6T
eqn
sc*
Praise of
GQarij
if^S/OE,
Edited bi{
Raqmond J.Treece
Bellarmine Theological Lectures Volume One
A Qrai) Publication
St. Meinrad
Indiana
Theology Library
SCHOOL OF THEOLOC > AT CLAREMONT
G.I i form a
NIHIL OBSTAT:
Joseph D. Brokhage, S.T.D. Censor librorum
IMPRIMATUR:
Paul C Schulte, D.D. Archbishop of Indianapolis
Feast of the Purification B.M.V. February 2, 1955
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 55 - 9040
Copyright 1955 by St Meinrad Archabbey, Inc. GRAIL PUBLICATIONS St Meinrad, Indiana
CONTENTS
PREFACE . i
1 GOD SPEAKS OF MARY . 1
Rt. Rev. Msgr. W. L. Newton, S.S.D.
2 MOTHER OF GOD . 24
Rev. Edmond D. Benard, S.T.D., Ph.D.
3 MARY EVER VIRGIN . 38
Rev. Edwin M. Leimkuhler, S.M., M.A.
4 HAIL, FULL OF GRACE . 65
Rev. Thomas U. Mullaney, O.P.
5 MARY’S ASSUMPTION . 88
Rev. James J. Doyle, S.J., S.T.D.
6 MARY, CO-REDEMPTRIX . 108
Rev. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., S.T.D.
7 MARY IN TOE LITURGY . 121
Rev. Owen Bennett, O.F.M. Conv., M.S., Ph.D.
8 MARY IN THE MODERN WORLD . 154
Rev. Paschal Boland, O.S.B., S.T.L.
PREFACE
IVT ODERN educators no longer limit the area of a college’s service to the small segment of the community which forms its regular academic student body. They insist that it widen its vision and broaden its services to embrace all who seek ad¬ vanced education. This thinking is in accord with the concept "Catholic,” i.e. universal, and should be an integral part of the program of a Catholic college.
Moreover, a Catholic college cannot be merely an institution; which offers instruction to youth in the secular arts and sciences.. Were this its only purpose, it would deserve to be characterized as just a competitor of the secular institutions of higher learn¬ ing, state supported or privately operated. It indeed would have a weak and tenuous reason for existence, especially if it could be shown that its services could be supplied as effectively and as economically elsewhere.
If, then, a Catholic college is not to be judged as just an¬ other competitive educational facility, and perhaps a replace* able one, it must have a distinctive purpose. It must deserve to wear the name Catholic as a pledge of a special educational function. This right is justified when a college effectively signifies its purpose is to offer instruction in the sacred sci¬ ences based upon Divine Revelation. A proper program of religious instruction and study is the heart of the curriculum; and the prime reason for the continuance of a Catholic college;.
These purposes were adopted in the founding of the young; Bellarmine college in 1950. To further their fulfillment, an
ii
IN PRAISE OF MARY
annual program of public lectures of Catholic theology was inaugurated in the spring of 1954. They are to be known as the Bellarmine Theological Lectures.
His Holiness Pius XII proclaimed 1954 as a Marian Year. The theology department of the faculty considered it a high privilege and a fitting token of fidelity to Holy Mother the Church to follow the Supreme Pontiff’s admonition:
"But to facilitate matters and make the project more successful, We desire that in each diocese there be held for this purpose appropriate sermons and dis¬ courses, by means of which this tenet of Christian doctrine may be more clearly explained; so that the Faith of the people may be increased and their devo¬ tion to the Virgin Mother of God become daily more inflamed, and that henceforth all may take upon themselves to follow in the footsteps of our heavenly mother, willingly and with promptitude.” — Fulgens Corona
Thus, mariology was chosen as the topic of the inaugural lecture series. The decision was seconded by the grateful con¬ sideration that Bellarmine is an American Catholic college able to function with all the blessings of those personal and group liberties embodied in the political constitution of this nation dedicated to Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
These lectures, In Praise of Mary, pretend to be neither a textbook nor an exhaustive treatise on formal mariology. The intent of the distinguished scholars who prepared these papers was to discuss pertinent high lights in Our Lady’s many- jeweled crown of glory and to present the fruit of their study and meditation in a popular and dignified fashion for the faithful in general.
The editor of this volume, who was also chairman of the lecture series, has prepared outlines and questions on each subject for the use of study clubs and discussion groups.
Reverend Raymond J. Treece
1 GOD SPEAKS OF MARY CD
BY
RT. REV. MSGR. IV. L. NEWTON, S.S.D.
T HERE are many evident reasons why this series of lec¬ tures on our Blessed Mother should be most congenial. Basic to them all is the instinctive love we have for the Woman who brought us our Saviour, and the need we feel for her con¬ tinued help if we are to profit by His grace. These sentiments are real, and even when rationalized are found to be integral to our Christain faith and experience. What is more, we are given an opportunity, in the atmosphere of a papal dedication of this year to her, to examine intelligently the roots and causes of our devotion; and in the process to deepen the devotion as we clarify and emphasize the causes. We are deal¬ ing, let us remember, with the greatest story ever told- and in that story with the heroine without whom, in God’s good pleasure, the story never could have been told.
It is, further, quite proper to initiate our discussion of this pleasant subject with a study of the clear, strong and invari¬ able portrait of Mary given us by God Himself through the two great channels by means of which He speaks to us, the
2
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Scriptures and Tradition. In fact, we acknowledge it to be cer¬ tain that if God had not informed us about her we should never of ourselves have learned what we now accept as ordi¬ nary fact. For, when thoroughly contemplated, especially in contrast with the human nature we behold in ourselves and in those about us, her character and her intimate place in the mystery of the Redemption are so exalted as to belong among the secrets of God, to be counted among those thoughts which not even the human imagination dare construct. This might in a way explain the hesitation which those outside the range of Divine revelation show towards our Marian doctrines and the difficulties they raise against the respect we pay to her. There is nothing human in what we believe of her. On the contrary, neither in Jewish thinking before Christ, nor in the faith of the early centuries of Christianity would such doctrine be tolerated unless clearly contained in the message directly attributable to God.
The strict necessity of a Divine origin for the truths involved in our understanding of Mary and of her function in the Divine plan of the Redemption will help us from the start to appreci¬ ate what we mean by Revelation. Take this illustration. Man, we know, is fundamentally religious; he must at times be fully conscious of his need of God, and be moved by a sense of reverence towards Him. Yet, when left to his own further development of the idea of God, working out from a dark¬ ened mind and often enough prompted by merely selfish mo¬ tives, he can arrive at some rather grotesque concepts. We need only recall the absurdities of ancient mythology to bring this home. Hence, if God wished to be known and honored properly He had to correct these false notions. This He did by mani¬ festing to us His true nature, and, in His goodness, by ac¬ quainting us with some aspects of that nature which we never
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
3
could have learned without His help. This same tendency to take a human view of what is Divine was not eliminated even with the appearance of God among us in the Person of Christ. Those who were, and who are wise in their own earthly con¬ ceits screened His teachings through the sieve of a pagan or secular philosophy; and the result is some extremely odd doctrines. We witness this going on round about us today as much as in any other age.
This intervention of God to purify our religious thinking, to help us know correctly what can be known of Him by the human intellect, and further, to open up to us a whole realm of knowledge concerning Him that we could not have dis¬ covered of ourselves, is what we term Revelation. Yet there is something more to be remembered. It was not enough for God to have communicated with us; He had also to guarantee and preserve the integrity of what He revealed. This He did by setting it down in part in a book which He Himself wrote, and by placing it under the protection of a living tradition to which He granted the attribute of infallibility. The first we call the Bible; the second is the Church.
It is upon this revelation that we rest this evening. And the subject we are to discuss lies within the framework of the greatest truth God has manifested to us, the mystery of His love in redeeming fallen man, in raising him again to a partici¬ pation in His own Divine nature. More particularly, we are engaged with an almost incredible detail of that Redemption, with the woman to whom He in His infinite condescension granted so intimate a share in it. Our immediate purpose, therefore, is to inquire carefully into what God has told us about our Mother Mary.
The pursuit of this thesis leads us into a kind of drama in three acts. 1. In the Old Testament, by way of involution, we
4
IN PRAISE OF MARY
are introduced to a woman who will have an important role in the advent of the Messias. 2. In the New Testament we attain to the climax in the identification of this woman as Mary, and in the portrayal of her romantic place in the story. 3. The denouement leads us down the avenues of tradition, where we behold her carried in triumph, more and more ex¬ plicitly enthroned in the lives and devotion of those who have been elected beneficiaries of her mission.
I
The setting and the action for the first part of the drama is the gradual unfolding in the Old Testament of God’s plan for the spiritual rehabilitation of mankind. That this plan had to be revealed by God is rather obvious: it was too noble and too generous for man to conceive. That it had to be gradual should be equally patent. Its tremendously exalted details, such as the Incarnation, the vicarious death of the God- man, the very nature of man’s reunion with God, would have been at first so amazing as to be unintelligible if not actually shocking. Hence God prepared men for His mercy by pro¬ gressively manifesting His designs, so that their accomplish¬ ment might be both recognized and accepted.
The need of such preparation was all the greater in respect to the woman whom God was admitting to an essential part in His plan. The concept "Mother of God” could at no time be reconciled with the religious culture of Israel; and the efforts of the prophets to preserve their Monotheism undefiled would not help the matter. Hence in the Old Testament we need not look for more than an insinuation of the role Mary was to play in the Divine plan. Yet that insinuation was given by God, and in such a way as to condition Israel for the glo¬ rious truths unfolded in later revelations. Let us glance with admiration at the manner in which wisdom accomplished this.
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
5
The first adumbration of Mary’s participation in God’s re¬ demptive work will be discovered in the progressive evolution of Old Testament Messianism. The coming of the Messias, the Redeemer, is the thesis of the entire Old Testament. It moves forward steadily through four convenants between God and man, each a divine effort to bring man closer to God, and each more explicit in its promise of an individual, a personal Saviour. Within the framework of the last of these covenants, that made at Mt. Sinai, there were four institutions fulfilling the required mediation between God and Israel, and these served in a particular way to direct the mind towards this Saviour. The priests, the prophets, the kings, the wise men — all were recognized as agents of God; and yet all were evi¬ dently imperfect and incomplete. This in itself induced the pious to look for the coming of One who would gather all this mediation in Himself, and accomplish it effectively. This hope was further encouraged by the specific prophecies defin¬ ing the character and office of the Messias. Moses foretold His function as prophet; David referred to Him as the eter¬ nal priest; Nathan promised He would occupy forever the throne of David; the Wisdom Books describe Him as Wis¬ dom personified.
The purpose, therefore, of this divine romance is to raise the minds of men to contemplate the Saviour for whom God was preparing the way; and to promote in the hearts of men a yearning for His advent. But still more, all this prophecy indicated an intimate relationship of the Saviour to God; yes, that God Himself would bring about the Redemption. And it could readily have been suspected, from more than a few allu¬ sions, that the Messias would be divine.
Within the atmosphere of this messianic hope there is one element of special meaning to our subject. It is the place
6
IN PRAISE OF MARY
allotted by God to women in many of the essential phases of the story. This is brought into relief in the very beginning by the instrumentality of Eve in the moral catastrophy which is at the root of the story.1 We need only mention the signifi¬ cance of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel in the narrative of the Patri¬ archs from whom was generated the Chosen People. Recall the place of his mother in the birth and infancy of Moses; Anna in the begetting of Samuel; Thamar, Ruth and Bethsa- bee in the genealogy of Christ. Often in the list of the kings of Juda special mention is made of their mothers. Concern¬ ing all of these it must be noted that the only reason for intro¬ ducing them is to indicate the part each played in the unfold¬ ing and the ultimate accomplishment of God’s design, and in the arrival of the Messias. Each became the mother of an im¬ portant agent in the divine plan; in each instance there is evidence of a supernatural direction of events; each is, there¬ fore, herself an agent of God.
In passing it might be of interest to remark that while Thamar, Ruth and Bethsabee are among the chief of the dramatis personae, holding place among the immediate fore¬ bears of the Messias, there is in each some note of imperfec¬ tion. This is consonant with the whole context of the Old Testament, in which we seldom find an actor who is without blemish. It is also true of the messianic context; and the facts would only incline Israel to expect that the mother of the Messias, as the Messias Himself, would be free from the weak¬ nesses of fallen mankind, that she would be above the defects evident in other women.
It is, then, in this setting which recognized woman as en¬ joying a prominent participation in the economy that was drawing the Messias ever nearer that we can examine the two references to a particular woman who will have immediate
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
7
association with the hope of redemption.
The first (Gen. 3,15) will be found in connection with the primal revelations, and will share the necessary obscurity of its context. Yet its significance is considerable since it is the premise upon which may rest the good hope of later ages, though actual reference to it is not made in the Old Testa¬ ment.2 In condemning Satan for his bringing ruin on our first parents, God says, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.’'
The statement is, therefore, a punitive sentence, descriptive of the warfare between the human race and the powers of darkness which was to echo down through future ages. But there was a word of hope reflected in the assurance of an ulti¬ mate and complete triumph for mankind over Satan. But the view is not confined to them; it rather turns down the corridors of time and ends in a conquest. Satan is the victim. Who is the Victor? While the fruits of the victory will be shared in by all mankind, the insinuation here, in conformity with all later messianism in the Old Testament, is that the conqueror will be an individual, one who will, in a sense, "recapitulate” in himself the human race. He must be born of the children of Eve, and hence of a woman who will show some contrast with Eve, and contribute to the trumph as Eve did to the degradation of the children of men.
Remote, therefore, and proportionately obscure, this first revelation of good news for fallen mankind implies, and in itself does no more than imply, the intervention of a woman, the mother of the conqueror. She is present in the literal sense, though from this first promise her identification cannot be inferred.
Before we come upon the other reference to this woman
8
IN PRAISE OF MARY
(Isa. 7,14) millenia will have passed by, the Victor will have drawn much nearer. He is known as prophet and priest; of the children of Abraham He will bring blessing to all the tribes of the earth; He will be the king in whom will be per¬ petuated the glorious reign of His father David. In every detail it is supposed He will be born of a woman, a woman who will reflect the honor of her son, and whose instrumen¬ tality in giving Him birth admits her to a share in His work.
Isaias, towards the end of the eighth century B.C., was sent by God to Ahaz, who was being hard pressed in his war with Ephraim and Syria. The substance of the message he was charged with was an encouragement to the king to place his trust in God. When the king hesitated, the prophet said, "The Lord himself will give you a sign. A virgin shall con¬ ceive and bear a son, and call his name Emmanuel.” Soon after this (Isa. 8, Iff) the prophet’s wife presents him with a son to whom is given a symbolic name pertinent to the im¬ mediate circumstances: the promised deliverance was to come before this latter child would be able to stammer out the name of father or mother. But two elements in the prophecy show that it reaches far beyond the time of its delivery. The mother is called a virgin; the son is called “God with us.”3
The term "Virgin” has been the subject of some debate. The word used in the original ( almah ) in itself, and from usage, bears the meaning of a young, marriageable woman. It is never used of a woman already married, except in the difficult verse, Prov. 30,19. The Greek translation of Isaias, made for the Jews in Egypt something over a century before Christ, seems to understand it in the true sense of a virgin. While, therefore, the strict virginity of this woman cannot be proved from the term, it is obvious that she is not the wife of the prophet. Neither can her child Emmanuel be the son of the
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
9
prophet Rather, both terms carry the reader at once into the clearly messianic oracles of the following chapters, which are among the most beautiful and distinct of the entire Old Testament, and in which the divinity of the Messias is more than insinuated.
With this verse a climax is reached in the Old Testament revelations regarding the Messias and His Mother. Much more will be said of Him by the later prophets; but nothing more significant. The mind of the pious Jew would then be raised with still greater hope and yearning to the advent of the Re¬ deemer; but he would also be the more aware of the place of this woman in His coming, and of the unusual dignity and prerogatives she would enjoy. God had told him this of her.
II
When we come to enquire what God has told us of Mary in the New Testament, obscurity gives way to a brilliant clarity that is blinding. We come to learn that in her case, as in that of her Divine Son, realization goes far beyond prophecy. Not only is the women identified as Mary, but the amazing import of her participation in the victory of Christ is made manifest. This must be had always in view: the thesis of the New Testa¬ ment is the Redemption accomplished; and whatever is said of Mary is said in that context. Christ, the Son of God, came into the world and redeemed us; but He both came and achieved His mission as the Son of Mary. What God reveals to us concerning her in the New Testament we may consider under three headings: 1. Her place in the story of Christ’s birth and early life; 2. her relations with Him during the Public Ministry; 3. the closing scenes of the New Testament.
1. Christ’s Birth and Early Life
Both Matthew and Luke indicate the right she has to be
10
IN PRAISE OF MARY
included in the Gospel by devoting each two chapters to the subject of the Nativity. Matthew wrote for the Jews with all their rich heritage of messianic prophecy; Luke for the Gen¬ tiles, to confirm their faith and complete their knowledge. Yet the substance of their message is the same: the miraculous nature of our Lord’s birth of a virgin; His identification as the Messias and the Son of God; His manifestation to Israel and to the Gentile world. Mary’s intimate connection with all this is unmistakable; it is at the same time lighted up with an inspired illumination.
Our attention is first called to her identification. Her name is Mary, her residence is Nazareth, her lineage is undoubtedly that of David. If our analysis of the revelations of the Old Testament is correct, then the woman alluded to in Genesis and defined in Isaias is here openly presented to us. The fact that God sent an angel to her conveys two thoughts: first, it is not only a sign of the respect He has for her, but classes her with the agents in His plan whom God similarly honored in the Old Testament; and further, it emphasizes the signifi¬ cance of the mission He is assigning to her.
In addressing her the angel makes use of extraordinary terms: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” Her ful¬ ness of grace tells of the extraordinary measure in which she enjoys the divine favor; and what that favor is we learn from Paul’s use of the term (Eph. 1,6), the grace with which God favors us in His Son, the sharing in the Divine Nature through Christ. The presence of God with her is a confirmation of this. Here is the root of the doctrine that from the first moment of her conception Mary was free from the taint of original sin, and possessed in its fulness the presence of God in her soul.
Another favor with which God adorned her is her virginity,
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
11
dearly supposed by Matthew but plainly stated by Luke, who twice calls her a virgin before telling of her virginal concep¬ tion. In Matthew reference is made to the prophecy of Isaias (7,14), and this removes the uncertainty attached there to the term "virgin.” This follows not so much from Matthew’s citation of the prophecy, but from the other indications of her virginity. The fact of her virginity is brought out with some deliberateness in the answer Mary gave the angel: "How shall this happen, since I do not know man” (Lk. 1,34). 4 Some have questioned whether this proves that she had made a vow of virginity in the technical sense of a vow; but there is no doubt that it adds to the fact of her virginity at least the firm inten¬ tion of her remaining a virgin. Here is the basis of our con¬ viction of her perpetual virginity.
