The Blessed Virgin Mary

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God.

In general, the theology and history of Mary the Mother of God follow the

chronological order of their respective sources, i.e. the Old Testament, the New

Testament, the early Christian and Jewish witnesses.

I. MARY PROPHESIED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its

types or figures.

Genesis 3:15

The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the

Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and

thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her

heel." This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew

text:

(1) First, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings "she

shall crush" and "thou shalt lie in wait"; the Septuagint renders the verb both

times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan

translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to

bruise; the Itala renders the terein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin

"servare", to guard; St. Jerome [1] maintains that the Hebrew verb has the

meaning of "crushing" or "bruising" rather than of "lying in wait", "guarding". Still

in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the verb "to

crush" (conterere) in the first place, and "to lie in wait" (insidiari) in the second.

Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the serpent's retaliation are

expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is mortal, since it

affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is not mortal, being

inflicted on the heel.

(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version

concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version

agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which refers to the

woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu' (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of

the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself

will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through

her seed. In this sense does the Bull "Ineffabilis" ascribe the victory to Our

Blessed Lady. The reading "she" (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the

original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version

expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady's part in the victory over the serpent,

which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian

tradition as to Mary's share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of

"she" in St. Jerome's version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text

and with the reading "he" (ipse) in the old Latin version.

As it is quite commonly admitted that the Divine judgment is directed not so

much against the serpent as against the originator of sin, the seed of the serpent

denotes the followers of the serpent, the "brood of vipers", the "generation of

vipers", those whose father is the Devil, the children of evil, imitando, non

nascendo (Augustine). [2] One may be tempted to understand the seed of the

woman in a similar collective sense, embracing all who are born of God. But

seed not only may denote a particular person, but has such a meaning usually, if

the context allows it. St. Paul (Galatians 3:16) gives this explanation of the word

"seed" as it occurs in the patriarchal promises: "To Abraham were the promises

made and to his seed. He saith not, and to his seeds, as of many; but as of one,

and to his seed, which is Christ". Finally the expression "the woman" in the

clause "I will put enmities between thee and the woman" is a literal version of the

Hebrew text. The Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch [3] establishes the

rule: Peculiar to the Hebrew is the use of the article in order to indicate a person

or thing, not yet known and not yet to be more clearly described, either as

present or as to be taken into account under the contextual conditions. Since our

indefinite article serves this purpose, we may translate: "I will put enmities

between you and a woman". Hence the prophecy promises a woman, Our

Blessed Lady, who will be the enemy of the serpent to a marked degree;

besides, the same woman will be victorious over the Devil, at least through her

offspring. The completeness of the victory is emphasized by the contextual

phrase "earth shall thou eat", which is according to Winckler [4] a common

old-oriental expression denoting the deepest humiliation [5].

Isaias 7:1-17

The second prophecy referring to Mary is found in Isaias 7:1-17. Critics have

endeavoured to represent this passage as a combination of occurrences and

sayings from the life of the prophet written down by an unknown hand [6]. The

credibility of the contents is not necessarily affected by this theory, since

prophetic traditions may be recorded by any writer without losing their credibility.

But even Duhm considers the theory as an apparent attempt on the part of the

critics to find out what the readers are willing to bear patiently; he believes it is a

real misfortune for criticism itself that it has found a mere compilation in a

passage which so graphically describes the birth-hour of faith.

According to IV Kings 16:1-4, and II Paralipomenon 27:1-8, Achaz, who began

his reign 736 B.C., openly professed idolatry, so that God gave him into the

hands of the kings of Syria and Israel. It appears that an alliance had been

concluded between Phacee, King of Israel, and Rasin, King of Damascus, for the

purpose of opposing a barrier to the Assyrian aggressions. Achaz, who

cherished Assyrian proclivities, did not join the coalition; the allies invaded his

territory, intending to substitute for Achaz a more subservient ruler, a certain son

of Tabeel. While Rasin was occupied in reconquering the maritime city Elath,

Phacee alone proceeded against Juda, "but they could not prevail". After Elath

had fallen, Rasin joined his forces with those of Phacee; "Syria hath rested upon

Ephraim", whereupon "his (Achaz') heart was moved, and the heart of his people,

as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind". Immediate preparations

must be made for a protracted siege, and Achaz is busily engaged near the

upper pool from which the city received the greater part of its water supply.

