The Irish
Ecclesiastical Record
À jïlonthln tournai unùrr Episcopal Sanction

JtLV το DECEMBER, 1953

VOLUME LXXX

FIFTH SERIES

DUBLIN
BROWNE AND NOLAN LIMITED, NASSAU STREET

ILL RIGHTS RES ER W·

I

BOOKS RECEIVED
Catholic Documents -XI. London : Salcxitin I’n·
.
*
I;».·,:!. Price '-■·■
Theology Digest. Volume Γ. No. 2. Spring. 1953. JoliC>·?.·."
*!,
K- !
City 5, Missouri. Single cupies. 75 cents. Yearly, $2.25.
The Letters of St. Hemani of Clairraur. Tr.iiisl.it *'d by B·.·.:·. ' " ‘
I.nnti'-.n ; Burns Oates. Price 42s.
The S'gtt of Joints. By Thomas Merton. Ihibliu : (’letirti.o ·ι 1 :·
Price 18s.
Stnnon Not, ■>
t}.. Sunday flnsjch. By lice. J. <!. Mi'Dri;··
'1. aim ire and R.-ynoïds. Price l.V.
7,./s of St. (.'olnnituiti. By |{t \, .1. Wilvin. Dublin : < ■'■·1ηιι·>γι- and
Price -w.
The Saeranunt nf I’-ace. By It. Graef. C.S.Sp. Ixtiian. i
v
Keynolds. Prn-e 5s.
.4 New Light on the Mass. By Abix·· Bern.ir 1 i .ψ[ΐ-·!>. t
(’lonmuni and Iteynukis. Price :ύ. 6d.
The ‘ Our Father ’ <»/ St. Cyp, ian. (Tr.tnskition») Dublin : Cl·’00*" 1*
Key Holds. Pri><e Is. tJrf.
N *ar 1‘robl-me in yiedir.nl Kihics. Edited by than I1· . i Id-·
M.D.. M.Ch. Cork: M-rtier PnPrice 21-.
H. H. J ’-its- Let:-'-« to Κ·ι!!<ι.!η· Tytun·. Edited by itog·'’’ "
Dublin: Clonir. ire ai..( Iteynnl-U. Pri· -> IHs.
De I 'fenitmtig.
;.>m. I\ .
!.·<.· ί'ausis ExtritiM-eis. By l··11··’
D-ronje. o.M.l., s.y.D.
Miiw... Bruce Publ-Dri-g (‘«mpanyup. 1155. P,SI 9.
A.e.r-ri> Ran, Th’-.-'.igiqw "i n irt,..; . > .uj-or-.na:.
JVrtnm. Br.wi,.;. ï.aitific>.· P.-muto B: li-.. Γιιιχηι Pii-tta. 3·'
The N.un.1 Tihl- ,f Fnww.io Ρ,-^αη·}·. friary. Mi.ra-l.· ".· '·'·
The <·.ΐ·Λ..;.ί·
.,^ser. S y.,r:h rai. Sïr-s-t, Hi.-lm.ot.'i I», '■>
i
<..7,. I·.,,,.. ·.. t·...;;.. iX.
hc.5 .
i. t·..·.. ..... , .(.ti...,;. |,·.,ιν..Γ.ίτν d .U.. · «
/ ·.- H-miietlc
- ’itari; ly- .
U'^jo. r
CV«s-,,s. t·;, -, .-m M ■
:>vr .
... .
, (·,.,„Γ 14 Pri ,..fc
>.
«e fsc-r. ‘I.-;:-..-.» I., a.i.. r, y
7be ln.,h yi-n··:;.-. J5
.
i-i I ·' .Smn,·,!.·.-;.- J8 B t
ι·ΛΓ!,.
.'.namsA f.Vi-wa ir f«r. î”.vî'. B ErovcT.cs. 1. Ms-lnd.
Çnii.ss. Organ . t tae Fa. i.zy. i'rm -'ti-ry ■ ■->. T».
* ir u>.
TÀe 7‘rt'xr. ibiT-T-r
Jr.-iiijina.
The .‘.f-xwR».
t r:nw.iv
l't.r I.—.■»}·. h' ■■’•11-y .?t, 8l.·-·. l.r a. :>.;i
So·’'". [, W.,·.·· lifltn
!.
*
f·.,.
Γ./irrV-" B··., i.'.-ryis. V,·.;
.
Kawto SspaXahi Je Dèntdvi C-Tmuiiee. SaUmanna.
Kιΐή,·.:·.Ίί .ΐ-.-ρ,—,...,
ν,_ ν. W,
Ζχ··!·„.
r -.’huw
;■
-■ %.-, ~ v,r. ;s y.G.fc.
<Γ<—1·,-'· i-i·-..,). ί=π»ί..,·'r
■ ,.·.»>!■

DID OUR LADY DIE?
'’•ME REFLECTIONS ON 4MVNIHCENTI>MW >
DEI’S 1
i;·. ■;>!··. M.-vi- Ih-.v. GABRIEL M. ROSCHIN L O.s.M..
ΙΉ-.-Rvr>>H Gexkhm. nr rnr .νκνιπ. Οκιί.κ.
TaiS'.i.rri.n r.v Rev. G. M. (ORR. O.S.M.
HE President of the first international Marini
*
ί ■·’.'.ζλ-ss. Cardinal Pizzard·». Secretary “t th»
*
4 on tn.
-v.i·^ of the Holy Office, spoke, on the occasion ot
'■ ■;■· ". ci’ ; he 1 < ill ic.ry «disrnre prol deni ' *‘C th‘v ent*
’ ».r Lady's earthly lifc/as a matter which calls tor
■" ■■· * ' iiirihcatinn on the part of Mariologists. adding tha.·
■ ■ ■■-riii<-atiun nuiy enable us to ’ admire in her thi. ■·■■ -tplendour of Gixl’s munificence. 2
■' »n response to this invitation that I have thought
a to consider this problem in the light of the dogmatic
'-' ιΐίηπ ' Miinilicentissimus Deus.1
!Ϊ·ρΓ(.·'·ί;ΐ(.<.' the situation created by the publication of
-■■'■■.iin'-nt wf must begin with an historical conspectus.

