there­
fore also the Holy which shall be bom of thee shall be
called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
The first message is undoubtedly less definite and ex­
cellent in all its parts than the second. In particular it
does not yet fully explain the divine nature of the prom­
ised child, so that the Virgin might still think of an emi­
nent earthly king. Or more correctly: all circumstances
taken well into consideration, the words could apply only
to the promised Messias, who must be Emmanuel at the
249

B

250

MARIOLOGY

same time. But still they were not yet so modified that
Mary, who in her humility considered it impossible for
her to be called to be the mother of the Emmanuel, could
not have thought that perhaps the words referred to some­
one other than the Emmanuel. From this we may quite
simply explain Mary’s question about the keeping of her
virginity.
The common view on the contrary, namely, that the
Virgin applied the words of the angel to the Emmanuel,
but was yet uneasy about her virginity, seems to us quite
inadequate. If anyone knew, then certainly Mary knew,
that the Emmanuel would be born of a virgin. Therefore
the answer of the angel appears to be a complete solution
to the question about her virginity. For the fact that the
child is a supernatural being is included in the explana­
tion of the way the production is to take place. The two
parts of the answer can be understood correctly only
through their mutual relation to each other. Hence the
influence of the Holy Ghost and the “power of the Most
High” must be applied, not only to the replacing of the
male influence in the production of the human nature of
the Child, but also to the higher being of the Child. So
the Child will be, by virtue of the influence of the Holy
Ghost, “great” and “holy” or “the holy one”; and in vir­
tue of the influence of the Most High’s own power with
His production, not simply “Son of the Most High,” i.e., a
representative of the power and dominion of the Most
High, but truly “Son of God.” This last element lies in the
expression which is often incorrectly explained, “shall
overshadow thee.”
The real meaning of the expression seems to follow
from the allusion to Isa. 45:8: “Drop down dew, ye

APPENDIX IV

251

heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just ( He­
brew sede» = justice, in the abstract instead of the con­
crete); let the earth be opened, and bud forth a Savior”
( Hebrew jesha = bring forth deliverance, help ). As the
words “bud forth a Savior” {Jesus') here hold good, like­
wise die production of Jesus as the Holy One holds also in
“dropping down dew,” that is, raining from the heavens
or the clouds; and by it the effusion of the Son of God
from the bosom of the Most High, enthroned in heaven,
into the earthly bosom of the Virgin, is strikingly ex­
pressed. Next to it both “the holy one” and “the over­
shadowing” contain an allusion to the descent of the
Holy Ghost in the cloud over the tabernacle, to rest in
it on the ark of the covenant and to make this one there-'
fore pre-eminently “the holy one.”
The term “the holy one” in the neuter gender expresses
emphatically the essential holiness of the fruit of Mary
and defines also the deep and real meaning of the biblical
name of Christ (Anointed), which answers to it; more
especially, as the descent of the power of the Most High
into the bosom of the Virgin represents most significantly
likewise the original and essential anointing of her fruit
through the blending of a heavenly element, which of
itself is holy. Through the hidden allusion to Isa. 7:14
in the words of the angel, the meaning of “Emmanuel”
(God with us) is also incorporated into the words “the
Holy One” and “Son of God,” as expressively elucidated
in Matt. 1:23.
However, the attribute of true “Son of God” and Em­
manuel also implies that the royal dignity of the Child,
indicated in the angel’s first words, is not one that can
belong to Him as son and heir of David over the house of

252

MARIOLOGY

Jacob. It is a kingship like that which is due to Him as
Son and heir of God, namely, the community of dominion
over all things. In this sense the royal dignity of the Child
was accordingly proclaimed, not by Gabriel but by Eliza­
beth in her salutation of “Mother of my Lord” (Luke
1:43), by Zachary in his song of praise: “Thou shalt go
before the face of the Lord” (Luke 1:76), and also by
the multitude of angels at the announcement of the birth
to the shepherds: “This day is born to you a Savior, who
is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11); probably also by Mary
herself with the words: “Behold the handmaid of the
Lord” (Luke 1:38).
We further remark that this is one of those texts of
Sacred Scripture which, because the expression is formed
by God Himself, have an exceptionally rich meaning,
whose fullness according to the mind of God permits and
can form the foundation of a great abundance of explana­
tions.