Hence the Lord says to Isaias: "Go forth to meet Achaz. . .at the end of the

conduit of the upper pool". The prophet's commission is of an extremely

consoling nature: "See thou be quiet; hear not, and let not thy heart be afraid of

the two tails of these firebrands". The scheme of the enemies shall not succeed:

"it shall not stand, and this shall not be." What is to be the particular fate of the

enemies?

Syria will gain nothing, it will remain as it has been in the past: "the head

of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rasin".

Ephraim too will remain in the immediate future as it has been hitherto:

"the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria the son of

Romelia"; but after sixty-five years it will be destroyed, "within threescore

and five years Ephraim shall cease to be a people".

Achaz had abandoned the Lord for Moloch, and put his trust in an alliance with

Assyria; hence the conditional prophecy concerning Juda, "if you will not believe,

you shall not continue". The test of belief follows immediately: "ask thee a sign of

the Lord thy God, either unto the depth of hell or unto the height above". Achaz

hypocritically answers: "I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord", thus refusing

to express his belief in God, and preferring his Assyrian policy. The king prefers

Assyria to God, and Assyria will come: "the Lord shall bring upon thee and upon

thy people, and upon the house of thy father, days that have not come since the

time of the separation of Ephraim from Juda with the king of the Assyrians." The

house of David has been grievous not merely to men, but to God also by its

unbelief; hence it "shall not continue", and, by an irony of Divine punishment, it

will be destroyed by those very men whom it preferred to God.

Still the general Messianic promises made to the house of David cannot be

frustrated: "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive,

and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. He shall eat butter and

honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good. For before

the child know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good, the land which thou

abhorrest shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings." Without answering a

number of questions connected with the explanation of the prophecy, we must

confine ourselves here to the bare proof that the virgin mentioned by the prophet

is Mary the Mother of Christ. The argument is based on the premises that the

prophet's virgin is the mother of Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel is Christ. The

relation of the virgin to Emmanuel is clearly expressed in the inspired words; the

same indicate also the identity of Emmanuel with the Christ.

The connection of Emmanuel with the extraordinary Divine sign which was to be

given to Achaz predisposes one to see in the child more than a common boy. In

8:8, the prophet ascribes to him the ownership of the land of Juda: "the

stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emmanuel". In 9:6,

the government of the house of David is said to be upon his shoulders, and he is

described as being endowed with more than human qualities: "a child is born to

us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulders, and his

name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the

World to Come, and the Prince of Peace". Finally, the prophet calls Emmanuel

"a rod out of the root of Jesse" endowed with "the spirit of the Lord. . .the spirit of

wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of

knowledge and of godliness"; his advent shall be followed by the general signs of

the Messianic era, and the remnant of the chosen people shall be again the

people of God (11:1-16).

Whatever obscurity or ambiguity there may be in the prophetic text itself is

removed by St. Matthew (1:18-25). After narrating the doubt of St. Joseph and

the angel's assurance, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost", the

Evangelist proceeds: "now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the

Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." We need not repeat the

exposition of the passage given by Catholic commentators who answer the

exceptions raised against the obvious meaning of the Evangelist. We may infer

from all this that Mary is mentioned in the prophecy of Isaias as mother of Jesus

Christ; in the light of St. Matthew's reference to the prophecy, we may add that

the prophecy predicted also Mary's virginity untarnished by the conception of the

Emmanuel [7].