T

s - rnr. m.<r three cextvrh>
' ■·" tirs
*,
i firw ecBtnries there is no textual reference at
' ·ο:Λ i,_.i;(v wLii'li wv. can be certain—m the. writings
itlrT-, and cei-ksiusticid writers, to the death *'t
Eh· P \ts fpc.-ted from Leueius f second century) and
'η
considered very doubtful. Me know oi -ht
-■.;·■■■ <.f
ap^crvphal : Assumption." of I.eucius (who
■:
n di^-iple of St. John the Evangelist) only from
Μ··’;?.·îj: who himself wrote a similar work m the
‘•r hf
*h
century. Meliton refers to Leueius as “ a
’he ilrvil." Of the content of Leueius s work
..· Af.tr-'-i'.n-i hi -*·.·.ν:ί'. ’.·<■· or.ilîua! -ι-.η λ· .ipp-.^reà.
■ ■·: ■ .'.'.r7·

v

,-ν·’·ί
Ij-ir<"l···';»·· - Al-cr/nri' U··inn->
i. c ■•.jt-j î>*t S,itninari'.tt·!. Κ··ηι·χτ :

■ ■ . ,.vîv—AI.’GL'ST. 15j3.

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL REi

74

we know nothing. There is merely a reference to
‘ disappearance ’ of the body of Our Lady, as also of
of St. John. It is therefore of no use as an argumerit
favour of the death of Our Lady.
I he text for which Origen’s name is claimed is from tv
eaten» ο·η St. John's gospel (Origen,s Worifcs, ed. Prviisdvv.
t. IV. Leipzig 1903. p. 506, fragm. 31). We read there iltf
Mary ‘ remained a virgin till death.’ The authenticity of ths
text is held by Dcvreese to be very doubtful.1 It should
noted, moreover, that Origen’s usual phrase for the perpet
*
virginity of Our Lady is not ‘ till death ’ but 1 to the end·
It is generally admitted that in the first three cennn
*
*
then
is no mention ,>f a sepulchre of Mary, either in Jc’; ■
salem or at Ephesus. Father Abel, O.P., the most, outstov i
ing archaeologist (>f Palestine, maintains in his monnnv » *♦·
work on Jerusalem that the sepulchre of the Mother ··! ’* ·
was known and venerated at Jerusalem from the midi.· ■
the fifth century onwards.3 It was only when th»· Oi’·
of Ephrsus (481 ) officially inaugurated, so to speak.
cultus <>t Our Lady that the subject of the sepulchre l-ν'
ti* lx discuss
*^},
The barrenness, from the point *.f 1
of evidence, of the preceding centuries did not faeiiihdi
*
M-urcl».
1 radii i<jiiS Were conflicting. In Jerusalem itself·
to linut oursehes to one place—the so-called ’
m
tuli pointed to the Garden of Olives (an analogy «.3
Asoiivi·>:■ o’ Our Lord), while the Patriarch <»f J.'
rJniwd that it w&$ jn the valley of Josaphat.
11-

Till· IOCRTK CEXTi Γ.Υ TO 1HE XtM.TtfSW

ΓΗ» -.irlii st references to J he maimer hi wlmA '
L»iy ■· n.njd her fife on earth are ivund in tin ·αϊ/-;
’ I. ·.
«’ SippCww i- t,.. i\., .
t. J. «“
I ■ »* I!».».
·<
V.MMQtini Ο.ΛΒ.. ”■■»'·'. ·
>p~
—'I-'· »
* ( t. Ί . % men». < ■ p,_

μ.

'■ *
'

V. Ai >

* :r 4

»* "·.

’· ’••U,

m
*hs< 'W - '9 *
:κ ς Λ v \s«< th» Hfcijf tnaee« wmen
».
*
EÜ»
» -*** ·!
*
*<>»»«.
sw. i î-.w
*»:.»:

.

t.. ...

*T ■

ef»

ï-îj#

i· 1
■ii

DID

our

LADY DIE ?

75

- u„nins, bishop of Salamina, and Timotheus, a
4 St. EpiP^r.
-"W nF

v hanius 1138 two PassaSes bi the Panarion (a.d.
M'
«4iieh he speaks of the end of Our Ladv's life
37M77) m wu