The central theme in the whole narrative is the miraculous conception of her Son, through the direct intervention of God and the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. And this takes its full meaning from the identification of that Son: the king promised the house of David, the Messias, the Son of the Most High, whose very name Jesus tells that He is the ex¬ pected Saviour. In assessing the value of these terms we should attend first of all to their meaning for Mary, who must certainly have understood them as defining the divinity of her Son. For Matthew and Luke they must have had the same meaning, for when they wrote they had full knowledge of our Lord’s true nature. This is the crowning revelation: Mary is the Mother of Jesus, of Jesus who is really God. No greater office could be granted by God to a human being; and there is hardly limit to the dignity and the spiritual prerogatives that follow upon it.
And yet there is more to be discovered in the Gospel of the Infancy, especially in Luke’s manner of narrating it. The
12
IN PRAISE OF MARY
message of the angel was not coercive; the acceptance of this exalted office was left dependent upon Mary’s will. She hesi¬ tated because of her resolution to lead a virginal life; and all creation, yes, God Himself waited upon her consent. Her free declaration, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word," made the Incarnation possible, and gave her a causal participation in the Redemp¬ tion. It is in part this that justifies her title of Co-redemptrix. By her assent she conferred an honorable distinction upon the whole human race, by uniting it with the Divine Nature; and by it she gave spiritual birth to all who through the Author of Grace have been called to participate in that Divine Nature.
2. The Public Ministry
After this burst of Divine revelation, which in so short a space tells us so much that we could in no other way learn about Mary, the Gospels maintain a relative silence in her regard. The episode of the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple is an illustration of her life during the years that intervened before the start of the Public Ministry. The story is rich in meaning; but for the rest we are left to reconstruct from what we know of the customs of the time the manner of her life. Yet we can readily imagine her intense maternal interest in her Son, and the filial devotion of that Son to her. During the eventful period of the Public Ministry of Christ we come upon only three references to her.® It need not follow from this that the meetings of Mother and Son were so few during these years. Our Lord was often either in Nazareth or its neighborhood, and we can be certain He did not neglect calling on His Mother. Still the fact remains that the mention of her is confined to these three instances.
GOfD SPEAKS OF MARY
13
Further, in all three texts there is an apparent separation be¬ tween Christ and His Mother that merits attention.
The mere absence of more frequent mention of her is easily explained. The thesis of the Gospels is Christ and His mes¬ sage of salvation, and it does not allow for what might be construed as a mere human relationship. That there is no intention to diminish her importance is obvious from what Matthew and Luke have already told concerning the birth of Christ. A brief analysis will show that in none of the three texts is there any disparagement of her.
At the marriage feast of Cana (John 2,4) our Lord an¬ swered Mary’s solicitous remark about the failure of the wine with the words, "What to me and to thee.” The expression occurs often enough in both the Old and the New Testament? and in some cases it has the rather strong sense of "Let me alone, or Do not bother me.” Such a meaning for the words in this instance is certainly excluded by the context, since there was nothing in the situation that might warrant it. In view of what took place immediately, this meaning hardly can be justi¬ fied by the text. All admit that the statement is an interroga¬ tion, and that its significance depends upon the context. Here it can have, and probably does have the milder sense of, "What do you wish me to do,” implying, "Leave the matter to me.” Above this question, however, the scene is most illustrative of her attitude towards her Son. There was no hesitation in her mind; she knew that He would take care of the problem.
On a later occasion (Mark 3,32), when our Lord was told that His Mother and brethren were enquiring for Him, He declared His Mother and brethren to be those who do the will of God. A similar instance occurred some time after this (Luke ll,27f), when a woman blessed the womb <~hat bore Him and the breasts that nourished Him. He answered
14
IN PRAISE OF MARY
that they are rather blessed who hear the word of God and keep it. In either event His meaning is clear: the spiritual relationship He had come to establish between God and man arises immeasurably above blood kinship, even above the in¬ timacy of a son with his mother. John has this principle in view when he says of our spiritual birth (1,13) that we are bom, "Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
We need not delay over the problem sometimes raised in connection with the references to Christ’s brethren. First of all, there is neither mention nor insinuation anywhere in the Scriptures that Mary had other children. There are several allusions to His cousins, as in the case of John the Baptist. The expression can, as is well known, be used of almost any blood relationship, and even in some cases where there is no blood connection. The advertence to Christ’s brethren in Acts 1, 14 is to the point, since the next verse tells us there were some one hundred twenty included.
3. End of Public Life
Towards the end of the action in the New Testament story Mary comes again into prominence in two brief references which, in importance, far exceed their brevity.
It is St. John who tells us (19,25-27) of the scene at the foot of the cross in which we find Mary and two or three other women and John himself. It advises us first of all that Mary was in Jerusalemn for the feast, and that she must have been witness to all the events preliminary to this scene. Here on Golgotha those events have reached their climax both for Christ and for His Mother; the Son is dying, where else should we expect to find the Mother! But though dying, that Son revealed His concern for and devotion to His Mother by entrusting her to John’s care. The beloved disciple had her
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
15
thereafter in his home. And Christ also recommended John to the care of Mary. This latter trust has quite generally been taken as at least a symbol of the conferring on Mary her spiritual motherhood over all Christians. This beautiful doc¬ trine, however, goes back rather to her Divine Maternity, in which she begot us also for God in Christ. John elsewhere6 seems to evidence his consciousness of this office of Mary. It is not, however, excluded from this scene, for she shared so fully in the sufferings of her Divine Son who was at that mo¬ ment earning for us our divine sonship that her spiritual Ma¬ ternity was in reality then consummated.
Yet more is revealed to us here concerning our spiritual Mother. What could more effectively illustrate the mutual love and limitless devotion of this Son and Mother? The scene is the best answer to any suspicion that during the Public Ministry there was any disparagement of her. It further in¬ dicates the tenderness of this association even during the hid¬ den years at Nazareth. Yes, it may give substance to the thought that Christ was looking upon her not merely as His Mother in the flesh, but as one whose life was tied in with His own mission, and therefore as associated with Him in the work of the Redemption.
Inferences of equal moment may be drawn from another scene. After the Ascension of our Lord the Apostles returned to the upper room in Jerusalem, and Luke tells us in Acts 1, 14 that "All these with one mind continued steadfastly in prayer with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” This was an assembly of the infant Church, at the beginning of those days of prayer which were to end in the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Brief as it is, this notice is most eloquent of the relations between Mary and the nascent Church. We are impressed at once with the
16
IN PRAISE OF MARY
separate mention of her, as one set apart from other women. And the title she even then enjoyed, "the mother of Jesus,” provides the basis of this distinction. What dignity that title held for those who had just witnessed the death, the resurrec¬ tion and the ascension of that Jesus! Here is the foundation for all, her other titles.
This, it would seem, is the final allusion to Mary in the Scriptures. Some have argued that John has her in mind when he speaks in his revelations (Apoc. 12, 1) of the sign that appeared in heaven: "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”7 But, however attractive this interpretation, and however expected of one like John, it does not appear to have sufficient support either in the context or in tradition. Hence, with the scene on Golgotha and that in the upper room before Pentecost, the Scriptures hand Mary over to the Church, to that living and infallible tradition which was to carry her in honor down through the ages. It was a sacred trust. Her exalted dignity as the Mother of God, recognized in the greet¬ ing of the angel and of Elizabeth, her spiritual motherhood of mankind, her tremendous virtues, the devotion of her Son and of all who were close to her — all told expressly the value of this trust which laid heavily upon the Church the respon¬ sibility of cherishing her and of preserving in all their bril¬ liance these and the other jewels that studded her glorious crown.
Ill
It is with this sacred trust that the authoritative traditions of the Church, themselves a source of divine relevation, take up the subject of Mary. It could not, like the talent, be hid . away in a napkin; rather it constituted a notable element in the teaching mission of the Church. The confidence we have
GOO SPEAKS OF MARY
17
in this source of revelation arises out of our knowledge that the Holy Spirit is its immediate director according to the prom¬ ise made by Christ at the last supper, and as we know from the aftermath of Pentecost. Hence two thoughts must accom¬ pany our study of the place of Mary in this tradition. First, that what the whole Church accepted and believed as true of her has the quality of infallibility, assured by this indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Second, we must expect some development of doctrine in her respect, as in other matters of faith; a progress from larger truths to the details of which they are composed, or from the implicit to the explicit.
As further ground for this confidence, let us look briefly at the circumstances of the generations that followed after Pentecost. John had taken Mary into his home where he lived with him, and in frequent association with the first Christians for many years, some say even till the year 60 A.D. In what respect she must have been held in the community we have learned from the reference to her in Acts. She would be known not only to Luke but to all as the Mother of Jesus. Her interest in the Apostles and their teaching can hardly be in doubt. When they set forth on their missionary journeys it was to carry to the world faith in her Son. They carried with them also the doctrine of her participation in the life and labors of that Son. John himself lived till the end of the first century, and he particularly must have spoken often of her, telling of events such as the marriage at Cana and the episode on Golgotha. In fact, what we have learned of her from the Scriptures must be identical with the earliest tradi¬ tions, since through oral teaching the Church had already spread far before the Gospels were written. Hence the incep¬ tion of Marian teaching rests upon ground that is both solid and rich.
18
IN PRAISE OF MARY
In the earliest written witnesses to this tradition, that is in the Apostolic fathers, we need not look for either frequent or lengthy treatment of this doctrine. This is understandable first of all from the circumstances just described: Mary had lived among them until recently, and living memory still en¬ shrined her. Then too, the message of Christ was of primary concern, and there was difficulty enough in convincing a pagan world to accept it. In other words, the principle that operated in Christ’s public ministry, that neglected His blood relation¬ ship with Mary, would be all the more necessary when the missionaries tried to prove to the Gentiles that Christ is truly God.
Yet at a relatively early date in the life of the Church, oc¬ casion arose that did, in God’s providence, focus more atten¬ tion upon her. Those who not only refused to accept Christ but added vile attacks on Him, and those who accepted Him but in their own erroneous way of thinking, involved her in their errors and their offensive revilings. Defense of Christ brought with it a vigorous defense of Mary. And perhaps this very need of turning attention to her provoked further discussion of her prerogatives and her virtues. The Fathers and the Ecclesiastical writers who reflect for us the faith of those centuries have brought to us the record of that faith. We shall confine our attention to those traditions which led up to the great Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), after which a new era in the story of Mary begins.
It is quite natural that the most noticeable element in this earliest tradition concerning Mary should be the constant reference to her as the Mother of Christ. The consideration of Christ as the Son of Mary, and her title “Mother of Jesus”8 merely continued the Gospel teaching, and they were preg¬ nant with all the doctrine that later more philosophical treatises
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
19
brought out. The heresies denying either the humanity or the divinity of Christ not only occasioned the mention of her but also the further discussion of her spiritual favors.9 Since the basis of all Christian teaching was the divinity of Christ, Mary’s distinction as the Mother of God was the first and the most eloquently dealt with. Theodoret10 relates this title with the apostolic tradition. We are not, therefore, surprised that the first formal definition of a Marian doctrine should be that of her Divine Maternity at the Council of Ephesus.
Very early also the Fathers, in search of a means of illus¬ trating the consequences of this exalted title, drew a contrast between Mary and Eve, a contrast that served to make more explicit what had already been taken for granted. Her free¬ dom from all taint of sin, even from the first moment of her conception, was among the first inferences that would flow from the address of Gabriel and from the doctrine of the Di¬ vine Maternity. Her perpetual virginity is equally prominent, and is also held to be an apostolic tradition. Never in Chris¬ tian tradition, even the earliest, any more than in the Gospels, is there any recognition that she might have had other chil¬ dren. On the contrary, her continued virginity, before, dur- and after the birth of her divine Son, is valiantly defended against the Ebionites, Cerinthus and others.11 There was also drawn from the premise of her Divine Maternity the acknowl¬ edgment of her instrumental casuality in the salvation of mankind.
It is very interesting to observe how the Fathers, in seek¬ ing to prove or illustrate these doctrines, have recourse to the Scriptures, particularly to the Old Testament. In the process they sometimes uncover the fuller literal sense of the passages, as is the case in their treatment of Gen. 3,15 and Isaias 7,14. They see her prefigured in many other passages
20
IN PRAISE OF MARY
where the sense is undoubtedly merely an accommodation. They find adumbrations of her in many symbols, such as the Ark of Noe, Jacob’s Ladder, the Closed Gate of the Temple, and so forth. Further, they recognize what in some instances may be real types of her in Sarah, Deborah, Jahel, Judith, and others.12 Much of this reliance on the Scriptures is not too authoritative; nor need it be urged, since the doctrines in¬ volved are seldom based on it.
It was inevitable that with these doctrines there should be associated a profound and tender devotion to Mary. This was inherited, as we have observed from the New Testament and from the first Christians; but as the fuller meaning of her privileges was unfolded, this devotion could not help but grow. There are numerous indications of how universal and earnest this devotion was during these early centuries. In¬ directly the Apocrypha, a literature in imitation of the books of the New Testament, bear witness to it.13 Some of this literature is heretical, and little of it can be taken too seriously; and yet so much of it deals with the Blessed Virgin that it reveals a general desire to know more about her; and this in turn must be based on a universal interest. Some details from the Apocrypha were so readily accepted that they found their way into orthodox tradition, such as the feast of the Presentation. There exist in the catacombs at Rome two early pictures of Mary. That in the cemetery of Priscilla dates from the second century and shows Mary holding the Infant Jesus on her knees.14 The other is similar and dates from the third century. There is a rather curious evidence of this devotion in the rebuke that Epiphanius administered to the Collyridiani in the fourth century for their having offered sacrifice to Mary.15
The words of Epiphanius (d. 403), which reflect an early
GOO SPEAKS OF MARY
21
belief in Mary’s Assumption, in claiming that her body re¬ mained incorrupt, may be quoted as an illustration of this devotion. He says with some ardor, "Who would be so mad as to give vent to any such blasphemous and unworthy thought (that her body decomposed) ? Who is there that would pre¬ fer, instead of singing hymns to her and glorifying her, to entertain thoughts insulting and injurious to the Holy Virgin and not rather to honor that vessel of all the most honored.”18
The first vision of Mary reported in Christian tradition was had by Gregory Thaumaturgus. In it he beheld Mary and John, Mary encouraging John to give further instruction to him.17 At the beginning of the fourth century Pierius, whose orthodoxy was not above suspicion, preached a sermon on Mary that is evidence both of this devotion to her and of the progress towards a more discursive treatment to the doctrines that centered round her.
The Council of Ephesus was a turning point in this tradition: with the formal definition of Mary’s Divine Maternity, treatises dealing with her attributes were encouraged, and feasts com¬ memorating her mysteries became multiplied. In the one direc¬ tion we have the first steps towards Mariology; in the other the formation of the Marian cycle in the liturgy. Now in the solemnity of this present year dedicated to her, we are reaping the rich harvest of this divinely guided development. In the full light of this revelation, we contemplate our Immaculate Mother enthroned beside her Divine Son above all the saints and angels. This is the glorious inheritance the Church has brought to us. And the special aspect of the trust given to us is, in recognition of her mediating all graces, to carry on to still greater realization the prophecy she made of herself when she sung her Magnificat: to bring glory to God and well being to a distressed world.
22
IN PRAISE OF MARY
I Cf. 1, Peter 2.14.
2J. Michl, “Der Weibessame (Gen. 3,15) in spat judischer und fruh- christlicher Auffassung,” Biblica 33 (1952), 371, 476.
Cf. also on Gen. 3.15: Biblica 31 (1950), 95, 104. And Catholic Biblical Quarterly XIV (1952), 104.
3 C. Lattey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly VIII (1946), 369; IX (1947), 89, 147.
4 J. J. Collins, “Our Lady’s Vow of Virginity,” Catholic Biblical Quar¬ terly V (1943), 371.
5J. L. Lilly, “Jesus and His Mother During the Public Life.” Cath¬ olic Biblical Quarterly VIII (1946), 52, 147, 315.
6 Bernard J. LeFrois, “Spiritual Motherhood of Mary.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly XIII (1951), 422; XIV (1952), 116.
7 Dominic J. Unger, “Did St. John See the Virgin Mary in Glory?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly XI (1949), 249. Cf. next five issues, also Biblica 31 (1950) 104.
8 Lebreton — Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church (N.Y., 1949), p. 166.
9 Lebreton — Zeiller, Op. cit.} p. 1038 and note.
10 DeHaeresi iv, 12.
II Lebreton — Zeiller, Op. cit., p. 111.
12 Alexius M. Lepicier, Tractatus de Beatissima Virgine Maria (Paris, 1912) pp. 34ff.
13 Lebreton — Zeiller, Op. cit., p. 987.
14 Lebreton — Zeiller, Op. cit., pp. 527. 1170.
15 Lepicier, Op. cit., p. 624.
16 Catholic Biblical Quarterly XI (1949) 258.
17 Lebreton — Zeiller, Op. cit., p. 1038.
GOD SPEAKS OF MARY
23
OUTLINE
Introduction: Man needs divine Revelation to know God’s secrets. One of the most exalted of the divine mysteries is the almost incredible part Mary plays in our redemption.
I. The Old Testament (1) unfolds God’s plan for man’s spiritual rehabilitation, and (2) prepares us for woman’s part in its fulfillment through various feminine agents in God’s messianic design, and especially in the texts, Gen. 3,15 and Isaias 7,14.
II. The New Testament identifies "the woman” and "the virgin” as Mary and traces her place in the story of (l) Christ’s infancy, (2) His public life, and (3) His passion and death.
III. Tradition more explicitly enthrones the Mother of Christ in thoughts and devotions of all who have been blessed by her mission.
Discussion Questions
1. What is the connection between belief in Marian doctrines and acceptance of Sacred Scripture?
2. What is the significance of the term "virgin” in the text, Isaias 7,14?
3. Why is Mary not mentioned more frequently in the Gospel?
4. What is to be inferred from the prominence of Mary in the apocrypha?
5. What evidence is found in the New Testament of Mary’s virginity?
24
£Q MOTHER OF GOD
BY
REV. EDMOND D. BENARD, S.T.D., PH.D.
It was the night of June 22, in the year of our Lord 431. The city was Ephesus, in Asia Minor. Since morning, more than one hundred and fifty bishops had been assembled in the church of Saint Mary, under the authority and with the approval of the Pope. In the months preceding, Nestorius, the proud patriarch of Constantinople, had denied the right of the Virgin Mary to be called God’s Mother, and the bishops were pondering gravely this new danger to the Christian faith.