Micheas 5:2-3

A third prophecy referring to Our Blessed Lady is contained in Micheas 5:2-3:

"And thou, Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out

of thee shall be come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel, and his going

forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Therefore will he give them

up till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth, and the remnant of his

brethren shall be converted to the children of Israel." Though the prophet (about

750-660 B.C.) was a contemporary of Isaias, his prophetic activity began a little

later and ended a little earlier than that of Isaias. There can be no doubt that the

Jews regarded the foregoing prediction as referring to the Messias. According to

St. Matthew (2:6) the chief priests and scribes, when asked where the Messias

was to be born, answered Herod in the words of the prophecy, "And thou

Bethlehem the land of Juda. . ." According to St. John (7:42), the Jewish

populace gathered at Jerusalem for the celebration of the feast asked the

rhetorical question: "Doth not the Scripture say that Christ cometh of the seed of

David, and from Bethlehem, the town where David was?" The Chaldee paraphrase

of Mich. 5:2, confirms the same view: "Out of thee shall come forth unto me the

Messias, that he may exercise dominion in Israel". The very words of the

prophecy admit of hardly any other explanation; for "his going forth is from the

beginning, from the days of eternity".

But how does the prophecy refer to the Virgin Mary? Our Blessed Lady is

denoted by the phrase, "till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth".

It is true that "she that travaileth" has been referred to the Church (St. Jerome,

Theodoret), or to the collection of the Gentiles united with Christ (Ribera,

Mariana), or again to Babylon (Calmet); but, on the one hand, there is hardly a

sufficient connection between any of these events and the promised redeemer,

on the other hand, the passage ought to read "till the time wherein she that is

barren shall bring forth" if any of these events were referred to by the prophet. Nor

can "she that travaileth" be referred to Sion: Sion is spoken of without figure

before and after the present passage so that we cannot expect the prophet to

lapse suddenly into figurative language. Moreover, the prophecy thus explained

would not give a satisfactory sense. The contextual phrases "the ruler in Israel",

"his going forth", which in Hebrew implies birth, and "his brethren" denote an

individual, not a nation; hence we infer that the bringing forth must refer to the

same person. It has been shown that the person of the ruler is the Messias;

hence "she that travaileth" must denote the mother of Christ, or Our Blessed

Lady. Thus explained the whole passage becomes clear: the Messias must be

born in Bethlehem, an insignificant village in Juda: his family must be reduced to

poverty and obscurity before the time of his birth; as this cannot happen if the

theocracy remains intact, if David's house continues to flourish, "therefore will he

give them up till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth" the

Messias. [8]

Jeremias 21:22

A fourth prophecy referring to Mary is found in Jeremias 21:22; "The Lord has

created a new thing upon the earth: A woman shall compass a man". The text of

the prophet Jeremias offers no small difficulties for the scientific interpreter; we

shall follow the Vulgate version of the Hebrew original. But even this rendering

has been explained in several different ways: Rosenmuller and several

conservative Protestant interpreters defend the meaning, "a woman shall protect

a man"; but such a motive would hardly induce the men of Israel to return to God.

The explanation "a woman shall seek a man" hardly agrees with the text;

besides, such an inversion of the natural order is presented in Isaias 4:1, as a

sign of the greatest calamity. Ewald's rendering, "a woman shall change into a

man", is hardly faithful to the original text. Other commentators see in the

woman a type of the Synagogue or of the Church, in man the type of God, so

that they explain the prophecy as meaning, "God will dwell again in the midst of

the Synagogue (of the people of Israel)" or "the Church will protect the earth with

its valiant men". But the Hebrew text hardly suggests such a meaning; besides,

such an explanation renders the passage tautological: "Israel shall return to its

God, for Israel will love its God". Some recent writers render the Hebrew original:

"God creates a new thing upon the earth: the woman (wife) returns to the man

(her husband)". According to the old law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Jeremias 3:1) the

husband could not take back the wife once repudiated by him; but the Lord will

do something new by allowing the faithless wife, i.e. the guilty nation, to return to

the friendship of God. This explanation rests upon a conjectural correction of the

text; besides, it does not necessarily bear the Messianic meaning which we

expect in the passage.