understanô his words fully we must remember that he
w Conscious, when writing, of two heresies which were then
dangerous: that of the Antidicomarianites, and
àrtoÎthe Collyridians. The former denied the perpetual
... . ... ,4· Mary, the latter, erring in the opposite direction,
-WttU'j„d that divine worship should be given to her. To
loert that Our Lady died was to give a handle to the one
foll,ws :
hnc damno sit nhqnibus, nt ad conttiberimK-s .«· dilectas,
v.t
retinenti.». tpi'id E.-nus p."ssinv.i sibi aniim >>rr>'r>' machinati
■ -.. *nui
·
*4;ι·< !*·->·ΐ >! ι··4ι>η·ηι ar',i'ssiss>' videant1»·. Varum illic certa
t, ■.■·λπιΙι-π*··»·
*iuhmuMtniti sunt omnia, ita ut *luva facta sejuncta
** *λ.'./τι'·:: -t'.ti'mn 'lil{w' ·’* !>«< mandato praestanda sunt disciplina. Nam
■'** -M-.i
id ua gestuiu est, et- nd sese illam i.h.haniws) m-c.-pit. ηυη
; ii’iilt!. JMτrua:.<it.
' vk fr.ll'> "'■■·' on.-pt-tru t-xisrim-î, .i,-t\i>rur'H· wnlriur rextiÿin, ih -ptihnit
” «■-■rt»·. M :r iir ■.«'’*
/.«tftte ulri/m n,»rfuo e>t, rwi non Tnnrtva sd. '^çoe
1 · ij w. <î- --ion Λιί spolia. Ac, cum .1 oh annes in Asiam pn.f.-ctiis sit.
. atr. tr·'. <"· U atatrt » irgim-in it'ttons comitem secum habuisse signiiivui.
' 1» ,.·, ■: « . .pit.-jc,·· Koiituxtcit <icriptura pmpte!· r.ccv&mr» ininir’ll>, >-f in
- i ■■.·.-wr rthim'··
*
hnminur··.
■>, '.Γ»Λ>,(ζιί«ιπ tlluri »<;>.
- d me.-um reputans m.'bi χΊ· ι>!'··ΐι:\
■ '■ Λ!.·! m'o an vestigia inveninuie Sar.ct·
*·
**
His
->e Burin, >?..wff1·.
’*’’■«·> .p,.-,.·. , . > ■·-·. X.i'n A..-.- Snur-m nit de ea : ’ Et tutuu ipsitw animtu>a
" ’ · z'.i.'t-.-n·. ut d,r«
ex u’.idf. rutti er-rdibus «■•«gitatimies,
*
ilb'fc, eum
' ‘.“|·πλ : .’».»»· ■·■■' ; t’le.r.-.'at · ’ Properavit draco adversus mulierem ipjae
. <<;· ■■· ■·>’ u i.V«
*
siiiir e> p-nnav aqutiai: >·ν wansiatii «t in desnrtntn.
. . ■> "i.-.-.r"--henJervt. b ■ it. ilia i':rte peresi impb-ri.
'· ,,
■ ·■ '.;■<"·<
nÿiria,,. n-.gu- -j-itl
n> wr1 }>‘ rv·-v "jm
‘'.•λ* «.'ru . .>..
s ‘-•'>nJArvi'trr pm-nuHi. Qui},ii·· wr·ptum o.-i-nf1··' Asiannne
‘■r's».· -rrrfrr-rrru, «. .-’■■■«"< rr,’>>./.> prnvtrr m-x iUuri
'ic pm-st-tr-s,
.
'.t< i.' -λ
^a.cçuui.'l· iMrtwXÎier·. errera.
·■ j 1 .··
.ηί,
λ,ϊ·< cprtiN *
»l
Non tamen utiam «>st
■■.......... -.-n-.ris ·>χρτ:ΐ'. ·. absit ut i” ui .«i—rimomus. - H.^res. ”rt. Il,
■ ·1Η ΛΚ-

T

■■;· I...
,,:4irjfj,. c4. s,u-. ;t
* Virg SC sepulra : <».
:^ϊ·<
*
" >r
c* m <*'>Γ»·π£ ' Aut. ii-.te.rfi-cta <·>
*.
ut -criptum **
sr .
"
...
rii^iius' : ïr>t
*T
martyr»·» est sé ria, cju., et- Zc
■»
A’.'rTj w.s, yw- 9»a>» Iw-w· tit iiéln Irritant.
’’’
:,/■ .» e.i't iXrrJ-it
*·
’ ■' p-.te-Jt 'Htm
<i.Ui. qUi«i libuerit, s ifkerc -,
":·
iH.:î, .'it-vif. v-rte -.titra quaœ i«t
*
wwtrw venerari netae
*π
ή„Η.>.-β7<.ϊ
*ς:«t τ>·πΰη«».—Haeres- 7à, 23, PG 42, 731.

76

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECOUP

heresy (for it was to suggest that the hotly oi.
subject to the corruption of the tomb, anti thus nJ——
her prerogatives): to assert that she did not df
encourage the other. St. Epiphanius. who con<d·:'
probable that she did not die. and secs a relcrenv·
idea in Apjcalypse xii. prefers to avoid both dant'·'
a non-committal statement : ' I do not say that >t>e ■
nor yet that she did not die’: and he justitio
apparently neutral position by an appeal to the ι··»ηι, ■,
sileiKT of the Scriptures on the subject. And indv···'.
silence of the Scriptures is complete.
Yet St. Epiphanius is certain, from tradition.
cud of Our Lady's exile- on earth was marked by a -■·
marvel, and such as to HU men's minds with astonish™·
What was this great marvel ? Was it resurrection ■'
death, or immediate translation out of this world r’·
glory of heaven ? He does not tell us. But he gran''
*· latter supposition is plausible, and lie makes it suin'1
th
clear by his rlmj.-e .»f words that Ju·, is restraining bis : ·'
fear of the Çnlhridian hen-ties.
What greater man el. in fact, could there 1-“·. in
nmt>-xt, than tm- hith.-rto unlc-ard-of mirar’ie of inii'1"·
ffaitslation jy, U.dy and >··ηϊ to the glorv of hrav.n.
*
uli.i
more îik
* h t·· !-nd eoimt■ m.m ■ t<> those wh” '
'
1"
d;\H;·· !|i-.i..:;rs a' Μ.1Π ?
Tie contt nif · »rarv Tin;· a h.-us <-f _Jf nisilrin >
:iihd'<!i»:.
( 'U'si-n ;-u._· :!.<■ propho'-v ··;’Simeon, l! · ·”'
s.i'l! a s-.-....o
*
d.ae. pare··,' h·’
. r* ο
riJLVliJ *h··
*· rprei.ih'.t, l(f ^.=τρ.<· ar’:‘< r^. ‘nat ATisrv d‘d "a^ da ■”· m or
d'.e u.
d 1 ha' ' sj;.· ->= mis
< n t.H η···.ι ’.;ιι!ι:··γ,;ιι. " ' '

DID OUR LADY DIE ?