After the day-long session, the bishops announced their decision. The Council of Ephesus solemnly con¬ demned the teaching of Nestorius, deprived him of his partiarchal dignity, and reaffirmed the glorious title Christian tradition had always recognized as Mary’s — the title "Mother of God.”
All day the people of Ephesus had been awaiting the verdict of die Council. When word finally came, a great cry of joy went up from the crowd. The people escorted the bishops back to their lodgings with torches and burning incense. The streets and squares of the city suddenly flamed with light. It
MOTHER OF GOD
25
was like the civic celebration of a victory — and it was a victory for the faith of Christ.1
This passage happens to be one that I included in a talk delivered over the NBC radio network five years ago. I have quoted it here not only because it bears directly on our sub¬ ject, but also because I thought you might be interested in the reaction of some of the people who heard it over the air. Up to the time of this broadcast, I had received — after each talk — only the usual very small proportion of hateful letters from those who resented the right of any priest to speak at any time on anything. But after the broadcast on Mary, I received letter after letter so violent and so denunciatory and in a few cases so obscene that they would make one’s flesh crawl. Not until then did I actually realize that the fanatics whose hammers had smashed the statutes and leveled the shrines of our Lady through half of Europe had done their malicious work so well. I know, of course, that most of the people outside the Cath¬ olic Church today repudiate this violent spirit, and are em¬ barrassed to think of the frenzy of some of the early "re¬ formers” against our Lady, but the sickness of soul that produced this frenzy was a dreadful sickness, and the con¬ valescence is long and slow. It was a sickness so acute that it left as its aftermath a loss of memory — a forgetfulness of the happy years when towering cathedrals like Our Lady of Paris, Our Lady of Chartres, and Our Lady’s Nativity in Milan were raised at the crossroads of Europe as casually as wayside shrines.
There was one particular phrase in my radio sermon on our Lady that seemed particularly infuriating to the writers of the denunciatory letters: I had dared to call the Blessed Vir¬ gin: "Mother of God.”
26
IN PRAISE OF MARY
"Mother of God” is the subject that has been assigned to me for this paper. And I am happy that it is so. This cur¬ rent year is our Lady’s year, solemnly proclaimed as such by the Holy Father; and it is inevitably a year in which we not only thank our Lady for what she has done for us, but a year in which we try — as far as lies in our poor power — to do something for her. One of the things we can do is try to make our Lady better known to and better understood by those who do not share with us the Catholic Faith. If, by thinking together about the title, "Mother of God,” we are helped toward the duty and the privilege of explaining it to those who do not understand it (and who reject it because they do not understand it), we will have done a little bit to¬ wards furthering the purpose of this Marian Year.
The first thing we must realize about the title "Mother of God” is that, in the words of Cardinal Newman:
It is ... an integral portion of the Faith fixed by Ecumenical Council . . . that the Blessed Virgin is Theotocos, Deipara, or Mother of God; and this word, when thus used, carries with it no admixture of rhetoric, no taint of extravagant affection, it has nothing else but a well-weighed, grave, dogmatic sense, which corresponds and is adequate to its sound. It intends to express that God is her Son, as truly as any one of us is the son of his own mother.2
"That God is her Son, as truly as any one of us is the son of his own mother. . . .” It is as simple and as clear as that. When we call Mary "Mother of God,” we are not speaking in riddles; we are guilty of no exaggeration; we are using no poetic license. We are merely stating a fact.
Now the writers of the letters I mentioned a moment ago — the letters so abusively critical of the title "Mother of God” —
MOTHER OF GOD
27
were fond of an argument they evidently regarded as a tri¬ umphant refutation of this "Catholic nonsense.” The argu¬ ment runs like this: how can God, who existed from all eternity, possibly be called the Son of a woman who did not begin to exist until a certain point in time?
We must not think, nor do I mean to imply, that it is only to people who write hateful letters that this objection is serious. No; there are people — and I have met a good num¬ ber of them — people outside the Catholic Faith but who seem to be genuinely searching for the Truth, who are unable to understand how Catholics can believe and assert that Mary is God’s Mother in the face of this objection. It is to such people that we as Catholics should be able and anxious to explain just what the title "Mother of God” means and why we apply it to Mary as part of our Catholic Faith.
First of all, what does it mean to be the mother of a son? We call a woman a mother when she has brought a child into the world. Now, when a child is born, there is, if we may so speak, a partnership between God and the parents. Into the body that is formed in the mother’s womb, Almighty God breathes an immortal soul. In the birth of the baby, the par¬ ents have cooperated with God. But here is the point: would we deny to the woman who has given birth her right to the title "mother” — on the grounds that the baby’s soul did not come from her, but from God ? When a young mother proud¬ ly presents her baby for the admiration of a visitor to the home, has there ever been any visitor in history so stupid as to say: "One moment, my good woman! I deny your right to rail yourself the mother of this child. You are mother of only part of the baby, and not the most important part, either. You are mother of your baby’s body, not of his soul!” To say the very least, I do not think such a visitor would be invited back.
28
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Long before the Judgment of Solomon, mothers have refused to see their babies cut in two.
So far, I think, so good. We have reminded ourselves that the title “mother” does not demand for its validity that the totality of the infant person come from the mother. And we have been speaking, not specifically about our Lord and His Blessed Mother, but in general about any child and any mother. For the next few minutes we will consider the unique miracle of the birth of Christ: the basic truth of the Christian Faith, the Incarnation — that God became man, that a man is God, and that a village girl of Nazareth was the meeting-place of human and divine.
The Divine nature of Christ our Lord did not come from Mary. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who took upon Himself a human nature, is God from all eternity. But the human nature of Christ was formed from the humanity of Mary, and so united to His Divinity that there are not two persons in Christ, but only one; and Mary is the Mother of the one Christ who is both God and man.
Now of course no human intellect can fully "explain” or comprehend the Incarnation. The Incarnation is a mystery. Unless God had revealed it to us as a fact, we would never even have suspected or imagined its existence. But once it has been divinely revealed to us, we can think about it and reason about it as far as our human intellects can carry us. We can be sure that there is no contradiction or no absolute impossibility involved in the fact that the one Person is both divine and human, that our Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man.
The great scholastic theologians of the Church, in their treatment of the mystery of the Incarnation, have stressed the fact that there is a distinction between the separate notions
MOTHER OF GOD
29
of person and nature. For instance, everyone of us is a partic¬ ular person, separate from all other persons, distinct and in¬ dividual. Everyone of us also has a human nature — a fact in which we are all alike. Our common human nature does not make us individual and distinct from one another; on the contrary, it is our joint possession of human nature that makes us similar one to another. Our final and ultimate dis¬ tinction, each from each, springs from the fact that each one of us is a particular, individual, person. It is clear, then, that human personality and human nature — even though in the ordinary course of things they never exist separately — never¬ theless are not the same thing. It is the person we are re¬ ferring to when we use the word "I”; for instance, when I say that "I came to Louisville from Washington last night,” I mean that I as a person (not I as a human nature, nor I as a body, nor I as a soul) — I as a person came to Louisville from Washington last night. The theologians express this by saying that the person is the "subject of attribution”; which means that all I am and do is rightly spoken of in reference to me as a person, I do not say, “my foot kicked the foot¬ ball”; I say, “I kicked the football.” It is I the person who is "responsible.” I the person take the credit and bear the blame.
Surely the application of these principles to the Incarnation is clear. In Christ our Lord there is only one Person — the divine Second Person of the Trinity, God from all eternity and equal to the Father and Holy Spirit in all things. But in Christ our Lord there are two natures — the Divine nature and the hu¬ man nature. All other men have human nature and are human persons; Christ has human nature but is a Divine Person. It is the Divine Person of Christ that is the "subject of attri¬ bution”; so we can say and must say that the one subject — that is the Person — born in time of the Blessed Virgin Mary
30
IN PRAISE OF MARY
according to the flesh is the God-man Jesus Christ. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. And we saw his glory — glory as of the only- begotten of the Father — full of grace and of truth.”3 The one Christ, the same Christ, the Christ who is Mary’s Son, could say: "Before Abraham came to be, I am.”4 He could say this because He is the eternal God, who always was and always will be. He could also say, using the same pronoun "I”: "I lay down my life for my sheep.”8 He could say this because His human nature is mortal like our own. The one Christ, the same Christ, who is the Son of the Almighty God is also the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and we have exactly the same reason for honoring Mary as God’s Mother that we have for worshipping Christ as God.
In explaining the Catholic use of the title "Mother of God” it is necessary to do what we have just tried to do, however briefly and inadequately. It is necessary to speak of Christ our Lord. It is because Christ is what He is — God and man — that the Blessed Virgin is what she is — Mother of God. Which brings us to a point in our discussion absolutely imperative to an understanding of it. The attack upon the title "Mother of God” may seem to be an attack on a prerogative of our Lady; but it is really an attack upon the prerogatives of our Lord.
Let me put it this way. Leaving all considerations of the¬ ology, even all considerations of the Faith aside for a moment, Mary of Nazareth is certainly, as a simple historical fact, the Mother of Jesus of Nazareth called the Christ. Now, when anyone denies the right of Mary to the title of Mother of God, we should ask him a short and clear question: "Do you believe that Christ is God?” If he answers "Yes,” then
MOTHER OF GOD
31
of course we have the right to question further and say: "If Christ is God, and Mary is the Mother of Christ, how in the name of the simplest, most elementary logic, can you refuse to say that Mary is the 'Mother of God’?” If the person still persists in his denial of this title of our Lady we must either conclude that he is incapable of the slightest exercise of con¬ secutive thought or else that really, deep down, he does not believe that Christ is God in the full and obvious sense of the word.
If, another possible case — to go back to our first question, “Do you believe that Christ is God?” — the answer should be the flat statement, "No, I do not believe that Christ is God,” then of course such a person will deny to our Lady the title "Mother of God.” But at least the field of disagreement is dear. The objector is not, basically, objecting to the Cath¬ olic teaching about Mary; he is objecting to the Catholic teaching about Christ.
Our Lady has had many sorrows; and I sometimes think that not the least of them is this: That an attack upon her should be used as camouflage for an attack upon her Son.
Believe me, my friends, what I have just said is not a flight of rhetoric; it is the sad record of history. Call the roll of the great heresies: they are denials, open or veiled, in general or in detail, either of the fact that Christ is true God, or of the fact that He is true man.
Space does not allow a full and detailed exemplification of this statement, but let us take one example — the most promi¬ nent and obvious one. We began this paper with a reference to the Council of Ephesus which, in the year 431, solemnly defined as a dogma of the Faith that Mary is the Mother of God. The definition came as an answer to the heresy of Nes- torius, the newly-consecrated patriarch, who had denied Mary’s
32
IN PRAISE OF MARY
right to this title from the pulpit of his cathedral church in Constantinople. The fact is, however, that Nestorius’ denial of the title "Mother of God” was the consequence of his heretical teaching about Christ. Nestorius held that in Christ there were not only two natures, but two distinct beings. For him, the man Christ was only the temple, the vesture or gar¬ ment of the God-head | and he made a sharp distinction be¬ tween the actions of Christ’s human nature and the actions of the Divine Person. In other words, he denied that the one Christ, the same Christ, is both God and man. This is the core of the Nestorian heresy. It is not primarily a Mariological heresy, but a Christological one. The heresy against the Mother of God was basically a heresy against the Son of God.6
Incidentally, I make no apology for going so far back into history and talking about a heresy that was detected and con¬ demned fifteen hundred years ago. Nestorianism is not dead. We meet it not only in history books; we hear it today from some of our non-Catholic friends repeated so confidently and enthusiastically that one gets the impression that they think they have invented it. They may never have heard of Nes¬ torius, but their error is the same as his. And the answer of the Catholic centuries is still the same to them as it was to him.
The mention of heresy brings us to the final point of our discussion — a point that we as Catholics should delight to re¬ member particularly in this Marian Year.
In the Office of the Blessed Virgin that every priest — and many devout lay-persons — read so often, our Lady is praised in the following significant words: "Rejoice, O Virgin Mary: you alone have destroyed all heresies throughout the entire world” (Gaude, Maria Virgo : cunctas haereses sola inter e- misti in universo mundo ).T
MOTHER OF GOD
33
What does this mean? In what sense can we say that our Lady by herself has triumphed over all heretical errors ?® Well, for centuries the great theologians of the Church have medi¬ tated upon this liturgical text and given us the fruit of their wisdom. In many different ways Mary triumphs over heresy, but the fundamental reason of her triumph is always her high privilege — the privilege on which is based all the honor we pay her in the Church, a privilege which earns for her her cherished place in every Catholic heart — her privilege of hav¬ ing been chosen to be the Mother of God.
As Mother of God Mary brought into the world to live among us Him who is the Way, the Truth, afid the Life, "the Author and Builder of the faith, the One who has over¬ thrown all errors, the Lord and Saviour.”9 She is rightly called the destroyer of error who gave us as our elder Brother Him who is Truth Itself.
As Mother of God, Mary received from God the privilege of crushing the head of the serpent of deceit, the father of lies. She is forever the opponent of Satan, who works to lead men into sin just as effectively — and even more subtly — through their intellects and their pride of reason as through their bodies and the desires of the flesh.
As Mother of God Mary lives by the side of her Son in heaven, praying for her foster children on the earth. She is Mother of God and our spiritual Mother as well, knowing our needs and our dangers, interceding for us before the eter¬ nal throne. She prays not only that those who know the Truth might be defended and preserved for all their lives from error; she prays also for those who are sadly entangled in error’s heavy chains, that they may know the Truth that makes men free. Do you remember how John Henry New¬ man concluded his famous Letter to Dr. Pusey? Newman
34
IN PRAISE OF MARY
had devoted most of the letter to a refutation of Dr. Pusey’s criticisms of Catholic devotion to Mary; and Newman’s last sentence was: "May that bright and gentle Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, overcome you with her sweetness, and revenge herself on her foes by interceding effectually for their con¬ version!”10
It was Newman, by the way, who explained still another manner in which the Mother of God destroys all heresies, the last way we shall mention. Newman has pointed out to us that to destroy the sense of all the heresies of history, to bring their error clearly into the light, it is sufficient to call our Lady by her rightful title, "Mother of God.” These are some of Newman’s words:
. . . the confession that Mary is Deipara, or the Mother of God, is that safeguard wherewith we seal up and secure the doctrine of the Apostle from all evasion, and that test whereby we detect all the pre¬ tenses of those bad spirits of "Anti-christs which have gone out into the world.” It declares that He is God; it implies that He is man; it suggests to us that He is God still, though He has become man, and that He is true man though He is God. By witnessing to the process of the union, it secures the reality of the two subjects of the union, of the divinity and of the manhood. If Mary is the Mother of God, Christ must be literally Emmanuel, God with us. . . . You see, then, my brethren, in this particular, the har¬ monious consistency of the revealed system, and the bearing of one doctrine upon another; Mary is ex¬ alted for the sake of Jesus. It was fitting that she, as being a creature, though the first of creatures, should have an office of ministration. She, as others, came into the world to do a work, she had a mission to fulfill; her grace and her glory are not for her own sake, but for her Maker’s; and to her is com-
MOTHER OF GOD
35
mitted the custody of the Incarnation; this is her appointed office — "A Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel.”
As she was once on earth, and was personally the guardian of her Divine Child, as she carried Him in her womb, folded Him in her embrace, and suckled Him at her breast, so now, and to the latest hour of the Church, do her glories and the devotion paid her proclaim and define the right faith concerning Him as God and man. Every church which is dedi¬ cated to her, every altar which is raised under her in¬ vocation, every image which represents her, every litany in her praise, every Hail Mary for her continual memory, does but remind us that there was One who, though He was all-blessed from all eternity, yet for the sake of sinners, "did not shrink from the Virgin’s womb.” Thus she is the Turris Davidica, as the Church calls her, "the Tower of David”; the high and strong defence of the King of the true Israel; and hence the Church also addresses her in the Anti-' phon, as having "alone destroyed all heresies in the whole world.”11
I will forbear to summarize a discussion which has been in itself only the sketchiest of summaries of what might be said about the title "Mother of God.” We have, always, all of us, the constant responsibility of making our Blessed Lady better known in the world. May God grant that we become really and devotedly conscious of this repsonsibility during the Marian Year. If our Lady is not loved by everyone in the world, it is only because she is not known to everyone in the world. We can help to make our Lady live for others as she lives in our own hearts. And when she lives again for those now strangers to her, they will waken from their long am¬ nesia as from a troubled dream.
36
IN PRAISE OF MARY
1Benard, The Everlasting Kingdom (Washington, D.C.: The National Council of Catholic Men, 1948), p. 42.
2 Difficulties of Anglicans , II (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), 62.
a John 1: 1,14.
« John 8: 58.
5 John 10: 15.
6 A good, brief and popularly written account of the major heresies may be found in M. L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1945).
7 Common Office of the Feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, first anti¬ phon of the third nocturn.
8 There is a fine treatment of the meaning of the antiphon in Joseph Clifford Fenton, "Our Lady and the Extirpation of Heresy" (The Amer¬ ican Ecclesiastical Review , CXIV, 6 (June, 1946) ).
9 Francis Sylvius, Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 112. A careful summary of Sylvius* famous sermon on the Gaude Maria Virgo ... is given by J. C. Fenton, art. cit., pp. 445-47.
10 Difficulties of Anglicans , II, 118.
11 Discourses to Mixed Congregations (London: Longmans, Green, Co., 1906), pp. 347-49.
MOTHER OF GOD
37
OUTLINE
Introduction: Radio talk on "Mother of God” still arouses ire of fanatics and shows need to explain doctrine clearly.
I. Meaning of the doctrine
1. The doctrine is a fact.
2. What it means to be the mother of a son.
3. The distinction between person and nature in the mys¬ tery of the Incarnation applied to Mary’s relation to Jesus.
II. The attack upon the title "Mother of God” is really an attack upon the prerogatives of our Lord.
1. If one believes Christ is God and Mary is Christ’s Mother the logic is inescapable.
2. The heresy of Nestorius exemplifies the thesis.
3. Mary’s triumph over heresy explained in the words of Cardinal Newman.
Discussion Questions
1. Why is there so much bitterness among some outside the Church against Mary’s divine maternity?
2. Summarize in simple words and briefly the theological rea¬ soning behind the doctrine of Mary, Mother of God.
3. How is an attack upon the prerogatives of our Lady also an attack upon those of our Lord?
4. In what sense is Nestorianism not dead?
5. How does Mary triumph over all heresies?
38
01 MARY EVER VIRGIN 3
BY
REV. EDWIN M. LEIMKUHLER, S.M., M.A.