The Greek Fathers generally follow the Septuagint version, "The Lord has created

salvation in a new plantation, men shall go about in safety"; but St. Athanasius

twice [9] combines Aquila's version "God has created a new thing in woman" with

that of the Septuagint, saying that the new plantation is Jesus Christ, and that

the new thing created in woman is the body of the Lord, conceived within the

virgin without the co-operation of man. St. Jerome too [10] understands the

prophetic text of the virgin conceiving the Messias. This meaning of the passage

satisfies the text and the context. As the Word Incarnate possessed from the

first moment of His conception all His perfections excepting those connected

with His bodily development, His mother is rightly said to "compass a man". No

need to point out that such a condition of a newly conceived child is rightly called

"a new thing upon earth". The context of the prophecy describes after a short

general introduction (30:1-3) Israel's future freedom and restoration in four

stanzas: 30:4-11, 12-22; 30:23; 31:14, 15-26; the first three stanzas end with the

hope of the Messianic time. The fourth stanza, too, must be expected to have a

similar ending. Moreover, the prophecy of Jeremias, uttered about 589 B.C. and

understood in the sense just explained, agrees with the contemporary Messianic

expectations based on Isaias 7:14; 9:6; Mich. 5:3. According to Jeremias, the

mother of Christ is to differ from other mothers in this, that her child, even while

within her womb, shall possess all those properties which constitute real

manhood [11]. The Old Testament refers indirectly to Mary in those prophecies

which predict the incarnation of the Word of God.

II. OLD TESTAMENT TYPES AND FIGURES OF MARY

In order to be sure of the typical sense, it must be revealed, i.e. it must come

down to us through Scripture or tradition. Individual pious writers have developed

copious analogies between certain data of the Old Testament and corresponding

data of the New; however ingenious these developments may be, they do not

prove that God really intended to convey the corresponding truths in the inspired

text of the Old Testament. On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that not all

truths contained in either Scripture or tradition have been explicitly proposed to

the faithful as matters of belief by the explicit definition of the Church. According

to the principle "Lex orandi est lex credenti" we must treat at least with reverence

the numberless suggestions contained in the official prayers and liturgies of the

Church. In this sense we must regard many of the titles bestowed on Our

Blessed Lady in her litany and in the "Ave maris stella". The Antiphons and

Responses found in the Offices recited on the various feasts of Our Blessed Lady

suggest a number of types of Mary that hardly could have been brought so vividly

to the notice of the Church's ministers in any other way. The third antiphon of

Lauds of the Feast of the Circumcision sees in "the bush that was not burnt"

(Exodus 3:2) a figure of Mary conceiving her Son without the loss of her virginity.

The second antiphon of Lauds of the same Office sees in Gideon's fleece wet

with dew while all the ground beside had remained dry (Judges 6:37-38) a type of

Mary receiving in her womb the Word Incarnate [12]. The Office of the Blessed

Virgin applies to Mary many passages concerning the spouse in the Canticle of

Canticles [13] and also concerning Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, 8:22-31

[14]. The application to Mary of a "garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up"

mentioned in Canticles 4:12 is only a particular instance of what has been said

above. [15] Besides, Sara, Debbora, Judith, and Esther are variously used as

figures of Mary; the ark of the Covenant, over which the presence of God

manifested itself, is used as the figure of Mary carrying God Incarnate within her

womb. But especially Eve, the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), is

considered as a type of Mary who is the mother of all the living in the order of

grace [16].

III. MARY IN THE GOSPELS

The reader of the Gospels is at first surprised to find so little about Mary; but this

obscurity of Mary in the Gospels has been studied at length by Blessed Peter

Canisius [17], Auguste Nicolas [18], Cardinal Newman [19], and Very Rev. J.

Spencer Northcote [20]. In the commentary on the "Magnificat", published 1518,

even Luther expresses the belief that the Gospels praise Mary sufficiently by

calling her (eight times) the Mother of Jesus. In the following paragraphs we shall

briefly group together what we know of Our Blessed Lady's life before the birth of

her Divine Son, during the hidden life of Our Lord, during His public life and after

His resurrection.