77

.hvdt in her took her from this earth t<· the
.
the Ascension.' that is. t<> heaven. It 'Λ" tl1’
:·^ΐ’η]ν fur those who maintain that Our Lath tin ’
■ '!< rifH assertion from its obvious sense : it remain'.
■ ' il·.!iny i>f the highest order, along with w»rib
i.ai'haniiis. to support our thesis. Such. then. y
'
tradition concerning the termination ot Mary s
■■.·= oirth. These two witnesses against the idea ot
i’-eb of Our Lady are worth moie than hundreds ot
‘
uihicssvs on the other side who simply never
■■>·’ doubting it.
■ ■· nrst docninenhirv reference to the death <»t Mary is
the. apitervphal 'Transitus' writings ot the tilth to
centuries. There is, however, one very earl.y
' ' pM-ndo-lVocorus (450-500). who seems, by way ot
'i. nul to wish to speak of * death when referring
' ‘miisitus.· In his Catholic recension ot the Aeta
i;ii <tirdiiig to the reading of Codex A aticanus
'i->k fol. 95p he savs that the Holy Mother of God
’1
l’>jt t<! life, from temporal life to eternal life and
<)f hem t n. iJiich teill never end.' Here we have a
·’ r f.-rence not to death hut to an immediate passing
to life. It is. of course, open to anyone to suppose
'ii<.:r;\nvsde I hr· rauh the. gate of death, but
" '’ipj^riition pure and simple. Nothing need prevent
■ :Γ·; :akmg these words as an echo of Timotheus of
‘ ·'··■, under the inlhienee of the apocryphal writings
lathers Mud later writers admitted, or asserted, that
':·'·'ϊ. I he question did not present itself to their
•i·.·!·.··d s* j,. hardlv possible, historically, to imagine
■-.·
·, -p. ..
γ,·>Ύγ4 to her death as a
- ’■■u··). ,v;;?h *<i 5>- supposed. Death is universal: even
Ί i hen fore the question of Mary s death does not
•c ‘>r ί >.η-,’.<lcration. Such, we may imagine, was the
-·ΐ ‘ivesi·. Fathers and later ecclesiastical writers.
’·■■ ~;Xth i'«'Titnry a codex ot the anonymous writer

.‘

! Ç.i-i. Barn. gnv’C.

5Ιβ. f. 7*-· A.

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

I

78

1
j
i

of Piacenza1—a.d. 570—has the simple statement: ‘In tw
same valley of Josaphat is the house of Holy Mary from ' *“
which it is said that the Virgin was taken up to heaven.’,1 g

*

Hen- again, it i» an immediate passing to heaven.
„
In the seventh century St. Isidore of Seville seen*
inclined to doubt or to deny that Our Lady died. He sap
",
that ' there is no written testimony concerning the death
of Mary, though Ιυτ sepulcht»·, as some say. is in the vallç
of .Josaphat.”- If the death of Mary had been, a certainty
T
in St. Isidore's mind, would hr thus have brought in tkidea of ' wriMen testimonies ' for
·
λ
The same attitude is seen in Spain in th·
* eighth re
* ·r
in the written answer gi\en hv Tus;irr<l<». a bishop :i. ' ■
Asturias, to Asiano, a brother bishop in the same piioni/v.
The falter tuid said thai· it was luting affirmed in ίύ··
*··
:v 1
that Our Lndy «ulfered death in romnion with th·· r-«'
mankind and tha' her body .stdl remained in the tomb »* !t
rig a glorious n ^urreetion. Scandalized bv such statrnu”^’
.Ιμίιγκι turned to Tusaredo for fclp in erniiifing tl r
Tusaredo. without hcMtafkx. <.r argm-unt. r< ph<s : ■ Now '
in history do w*· learn rh.-H d.-r ■»->:,-b-red mar’vrdon. <>r
o-her kind of dwitli ’ - ‘
,
mor!' tilt-.r,.9 Th.'s
further ifc.-m v. I' "
id.» had simply jxunted on; ‘hat there «en· r>·· wr »· ;
ri * "ΠS .·■; Murv » death ; it is a denial that she s ui· r-.it
}
klld .? d»afb It fi.R\ !■·■ i<.trai>lir.iMsi : ‘Hew ■•hi· IP! >pe·
**
the
·-■ th.r !.„!·.
t;. r π
r
.:■
f.-mli. when th
*.re
is r : hist «rirai κλ·γ■· of lier l. iviuj ·
·!
*
inirbr
τ dvir.g n. .■.·
νΛχ ·-■> î?
.|r„> i
'Vid been arci'
·!!
*
-s ,·*
ti-at t
‘
we exp. o? ‘ais s:i;w! V- a .-^rP'-te ,ζΒμ·γύ cf *lus
'"
|ncx
‘.ierice ô-r i‘ : 1 h» ·>··ιν w> · ,X| ^ιλ is ίί^τ Η·;, ι·>
frjiind '»!"·■ ■ ΐι.’ί····;|
*
' in
if i*.
>■ Vat-' W r-t < r·ί,>
n^i >♦ J.+.n Jtanws.-'
’ P.
III! I'lf}' p «,3
î

'

t
!
■

'
y

-,:
.<
gb
'■·-

:·’?■
?
·”'.*'
;ϊ
ng '

■ ■ S«s·
■' Γ
S · ...
I, . t -» is: s
■ ·>., , -oir.t. w ΤΛίι.
....
F.r,~'
■ I.' ‘ *’
•tfrs-'riintf tîn· *
pn-.-ypi» λα *η.· h
i

.

WM

DTD OUR LADY DIE?

79

‘V*! in homilies on the Dormiiio admit indeed that she
i. but are full of wonder at the thought, and the former
> so far as to call it ‘ incredible/1 St. John Damascene
> :1 How then shall this blessed one lie a prey t o death ?
y both recognize that she ought not to have died. And
r".>ÿ>ns they adduce for her death are by no means
ent. They are reducible, practically, to this : Our
•H Lord Himself died: therefore His holy Mother died.
Ii is worth mentioning here, too, that about this time
‘•■dore Abou-Kurra (d. c. 820) compares the ‘ death of
,’v f}lt. ecstatic sleep of Adam in the Garden, during
!: ih·· nb was taken from his body.3 This is equivalent
asserting that Mary did not suffer death as we know it.
u* .:ion<.f soul and btxly.
As k well known, an attitude of doubt and uncertainty
iiiOHniuon in the ninth-twelfth centuries.
■ ’.hi.· thirteenth century it must be admitted that
;i· Doctors considered Our Lady’s death as certain,
-■«is was evidently a logical conclusion front the denial of
Insnaculate Conception—a denial which St. Bonaventure
- ■ ’ ills ‘ the more common, the more reasonable and
- safer view/1 His reasoning on the subject is clear
and it was the reasoning of many of his time :
11 ‘ ■ ike— i Virgm w-.i, free from original sin. she was also exempt
be nee-.,,ty ,Gyn·.;; -, theret’ore, either her death was an injustice
’■ r ‘he s.ih;Γ;.·>ί'. et’ the human race. But the tornier supk
: -upi ■ :;i jr.s, miplvin·’ that God is not just: and the latter.
*■ t».asp!.eS;iy h-ji/mst t hrist tor it implies that His Redemption js
** “nt. Ρ,.,ιΗ ar„ ther» !’. ,rv erroneous ami impossible, ΠυτυΕοΓ». _
“·■ I«arlv se, 'ubp-ct to original sin.
*