PASSING thought on the various topics in this series may give one the impression that this lecture on "Mary Ever Virgin” is perhaps the most difficult of presentation with perhaps the least practical interest and application. I concur somewhat in the former assumption, and therefore beg your kind indulgence lest I weary you with the necessary length of this development. But I do not agree with the latter as¬ sumption, for no phase of the study of Mary is uninteresting or tedious to those who truly love her. And the more diffi¬ cult the aspect of the study of Mary the richer are the findings of the marvelous works of God in her behalf. For it has been truly said by her great client St. Bernard, "de Maria numquam satis” (never enough about Mary).
The doctrine of the Church concerning Mary’s virginity comprises three truths: that she was a virgin in conceiving Jesus, the Son of God; that she was a virgin in giving Him birth; and that she remained a virgin through her whole life. The theologians conveniently designate these truths under the
MARY EVER VIRGIN
39
titles of her virginal conception, her virginal motherhood, and her perpetual virginity. But for the average Catholic these truths are deeply entrenched in his faith in the terse language of the sixth Ecumenical Council (680) that the "virginity of Mary . . . remained before, during and after parturition,” or in the even more succinct words of Pope Pius IV, in the Con¬ stitution Cum quorundam, issued August 7, 1555, that Mary was and is a virgin, "ante partum, in partu, et post partum."1 Let us consider the doctrine of "Mary every Virgin” under these three headings.
I. THE VIRGINITY BEFORE CHILDBIRTH
Mary’s virginity before childbirth means that she was a virgin at the time of the Annunciation and that she remained a virgin while becoming the Mother of God. The latter state¬ ment means that she conceived the Son of God without any action of a natural principle of production, but by the super¬ natural action of the Holy Ghost, who rendered her fertile by a miracle of His omnipotence to whom "nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
This phase of the doctrine under both its aspects is a re¬ vealed truth, explicitly given in the Gospel narratives to the first Christians. They must have found this revelation quite natural, seeing in it, as it were, a logical corollary to the Di¬ vinity of Jesus. Moreover, they recalled the prediction of the prophet Isaias that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son” (Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:23). St. Luke told them of the fulfillment of this prophecy when the angel Gabriel was sent "to a vir¬ gin” . . . and the "Virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1:26-27). He also assured them of her virginal conception in his faith¬ ful recounting of the words of the angel: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall
40
IN PRAISE OF MARY
overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One to be bom shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). St. Matthew taught them the same doctrine in these words: "When Mary His Mother had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found, before they came together, to be with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18). And the angel told Joseph in a dream to take to him Mary his wife, "for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20).
The Scriptures are so explicit on this phase of Mary’s vir¬ ginity that some theologians are wont to say that God did not wish to leave the faithful exposed to the hesitations and perplexities which would have been caused by a merely implicit revelation of this miraculous conception. In the normal process of inquiry their curiosity must have been aroused over Christ’s Divinity and His human origin. And how else could it have been satisfied than by questioning those who had lived in inti¬ mate friendship with Mary or Joseph, or perhaps with Mary herself? These theologians go on to say that God did not wish to allow even the least shadow of doubt to cross their minds on such a delicate matter.2
The sources of tradition verify the fact that succeeding generations of Christians did not have to make more explicit a belief which was so clear from the beginning. However, toward the end of the first century already they had to defend this doctrine against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites who, like others after them, rejected the Divinity of Christ and then logically had to attribute to Him an ordinary birth. The reactions of the Christians then and through the centuries have always rallied to a reemphasis of Mary’s virginity and con¬ sequently also to her purity, her sanctity and her role in our redemption. In fact, the, defense of Mary’s virginity generally provoked more vehemence than the defense of any other of
MARY EVER VIRGIN
41
her many prerogatives. This, in part, is the reason for the brief language of the many condemnations of the false doc¬ trines on this point in the history of the Church.3
There are other sources of tradition which reveal that the Catechumens from the early times learned to know and be¬ lieve this privilege of Mary’s virginity. The early Creed, in the various forms used by the different bishops, invariably contained the article that Jesus "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”4 Already in those first cen¬ turies Mary was not only designated as "Virgin” but the term "ever Virgin” was used in the sense of "the Virgin,” and this proper name of the Mother of Jesus is found more often than her name of Mary.5
Tradition likewise confirms the virginal conception of Christ from the testimonies of the Fathers, like St. Ignatius the Mar¬ tyr, St. Justin and St. Irenaeus.
1. Appropriateness of the Virginity before Childbirth.
St. Thomas lists the arguments that are usually given for the appropriateness of the virginal conception. They turn upon the harmony that exists between Mary’s virginity and the divin¬ ity of her Son.®
In the first place, the very Divinity of Christ required Mary’s virginity. It is appropriate that He who is the natural Son of God should have no earthly father, but only Him who is in heaven. In as much as Jesus is like us in His humanity, it is necessary that in His humanity He should have a temporal origin. And in as much as He is also the God-Man, consub- stantial with the Father, it is necessary that His temporal origin should, in some way, be Divine. Theoretically speak¬ ing, human intelligence could perceive that the omnipotence of God could have arranged that His Son be born of an earth-
42
IN PRAISE OF MARY
ly father and mother according to His humanity. There is nothing in such a thought which might prevent the Second Person from contracting a hypostatic union with a human nature thus formed. This hypothesis is precisely the point upon which all the difficulties of heretics centered against the Motherhood of Mary and why they took such offense at the expression "Mother of God” and wished to take this title merely in a figurative sense than as a true Deipara. But prac¬ tically speaking, we can see the wisdom of God in what has been accomplished. Without His virginal origin, the Divinity of Jesus would have run the risk of not being admitted. And in having been born of a virginal Mother, the fulness of His humanity is more easily tenable in the understanding of the Motherhood of Mary, and the specific character of all maternal production. Let us recall here that the supernatural action of the Holy Ghost in the virginal conception did not exclude the cooperation of the maternal process in Mary, but rather explicitly brought it about. According to the early Creeds, both of the West and of the East, the divine action of the Holy Ghost and the action of Mary as Mother appear next to each other and in each other.7
The second argument of St. Thomas for the appropriateness of the virginal conception is based upon the Divine attribute of infinite purity. It is fitting that the Word, conceived eter¬ nally in the most complete purity, should be conceived vir- ginally when being made flesh. This is not to imply that any reflection is cast upon marriage, but merely to recall that there are hierarchical degrees in states of life. After all, marriage has been raised by Christ to the dignity of the sacrament, whereas virginity has not. An essential difference between matrimony and the vow of virginity is discerned in the fact that in marriage the contracting parties act in the name of
MARY EVER VIRGIN
43
Christ and the Church, and are entrusted with a special office in the Church. By taking religious vows, the member of the Church is more closely wedded to Christ, and so expressed more directly and perfectly the relation of Christ and the Church than in the case in matrimony, because it is after His own pattern. If this greater perfection of religious vows is not present in a sacramental act, as in the case of Christian mar¬ riage, it is present in an act that is a subjective, personal dedi¬ cation, and merits grace only ex opere operant is. 8 It is unfor¬ tunate in our day that an improper opposition has led the world to set up a conflict between virginity and marriage. In the Christian sense the real distinction is between mystical marriage and sacramental marriage.9 In the light of this teach¬ ing the argument of St. Thomas means that, for the God of infinite purity, the most perfect purity conceivable was neces¬ sary for His humanity.
Another argument, a corollary to the above, can be briefly stated in this manner. If it was fitting that the human nature of Christ be exempt from original sin, it was necessary that it should not be formed by the ordinary process of human gener¬ ation, but virginally. Some see an application here which throws light upon an understanding of marriage and virginity and membership in the Mystical Body. By being born of a virgin, Christ showed that membership in His Body should be constituted of a spiritual birth in the virginal womb of His Spouse, the Church. In other words, this means that the mind of God, having intended marriage from the beginning as the medium for delaying grace by propagation, and that order having been lost by the sin of our first parents, He now re¬ serves admission to membership by baptism from the virginal womb of the Church. Hence, marriage, although a divine in¬ stitution from the beginning, and raised to the dignity of a
44
IN PRAISE OF MARY
sacrament by Christ, nevertheless falls short of its high ideal as a consequence of original sin and, while still holy, yielded to a higher type of perfection in the religious vow of virginity.
There are two other arguments advanced by St. Thomas for the appropriateness of the virginal conception that deserve mention here: one concerns the honor and dignity of the Holy Ghost, who overshadowed her virginal womb; and the other is concerned with the honor and chivalry of St. Joseph who was commissioned to be the protector and guardian of his chaste spouse.
Before ending our considerations of the virginal conception it is proper in this Marian Year to mention some other argu¬ ments of fitness and propriety that concern the perfection of Mary herself. Could He who delights to be among virgins, exclude from this choice company that Mother whom He loved more than all other virgins together? He willed her to be superior to all other creatures; and without the virginal conception, she would have been inferior, from the point of view of purity, to Christian virgins. By the same token, the excellence of her vocation as Mother of God demands the vir¬ ginal conception. Moreover, in becoming the Mother of Jesus, Mary became also the spiritual Mother of all men. As Mother, she should be able to help her children in their needs and dan¬ gers. But we all know that of all the dangers that menace the soul, the most fatal for the number are temptations against pur¬ ity. Now it is precisely the thought of Mary’s virginity that helps them so effectively to dispel them. It was Cardinal Newman who said that "It is the boast of the Catholic religion that it has the gift of making the young heart chaste, and why is this? but that it gives us Jesus Christ for our food and Mary for our nursing Mother.”
MARY EVER VIRGIN
45
II. MARY’S VIRGINITY IN CHILDBIRTH
Just as Mary conceived her Son in an all pure manner, so she likewise gave birth to Him in an all pure manner. This simple statement does not only mean that the former is the foundation for the latter and the latter is the supplement of the former. It also means that the two actions are governed by the same supernatural principle, the "overshadowing” of the "power of the Most High” (Luke 1:35).
The older form of the Creed expresses it by the formula: "born by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,”10 and accord¬ ing to the traditional explanation of the Church, the action of the Holy Spirit must be connected with the birth of Christ. The latter took place through the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit 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. This is what we believe concerning virginity during child¬ birth.
Here is how the Council of Trent expresses it: "The con¬ ception of the Savior is above all the laws of nature, and His birth is no less so; it is Divine. And what is astounding, what surpasses every thought and every word, is that He was bom of His Mother without causing the least injury to her virgin¬ ity. Just as, later on, He left His tomb without breaking the seal which closed it, or just as he entered the house — the doors being shut — where His disciples were gathered, or — to take a comparison from ordinary happenings — just as the rays of the sun pass through the crystal without breaking or damag¬ ing it, so too, but in an ineffably more marvelous manner,. Jesus Christ left the tomb of His Mother without in the least violating her virginity. We are, therefore, perfectly right in honoring in her a perpetual virginity and a perfect integrity.
46
IN PRAISE OF MARY
This unheard-of privilege was the work of the Holy Spirit, who assisted in the conception and in the birth of Mary’s Son in such a way that He communicated to her the fertility of the Mother while preserving in her the integrity of the virgin.”11
A few observations upon this text may help clarify the meaning of the doctrine. The first part of it upholds the usual argument by referring to the privilege of Mary’s virgin¬ ity in childbirth as a supplement to the virginal conception. The latter part of the text, with its references to the manner of the birth, has recourse to language of the Fathers of the Church in showing how the eternal Father was directly in¬ strumental in having Christ come forth from the bosom of the .virgin in a manner harmonizing with His dignity and His first origin in the bosom of the Father. It corresponds with His eternal production as the lumen de lumine (light of light), as a light poured forth into the world from the bosom of the virgin; and His quality of virtus Altissimi (power of the Most High), in the way God by His own power penetrates the limits of nature without violating them; and also the form¬ ing of His body by the Holy Ghost, who made it corpus Verb's (the body of the Word), in the way spirits penetrate bodies without resistance. In this sense the Fathers of the Church call the birth of Christ, and likewise His conception, a miraculous and supernatural birth, a heavenly, a divine, and spiritual birth.12
From this we may deduce that 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 — the womb being closed and sealed — as He later appeared at His Resurrection from the tomb which was closed and sealed. The second ele¬ ment is naturally consequent upon the first, namely, that the
MARY EVER VIRGIN
47
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. The third element lies in the fact that the birth involved for neither the mother nor the child the so-called burdens of natural birth. The last two points are consequences of the first, but still find their special reasons in the dignity of the mother and in that of the child.
1. Proof of Mary’s Virginity in Childbirth.
The proof of Mary’s viginity in childbirth is contained in the prophecy of Isaias: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Isa. 7:14). The text is certainly Messianic, and hence the virgin is Mary. The rationalists raise a philological question on this text and say that the Hebrew version of alma should be translated "young woman,” and not "virgin.” Our reply is that biblical usage justifies the meaning of "virgin” for alma, as is evident from the versions. The Septuagint translates it as "the” virgin. Moreover the context requires that sense, for a prodigious event is prophecied. The prophet announces the conceiving and bringing forth by the virgin as a great sign or miracle. In the original text he also uses the participial construction which reads: “Behold a virgin pregnant and giving birth.” If this is not the sense of the text and context the prophecy no longer has any meaning.
In the New Testament, St. Matthew (1:18-23) quotes this prophecy and relates it with precise details of the virginal conception of Jesus by virtue of the Holy Spirit. St. Luke (3:23) in his account of the geneology of Jesus states that Christ was thought or reputed to be the son of Joseph. But this same evangelist, who gives us most of the details of the birth of Christ, does not record the fact of the virginal birth, perhaps because it did not present the same importance as that of the virginal conception. Yet, he does say, most direct-
48
IN PRAISE OF MARY
ly, that "she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger” (Luke 2:7). This delicate manner of expression could be quite in agree¬ ment with his way of implying certain things (Luke 2:18; 1:56). While this passage may not be certain proof of the virginal birth, at least, it harmonizes with the condition of a woman not subject to the suffering and travail of natural child¬ birth.
The authority of the Fathers is abundant on this point of the virginity of Mary in childbirth. They wrote vehemently from all parts of the early Church against those who denied it. It may suffice to mention the names of St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Ephraem, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Ephiphanius, and especially St. Jerome who wrote several times against the errors of Jovinian.
The strongest argument for the virginity of Mary in child¬ birth arises from the authority of the Church. It is implicitly asserted in the early Creeds by the phrase "born of the Virgin Mary” and implicitly contained in the proclamations of faith along with the virginity before and after childbirth. But it is explicitly proclaimed by Pope St. Leo, By Pope Martin I at the Council of the Lateran (649), by Pope Leo III and by Pope Paul IV. We have seen already that the Council of Trent taught the same doctrine against the errors of that century.1®
The voice of the early liturgy likewise mentions the virginity in childbirth. In the preface of the Blessed Virgin Mary we pray "and the glory of her virginity still abiding, gave forth to the world the everlasting Light, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In the Communicantes for Christmas we pray: "communi¬ cating and keeping this most holy night, in which the spot¬ less virginity of Blessed Mary brought forth a Savior to the
MARY EVER VIRGIN
49
world.” In the "Alma Redemptoris Mater” we sing "Thou virgin before and after.”
The theological reasons for the virginity in childbirth gen¬ erally turn on the harmony between the two main doctrines of the Divinity of Christ and the Divine Maternity of Mary, to which any corruption was repugnant. St. Thomas lists three of them. 1) The Word, who is conceived and who pro¬ ceeds eternally from the Father without any corruption of His substance, should, if He becomes flesh, be born of a virgin mother without detriment to her virginity. 2) He who came to remove all corruption should not by His birth destroy the virginity of her who bore Him. 3) He who commands us to honor our parents should not Himself diminish by His birth the glory of His holy Mother.
By way of conclusion to this part of our study, it may be said that, in a certain sense, the virginity of Mary in child¬ birth demonstrates even better than the virginity before child¬ birth the esteem in which Jesus holds virginal purity. Espe¬ cially does it show the infinite delicacy of His love for His Mother, since, by this miracle He preserves in Her not only that which constitutes the essence of virginity but even that which constitutes its material perfection. For the first Chris¬ tians, this was an evident factual proof of what they had al¬ ways more or less felt, namely that Jesus wished His Mother to be as perfect in every respect, as is possible for a human creature to be, even in her body, although this perfection re¬ quired an unheard-of miracle. This was an argument which they later utilized to great advantage when they affirmed the incorruptibility of her body and its glorious Assumption. For her virginity in childbirth, of itself, necessarily implies an absolute immunity from the curse of Genesis: "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children” (3:16). Her Assumption,
50
IN PRAISE OF MARY
solemnly proclaimed on November 1, 1950, is a logical conse¬ quence of the immunity from original sin. And so, for all generations this virginity of Mary is a subject of admiration and of joy, and an invitation to go as far as possible, after the example of Jesus, in venerating His Mother.
III. THE VIRGINITY AFTER CHILDBIRTH
By the virginity of Mary after childbirth we mean that Mary remained a virgin throughout her whole life. This is often called her perpetual virginity. This phase of her virginity is seen as a perfect complement of her virginal conception and veritably guaranteed by her virginity in childbirth. Because of the unique perfection of her person and whole being, this woman has been rightfully called in Christian tradition not only "ever Virgin” but specifically "the Virgin,” and "Virgin of virgins.” Since she was the bearer of the Son and the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she is taken possession of by God in the most sublime sense of the word. In short, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve.
This thinking stems from the lofty Christian concept of “the Virgin,” which comprises permanence. If Mary is not the perpetual virgin, she is not deserving of the title "ever Virgin” and much less “the Virgin” or "Virgin of virgins.” Now this perfection of virginity comprises three essential parts: 1) bodily integrity and purity, the material perfection of the virtue; 2) the formal perfection, the virtue of purity or the permanent virginal inclination of virginity of the mind and spirit; 3) and the virginity of the heart or freedom from all carnal motions and sensations.
Those who have denied the perpetual virginity of Mary have generally been those who likewise denied the Divinity of Christ, such as the Ebionites, the Arians, and the rational-
MARY EVER VIRGIN
51
ists of a later date and of our day. Some others who have denied the doctrine have displayed a great wantonness in the domain of morals, such as Helvidius and Jovinian in the days of St. Jerome. The so-called Reformers of the sixteenth cen¬ tury, while upholding the divinity of Christ, opposed the per¬ petual virginity of mind and spirit, at least in so far as the vow is concerned, and partly also the virginity in childbirth. It could have been that this tendency was consequent upon a minimizing of the living efficacy of the Divinity of Christ in such doctrines like those of the Eucharist and the foundation of His Church. If so, then it is understandable how the tend¬ ency led to the minimizing of the vow of Mary and the rejec¬ tion of the ideal of consecrated virginity, which is the most perfect expression of the union of Christ with His Spouse, the Church.