Mary's Davidic descent

St. Luke (2:4) says that St. Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be

enrolled, "because he was of the house and Family of David". As if to exclude all

doubt concerning the Davidic descent of Mary, the Evangelist (1:32, 69) states

that the child born of Mary without the intervention of man shall be given "the

throne of David His father", and that the Lord God has "raised up an horn of

salvation to us in the house of David his servant". [21] St. Paul too testifies that

Jesus Christ "was made to him [God] of the seed of David, according to the

flesh" (Romans 1:3). If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by

the Holy Ghost could not be said to be "of the seed of David". Hence

commentators tell us that in the text "in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was

sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the

house of David" (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause "of the house of David" does not

refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus

we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary's Davidic descent. [22]

While commentators generally agree that the genealogy found at the beginning of

the first Gospel is that of St. Joseph, Annius of Viterbo proposes the opinion,

already alluded to by St. Augustine, that St. Luke's genealogy gives the pedigree

of Mary. The text of the third Gospel (3:23) may be explained so as to make Heli

the father of Mary: "Jesus. . .being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph) of

Heli", or "Jesus. . .being the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, the son of Heli"

(Lightfoot, Bengel, etc.), or again "Jesus. . .being as it was supposed the son of

Joseph, who was [the son-in-law] of Heli" [23]. In these explanations the name of

Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied; for Jesus is the Son of Heli

through Mary.

Her parents

Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy, the name

of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Or Lady's father in a tradition

founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel

which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the

parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a

variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other

(Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of

James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25],

St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphan. [27], pseudo-Hilar. [28],

and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary

was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age.

As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have

been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King

and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family [30].

The hometown of Mary's parents

According to Luke 1:26, Mary lived in Nazareth, a city in Galilee, at the time of

the Annunciation. A certain tradition maintains that she was conceived and born

in the same house in which the Word became flesh [31]. Another tradition based

on the Gospel of James regards Sephoris as the earliest home of Joachim and

Anna, though they are said to have lived later on in Jerusalem, in a house called

by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem [32] Probatica. Probatica, a name probably

derived from the sanctuary's nearness to the pond called Probatica or Bethsaida

in John 5:2. It was here that Mary was born. About a century later, about A.D.

750, St. John Damascene [33] repeats the statement that Mary was born in the

Probatica.

It is said that, as early as in the fifth century the empress Eudoxia built a church

over the place where Mary was born, and where her parents lived in their old age.

The present Church of St. Anna stands at a distance of only about 100 Feet from

the pool Probatica. In 1889, 18 March, was discovered the crypt which encloses

the supposed burying-place of St. Anna. Probably this place was originally a

garden in which both Joachim and Anna were laid to rest. At their time it was still

outside of the city walls, about 400 feet north of the Temple. Another crypt near

St. Anna's tomb is the supposed birthplace of the Blessed Virgin; hence it is that

in early times the church was called St. Mary of the Nativity [34]. In the Cedron

Valley, near the road leading to the Church of the Assumption, is a little

sanctuary containing two altars which are said to stand over the burying-places

of Sts. Joachim and Anna; but these graves belong to the time of the Crusades

[35]. In Sephoris too the Crusaders replaced by a large church an ancient

sanctuary which stood over the legendary house of Sts. Joachim and Anna. After

1788 part of this church was restored by the Franciscan Fathers.

Her Immaculate Conception

The Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Lady has been treated in a special

article.

The birth of Mary

As to the place of the birth of Our Blessed Lady, there are three different

traditions to be considered.

First, the event has been placed in Bethlehem. This opinion rests on the

authority of the following witnesses: it is expressed in a writing entitled "De nativ.

S. Mariae" [36] inserted after the works of St. Jerome; it is more or less vaguely

supposed by the Pilgrim of Piacenza, erroneously called Antoninus Martyr, who

wrote about A.D. 580 [37]; finally the popes Paul II (1471), Julius II (1507), Leo X

(1519), Paul III (1535), Pius IV (1565), Sixtus V (1586), and Innocent XII (1698) in

their Bulls concerning the Holy House of Loreto say that the Blessed Virgin was

born, educated, and greeted by the angel in the Holy House. But these pontiffs

hardly wish to decide an historical question; they merely express the opinion of

their respective times.

A second tradition placed the birth of Our Blessed Lady in Sephoris, about three

miles north of Bethlehem, the Roman Diocaesarea, and the residence of Herod

Antipas till late in the life of Our Lord. The antiquity of this opinion may be

inferred from the fact that under Constantine a church was erected in Sephoris to

commemorate the residence of Joachim and Anna in that place [38]. St.