dy one is allowed to question the dogmatic value of
nsion such as this, based as it is upon a false assumption.
' 'Ines not surprise us to find the natural reaction doubt
n Arning G tt Lady's death, and open denials of it ; every
·'** ‘he qu-.-stion of lier immunity from the penalty

■’* -H -'.en·:., D. 3. ρ. 1. a. I, q. 2.
In ‘Ii Stnl., D. IJ. ·.». 3, ad 3, Up. IU. 7S C-

■■I
<>■

Î4·

80

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

death, precisely because of her immaculate conception, *3S
thus discussed.
It is sufficiently clear from what has been said so far d* 1
Father Ralic is mistaken in stating roundly that ‘ from
Patristic age to our own times not a single writer is f'”^
to deny the death of the Blessed Virgin.'1
In the seventeenth century, after the Council of
Father Bartholomew Beverini, of the Clerks Regular of
Mother of God. wrote a controversial tract (1667) against
’ Athanasius 1 m pen-name) who asserted that the opin’01»
those who lælievrd that Our Lady died was ‘frivolous ;4lB“
apocryphal.’2
In 1683 we find the Spanish Inquisition condemning ’
sermon preached against ‘lie opinion that Our Lady dk
*^
At the lM-giniiing of the eighteenth century a celebm^'
desuit theologian. Father Ignatius de Camargo (d.
wrote a whole treatise on the immortality of Marv.
Father Gallus. S.J.. has noted, rightly, that toward
*
dose ·if the Middle Ag·^ there are some writers who pr’v<
the Iiumaculat.· O.iwpti.m with an argument which logk’»^
implies that <»ur Lady did no! di
*·.
They am: O'1'’*’
Per··/, of Valencia <d. I
Pietro Barth· Cd.Mino of F·1^'
Ambrogio < fthini.n of Sb-n;i (t[. 1553). Vim-m™ Ban·0'·''
id. 1506.. Th·’ argument is as
: Ttie -.ting
infernal »rprnt is fourfold, guilt in the s.,sll. (·ι>ιιι■!^t,!.<fCr,■■’,
in the llcsh, travul i:> child-hearing, suffiring and reV1'"'
<.f the body to dus» through death. Bur God. luf.-r·· Fr ’
Mincing the universal doom to our hr>t jum-nS * v-ml11’ ''
Marv from this fourfold sting, saying: I will C!!\ ,.,,-ηϊ:'
't- î«· en ♦ t·?
*and the woman.' Man. tfarefon-.' is !>> >. fn ■ ’
four ·'■. ds.

all

V» d ad·
*.
.‘s l’vher Ga ins fts
rses
*
*
these
writer- d’"
n-c
I « xpo-s,i·.· t. de-hsce ti-.at (>;r Lady did not ’~c
i.’i: ’* d *■' ’’t·! ····1· h} ' ·ΐΐ·.ήκ«.«

• „d’<

,* /.

·» ?

:»

» F· '

J.

i

* r

.·*· »

r

·»«■■·

; -, · I * ; ■ ·■

z

'.5. ,

"

% ·

t,f* »

DID ΟΓΗ LADY 1>IE ?
’

*1

':?· « THF. DEFINITION OF THF. IMMACVL.aTE CO\« ElTl·1*
TO THE DEFINITION OF THE ASSI MIITON

liter the definition of the Immaculate Cuni-eption a eonT'veiy iras aroused. chiefly through Dominic Arnaldi of
..ibo· <!. LS'jjj on the question of Our Lady’s death. Arnaldi
■
that immunity from original sin logically implied
·.:!■·}■ from the penalty of death. His thesis rçrt-hcd
uian one imprimatur and he was congratulated by
cardinals and by reviewers in periodicals.1
Professor Joseph Pennacchi defended it enthusiastically
·■ his lectures at Propaganda. Monsignor Virdia (O.F.M.
.. Bishop of t’ariati, petitioning the Holy See for a
nf the Assumption, stated plainly his belief that
Iw’.y did not die. Gaetano Guastalla y Schius ellicr
' n; die same opinion. Father J. Angelucei. O.S.M.,
tHaii dy rejects the notion of Mary's death in several
**les written for Regina Martyrum \Caserta) and in a
'’udy which is to be published shortly.2 Father
-^"jrehe. O.S.M.. in La Vierge toute Sainte also reiects
’ ••■-'e. indirectly? Father Frieth off, Ο.Ρ., has: '"The
il -H Mary is not certain, either historically or from
1 Father Veermersch, S.J.. lias : ‘ Sur la mort
• *Te plane un certain doute qu’il ne nous appartient
Λ. φ·. dissiper.’5 In recent times the most ardent defender
. ’ ^Sls that Mary's death is not proved has been
'f?T, 'r *Γ Τ1 ^usie' Α.Λ., in his monumental work, La
A s J·.amplum de la Sainte Vierge, published in 1945
’'
to Pope pius XII.
L ioaai. Professors Van Combrugge,8 G. Coppens..7
Iktrn· P '■■■■ Ar>-<iidi, <!;-ρ»ί».ί· ι>···-ιι·1>1·:<.·ι,.·ιρ'ι·> in .4»«
‘ ,Λ
'/“*
'- OF-M-.rn4il,a. V.· π..·. VUvpp. 3"l 4<ii. AU>
- -W, s-V'' ,
^l'AtKJ,.z.........R. Γ. .U ;r »i in .Vurtmwi 32 (HUM).