Whether this hyopthesis has any merit or not, it throws some light upon the question as to why the perpetual virgin¬ ity of Mary has been the area of greatest discussion. However, there are other reasons for the misunderstanding, either of the doctrine or its foundations, which are more generally given.
One of them is the fact that the Bible does not explicitly mention. the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is understandable from this as to why those denominations who are wedded to the doctrine that the Bible is the sole rule of faith are at a loss to understand why we Catholics are given to this doctrine unreservedly. The answer is that we Cath¬ olics have faith directly and immediately from the teaching authority of the Church and mediately through the Bible. This is not to deny or minimize the value of the literal meaning of the Scriptures, especially when the truth is evident from the words of divine revelation, like in the Eucharist, but rather to recognize and accept another source of revelation, namely.
52
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Tradition. In the theological sense, Tradition is the word of God concerning faith and morals, not written in any inspired book, but transmitted from Christ to the Apostles and from them to their successors down to us. In one sense, Tradition is the revealed word of God, and in another sense it is the living Magisterium or teaching power of the Church. And in our day it is becoming more and more evident, especially in this century year of the dogma of the Immaculate Con¬ ception and in this fourth year since the official proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption, that Tradition, in the sense of the living Magisterium of the Church, is not confined to the past.14
1. Proof of the Virginity after Childbirth It follows from what has been said that the Magisterium of the Church is the principal foundation for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. That it is an article of faith is evident from the many early documents from the Councils and the Fathers. In most of them she is called "ever virgin," the significant topic of this discourse, and which title could not be justified if, after the birth of Christ, Mary had not remained a virgin, and had had other children.16 In the rest of these early documents the virginity of the Mother of God after childbirth is explicitly asserted.1*
As to the proof from Scripture, we have already mentioned that the perpetual virginity of Mary after childbirth is not explicitly recorded. One reason for this could have been that it was not so necessary since it was known to many of the first Christians. Most certainly the disciples inquired, out of pious curiosity, concerning the relatives of Christ and found to their satisfaction that Mary had had only one Son, Christ our Lord. And the same is true of the non-Palestinian Chris¬ tians, who were motivated by the same natural curiosity and
MARY EVER VIRGIN
53
sought information from the most reliable sources. We are not surprised then to find that the most ancient tradition is unanimous on this doctrine.17
All of this does not mean to imply that Mary’s perpetual virginity has no foundation in Scripture at all. There are several details mentioned where the virginity after childbirth is implicitly contained. There is Mary’s response to the Angel at the Annunciation: "How shall this happen, since I do not know man?” (Luke 1:34). There is the fact that Mary is always called the mother of Jesus, as one gathers normally from the reading of the Gospels as a whole. Hence, the dying Christ while hanging on the Cross commended His Mother to St. John as her adopted son: "Woman, behold thy son,” and to the disciple: "Behold thy mother.” In other words, for want of other sons of Mary, this virgin disciple is chosen among the many others.
However, there are other passages in the Gospels that seem to refute our claim of Mary’s perpetual virginity. These have been the object of much discussion ever since the days of St. Jerome. This is the place to answer those objections and I shall try to deal with them as briefly as possible under the threefold headings of Mary’s perfect virginity mentioned above.
2. Mary’s Bodily Virginity
We have already established that Mary’s bodily integrity was miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son. This not only presupposes and reflects the virginal conception of her Son, it also guarantees the perpetual continuation of her bodily in¬ tegrity to the exclusion of any other human conception by her.
St. Thomas sets forth the absurdity of the contrary supposi¬ tion under a fourfold heading, each in connection 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
54
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Ghost, Mary’s divine bridegroom, 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.18
But we are to be concerned here with those scriptural pas¬ sages which seem to indicate that Mary, after the birth of Christ, had conjugal relations with St. Joseph and had sons and even daughters by him, which obviously would have vio¬ lated her bodily integrity.
1. Both St. Luke (2:7) and St. Matthew (1:25) refer to Christ with the expression "first-born son.” It is said by some that this means that there were other sons born to Mary after him. The truth is that the expression designates in biblical parlance a "son born before any other.” It does not necessarily suppose that other sons were born after him. Its definite mean¬ ing according to the Mosiac Law has legal connotation (Num. 18:15; Exod. 13:2ff; Num. 3:47fif). Therefore, every only child is a first-born. It is precisely in this sense that St. Luke uses the expression, for his intention is to prepare the reader for the presentation of Jesus in the Temple conformably to the law.
2. Another text which generally needs explaining to safe¬ guard the truth of the Scriptures as well as the doctrine of Mary’s bodily integrity, is that of St. Matthew (1:25) "And he did not know her till she brought forth her first born son.” The objection raised here is that if Joseph did not know her "till,” he did know her after. The same objection is raised in a previous verse of the same passage (Matt. 1:18) "When Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found, before they came together, to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”
MARY EVER VIRGIN
55
Here the same implication arises from the word “before.” Now, oriental languages are far more precise in the use of such words "till” and "before.” They definitely mark the point of time up to when a condition may prevail, as do our modern languages. But they do not imply futurity, i.e., they do not imply any change thereafter. There are other examples of this in Scripture (Ps. 109:1; Matt. 12:20; I Tim. 4:13). Hence, the obvious meaning of “came together” refers to dwelling under the same roof. But even if the term were to be used in the sense of the marital act, "it does not follow,” writes St. Jerome, "that they came together afterwards; Holy Scripture merely intimates what did not happen.” The same Saint argues against the heretic Helvidius of his day in this manner: "If I say: 'Helividus died before he did penance for his sins,’ does it follow that he did penance after his death?”19
3. The third objection from Scripture against Mary’s bodily integrity is the use of the phrase "brethren of Christ.” It is made a dozen times and it is found in the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul to the Gala¬ tians and the First to the Corinthians. But this phrase offers no great difficulty, because in the Hebrew language the word "brethren” allows for a wider signification than that of chil¬ dren of the same parents. It is used generally to refer to cousins and relatives, whether distant or near. The book of Genesis (13:8) mentions that Abraham calls Lot his brother.
But this objection is generally not answered so simply as this. The question has an uncanny way of cropping up un¬ expectedly and in remote places. Sometimes it is tossed sur¬ reptitiously like a hand grenade in an attempt to demolish the Catholic position. There are other occasions when it is ad¬ vanced in popular plays or in so-called best-sellers and with
56
IN PRAISE OF MARY
apparently weighty arguments with overtones of historical and theological connotation.
The fact of the matter is that it was not until the third century that we find anyone to question the perpetual virgin¬ ity of Mary. At that time it was Tertullian who objected. Toward the end of the fourth century the problem grew to greater proportions in the bitter disputes between the defend¬ ers of the monastic and celibate life against those who cham¬ pioned the equality of marriage with the vow of virginity. The defenders of married life pushed their arguments too far. They rightfully held that the marriage of Our Lady and St. Joseph was a true marriage, but in the heat of controversy they pictured these holy spouses as living a full married life and having children in the natural way. Helvidius became the spokesman for this faction, but he was silenced by the now famous treatise of St. Jerome “On the Perpetual Virgin¬ ity of Mary against Helvidius.” A few years later Jovinian revived the heresy and he was answered by St. Jerome in an¬ other treatise. St. Ambrose entered into the controversy about that time against the disciples of Jovinian. Following soon upon this the errors were formally condemned by the Holy See.
The passages from Scripture that are often quoted by those who still parrot the objection to Mary’s bodily integrity are those from St. Mark (6:3) and St. Matthew (13:55-56) where the evangelists tell of one of the visits to Nazareth. When Jesus began to teach them in their synagogues, the people were astonished and said: "Where did he get this wisdom and these miracles? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matt. 13:55-56).
Now the mention of the "brethren” by name in these pas-
MARY EVER VIRGIN
57
sages does not advance the challenge at all, but rather proves that they were cousins or relatives. The two "brethren” named James and Joseph are indicated elsewhere as the sons of an¬ other Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus and wife of Clopas (John 19:25), who is called Cleophas in the Vulgate. This same James is particularly mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians (1:19) as the brother of Jesus, but regularly named elsewhere (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15) as an apostle and son of Alphaeus. Now Clopas and Cleophas and Alphaeus is one and the same person. The names are used differently depending upon the pronunciation of the He¬ brew word "Halphai.” And if we accept the testimony of St. Hegesippus in the second century that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph, then there was a double cousinship between James and Jesus. The reference to all this is to bring out the fact that Christian tradition, while a bit hesitant at first, has definitely established since the fourth century that the rela¬ tionship of these two "brethren” was that of cousins of Jesus.
It may be in order at this point to mention that it is not necessary to accept the statement of some of the Fathers, particularly of the East, that the "brethren” of Jesus were sons of St. Joseph by a previous marriage. This was already re¬ jected by St. Jerome. The only foundations for the belief are in the Apocrypha Gospels: "The Gospel of James” and "The Gospel of Peter.” Herein St. Joseph is mentioned as having married at the age of forty, and that of this marriage which lasted forty-nine years until the death of his wife, six children were born, two girls and four boys. The youngest of these boys was James the Less, the brother of Jesus. The story goes on to say that one year after the death of his wife, St. Joseph was miraculously chosen at the age of ninety to be the spouse of Mary. He is supposed to have died at the age of 111.
58
IN PRAISE OF MARY
St. Jerome characterizes these legends as so many dreams. But reasons are sometimes given for this extraordinary solu¬ tion to the problem, which in itself does not challenge the bodily integrity of Mary. One of the reasons given is that the Greek language employs a special word to designate cousins while the word "brother” is restricted to the meaning which it has in modern language, a child of the same parents. The Hebrew use of the word does not have that restriction. Now the Hellenistic Christians definitely believed that Mary had no other sons. They came by this knowledge from the Gospels, learned it from Tradition, and understood the doc¬ trine of her bodily integrity in the correct sense. It could have been that in their eagerness to safeguard the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary at a time when some were trying to teach the equality of marriage and virginity that they seized upon this manner of doing so. Portions of these Apocrypha documents date from the end of the second century. The legends grew in popularity until the end of the fourth cen¬ tury, and are still in the Greek Church. But we may rightfully ask whether the marriage of our Lady and St. Joseph had to be subjected to the ridicule of such a difference in age, in order to safeguard belief in the bodily integrity of Mary? After all, the designs of God in this matter were to protect the maiden motherhood of Mary. This is why the commonly accepted belief is that they were a lovely young couple with perhaps just a slight difference in age.
We may sum up our arguments on the bodily integrity of Mary and flatly deny that she had other children: l) Jesus alone is described in the new Testament as son of Mary. 2) The expression "brethren of the Lord” can designate any relative of Jesus. 3) The most famous of these "brethren of the Lord,” concerning whose relationship we have some in-
MARY EVER VIRGIN
59
formation, has definitely a mother other than the Blessed Vir¬ gin. 4) This mother seems to be either the sister or sister- in-law of the Blessed Virgin, wife of the brother of St. Joseph. The "brethren of the Lord" would therefore be first cousins of Jesus. 5) Catholic tradition, although hesitating for some time in establishing the identity of the "brethren of the Lord” has been constant since the fourth century in its affirmation of Mary’s bodily integrity.
3. Mary’s Virginity of Spirit
Perpetual virginity, according to Christian Tradition, does not consist in bodily integrity alone. It also includes the vir¬ ginity of spirit or the steadfast will to keep the bodily integrity for the honor of God. Holy Scripture offers us the basis for the fact that Mary had this disposition in the most perfect manner. It is found in her words to the Angel: "How shall this happen, since I do not know man?" (Luke 1:34). The only comprehensible meaning that can be given to her ques¬ tion is that Mary had already bound herself by vow to keep her virginity. This point is important for the full understand¬ ing of her virginity and the Church has stood guard over this doctrine down through the ages.
In the fourth century when Helvidius and Jovinian and their disciples were questioning her virginity, St. Ambrose express¬ ly replied that "The Virgin was not only so in body but also in mind.”20
Calvin and his disciples raised a similar objection in later centuries. They admitted Mary’s integrity of body in the vir¬ ginal conception and in childbirth, but rejected the virginity of mind or spirit, on the ground that after the birth of Christ, according to Jewish custom, she had nuptial relations with St. Joseph for the procreation of other children, otherwise she wished to deceive her husband.
60
IN PRAISE OF MARY
This objection challenges the existence and the validity of Mary’s vow of virginity and draws upon Jewish custom as an argument. Now we know that even before the time of Christ the thought of freely chosen perpetual virginity was not strange to the Israelites, but we cannot prove or even suppose that others before Mary had taken a formal vow of virginity. But Mary’s position can definitely be maintained from her answer to the Angel. The objection stems from a misunder¬ standing of some passages of the Old Testament that seem to indicate that entering upon marriage and its consummation were generally even commanded. But the real meaning of these passages merely promises fecundity to the marriages of the Israelites. What is true, upon a close study of the Old Testament texts on this point is, that the higher appreciation of virginity does not generally find expression, because of the divine decree that the Messias should arise out of Israel. In other words, the striving for the propagation of the people of God had precedence over the observance of virginity. And as to the question of Mary’s wishing to deceive Joseph in con¬ tracting the engagement and the subsequent marriage, there is nothing contradictory in Christian teaching to a marriage freely entered upon with the mutual agreement never to call for the marital act. It is this point that heightens the esteem with which we regard St. Joseph.
Because of these notions of the people of Israel and partly because of Mary’s subsequent marriage, even some theolo¬ gians were led to question the perfection of her vow. They taught that it was at first conditional, since she was not cer¬ tain that the keeping of her virginity under all circumstances would be most pleasing to God. But this uncertainty need not be accepted. On the contrary, it may well be presumed that Mary took the vow not only out of love for virginity
MARY EVER VIRGIN
61
in general, but also because of a clear knowledge that God had called her to take it. Such a conclusion is most conform¬ able to the words of her question to the Angel. Moreover, there are theological reasons that support it, namely, the ex¬ cellence of her virtue, the dignity of her Divine Motherhood, and the influence of the Holy Spirit.
4. Mary’s Virginity of Heart
Finally, one other essential part of Mary’s perfect virginity is her virginity of heart or the freedom from all motions and sensations contrary to purity. Because of the union in her of the three elements of bodily integrity, virginity of mind, and virginity of heart, Mary is called the "Virgin of virgins.” In other words, she is the ideal of virginity. Her love for virginity stood in direct relation to her fullness of grace and love of God in which she surpasses all saints. Moreover, by consecrating Mary to be His bride, God bound Himself to prevent every violation and defilement of her purity. In partic¬ ular He bound Himself to make the interior violation of the virginity of Mary impossible. Not only is all this certain from the time of the conception of Christ, as a result of the physi¬ cal completion of her espousal to God; but it existed previous¬ ly as well, since Mary was already betrothed to God by His unconditional decree from the beginning. Such is the doc¬ trine of the Church concerning "Mary Ever Virgin.”
It may be fitting, by way of conclusion, to make a few ob¬ servations concerning the relationship of Mary’s Virginity with that of her Immaculate Conception, which doctrine we are particularly commemorating in this Marian Year.
From our vantage point of a century since the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, we can see with greater clarity the designs of Providence in having this first
62
IN PRAISE OF MARY
of Mary’s prerogatives reserved to modem times for official definition. We now see that doctrine like a beacon throwing illuminating light upon the whole range of the sacred mys¬ teries of Christianity. It reflects the infinite purity and sanctity of God. It makes more manifest His perfect freedom in not being bound to the law of necessity in fallen man, for Mary was preserved free from original sin. Neither the sin of Adam nor the power of Satan can restrain God’s infinite munificence. In the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God we have the crowning point and masterpiece of Christ’s redemptive action.
Let us not forget, however, that it was the definitions of Mary’s Virginity and her Divine Maternity in the fourth and fifth centuries that were the foundations of her great triumphs today in the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Not only has Marian doctrine progressed and profited from those earlier doctrines. Those earlier doctrines are still very much alive in the devotional life of Catholics today in the fuller application of the later doctrines.
I shall end with just one example. Mary’s Virginity has always been the exemplar of perfect dedication and consecra¬ tion. This is sound doctrine from the earliest days of Chris¬ tianity. It remained for later centuries to hear the voices of Mary’s great clients like St. Grignion de Montfort and Father Chaminade, the founder of the Marianists, to call for a total consecration to Mary in the highest manner possible. And ever since 1917 we have the same request from the words of Mary herself in the revelations at Fatima under the title of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Let us heed those words and consecrate ourselves under her patronage to the cause of Christ and that of His Church to
MARY EVER VIRGIN
63
advance the great work of the lay apostolate of which she is also the exemplar.
In this year of 1954 we can appraise the fact that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception a century ago has contributed immeasurably to the inspirations and the sustained efforts that have converged and are converging upon the world-wide re¬ surgence of the true Christian spirit, to help effect that repara¬ tion of mankind which has been immortalized in the motto of the saint-elect for this Marian Year, Blessed Pius X: "to restore all things in Christ."
1 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, 993.
2 Neubert. Marie dans le Dogme (Paris: Editions Spes, 2e edition refondue, 1945), p. 200.
3 Cf. Denz. 20, 91, 113, 143 seqq., 201, 214, seqq., 282, 290, 344, 429, 462, 708, 735, 993, 1314, 1462.
4 Western form of the Creed: Denz. 1937, ed. 2. Eastern form of the Creed: Denz. 9, 86.
6 Neubert, Marie dans VEglise Antenicene (Paris: Gabalta, 1908) p. 57-120; 136-144.
6Summa Theologica. Ilia. q. 28, a.l, a.3.
7 Denz. 2, 9, 86.
8Scheeben, Mysteries of Christianity (St. Louis Herder, 1946) p. 605. 9 Flynn, "Apologia for Marriage,*’ Orate Fratres, (October 2, 1949).
19 Denz. 9, 86. "natus est ex Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine.**
11 Council of Trent. Part 1, Chap. IV, Section II.
12 M. J. Scheeben, Mariology (St. Louis: Herder, 1946) II, p. 103.
13 Denz. 2183; 649; 256; 3029; 993.
14Burghardt, "The Catholic Concept of Tradition,** Proceedings, Cath. Theol. Society of America, 1951, p. 66-7.
15 Denz. 13, 201, 214, 218, 227, 255, 257, 344, 429, 463, 735.
16 Denz. 91, 256, 314, a nota 3, 734, 99.
17 Neubert, Marie dans le Dogme, Paris, Editions Spes. 1948. p. 208.. 18Summa Theologica, , III, q. 28, a. 3.
19 St. Jerome, Lib. I Comment, in c. 1 Matt., P.L. 2625.
20 De Virg. 1. II, P.L., 16, 219; St. Ambrose.
64
IN PRAISE OF MARY
OUTLINE
Introduction: Division of the topic into three parts.