Epiphanius speaks of this sanctuary [39]. But this merely shows that Our

Blessed Lady may have lived in Sephoris for a time with her parents, without

forcing us to believe that she had been born there.

The third tradition, that Mary was born in Jerusalem, is the most probable one.

We have seen that it rests upon the testimony of St. Sophronius, St. John

Damascene, and upon the evidence of the recent finds in the Probatica. The

Feast of Our Lady's Nativity was not celebrated in Rome till toward the end of the

seventh century; but two sermons found among the writings of St. Andrew of

Crete (d. 680) suppose the existence of this feat, and lead one to suspect that it

was introduced at an earlier date into some other churches [40]. In 799 the 10th

canon of the Synod of Salzburg prescribes four feasts in honor of the Mother of

God: the Purification, 2 February; the Annunciation, 25 March; the Assumption,

15 August; the Nativity, 8 September.

The Presentation of Mary

According to Exodus 13:2 and 13:12, all the Hebrew first-born male children had

to be presented in the Temple. Such a law would lead pious Jewish parents to

observe the same religious rite with regard to other favourite children. This

inclines one to believe that Joachim and Anna presented in the Temple their

child, which they had obtained by their long, fervent prayers.

As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the

birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man". These

words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow

of virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph. [41] The

most opportune occasion for such a vow was her presentation in the Temple. As

some of the Fathers admit that the faculties of St. John the Baptist were

prematurely developed by a special intervention of God's power, we may admit a

similar grace for the child of Joachim and Anna. [42]

But what has been said does not exceed the certainty of antecedently probable

pious conjectures. The consideration that Our Lord could not have refused His

Blessed Mother any favours which depended merely on His munificence does not

exceed the value of an a priori argument. Certainty in this question must depend

on external testimony and the teaching of the Church.

Now, the Protoevangelium of James (7-8), and the writing entitled "De nativit.

Mariae" (7-8), [43] state that Joachim and Anna, faithful to a vow they had made,

presented the child Mary in the Temple when she was three years old; that the

child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of virginity

on this occasion. St. Gregory of Nyssa [44] and St. Germanus of Constantinople

[45] adopt this report; it is also followed by pseudo-Gregory of Naz. in his

"Christus patiens". [46] Moreover, the Church celebrates the Feast of the

Presentation, though it does not specify at what age the child Mary was

presented in the Temple, when she made her vow of virginity, and what were the

special natural and supernatural gifts with which God endowed her. The feast is

mentioned for the first time in a document of Manuel Commenus, in 1166; from

Constantinople the feast must have been introduced into the western Church,

where we find it at the papal court at Avignon in 1371; about a century later,

Pope Sixtus IV introduced the Office of the Presentation, and in 1585 Pope

Sixtus V extended the Feast of the Presentation to the whole Church.

Her betrothal to Joseph

The apocryphal writings to which we referred in the last paragraph state that

Mary remained in the Temple after her presentation in order to be educated with

other Jewish children. There she enjoyed ecstatic visions and daily visits of the

holy angels.

When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage.

Mary reminded him of her vow of virginity, and in his embarrassment the high

priest consulted the Lord. Then he called all the young men of the family of

David, and promised Mary in marriage to him whose rod should sprout and

become the resting place of the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. It was Joseph who

was privileged in this extraordinary way.

We have already seen that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of

Constantinople, and pseudo-Gregory Nazianzen seem to adopt these legends.

Besides, the emperor Justinian allowed a basilica to be built on the platform of

the former Temple in memory of Our Lady's stay in the sanctuary; the church

was called the New St. Mary's so as to distinguish it from the Church of the

Nativity. It seems to be the modern mosque el-Aksa. [47]

On the other hand, the Church is silent as to Mary's stay in the Temple. St.