, ■'
*

‘

?h

■■ ·■· > f π',Γ-ιίΐο fi.M ■'· ■

f,u^ i!tr.i,lu;icÎii denwn

«mu·.... î2.

,ltlf ’** η'Γ Ό -SufT4> T',<'Te, l»rugi“. 1ft-1, *. U. is.
.
*
ki

î>w.

15h.

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

ι-^
*
η<Γ
<in<! K. Jüssen2 hold that in the presrii
*
<.
o ustoncal knowledge it is impossible to prove t’n.it <· ■
Blessed Lady died. Professor Philips, also of Louvain. - '
{ >m
out the necessary eonneetion between inui:’.’
irom urinal sin and immunity from death xslii-h ,
!. n'1
,lv,<’’t'1 that 'everything points to the sii _r_< <
hat she entered directly into the fullness of hie.' "
has. then, <|uittui this vale of tears, this ’abode
7/“."('>-<1
Ik ,.lwrts.
.h;il
■iMon ,ι.,γ
,,ui brinji a pr.«,f of .MarvS a· ’
Mich as to produce m-.ral eertaintv.

în

ȣis

did

our

LADY

die?

s3

Fate Tiburtius Gallus, S.J., has recently
“
.k:, t of which the professed theme is that Mars did

-rc die.1
. .
I niav add that several bishops of my own acquaintance
. - lw.nic convinced and ardent defenders of the thesis
,
f here maintain. Even Father Filograss i, who is
Τ:Γ>·|ν opposed to it, admits that
a a result of the public controversies aroused on this subject, the number

: those who will have nothing to do with the idea that Our Lady died
mase steadilv, not only among priests but also among the educated
W-»·«»-»« « « » .. » ®
...
I
> ■ ,

I:. spit,- <>f all this, there were some writers, before the
who held firmly and at all costs to the view that
•u-.dh <.f Our Ladv was part of the Assumption itself
• n.t in it,s actual, concrete reality. Thus Father Balic.
1 r" Jig F;dh<T Renaudin. holds that
■ he '<rn>ni<« a 绫·» <>f th·· Absumpti·»' i·. the *1· nth of Our Lads, *th
f*;nu η»,' Qvnn is the glorification of her body in heaven. The oldo-t
■ A -iiniptioii ’ in neto’ is the glorification of the living body. and

t . ··■ ■

.i< -itii mid r'-siirrection.'·
*

ΐ4ι1’.·τ l)i Fonzo maintained that
*ith
fi
.nid resurrection are considered to be the manner and the
>’ c .inert ed circumstance of Our Lady's Assumption.

-N·, in favour of the inclusion of this * manner and
:r' iPotantx-’ in the definition of the dogma.4
Awl-i..» to Father Bonnefoy, O.F.M. :
■· ■•.air.
M>»t Holy Virgin ma;, be coroider»d a- historically
*». and rxpii’itiy revealed: as 'uch (explicitly reveal· di it may be
*· ib· . * , ,· t J ..iji-a'ic .(eLnitii.n . tb.er·· b no reason why it should

·η··~τ··,1'.
·■’·’:<

P- lie.
„

■ ■ ί -ί·;

n'

ïiini
*sB»
td,
·ί: M ir a

Γ.·49.
hi!

ιι·.r't·. ·><Ίι^:1·

ri T·!.>■·>>■.

"■ ■·..■ ■:■>· s :■ w. « terwnis » ou·- ·■« mors ; termir.w vero a·! quem
■
·’ 1 ·τ:·Γ:ίΐ II··.it.-m. ■■bj-’c-tnm Absumpti·-nis “in
·
c. ■ r;·
.■· ■
“ :nors <·τ resnrn-'tK».’ —
i·' γ.-Uii. V- -Ibir.ur, k..riI...
p?3- 4,; <pq.i.

;

J · ·« ·'> P;-<»·

;·' ”%·«»« Mariai du Pcy-m-V.-Uj,
*
vtr··. Par ia;.,), ,K >4..

Ml5c. priir._ ’ ΐ<·4β, pp.'46-57.
L‘Ί*·

îe’lXi Sa.·.·>··■

Father Bover, Father De Aklama and Father de Sob:
The fact of Our Lady's death is not a matter of opinion in tbe><
It is not even a ' pious opinion.’ Modern theologians consider it at ■ ·■'
a lententia certa. The denial of it cannot escape the note of ra<r

Father Consttintinc Koser. O.F.M., goes so far as to say
the fact of Our Lady's death is 1 de fide divina et. cathciî^
credendum.’2
The Congress of the Franciscans of Italy, at which tilgeneral theme was the Assumption, arrived at the fol!i,v'?'eonclusion :

•ni»iilriti Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, having reached
‘he end of her earthlv life, was taken up body and soul to
S· S!»ry of heaven.’
Tims a clear line of distinction is drawn between the
■'·. / tilings. Assumption and death. Neither the definition
the Bull considers the question of death at all.
llenteforward we must, exclude " death and resurrection ‘
■’M.'.ntely from the theological notion of Assumption.
Avinnpthn ‘ taken also in its actual concrete reality, docs
— wludt· anything hevond glorification of the body and
'·’ of Our Blessed Lady.
; iiW Wi W: ck ·'^:· CCC -·Μ

Although the majority of lecturers in the Congress have maint t. '-11
that the correct theological concept, of Assumption is composed of ^in­
essential cli.-ments— death, resurrection, bodily glorification - and Hi»"· *·
three are included in the idea of Assumption as a revealed doctrine, I 1
First National Congress of the Friars Minor of Italy muminiouslv ait1”1'
that in the formulation of the definition itself it would not be necei»»·'}
to make mention of the two elements which are presupposed. death fa"
resurrection, though they would necessarily be mentioned in the L’di1 ■
the definition.
*