I. Virginity before Childbirth.
1. The doctrine is explicit in both Scripture and Tradition.
2. The appropriateness of the doctrine in the reasoning of St. Thomas.
II. Mary’s Virginity in Childbirth.
1. The meaning of the doctrine.
2. Proof of the doctrine in Scripture and other sources.
III. Virginity after Childbirth.
1. Significance of the doctrine of perpetual virginity.
2. Since the doctrine is only implicit in Scripture, objec¬ tions have arisen but are refutable, viz.:
a. Regarding Mary’s bodily integrity and "the brethren of Jesus.’’
b. Regarding Mary’s vow of virginity.
c. Regarding Mary’s perfect purity.
Discussion Questions
1. Why is virginity considered a higher state in life than matrimony?
2. What mysteries of our Lord’s life parallel Mary’s virginity in childbirth?
3. How does Mary’s virginity in childbirth demonstrate the esteem we should have for the virtue of purity?
4. "What are the consequences of the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary?
5. Can you demonstrate that "the brethren of Jesus” are not Mary’s children?
65
4 HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
BY
REV. THOMAS U. MULLANEY, O.P.
«y |
El. AIL, Full of Grace.” With these words an Angel of God, for the first time in all Angelic history, bent reverently before a human person, as before a superior; for already be¬ fore she was Mother of God Mary had, in sanctity, outstripped beyond description even the holiest of God’s ministering spirits. As Gabriel spoke his striking greeting it was to a miracle of sanctity that he paid reverence. That miracle was the Immac¬ ulate Conception.
Now, and in every generation that calls her blessed, Chris¬ tian souls, too, reverence that miracle, which is a mystery. By a quasi-instinct of the faith we sense that the Immaculate Conception is somehow a thing gigantic, unaccountable. We know that it is so important that it is one of the very few points of Marian doctrine solemnly defined by the Church; and we know that the feast of the Immaculate Conception is one of the few holy days of obligation in the whole year. We both sense and acknowledge the importance of the mystery.
66
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Yet, to understand that importance is another matter. In all reverence it might seem that Mary’s sinless Conception is an event of the long distant past. We seem not close to it, nor it to us. Again, however, important it may be, it seems a personal glory of Mary, far exalted above any contact with our lives. We are not sinless, in origin, in activity, or in any way! So this mystery can seem distant from us.
Yet the truths that God has revealed to us have reference to our lives, for He revealed them to ennoble these lives of ours. This mystery, too, must have meaning even to us. In order to penetrate more deeply into that meaning I shall try here to do four things. First, simply to analyze the phrase “the Immaculate Conception” — this in order that what we are speaking of may be clear from the beginning. Second, I shall try to show how we know that in Mary there is a real¬ ity corresponding to the title. Third, granted a knowledge of what the Immaculate Conception is, and that it is, I shall try to indicate why it is; that is, why God bestowed this priv¬ ilege upon Our Lady. Last, then I shall try to point out how this Conception of Mary has meaning and vitality for us.
I. THE NATURE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
To the question, what is the Immaculate Conception? we have a clear, definite answer. The Vicar of Christ, Pius IX solemnly defined this to be the Divine truth of the matter, that "the most blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her con¬ ception was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of man¬ kind.”1
The words of the Pope indicate all of the essential elements of this mystery.
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
67
First, who is the subject, that is, the one in whom this priv¬ ilege is found? It is that person who is the Virgin Mary and she alone (for this is a "singular privilege”), not at some vague uncertain time of her existence but "at the first instant of her conception”; which means, in that moment of history, whenever it was, that her soul was created by God and infused into her body within the womb of her mother. We cannot point to a definite hour of a definite day in a certain year and say, “This was the instant of the Immaculate Conception.” We simply do not know when it was; even if we did it would be relatively unimportant. The essential thing is that not for one single instant was Our Lady ever subject to Satan or to sin. In the instant in which her human life began, Divine life and love began in her, also.
Secondly, what precisely in Our Lady is her Immaculate Con¬ ception ? It is her preservation "From all stain of original sin,” her freedom from that enmity toward God which is the birth¬ mark of all men. In Adam human nature sinned: from that moment to be conceived in human nature is to be conceived a sinner. You do not first have a man and then a sinner; no, original sin is a modification of our nature as real as our height or weight. It comes together with that nature, an inherited disease.
The marvelous aspect of the Immaculate Conception is that in Mary, contrary to the general law, there was humanity begotten in the ordinary way, but no sin; a human person but absolute freedom from the disease that infects all humanity. Her nature was exactly like our nature, yet she was conceived a friend of God, not the sentenced prisoner of Satan that other human persons are bom.
Thirdly, by whose power was the Virgin delivered thus from sin, from complicity with Satan? It was by the omnipotence
68
IN PRAISE OF MARY
of God who alone can bestow His love, His grace upon whom¬ soever He wills. God then is the source of the grace of Mary’s Conception. It is not Our Lady’s by any right or title of her own; it is too sublime, too Divine for that. It is totally God’s doing.
Note that it is of faith that Christ, the Son of Mary is in¬ volved in causing His own Mother’s original sinlessness. Some have argued, in past centuries, that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because then she would not need to be saved from sin by Christ. This would be contrary to God’s truth, according to which the incarnate Son of God is "the Savior of all men.”2
But the truth of Our Lady’s spotless conception is in no way opposed to the truth that all men, including Mary, are saved in Christ. In the eternal wisdom of the Divine Father there was always, and is now, contained knowledge of Our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary. In the case of our Blessed Mother, God as it were anticipated the merit or the effect of the Pas¬ sion of Christ. In view of that forthcoming Passion He pro¬ duced in Mary’s soul from the beginning the full splendor of sanctity which Christ, dying, was to earn for her, somewhat as a mother sure of her child’s obedience might prepare in advance some reward though the obedient act is not yet performed.
They misunderstand, then, who think that the exaltation of Mary is an attempted diminution of Christ. In a true sense Our Lady is more dependent on Christ than we are, and more indebted to Him, precisely because she has received, and does receive, more from Him than any other creature will ever receive.
This, then, is an aspect of God’s generosity. Long before Mary so joyfully clothed the Son of God in human flesh, her
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
69
flesh; God has already made her '‘the woman clothed with the sun,” that is, with the warmth of His life and love.
Lastly to what purpose was the Immaculate Conception?
In the words of the Holy Father it was that she might be “a fit dwelling place” or ‘‘a worthy Mother” of the Son of God. For, as so many of the Saints have asked, is it reason¬ able that the living flesh of the Son of God be taken from flesh that is the ally of Satan and of sin?
II. THE FACT OF OUR LADY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Given some insight into the nature of this prerogative of die holy Virgin there can remain the problem of how the Church knows of so hidden, so subtle a mystery. Its cause was the invisible God, its beneficiary the soul of Our Lady alone; its nature secret, supernatural.
We can know of such a reality not by our native powers * of discernment but only by God’s revelation. Faith demands that we believe that God did reveal diis doctrine of Mary’s holy conception. Where shall we find this Divine revelation ?
God’s revelation is contained partially in Sacred Scripture, but more fully in what is called tradition; i.e., that body of sacred truth given orally by Christ to the Apostles, or by the Apostles themselves under the dictates of the Holy Ghost handed down even to us.3 The content of Divine tradition is evident in the teaching of the Church and in her life. The truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception can be discovered therefore 1) in Sacred Scripture; 2) in the doctrine of the great witnesses to Christian teaching; that is, the Fathers of the Church; 3) in that aspect of the Church’s life which is the liturgy.
70
IN PRAISE OF MARY
1. Sacred Scripture
On that day when sin first entered our earth the angry voice of God cast on men a threefold curse.4 But even before the curse was uttered there was already promise of deliverance, for to Satan God had said, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”5 There was sin, now: but already, in promise there was also the vic¬ tory over sin to be wrought by Christ and His Mother.
There is evidence that in the original text the one who is foretold as crushing the serpent’s head is the seed of the wom¬ an; he not she.® But the difference is, doctrinally, very slight. In either reading there is foretold by God 1) a perfect war¬ fare, or enmity between the woman and her offspring on one hand and Satan on the other; 2) the outcome of this bitter struggle, namely the utter defeat of Satan, the absolute vic¬ tory of the woman and her seed. The woman and her seed, associated in their hatred of the devil, are associated also in overcoming him.
Now the great Fathers and writers of the Church have seen in this prophecy an implication of Mary’s Immaculate Concep¬ tion.7 This for two reasons. Had the woman — who is Our Lady8 — been at any time even in original sin, then her enmity toward Satan would be neither unique nor absolute as the prophecy demands. Had Mary then contracted sin she would have been an ally of Satan, his subject, the familiar of his household, not his singular, outstanding enemy.
Secondly, God foretold the complete overcoming of Satan. As Adam and Eve had just then been conquered by Satan, so were Christ and Mary in due time, to conquer him. They would conquer so absolutely that the head of Satan is to be crushed beneath the conqueror’s heel. If Mary were, at any
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
71
time, Satan’s victim through original sin would her victory be absolute, complete? He, too, would be to some extent, con¬ queror: she would have been in part defeated. Surely God’s prophecy has not been, in part, voided!
We find also in Holy Scripture an account of that day on which God began the fulfillment of the prophecy He had long before uttered. “The Angel Gabriel was sent from God ... to a virgin . . . and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the Angel being come in said to her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.”
Familiarity must not dull our perception of the meaning of these words. Note first that the angel said not, “Hail, Mary” but “Hail, full of grace.” This implies that in the sight of heaven and of heaven’s messenger it is fulness of grace which is the distinctive personal property of this woman. Names, especially Divinely-given names, indicate the inner character¬ istic of things which set them apart from other things; that is why things which differ are called by different names. If Mary’s truest name is "Thou who are full of grace” then in fulness of grace she is distinctive; i.e. she is above all other creatures, or different from them by reason of greater grace. Since the Angel so calls her then she is greater in grace even than Angels. Thus she ought not to lack a grace they have, namely the grace of a sinless origin.
Again the grammatical construction used by the Evangelist to express “full of grace” is a participial construction signi¬ fying a past condition now being continued. The sense is “You have been and now are so blessed by Divine favor to be overflowing with grace.” So the grace now in Mary reaches backward: it is of the past no less than of the present. The complete, perfect sense of the words implies full sanctity in Mary’s whole past, including then the past which is her origin.
72
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Note, too, the Angel’s words "The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou.” Assuredly God was with Gabriel too, for Gabriel, like all the Holy Angels, looks upon the very face of God. But the force of the pronouns "Thee” "Thou” is that God’s presence to Mary, His love of her is in some way unique, surpassing. Since God’s love of creatures produces goodness in them — they are good to the degree God loves them9 — then God’s greater love of Mary ought not to have produced in her a goodness less than that of the Angels who are completely without sin.
Note lastly in this text that the Angel indicates that Mary’s special holiness is a preparation for her unique dignity, the Motherhood of God. Always, God gives grace proportionate to one’s office or dignity. Since the Divine Maternity is the greatest dignity God could give to any created person, then the grace proportionate to it is the greatest grace a created person can receive in God’s actual Providence. But this grace ought to include freedom from original sin, otherwise a greater and more effective grace is easily conceivable, by us, and creat- able by God. So Pius DC could write "The Fathers and writers of the Church . . . taught that this singular and solemn saluta¬ tion which had never been heard elsewhere shows that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces ... to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and is together with her Son the only partaker of perpetual benediction.”10
2. The Fathers and Writers of the Church
It is the living tradition of the Church with its strong roots in Apostolic infallibility which especially shows that the Church received from God knowledge of Mary’s sinless conception. That tradition we have seen has a twofold manifestation: theoretical manifestation in the teachings of the Fathers and
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
73
writers of the Church, and practical manifestation in the life and liturgy of the Church.
So vast is the literature of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers on the Immaculate Conception that I shall not attempt to summarize it here. I shall instead simply give some indica¬ tion of the teaching of the writers of the first eight centuries. From then on the liturgy, as I shall show, manifests in a prac¬ tical way the faith of the Church, (as well, of course, as the continued teaching of the ecclesiastical writers).
In the earlier centuries we cannot expect to find explicit mention of the Immaculate Conception. Theological dis¬ cussion about original sin, and preservation from it was hard¬ ly possible at a time when the Church was fighting for her life first against vicious persecutions, then against frightful her¬ esies. Yet in this era we do find express mention of Mary’s freedom from all sin whatsoever. Clearly this includes free¬ dom from original sin somewhat as if I say that a given in¬ dividual is a completely virtuous man I imply that he is neither drunkard nor murderer.
Beginning from immediately post-Apostolic times we find in the Fathers a much used parallel between Eve and Mary, a natural development from the parallel between Adam and Christ taught by St. Paul.11 The parallel as developed, for example, by St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Ephraem, and others, is that as the first Eve, though the mother of death, came from the hands of God immaculate, innocent; so did the second Eve, Mary, and with even greater reason since she is the mother of life.12
In particular St. Ephraem writes — and he is addressing the Lord — "It is Thee and Thy mother, who alone are, in every way beautiful: for in Thee O Lord there is no blemish, nor in Thy mother any stain.”18 This surely is strong language: so
74
IN PRAISE OF MARY
great is Mary’s freedom from the slightest sin that in this re¬ gard she can be compared to no other human person but only to the all-holy Son of God. With us she has no bond of orig¬ inal sin. Therefore St. Ambrose speaks of Mary as "un¬ stained by any stain of sin!”14 And the great Augustine says that concerning Our Lady he will allow "no discussion when it is a question of sin.”15
About Augustine’s time we find St. Theodatus writing "The Virgin (is) included in the womanly sex but without share in the sin of woman; the Virgin innocent, unstained . . . holy in soul and body, as a lily among thorns.”18 And in the same age St. Proclus points out that "it is not unfitting that the architect dwell in the home that he himself has built; and mire does not stain the workman when he restores the vessel he had made. So nothing that came from the Virgin’s womb stains the most pure God. From her whom he had fashioned beyond reach of all stain no stain originates.”17 St. Maximus put it that "Mary was a fit dwelling place for Christ ... on account of her original grace.”18
A bit later we find Theophane praising our Blessed Mother as Spotless Queen untouched by any stain.19 And St. Ful- gentius has it "In the spouse of the first man the wickedness of the devil perverted (her) mind; in the mother of the sec¬ ond Adam (God) preserved intact mind and body.”20 And he writes that the Angel Gabriel in his salutation to our Lady "manifests the total exclusion of the wrath of the first judg¬ ment, and that the full grace of blessing has been restored.”21 In Mary then original fault is excluded.
St. Sophronius cries out to her "Before God thou hast com¬ plete grace . . . everlasting grace. Thou hast grace no other has received . . . none but thee is purified beforehand.”22 And again she is "immaculate . . . completely free from every
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
75
stain.”23 St. Modestus declared "she is more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim” and "to her sin never had access,”24 as of course it did not to them. Very accurately St. John Dam¬ ascene phrases it "nature cedes to grace, and stops, tremu¬ lous, unable to go further. . . . Nature dared not go before the seed of grace. So nature remained destitute of fruit, but grace fructified.”26 Grace indeed prevented the natural origin of Mary from producing its normal fruit of sin.
3. The Liturgy and Acts of the Holy See
Together with these doctrinal testimonies to the Immac¬ ulate Conception of the Virgin Mary we find very practical measures by which the Church inculcated this truth.
The first of these is the special feast of the Conception of the Virgin. While its exact origins are obscure there is evi¬ dence that the feast was already observed in the East in the seventh and eighth centuries; in the ninth century it was also kept in such places as Sicily, Ireland, and parts of Italy. This is remarkable when we consider that so great a feast as that of Corpus Christi was introduced only in the thirteenth cen¬ tury, and that of Christ the King in the twentieth. Since as Pius IX wrote "the Church celebrates feasts only of things that are holy” this feast was a true indication of the spotless sanctity of Mary’s conception. In time the feast was made a day of obligation, emphasizing the importance of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
More than this, the Church granted indulgences to those who celebrated this feast; approved religious associations founded in honor of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; and promoted the dedication of churches, monasteries and nations to the Immaculate Conception.
Long before the dogma was defined in 1854 the Popes had
76
IN PRAISE OF MARY
taken steps to safeguard this truth. Thus Sixtus IV promoted it, and strongly restrained those who opposed it, some four centuries before the definition.28 Pius V officially condemned the contrary teachings.27 Alexander VII insisted on the dog¬ matic truth as the object of the feast of Mary’s Conception.28
Must we not say then with Pius IX "Small wonder that the pastors of the Church . . . and the faithful glorified daily more and more in professing . . . this doctrine of the Immac¬ ulate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God which was recorded in the Divine Scriptures according to the judgment of the Fathers; which was handed down by so many testimonies of these Fathers . . . which was celebrated in so many illus¬ trious monuments of venerable antiquity; which was proposed and confirmed by the weighty and deliberate judgment of the Church.”
III. THE REASON FOR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
When we have seen that a certain point of doctrine is di¬ vinely true we are only at the threshold of the Mystery. Like a child who for the first time looks upon the ocean and asks "Why is it there? What is it for?” we, too, faced with the mystery of Mary’s spotless origin begin to wonder, "Why did God make her immaculate? What does it do to her, and to us, this holy conception?”
An adequate answer to the first question must await heaven for only Divine Wisdom really knows Divine motives. We can say this much, however: such is the beauty, the splendor of the Immaculate Conception that only infinite wisdom could devise it; and having devised it that wisdom was, as it were, enamored of His handiwork and came at last to dwell within her who is the Immaculate Conception. The full glory of
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
77
Mary’s sinless conception we cannot, in this life, fathom. We can though, and should attempt to see to some degree the pur¬ pose, the fittingness, of so great a privilege. I should like, therefore, to point out some aspects of its fitness with respect to us.
This privilege of Mary’s is most fitting with regard to God; that is, with respect to each of the Persons of the Divine Trinity.
First with respect to the Father. It is a general rule of God’s Providence — a rule which God jealously enforces and violations of which He severely avenges — that what is conse¬ crated to the service of God must be holy and clean. Now Mary was to be consecrated to the service of God: but much more than that she had been predestined to be really and sub¬ stantially associated, as no other creature was to be, in the generation of God’s own Son. God the Father eternally con¬ ceives, eternally gives birth to His Word Who is the Son. In that Divine fecundity of God the Father, Mary participates: for she, too, in virginal fashion, conceived and brought forth that same Son. Could the Father Who everlastingly begets His Word in infinite sanctity, have given the Son Whom He loves as Himself, to one who had been defiled? Could the Father have cast His Son into a fetid mass of filth, there in His humanity, to be fashioned?