Ambrose [48], describing Mary's life before the Annunciation, supposes

expressly that she lived in the house of her parents. All the descriptions of the

Jewish Temple which can claim any scientific value leave us in ignorance as to

any localities in which young girls might have been educated. Joas's stay in the

Temple till the age of seven does not favour the supposition that young girls were

educated within the sacred precincts; for Joas was king, and was forced by

circumstances to remain in the Temple (cf. IV Kings 11:3). What II Machabees

3:19, says about "the virgins also that were shut up" does not show that any of

them were kept in the Temple buildings. If the prophetess Anna is said (Luke

2:37) not to have "departed from the temple, by fastings and prayer serving night

and day", we do not suppose that she actually lived in one of he temple rooms.

[49] As the house of Joachim and Anna was not far distant from the Temple, we

may supposed that the holy child Mary was often allowed to visit the sacred

buildings in order to satisfy her devotion.

Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six

months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances. The

marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged to

the bridegroom, though she did not live with him till about a year later, when the

marriage used to be celebrated. All this agrees well with the language of the

Evangelists. St. Luke (1:27) calls Mary "a virgin espoused to a man whose name

was Joseph"; St. Matthew (1:18) says, when as his mother Mary was espoused

to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy

Ghost". As we know of no brother of Mary, we must suppose that she was an

heiress, and was obliged by the law of Numbers 36:6 to marry a member of her

tribe. The Law itself prohibited marriage within certain degrees of relationship, so

that the marriage of even an heiress was left more or less to choice.

According to Jewish custom, the union between Joseph and Mary had to be

arranged by the parents of St. Joseph. One might ask why Mary consented to

her betrothal, though she was bound by her vow of virginity. As she had obeyed

God's inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God's inspiration in

becoming the affianced bride of Joseph. Besides, it would have been singular

among the Jews to refuse betrothal or marriage; for all the Jewish maidens

aspired after marriage as the accomplishment of a natural duty. Mary trusted the

Divine guidance implicitly, and thus was certain that her vow would be kept even

in her married state.

The Annunciation

The Annunciation has been treated in a special article.

The Visitation

According to Luke 1:36, the angel Gabriel told Mary at the time of the

annunciation, "behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in

her old age, and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren". Without

doubting the truth of the angel's words, Mary determined at once to add to the

pleasure of her pious relative. [50] Hence the Evangelist continues (1:39): "And

Mary, rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of

Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." Though

Mary must have told Joseph of her intended visit, it is hard to determine whether

he accompanied her; if the time of the journey happened to coincide with one of

the festal seasons at which the Israelites had to go to the Temple, there would

be little difficulty about companionship.

The place of Elizabeth's home has been variously located by different writers: it

has been placed in Machaerus, over ten miles east of the Dead Sea, or in

Hebron, or again in the ancient sacerdotal city of Jutta, about seven miles south

of Hebron, or finally in Ain-Karim, the traditional St. John-in-the Mountain, nearly

four miles west of Jerusalem. [51] But the first three places possess no

traditional memorial of the birth or life of St. John; besides, Machaerus was not

situated in the mountains of Juda; Hebron and Jutta belonged after the

Babylonian captivity to Idumea, while Ain-Karim lies in the "hill country" [52]

mentioned in the inspired text of St. Luke.

After her journey of about thirty hours, Mary "entered into the house of Zachary,

and saluted Elizabeth" (Luke 1:40). According to tradition, Elizabeth lived at the

time of the visitation not in her city home, but in her villa, about ten minutes

distant from the city; formerly this place was marked by an upper and lower

church. In 1861 the present small Church of the Visitation was erected on the

ancient foundations.

"And it came to pass that, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the

infant leaped in her womb." It was at this moment that God fulfilled the promise

made by the angel to Zachary (Luke 1:15), "and he shall be filled with the Holy

Ghost, even from his mother's womb"; in other words, the infant in Elizabeth's

womb was cleansed from the stain of original sin. The fullness of the Holy Ghost

in the infant overflowed, as it were, into the soul of his mother: "and Elizabeth

was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41). Thus both child and mother were

sanctified by the presence of Mary and the Word Incarnate [53]; filled as she was

with the Holy Ghost, Elizabeth "cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art

thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to

me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, as soon as the

voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be

accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord" (Luke 1:42-45). Leaving to

commentators the full explanation of the preceding passage, we draw attention

only to two points:

Elizabeth begins her greeting with the words with which the angel had

finished his salutation, thus showing that both spoke in the same Holy

Spirit;

Elizabeth is the first to call Mary by her most honourable title "Mother of

God".