The * Mariological Week * <»f Salamanca in 19+9. wh"’
was entirely taken up with the problem of the death
Our Lady, notwithstanding some division in its ranks.
to the Holv See a ‘ Votuni . . . de corporea AsMirnpt' ^'
B. Μ. V irginis, in caelum, post mortem definienda.71
IV—AFTER THF. DEFINITION

3’he definition, together with the dogmatic Constil’iti 'i
has tlirown considerable light on the problem. It 1ms mi·:·
clear the precise theological concept of the Assumption :
has drawn a distinction between death and Assumption :
bus left the question of Our Lady’s death cunipletch

Clarification of the concept nf
The Assumption is exactly defined in ihtse fim» : k L-.
il »

.?■«>»■-><■<» if .Ifnrvr. M-'dri i. ll't*.
HZ I'fswrffniuriwm. S flfMS,, p 4H
5 .4»·
(. mgr. .War. 5<C.· «·» W +<«*>-■■· Λ
* ^*^ 5 UWAOHMT. vol. IX. 1»**. »’■ I* o

s îm

■

K· »n.

:'CC·

:

K

;‘2) Diatini'tif/n betteeen Ax-mviption and Death
This most valuable demarcation of the subject evidently
presupposes that the death and the Assumption are two
«‘early distinct things, ami, even more to our purpose, that,
‘he arguments which are valid for the Assumption are not
»&e same class as those which are used to prove Our Lady’s
: in fact there is no comparison: the question ot her
'* ’h remains, as before, uncertain ami obscure, lett to free.
-w :sd»»u among theologians.
ft·’ Bull prescinds absolutely from both alternatives--·
died and rose again, and that she did not die.
e
tire I, .ng exposition it contains merely illustrates
·»·· Moren Of clarification ill rough which the precise, rtchm;
"'■< eoarept of Assumption, to. now ΡτοΛ»™1 lor our Mn .
*· reur-li.l. The .hrenurents qu.m-.l in the sKeteh ot »ht
«·
»■■’·« .It', in.lred »..·.,I,.in mention «Γ M»r> ' den.h, but n
" «WiW.y eW that Huy nre
u”' Xt'wnplat«l—
d--9- is. as we have saul. simpl? nm
ni?(.onri.pt.
-,■· „
hrmmng out tm
which, progressively
bv taking note of
U.·;? itn example- die 1 <·,
Ijxjy’s sub5' k»cf that the faithful, argmnu ‘
death—easily
leC,£r’n +<> suffering—-which
Divine sou. actually
th- notion That she
^iem {fidelibus) fuit
'‘r:‘d this life: ‘
diflæiK

86

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

assentiri Magnam etiam Dei Matrem, quwnadmwi»1’® J‘l
Lnigenam Suuni, ex hac vita decessisse/
f
Three things must be noted here: (1) In place J
stark expression k died ’ the Bull uses the. softer exP1*
^.
‘ ex hue vita decedere/ which is ‘ relinquished tld»
literally? (2) The Bull docs not attribute even this e*
P .f
sion, attenuated as it is, to the teaching of the Church
the Pastors, but to the faithful. (3) Then· are two very
reasons to explain what must have seemed, after :1·* ' ’
obvious deduction on the part of the faithful—the fa('k ’*Γ.
Our Lady was subject to su Hering (proved by Scriptu1*^
the teaching of the Pastors of the Church) and the I1C‘ ' ..
of her likeness to Christ. These two reasons. considered 1 .
fully, are by no means conclusive. There is. then, 1»
*'®'
'
appeal to an apostolic tradition, to a tradition prop‘ r^
called, to the magisteriurti eceletiiaxticum, for the purp'1^
proving that Mary died, but only to two reasons whi1’^ u

i

I

not. by any means prove it—at least with certainty.
Therefore, although the death of Mary is here nieid’4’
(in attenuated terms. as we have seen) as a thing at'
!
**
’' /.
by the faithful, appearing obvious, not calling for pn«.»f. \
(Irift of the whole fmssagc is simply this : The faithful
indeed admit, as being a matter of course, the «Irati1 '
Our I-ady. yet this admission did not prevent them 1'1"’
tamen minime prohibuit ’) from * openly believing «nd
fessing tuar her holy ix»dy was not subject to the torrupiP
of the -sepulchre
;
*
but on the «*>i (trary. ' enlightened ’·
divine grace, and implied by the love of her who is - Mot-·”’
ot («od and our most sweet Mutho. ‘ they «Ontenipteted '·'
ever-growing light the marvellous liannony ’ of her ρπνί'νΛ '
Thus the presumption of her death and resurrection ’>I;»V
its |»Η, and by n»> means a negligible <·η«· :far
*nakiHί (*»· o*J
. ϊ»5ο, pv- Λβ7. W·
iii<·
I nute. si.ή- inline si··
•■Irp.Hrt»,I .■!„ :■.»
fit·.· 'ί·
■ I ■ »·. ·■ ‘ΐϋ *
.,4·

‘'i»v
*ri
■ ■·

K«‘ * ·"
'
*

! 1 V- ■■■:, vvit : an-i

. ί Λ·». W »i«
it-’2'
Ift t.m». ? eSr i:’■.··-f -e

··. Τ1·:< <*-'
’’
‘

-·'·

1 ;Γ..>ί> Ktni'h (· ' z' **
V- Γ· w :-■■■■■
W·· %·
*.->■;. ........nst·. ■
■''■ ■'**
p. .W3
'‘*
·»·<ι

Λ ■■■'«■ '■;· ·»·
!**

ta i,

«, ■·

’ ™· .................. ..
4· p-T!

DID OUR LADY DIE?