Secondly with respect to God the Son. We must understand that from all eternity the Word of God loved the Virgin Mary above every other creature, angelic or earthly. The proof of this is that He willed to give to her a gift above all other gifts, a gift given to no other of the children of God— the gift of Himself. For Mary’s Motherhood of God implies between Christ and her such closeness of union as to exceed all human language. This much theologians do say: Mary’s union with
78
IN PRAISE OF MARY
God as His Mother is a far greater thing than the Vision of God which the saints enjoy in heaven. Now, then, if the all- powerful Son of God willed to give to Mary so unique a gift, would He fittingly have withheld from her the much lesser gift of a spotless conception? Does a parent give its child life and love, but refuse it food? Does a husband give his wife his whole heart and life but refuse conversation?
There is a special fitness here: for it is the same God who was born of the Virgin who commanded “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Surely He Himself, true God, honored His Mother in every fit way, safeguarded her from the worst ig¬ nominy humanity knows — its own sin.
Thirdly, Mary’s all-pure conception is most fitting with re¬ gard to the Holy Ghost. Of old it was said to Mary "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.”29 For the human body of the word of God was formed in Mary’s womb by no human agency, but by the direct, immediate and divine activity of the Holy Ghost. She is His cooperator: she is, as the Church’s liturgy has it, the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Should the power of the most pure God have for its substantial associate sin-rotted flesh? Should the Spouse of the all-holy Spirit have been Satan’s sinful ally? .During those months that the Son of God dwelt, in human flesh, in Mary’s womb Mary was indeed the very sanctuary of the Holy Spirit: for wherever God the Son is, there is the Holy Spirit being breathed forth by Him. Should the living temple of the living God have been a dese¬ crated and defiled thing?
From the point of view now of our Blessed Mother her Immaculate Conception was most proper and fitting. Again we touch here upon the profound mystery of Mary’s pre¬ destination, the mystery of her place, her dignity among all
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
79
God’s creatures. Pope Pius IX wrote of Our Lady that "her origin was preordained by one and the same decree with the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom,”30 and Pope Pius XII wrote of "the revered Mother of God from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination.”81 Mary then is indissolubly linked, by eternal election, with the Incarnate Word of God.
Mary is, subordinate^ to Christ and dependently on Christ, at the very apex of God’s creation set in sovereign, singular splendor above all things else. Through her, and proximately from her, God so willing, come all graces unto all men: and she is set in majesty even over God’s Angels, their Queen, indescribably more exalted than they. The whole supernatural world is like unto the solar system: Christ is "the Sun of justice,” the center of all else whence proceeds light and warmth; but Mary is "the woman clothed with the sun,”32 having, that is, fulness of participation of the life-giving truth and love of Christ. Among all created persons she is God’s masterpiece: she alone is all holy, all pure: all others are in some true sense for the sake of Christ’s glory and hers. That is why the Church applies to her the words of Scripture which were written, as Pius IX pointed out, of the uncreated Wisdom of God "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before He made anything from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already con¬ ceived . . . the mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth. . . . When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths ... I was with him forming all things . . . and my delights were to be with the children of men.”33
80
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Because Mary is "from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestina¬ tion”;34 and because the glory of Christ is indeed the proxi¬ mate goal, of all creation in God’s de facto Providence, Mary, precisely in her unique union with Christ, is in a true sense final cause of all lesser creation.
With this, is the darkness, the corruption of sin compatible? Can this masterpiece on which God lavished everlasting love, and which He so eagerly chose, fashioned, beautified: can it have been the ornament of Satan’s realm of ugliness? Is it conceivable that the noblest and best loved thing God ever made be a failure, and hateful to God? Surely Divine omni¬ potence, Divine love cannot so have failed.
Finally, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is most fitting to us also in the sense that it is most helpful. We shall see that that Conception is profoundly involved in our own sanctification: but for the moment I should like to point out this much only, that this privilege of Our Lady is to us the guarantee of our dignity, the vision of human achievement. Her Conception speaks to us of God’s love for mankind: for only Divine love could have fashioned such magnificence in one of our race. This, too, we know: the Immaculate Mother of God is our Mother. The wealth of grace and favor divinely bestowed upon her she seeks to share with us, more surely than a good mother on this earth shares with her children the good things of the family. Mary’s Immaculate Conception therefore is the ideal of human dignity: and much more than that, it is the promise of our own accomplishment: for what Divine love achieved in her, that same love, through her, shall in some measure achieve also in us, her children.
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
81
IV. THE MEANING OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
One final question remains. Of what practical importance is Mary’s Immaculate Conception? The question has real meaning for the reasons I pointed out at the beginning of our discussion, namely, that this mystery seems to be a mere his¬ torical fact which has been completed, finished with, many centuries ago; and secondly that, as "a singular privilege” it seems to pertain to Mary alone. Thus the dogma itself can seem unrelated to our lives.
Yet, what God does is never useless. To see how vital and important Mary’s Conception is, now and to us, we need only answer two questions: Is the Immaculate Conception a living reality today? Secondly, if so, does it have an effect on us, on our lives?
First then, is the Immaculate Conception anything real now? There are two ways of looking at this privilege. From a negative point of view it is, and is called, a preservation from original sin; it is so that we often speak of it, quite rightly. But Mary’s holy Conception involves more than an absence of sin. Sin can be expelled from a human person only by that positive reality which is Divine grace. Grace is as real as the temperature, though it is not material. From a positive point of view therefore the Immaculate Conception names in Mary that Divine grace and Divine love with which God en¬ dowed her in that instant in which He created her soul.
Now then what was the quality of that grace, what was its extent? We have the words of the Holy Father, who is the voice of Christ. "On her God showered more love than on all other creatures, and so with her alone He was pleased with a most loving complacency. He therefore filled her, far more than all the angelic spirits and all the saints with an abundance
82
IN PRAISE OF MARY
of heavenly gifts in such a wonderful manner that ... all beautiful and perfect, she might display such fulness of inno¬ cence and holiness that under God none greater is known, and which, God excepted, no one can attain even in thought.”35 And later the same Pontiff wrote “It is the clear . . . teaching of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin . . . was resplendent with such a force of heavenly gifts, with such a fulness of grace and with such innocence that she is an ineffable miracle of God . . . and that she approaches as near to God Himself as possible, considering that she has only a created nature, so that she is above all human and angelic praise.”36 Theo¬ logians teach that these words are to be understood precisely of the grace of the Immaculate Conception.
What then was the Immaculate Conception in Mary? It was that ensemble of Divine grace and virtues which made her so sublime, so holy that she is above all saints and all angels, closer to God than any other creature can ever imagine. The Immaculate Conception made Mary, according to sound theological teaching, far holier than all of God’s angels and saints even taken together.
Now was the sanctity of Mary’s Conception a thing of just an instant? Was it created by God to be instantaneously de¬ stroyed? No, Mary’s initial grace and virtues — her Immaculate Conception — was with her throughout her life. Sanctity is cast out, expelled only by mortal sin; and never once did Mary commit even the slightest venial sin! We know that Mary grew, hourly, in holiness: but growth in grace, growth in vir¬ tue does not mean substantially new grace, or new virtue but rather the intensification of what is already there. So a parent grows, often, to love his child more deeply as that child grows into adulthood. But that growth is not substantially new love, it is substantially the same love made yet more
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
83
perfect, yet more intense. So with Our Lady. The grace of God, the love of God infused into her soul at the first instant of her life was never lost, nor diminished, nor destroyed: it simply went on increasing always, growing, intensifying until that moment when at last in climax the full harmony of God’s masterpiece pierced the heaven, and Mary looked upon her God.
And now, and forever more the Immaculate Conception is in heaven. Heaven does not destroy the grace and love of God in which God’s holy ones die. That very grace, that very love go on eternally. The virtue of charity which God Himself bestowed upon Our Lady as part of the Immaculate Conception: that identical love burns now in Mary’s soul. It is hers, always. It shall never pass away, but goes into the endless reaches of God’s everlastingness. That is why Our Lady could say to the child at Lourdes, and say with truth and great accuracy "I am the Immaculate Conception.” What God made her, she remains forever.
Does the living reality of the Immaculate Conception have meaning or importance to us? Granted that it is forever vital, does it vitally touch our lives?
God’s plan for our welfare, for our salvation has two aspects. The first aspect is the passion and death of Christ; at the cost of His Blood, He earned Divine pardon for our sins, and the title to all graces that we need. In God’s view there is first the establishment by Christ of a certain treasury of merits (or title to grace) ; then secondly, the distribution of those graces to all men who are willing to accept them.
Does the grace of Mary’s Conception enter into either aspect of God’s plan for our salvation? It is inseparable from both!
In Christ’s objective work of redemption — His passion and death — Mary is deeply involved, for she is our Coredemptrix.
84
IN PRAISE OF MARY
God might have willed our redemption quite independently of our Blessed Mother. Certainly God did not need her co¬ operation, for God needs no creature. Yet, in fact, God willed to send His Son among us, willed to receive from that Son the price of our redemption only on condition of Mary’s cooperation. Though it need not have been so, factually, it is so.
But whence came Our Lady’s willingness to co-offer her Son, whence her internal obedience to the dreadful thing God asked? It came proximately from her Immaculate Concep¬ tion! For that willingness, that obedience was an act of vir¬ tue, most fundamentally an act of love of God and of us. Now the virtue, the love in the soul of Mary when she stood on Calvary was the identical virtue, the same love which went to make up her Immaculate Conception! Our Lady’s co- redemptive activity for us, activity accomplished when she stood there mute, at the foot of the Cross, that work is the grace of her Conception at work.
Secondly, from the actual bestowing of graces upon men, now and always, Mary is inseparable. It is Papal teaching that Our Lady is associated in the giving of all graces to all men. This work of Mary has two phases. First no grace comes to us except in answer to Mary’s earnest and ever- efficadous plea;87 and, secondly, when God in answer to her prayer wills grace to us, that grace is, mysteriously, given into her hand and comes to us from her. That is why Pope Pius X wrote that Mary is the dispensatrix of all gifts which Christ, by His Blood, earned for us.38 Always then she is our advocate before Christ in pleading; God’s minister to us, in bestowing.
Now what accounts for Our Lady’s endless eagerness to obtain from God graces for us? And having obtained, to bestow it on us? It is love, her love for us as most dear chil-
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
85
dren. But the love in Mary’s heart now, the love which under¬ lies and prompts all her care for us is the love which was so resplendent at her Immaculate Conception. Thus that love at work is working out our lives, and all our hopes.
Always God’s handiwork is magnificent. But since Mary is, second only to Christ, God’s masterpiece, she is magnificent far beyond the realization of any man or all the angels. And the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady is but the beginning of the wonders God wrought in her: it is the first stroke of the Divine Artist, not the finished work. But because it is God’s stroke, it lives forever and living gives unto us and to all men hope amidst failure, idealism amidst weakness, and some sharing of God’s own strength, even as we fail. In the light of the Immaculate Conception we can know the way to heaven and to greatness when in all things else we are blind; in the love which is the Immaculate Conception we shall find always courage; and one day a sharing in that vic¬ tory over death and hell which the sinless Conception con¬ stitutes.
1 Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec. 1854.
2 1 Timothy 4; 10.
8 Council of Trent session IV, 8 April 1546
4 Genesis 3, 16-19.
5 Genesis 3, 15.
6Cf. Ceuppens, F. De Protoevangelio, (Rome, 1932); Roschini, Mari- ologia (Rome, 1947), v. 2 p. 76; Merkelbach, Mariologia, (Paris, 1939) p. 78.
7 Cf. Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec. 1854.
8 The precise sense in which Mary is "the woman” spoken of in Genesis 3,15 has been a subject of considerable discussion. Among Catholic authors today the more common opinion is that, in the literal sense, the verse refers to Mary. cf. May, Rev. Eric, O.F.M. Cap., The Scriptural
86
IN PRAISE OF MARY
Basis for Mary’s Spiritual Maternity in Marian Studies, Washington, 1952, vol. 3, pp. Ill and ff.
9Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 20aa3,4.
10 Bull, I neffabilis Deus, 8 Dec. 1854.
11Cf. Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15.
12 St. Justin; Dialogus cum Tryphone, P.G. 6:710-711; Ireanaeus; Contra Haer esses 1. Ill P.G. 7:958ff; Tertullian, De Came Christi, 17, P.L. 2:827-828.
13 Carmina Nisibena, Leipzig, 1866 p. 40.
14Enarrat, in Psalm 117 P.L. 15:1599.
15 De Natura et Gratia c. 36n. 42. M.P.L. 44:267. There is some dif¬ ficulty in determining whether St. Augustine was consistent in his teach¬ ing on this point but the better opinion seems to be that he was. Cf. Roschini op. cit. v. 1 pp. I46ff.
16 Orat. in Sanctam Mariam M.P.G. 77:1427.
17 De Laudibus Sanctae Mariae 1, P.G. 65:681.
18Homilia IV (ante Natale Domini) P.L. 57:235.
19 Od. 4.
20 Sermo de Duplici Nativitate Christi P.L. 65:728.
21Sermo de Laudibus Mariae M.P.L. 65:899.
22Oratio 2 in SS. Deiparae Annuntiationem P.G. 87:3247.
23 Epistola Synodic a ad Sergium P.G. 87:3159.
24 Encomium in B, Virginem P.G. 862: 3279; 3282; 3883.
25 Homilia de Nativitate B. Virginis P. G. 96: 664-665.
26 Constitution Cum praeexcelsa 28 Feb. 1476. cf. Denz. n734. Also Constitution Grave N't mis 4 Sept. 1487 cf. Denz. n735.
27 Bull, Ex omnibus afflctionibusf 1 Oct. 1567 proposition 73. cf. Denz. n. 1073.
28 Bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiorum, 8 Dec. 1661 cf Denz. nllOO.
29 Luke 1, 35.
30 Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec. 1854.
31 Bull, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov. 1950.
32 Apocalypse 12, 1.
33 Proverbs 8, 22-31.
34 Bull, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov. 1950.
35 Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec. 1854.
36 Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec. 1854.
37 Cf. Leo XIII, Ency. Octobri mense, 22 Sept. 1891.
38 Cf. Ency. Ad diem ilium, 2 Feb. 1904.
HAIL, FULL OF GRACE
87
OUTLINE
Introduction: The mystery of the Immaculate Conception is a very important doctrine, but there is a danger that it may seem distant from us.
I. The nature of the Immaculate Conception explained.
II. The fact of the Immaculate Conception proved by Scrip¬ ture, Tradition, and papal teaching.
III. The reason for the Immaculate Conception:
1. Why God bestowed this privilege upon our Lady.
2. How this doctrine has meaning for us.
Discussion Questions
1. Show that Mary’s Immaculate Conception is not opposed to the universality of Christ’s redemption.
2. In what texts of sacred Scripture is the doctrine of the Im¬ maculate Conception revealed?
3. Discuss the fittingness of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in relation to each of the divine Persons of the Trinity.
4. How is Mary’s Immaculate Conception helpful to us?
5. What is the extent of grace possessed by Mary?
88
QQ MARY’S ASSUMPTION 5
BY
REV. JAMES J. DOYLE, S.J., S.T.D.
I
w HEN the Spanish Catholic painter, El Greco, bodied forth onto canvas his mind’s picture of Mary’s Assumption, he taxed his genius to portray for us what a person in heavenly glory is like. To portray her Assumption as he did was to coincide with the solemn pronouncement of Pius XII defin¬ ing Mary’s Assumption in these words: “The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” The Pope by the terms "heavenly glory of body and soul” defines the Assumption principally as a state of her body and soul, as a condition of her very being. The idea of place and of movement to a place is not primarily in¬ tended. For heaven is, above all, not a place but a state. Re¬ verting to El Greco’s picture we note the power and glory which God has put into Mary’s body. This is pictured by the
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
89
utter ease with which Mary rises upwards, by the lightness o£ her body, expressed by the fleecy cloud and the crescent moon at her feet, by the suggested assimilation of her body to the bodies of the accompanying angels — an assimilation which portrays movement, agitation, agility. This same lightness of body is further emphasized by the contrast with the bodies of the apostles standing on the earth below around the empty tomb. It is as if the artist would picture to us the complete freedom of her body from any earthly constraint and limita¬ tion — as if the body, now made by God completely subject to the soul, responds to the soul’s own spiritual urge towards God.
Yet this is not all that El Greco’s brush has succeeded in portraying. The Apostles surround an empty tomb, broken open. Broken open, robbed of its prey, this tomb represents the incorruptibility and immortality of Mary’s glorified body. Once again, see the power God has bestowed on his Mother — death, the great enemy, the seeming all-conqueror, cannot hold her, never touch her. To borrow St. Paul’s words used to describe the similar state of Christ’s glorified body, "death shall no longer have power over her.”
Finally, El Greco has indicated by the slashes of light that fall across Mary’s garments the beauty which causes her glori¬ fied body to shine, as, it were, like light. Thus this famous painting portrays for us the four qualities which Catholic teach¬ ing has always ascribed to a glorified body. First, subtlety, the complete subjection of the body to the soul. Second, agility, the ability of the body to react with ease and speed to the soul’s command. Third, incorruptibility and immortality — the impossibility of suffering and death. Fourth, clarity, the quali¬ ty which makes the glorified body shine as it were like light. Put these together with the upward, heavenward movement
90
IN PRAISE OF MARY
of Mary’s body and you have pictured the meaning of the as¬ sumption of her body.
El Greco, in picturing Mary’s glorified body as if it were spiritualized, was not inventing. Of course, the glorified body does not and cannot turn into a spirit. Indeed, our Blessed Lord, appearing to his disciples on the first Easter Sunday met precisely this doubt in their minds and this question writ¬ ten on their faces. St. Luke (24:37-40) tells us: "They were startled and panic-stricken, for they thought they saw a spirit. And Jesus said to them: 'Why are you disturbed, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Feel me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.’ So a glorified human body does not turn into a spirit. Mary’s glorified body then and now is the perfect, integral, and complete body of a woman enjoying the prime of life. And yet, as we said, the intuition of El Greco was sound in portraying her body as if it were somehow spiritualized. For the great painter was merely trying to express with brush, paint and canvas what St. Paul, centuries before, had expressed in words. Writing to the Corinthians (I Cor. 15:43-44; 53-55) who were con¬ cerned over precisely this question: What will our glorified bodies be like? St. Paul answers: "what is sown in corruption rises in incorruption; what is sown in dishonor rises in glory; what is sown in weakness rises in power; what is sown a natural body rises a spiritual body ... for this corruptible body must put on incorruption, and this mortal body must put on immortality. . . . Then shall come to pass the word that is written: . . . 'O Death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?’ ” St. Paul, all the time aware of Christ’s words to the apostles in the supper-room still speaks of a glorified body as a spiritual body. So El Greco, in trying to picture
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
91
Mary’s glorified body as somehow spiritualized was well within his rights. Note that in the passage just cited from St. Paul we have enumerated the four qualities of a glorified body mentioned previously.
But Mary’s Assumption involves more than the glorification of her body. The solemn words of Pope Pius XII cited above mentioned a glorification of her soul as well. What does this mean? In the language of the catechism it means she received the beatific vision, she now saw God face to face, not, of course with bodily eyes, but with her mind, her intellect. If it is difficult for us to grasp what the glorification of a human body means, how much more difficult, think you, is it to get even a faint glimmering of what the beatific vision means. It is the saturation of mind, will and heart by the Triune God. God shows Himself to our minds now, not by the intermedi¬ ary of some creature, not darkly, as in a metal mirror, but openly, clearly, immediately. We see Him as He is in Him¬ self, and not according to the similarity He has with His created likenesses, however noble and lovely these may be. On earth, we get a faint idea of His goodness by saying that it is like our mother’s or father’s goodness. The comparison, while valid and even necessary here below, falls far short of the reality. Suppose we were almost blind, with the power to see light and color only dimly. Suppose, too, a friend tried to give us some idea of the beauty of a purple sunset in the mountains or of a rosy-fingered dawn breaking across the meadows. Suppose, even, that this friend were a most gifted poet, skilled in all the magic of words. How little, after all, would he convey to us of the beauty and splendor which his own eyes beheld. He would have to make us understand his descriptions by comparing the varied color and light to some¬ thing within our experience. He would say: "It’s like this
92
IN PRAISE OF MARY
or that” — something you already have seen with blear-eyed vision. You would get some idea, but how faint, how far from the reality. So it is with our knowledge of God now — yes, with the knowledge of the greatest saints during their lifetime — compared to the ecstasy and splendor of the immedi¬ ate vision of God. This ecstasy, this splendor, this rapture of seeing God face to face, the one she loved so well, above all, flooded Mary’s soul like the burst of a full dawn — the dawn of a day that was to know no ending, for it was the day of eternity. Can you imagine the surge of love and joy that thrilled Mary’s soul, yes, and her whole being to its in¬ most depths? We say 'ecstasy,’ 'rapture,’ we think of our own moments of exquisite happiness when we were carried out¬ side ourselves. But we are forced to confess that these ex¬ periences pale almost into insignificance compared to the love and joy which pulsated through Mary when, with the vision of her unique beloved, heavenly glory began for her.
This, then, is the principal meaning of the Assumption, of the Pope’s words "She was taken up body and soul into heav¬ enly glory.” They mean primarily heaven as a state. Second¬ arily, they refer to heaven as a place: she was taken to this place, where her Divine Son was waiting for her. Here we behold another factor in her glorification — reunion with Jesus in the flesh. Now her bodily eyes behold Him, her arms em¬ brace Him and press Him once more to her bosom. The two hearts that always beat as one now beat together in utter, unending bliss.
When we pray the fourth glorious mystery of the rosary, this is the meaning it should have for us. She had, only in incomparably greater measure, all we will have through our own beatific vision and the resurrection of our bodies.
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
93
II
Let us pass to the second part of our lecture. Granted that we have the meaning of the Assumption, how do we know that it is all true? Especially, how do we know the truth of the glorification of her body? About that of her soul, no Christian has doubted from the very beginning of the Church. But that of her body, how do we know that is so? It is, of course, known by faith. We do not claim that it is a fact veri¬ fiable by mere historical research or testimony. Rather our assent to this truth is based on God’s revelation communicated to us through His infallible Church. This is sufficient. Yet some questions still remain. If we turn for a moment to con¬ sider these questions, raised by the Pope’s solemn act of de¬ fining the Assumption on November 1, 1950, we find that they, though primarily the concern of the theologian, never¬ theless interest the other members of the Church as well. St. Peter in his first letter (3,15) says: "Be ready always with an answer to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in you.” This exhortation is certainly applicable to our faith also. All of us, theologians and others, depending EQUALLY on the unerring voice of Christ’s vicar on earth should be ready with an answer for those who might ask us a reason for this belief of ours in Mary’s Assumption, especially her bodily glorification. There are two distinct questions to be answered. We have just said that we know the truth of Mary’s bodily Assumption because the Pope, who is infallible in such matters, has solemnly declared it to be a truth revealed by God. The first question, then, is: how could the Pope arrive at the conclusion that this was a revealed truth? In the document containing the definition the Pope gives us briefly the essential reasons on which this conclusion is based. On
94
IN PRAISE OF MARY
May 1, 1946 he had sent an official letter to all the bishops of the world asking them two questions: whether they judged that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin could be pro¬ posed and defined as a dogma of faith; and whether they and their people desired such a definition. The almost unanimous repsonse of the bishops throughout the world to both questions was yes. Now the Pope could rightly conclude from this al¬ most universal agreement of the ordinary doctrinal authority in the Church together with the concordant faith of the Cath¬ olic people: that Mary’s bodily Assumption was a truth re¬ vealed by Christ to His Spouse, the Church, to be preserved faithfully and taught and interpreted infallibly. Why does this follow? Because, if the whole teaching body of the Church and the whole body of the faithful in dependence upon it were in error on such a point, that is, were believing some truth to be revealed by God which was not, then the Holy Spirit would have deserted the infallible teaching authority of the Church and thus have deserted us who are taught and ruled by that authority. Christ’s words, those solemn words addressed to the Apostles and their successors forever: (Matt. 28,18ff), "Go ye and teach all nations whatsoever I have com¬ manded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world,” would be proven false and illusory. The Church, believing something to be revelation when it was not, would be no longer in St. Paul’s words, "The pillar and ground of the truth,” but a society of error. We would indeed, be the most miserable of men. For Christ in uttering those words to the Apostles and their successors, and in saying to Peter and his successors (Matt. 16,18), "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” was promising to them the Spirit of Truth to help them teach His doctrine, His
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
95
revelation. Certainly, then, He did not promise this assistance of the Holy Spirit to enable the Pope and Bishops to propose errors or to propound new revelations. This latter point is one which will bear emphasis here: the definition of Mary’s Assumption is not a new revelation, for public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle, St. John. The Assumption is, indeed, the proposal by the Church of a revelation not former¬ ly proposed. And the infallible Church can from time to time propose such truths; they are not new revelations, but the explicit proposal of a revealed truth which formerly was not explicitly proposed for our belief. I say an explicit presenta¬ tion to denote the fact that the Church may for a long time present a revealed truth for our belief only implicitly, that is, as contained in one or several other truths proposed explicit¬ ly. The truth implicitly proposed and implicitly believed is like an underground river whose existence no one sus- spects until it gushes forth at some spot to betray its pres¬ ence. The passage of a truth implicitly proposed and be¬ lieved formerly, to the state of explicit proposal and accept¬ ance is instanced in Mary’s bodily Assumption. Her Immac¬ ulate Conception is also a case in point. Thus we see that we may not equate the explicit proposal of a truth proposed formerly only implicitly, with a new revelation. To do so would be a lamentable confusion.
The comparison used of the underground river might prove misleading. As if, all of a sudden, the knowledge of Mary’s bodily Assumption passed from the state of implicit proposal and belief to that of explicit proposal and belief. No! Rather let us understand the comparison in this way: just as the underground river might first betray its presence by an in¬ creased dampness of the ground above it, then farther on in its course by pools of water, and finally by a full uprushing
96
IN PRAISE OF MARY
of its cool, crystal clear waters, so the certainty of the whole Church that Mary’s Assumption was a revealed truth grew until it was believed explicitly as a revealed truth.
We can note the first beginnings of this development in the Mass of the feast of Our Blessed Lady’s Dormition, as it was called. This was celebrated quite widely in the Church by the years 620-630. Prior to that date, sometime late in the sixth century, the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-602) had decreed the celebration of a full-fledged feast towards the end of the sixth century and this argues to some period of prep¬ aration for such a solemnity. If, for this and other reasons, we place the beginnings of this feast of Mary’s Dormition some¬ time after the beginning of the sixth century, we see how ancient this belief is. Now I hear someone saying to me: you speak of a feast of Mary’s Falling Asleep. All that proves is the celebration of the entrance of her soul into glory; it says nothing of the glorification of her body. Such an objection is well-taken. If, however, we notice the sermons preached by the bishops and priests on the occasion of this feast — and the full text of many of these is extant today — we note that her Falling Asleep has for them a unique character, marking it off clearly from the passages of the saints into heavenly glory. First, the preachers always insist on Mary’s Divine Mother¬ hood and her perpetual virginity in this connection. Soon, in St. Germanus of Constantinople (d.733), St. Andrew of Crete (740), St. John Damascene (749), over and above the praises heaped upon Mary for the glorification of her soul, we meet such passages as the following; from a sermon of St. John Damascene: "O admirable passing, which gives admission to the presence of God. For, although, this presence be granted to all the servants filled with the spirit of God . . . there is, however, an infinite difference between the servants of God
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
97
and his mother. ... If in the natural course of events her holy and blessed soul is separated from her venerable and spot¬ less body, and if her body has been consigned to the grave . . . still it will not remain in death and will not be the prey of corruption.” St. Germanus: "Since he who humbled himself in her was God from the beginning and was life before all ages, it was right that the mother of Life should be associated with life; her death should be only a sleep and her removal an awakening.” Again: "No, death will not boast of you, because you have carried Life in your womb.” After the sev¬ enth century the evidence becomes overwhelming.
All these testimonies come from the Eastern Catholic Church. Let us choose just one, but a more important, a most transcend¬ ent one, from the Latin Church. St. Sergius I, Pope from 687-701, prescribed processions for the four feasts of Mary celebrated at Rome: her Purification, her Annunciation, her Falling Asleep, and Her Nativity. The prayer said at the church where the people gathered just before the procession was called the collect (ad collectam). The collect in use al¬ ready before Sergius’ time (687) for the feast of Mary’s Falling Asleep was one in which theologians rightly see the assertion of her bodily Assumption: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day, on which the Holy Mother of God underwent temporal death, but nevertheless could not be held down by the bonds of death, since, in generating Thy Son, Our Lord, she gave him flesh from her flesh.” (Allusion to Acts 2: 24 — death cannot hold down.)
Let these citations suffice to mark the beginnings of that explicit faith which day by day becoming clearer, surer, firmer, gave us finally what is today our cherished possession — the Pope’s solemn definition of Mary’s Assumption. Or to revert to our comparison of the underground river, we might say:
98
IN PRAISE OF MARY
these passages from the Catholic preachers of the Oriental Church and from the Roman liturgy are the first manifesta¬ tions of the presence of that underground river, that implicit proposal and belief, that was to go on through the ages until it became fully manifest in our own mid-twentieth century. The comparison, at this point, is more apt than might appear at first sight. For just as the underground stream, though the general direction of its flow is steadily onwards in one direction, still meets checks and obstacles, seems even stopped for a time, only to flow over and around these obstacles, so also the movement of the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assump¬ tion is steadily onwards in one direction despite vicissitudes. It is, however, only from the vantage point of the response of the bishops to the Pope’s letter, and especially from the vantage point of the solemn definition that we can make this assertion. It would, indeed, be to distort history for us to say that the doctrine met with no opposition, even within the Church, once it had begun to exist in the explicit conscious¬ ness of the faithful. Opposition may be too strong a word. Certainly, there were those who stood aloof, who harbored a sceptical or, at least, reserved, attitude. The chief difficulty seems to have been that this wonderful doctrine had no founda¬ tion either in Scripture or in early written records, or that it might be based on the apocryphal accounts of Mary’s death and burial. But the great doctors and theologians along with the bishops and Popes always supported this doctrine both by their skill in argumentation and by their erudition. Merely to mention their names is a roll call of our "greats” through the centuries. St. Anthony of Padua, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori and Francis Suarez. The last named asserted, even before
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
99
1617, that the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption could be defined as a revealed truth.
Before we go on, let us pause and get our bearings. The three parts of this discourse are: 1) what does Mary’s As¬ sumption mean; 2) how do we know it is true; 3) what does it mean to us? We are at present engaged in answering the second question: how do we know it is true? Recall with me the course of our discussion on this point so far: we know the truth of the Assumption by our faith which is proposed to us by the infallible definition of the Pope. How did the Pope know that the bodily Assumption of Mary was a revealed truth ? Because, in questioning the bishops as to whether they thought the matter could be defined as a truth revealed by God and whether they and their flocks so desired, the answer was a unanimous yes. Given this situation, if the Assump¬ tion were not a divinely revealed truth, then the whole Church, pastors and flock, would be in error in things about which Christ had promised absolute immunity from error through the constant assistance and guidance of the Holy Spirit, pledged to Peter and the Apostles and to their successors forever. So, we concluded, the Assumption is a Divinely revealed truth. We warned, however, that it need not be explicitly revealed or explicitly in the consciousness of the Church from the beginning. Implicit revelation was sufficient. Later explicit proposal and belief could follow — it could be like the under¬ ground river.
Finally, after noting that this implicit faith could become explicit gradually, we sketched the gradual process from its first beginnings in the Oriental preachers like St. John Dama¬ scene, and in the Roman liturgy from before the time of Pope St. Sergius through the great bishops, doctors and theologians
100
IN PRAISE OF MARY
of the Church and in the manifestations of the piety and devo¬ tion of the faithful down to the definition of Pius XII.
But still an important question remains to be answered: if we say that Mary’s Assumption is revealed implicitly, that is, as contained in other truths which are explicitly revealed, what are these explicitly revealed truths in which God implicitly revealed the Assumption? This question brings us back to Sacred Scripture and the early centuries of the Church.
In Sacred Scripture we find Our Blessed Mother revealed as most constantly and intimately associated with her Divine Son. Christ, says St. Paul, is the second Adam, and, since the very early years of the second century Christian thought has ex¬ plicitly mentioned Mary as the second or new Eve. She is just as closely associated with the New Adam in His work of repairing the ruin caused by the old Adam as Eve was associated with the old Adam in causing our ruin. In the book of Genesis (3,15), a passage which is justly styled the Proto-evangel or First Gospel, we find Mary intimately joined with Christ. Recall the scene of Genesis. Just after the fall of Adam and Eve through the temptation of the devil, a fall which involved each one of us, God curses the serpent which is a symbol of the devil, in these awesome words: "I will place enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He (that is, her seed, according to the Hebrew text) will crush your head and you shall wound him in the heel.” Now, because Our Latin Vulgate translated these latter words so as to refer them to the woman; that is, she shall crush your head and you shall lie in wait for her heel, our Catholic artists have found inspiration here for depicting Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The Hebrew text refers the words, however, not to the woman but to her seed, her off¬ spring. But indirectly the words are referred to the woman
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
101
also, and hence our artists are justified even on the basis of the Hebrew text. Returning now to the first part of the text, we hear God establishing enmity between the devil and the woman. The seed of the woman is Christ, the Redeemer, and the woman is Mary. Now because of the parallelism in this fifteenth verse, the enmity between Satan and the woman is parallel and similar to the enmity between Christ and Satan. Now this latter enmity is absolute. Christ has no part with Satan in any way; as Redeemer He will crush his head. In what does the redemption consist? In freeing us from sin, certainly. But in freeing us from death also. Hence, from this text of Genesis we may conclude that the woman Mary is associated with Christ just as intimately in His victory as in His enmity; she shares in that victory over sin and death. Hence, in, through, and with her Son she knows not the cor¬ ruption of the grave. This freedom from the corruption of the grave is her bodily Assumption. To give this argument all its weight we should note that in St. Paul especially, death as well as sin is the enemy to be overcome by the Redeemer. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death” he tells the Cor¬ inthians (I. 15,24). For death in the present order of Provi¬ dence is the consequence of sin: "By one man sin came into the world and by sin death.”
Recall the text we cited earlier from the first letter to the Corinthians (15,54) : "... this mortal body must put on im¬ mortality. Then shall come to pass the word that is written: ’O death where is thy victory? O death where is thy sting?’ ” Note how explicitly he joins sin and death; how the incor¬ ruption and immortality of the resurrected body described with such emphasis throughout this passage represents the complete victory over sin and its consequence, death. The per¬ spective, then, of Holy Scripture is this: Christ the Redeemer
102
IN PRAISE OF MARY
conquers Satan by conquering sin and its consequence, death — both brought into the world by Satan, as the first book of the Bible bears witness. By His resurrection, gaining an immortal body, Christ conquers death. But Mary, according to Sacred Scripture is closely associated with Christ. She is full of grace; she is ever Virgin; she is the Mother of Christ, Mother of God; a mother without the pangs of childbirth, for these were the punishment inflicted on Eve for her part in the first sin. She is blessed amongst women (Lk. 1,42). Can we as¬ sert all this and still deny her Assumption? If Christ applied the fruits of the redemption to her soul in a most singular and privileged way through her Immaculate Conception, why deny he did the same for her body at the end of her earth¬ ly life? Can she who conceived Christ, God Himself, in her womb, who nursed Him at her breasts, whose hands and feet labored for Him, who clasped Him to her bosom, can she be in heaven in soul while her body rots in an unknown grave? Hear St. Robert Bellarmine exclaim: “And who, I ask, could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling place of the Word of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, could be reduced to ruin? My soul is filled with horror at the thought that the virginal flesh which has begotten God, had brought Him into the world, had nourished Him and cared for Him, could turn into ashes or given over to be the food of worms.” This cry of St. Robert Bellarmine has been the spontaneous cry of the Catholic heart throughout the ages, since the sixth century.
With this we complete our answer to the question: in what truths explicitly revealed is the Assumption implicitly revealed? The answer: In Mary's intimate, ineffably close association with the Redeemer in his victory over sin and death. This association, expressed clearly already in the second cen¬ tury by calling Mary the New Eve, includes the revealed truths
MARY’S ASSUMPTION
103
of her Divine Motherhood, her perpetual virginity, her fulness of grace, her blessedness amongst women.
Let us turn now to the third part of tonight’s lecture: what does Mary’s Assumption mean to us? Here our riches em¬ barrass us, and nothing is wanting except time to detail them in their fulness. There is a peculiar timeliness in the Pope’s definition of Mary’s Assumption.
First of all, the Assumption means the greater glory of God, of Christ, Mary’s Son. For as we saw in the beginning, Mary was assumed by the power of God, a power which God put into Mary’s body and a glory he put into her soul. God thus manifests to us His goodness and strength, shows us how wonderful He is, and thus filling us with joy makes