87

t

)!■ is referred to in the Bull) in the development of the doctrine
of the Assumption.
Another reference to the death of Mary can be seen
hi the quotation of the Secret Prayer from the Gregorian
Sacranientary, ‘Veneranda . .
but it is clear from the
n: t< xt that this document is quoted not to prove that Our
j
(tied (though there is mention of her death in that
Ή, but solely to prove that ‘ in the liturgical books . . .
h.-t· are phrases which seem to conspire in asserting that,
it·:: the Virgin Mother of God passed from this exile, such

I

1 Ih\ iiie Providence, as w’ere in accord with her dignity as
■I r.er of the Incarnate Word, and in keeping with the
«· 'r privileges granted to her.’ The Bull continues, a few
*■>.'is further down, ‘This is affirmed, for instance, in the
'■-T-.nientarx·. . . .’ Thus the quotation of the Sacrainenk·.· prayer is intended as a proof of the thesis immediately
’’t ding (which prescinds entirely from the question of
■ ■> death)—and of nothing else. The same must be said
<: -y other quotations, from the Fathers and Doctors.1

discussion
* r -in Mutt has Ικ-en said above it is quite clear that the
■ :· has (-«-rtainlv made no pronouncement on the question
i-'r Ltdy\ death. So much is clear from the whole tenor
Bull. One natural consequence of this fact is that
■h- ;·<■■.< Mass of the feast the Secret Prayer in which
ivilS ;1 suG-y.^tion of her death (' pro conditione camis
i
the Mar..ui Congretiaiim-i. Dec., 1950.
■i\ -f ,»":«nivrT Γ'· Mary Aaeww-ii irit=> hiwen’ with
·ι·..»ί·ΐ bv Fop··
t1”'
,ω"
! ;■>■- 0e.it.ft ->f O>ir îjexiy. I may a-hi that th»' Holy
/
rr.'oL'h’ <-n this «object in -ith-'r ways
and
’
...-i- n..w
i,,,., ,
p. 65>. It i» t·! b·' taken- ■ '«•’■rpn-ted
f *
14, ’ » Pin, XI|„ ;1..
r. i,.-.ÿ .
put up-’Ts i* in
r.uruber ··*'
',.r
hi/r.h ρ.·.--·.·.ΛΪ in'·
f tliH flict. Th
*
rb*** mtprprvreT *h*
*
l'w U! Their va'-i» sn
iu
- ««ki.t i,,. 8u„..y
siH wk·- wr
I:
»%

I

I

IM

I

t

i

$

88

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

migrate cognoscimus ’) has been expunged: and this pray»,
as is well known, was a main plank in the argument.
But we can go further. In the Bull—as in the new ML
*»
we have not. only the complete exclusion of the
Mary’s death but also the positive inclusion of I'1·11'
which definitely tells in favour of the opinion that ·'■'«
nut die : I mean the reference to the. close Jink beb'-Λ'.ι >·■
Assumption and the Immaculate Conception—‘ Arcuero··
enim haec dut» privilegia inter se conectuntur. θαΓ
Lady, preserved, not. like the rest of us, freed, from
1
sin, was the companion of Christ in his complete victor.' <
both sin and death. In the Bull Our Lady's vwb-rx
death is referred to as a consequence of her victory «*v > ■
She was not subject, therefore, like the rest ot men. ■■
law of bodily corruption, and for this icason she inydt-u ».
to await, as others must. ’ the redemption of her bod} ....
the word re/lt mption. not rcs-urnitimij ' until the end »■» 1 nte
We have here, surely, an acknowledgement, that. Mm? :‘A
the riirht to triumph uver death, and the reason ot d ι» ”
rurnjdete victorv over sin.
1
*
. '
f f’
lor my part I am convinced that the definition o·
Assumption is th·
*
darting-point for a steady increase
number of those who hold that Our Blessed Ladv din no- :
Mary’s victory over death means that in iv-r. and ϋ;
alone—or. to put it other words, in one member of tin h’ô
race, despite death’s general triumph ·-through th·: meiv r Son our Redeemer, and for the greater g»ory aud <·νtien of them both. God’s plan of completely r<;M Μΐ
victory of Satan, authoi c-f sin ami d«^.ir.h, is π a’-j/x d ter·· ■
the hnppj deathh-s·. passing «»f Mary from earth
h··}··
a transition such
would hav·· terminât» d th»·
■
of our first parent, and of :dl Ημ-ir de^i.
*^rd
».nb>, Lu
* tor t!
•wigirud sin from which Mary, G'
*d"'
Mother --md uur
.
*
■
preserved. The Inimaeul .tc Hear? of Mary,
»?
immaculate, neves ceased te· brat with ke <d a’: her so
th« Cn-at^r and ;.'l His creator s.
Gab»-.

51- Rosotisi. »»,
*.. v.

LITERATURE AND PSYCHOLOGY
Bv Rev. JEREMIAH NEWMAN, M.A., D.Ph.,
Department of Scholastic Philosophy, Queen’s University, Belfast

HE title of this essay is somewhat vague and needs
to be made more precise. In recent years there as
I jijen quite a lot of writing about the influenc
W<>gy> particularly Psycho-analysis, on iwveto s
hutment of their characters. The last chapter of C. * ‘
load’s Guide to Modem Thmight, for example, is en**s
the Invasion of Literature by Psychology and es
■ :■;■·■ vinrent literary tendencies illustrative of an a
■ am personality for which the
of
"Wa theories is largely responsible. The. >
'"to-s chief concern, observes Joad, is not
vil.tor.
L aaoorable characters, which was the object o
c
?
welist, but ‘ to find out exactly what peop e
- ■ r<<..>rd hh discoveries, Ills purpose ώ
^ture
It is not this relation of psyehoiog> o
I prt.pvsc to treat of. My object here may
' -uLV'-rucd with the unconscious rather
relation of psychology to literature ""e
Muenee,
which PW « Wf"1» ^.^.intag.
;
go far towards living decisive la<to thc
■a ’he one hand, what a writer will pre
*
u<· f eL be
Bcst Sejtor/
■ i ^T, what the reader will en/»>.
•
;t, - The Psychology of th

T

I

Ί.

if- Lggxg^^
.A Λ··-'·Γ is vapablr of factual inaccuracies, of failures m
.•as
and ewn ..f downright deceit, and we keep a sharp
·«
f.ir such pitfalls. But we can often bejjmte
us.
hi kümg to rualiz
*
' aU.r-5 point of view ana by acueptuigju
for all what is realiv a highly personal approach
a
i -- -^r probtom. This is particularly true in rhe case