Mary's answer is the canticle of praise commonly called "Magnificat" from the

first word of its Latin text; the "Magnificat" has been treated in a separate article.

The Evangelist closes his account of the Visitation with the words: "And Mary

abode with her about three months; and she returned to her own house" (Luke

1:56). Many see in this brief statement of the third gospel an implied hint that

Mary remained in the house of Zachary till the birth of John the Baptist, while

others deny such an implication. As the Feast of the Visitation was placed by

the 43rd canon of the Council of Basle (A.D. 1441) on 2 July, the day following

the Octave of the Feast of St. John Baptist, it has been inferred that Mary may

have remained with Elizabeth until after the child's circumcision; but there is no

further proof for this supposition. Though the visitation is so accurately described

in the third Gospel, its feast does not appear to have been kept till the thirteenth

century, when it was introduced through the influence of the Franciscans; in 1389

it was officially instituted by Urban VI.

Mary's pregnancy becomes known to Joseph

After her return from Elizabeth, Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost"

(Matthew 1:18). As among the Jews, betrothal was a real marriage, the use of

marriage after the time of espousals presented nothing unusual among them.

Hence Mary's pregnancy could not astonish anyone except St. Joseph. As he

did not know the mystery of the Incarnation, the situation must have been

extremely painful both to him and to Mary. The Evangelist says: "Whereupon

Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was

minded to put her away privately" (Matthew 1:19). Mary left the solution of the

difficulty to God, and God informed the perplexed spouse in His own time of the

true condition of Mary. While Joseph "thought on these things, behold the angel

of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to

take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy

Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For

He shall save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:20-21).

Not long after this revelation, Joseph concluded the ritual marriage contract with

Mary. The Gospel simply says: "Joseph rising up from sleep did as the angel of

the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife" (Matthew 1:24). While

it is certain that between the betrothal and the marriage at least three months

must have elapsed, during which Mary stayed with Elizabeth, it is impossible to

determine the exact length of time between the two ceremonies. We do not know

how long after the betrothal the angel announced to Mary the mystery of the

Incarnation, nor do we know how long the doubt of Joseph lasted, before he was

enlightened by the visit of the angel. From the age at which Hebrew maidens

became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she

was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how

old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.

The journey to Bethlehem

St. Luke (2:1-5) explains how Joseph and Mary journeyed from Nazareth to

Bethlehem in obedience to a decree of Caesar Augustus which prescribed a

general enrolment. The questions connected with this decree have been

considered in the article BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. There are various reasons

why Mary should have accompanied Joseph on this journey; she may not wished

to lose Joseph's protection during the critical time of her pregnancy, or she may

have followed a special Divine inspiration impelling her to go in order to fulfil the

prophecies concerning her Divine Son, or again she may have been compelled to

go by the civil law either as an heiress or to settle the personal tax payable by

women over twelve years of age. [54]

As the enrolment had brought a multitude of strangers to Bethlehem, Mary and

Joseph found no room in the caravansary and had to take lodging in a grotto

which served as a shelter for animals. [55]

Mary gives birth to Our Lord

"And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished,

that she should be delivered" (Luke 2:6); this language leaves it uncertain

whether the birth of Our Lord took place immediately after Joseph and Mary had

taken lodging in the grotto, or several days later. What is said about the

shepherds "keeping the night watches over their flock" (Luke 2:8) shows that

Christ was born in the night time.

After bringing forth her Son, Mary "wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes, and laid

Him in a manger" (Luke 2:7), a sign that she did not suffer from the pain and

weakness of childbirth. This inference agrees with the teaching of some of the

principal Fathers and theologians: St. Ambrose [56], St. Gregory of Nyssa [57],

St. John Damascene [58], the author of Christus patiens [59], St. Thomas [60],

etc. It was not becoming that the mother of God should be subject to the

punishment pronounced in Genesis 3:16, against Eve and her sinful daughters.

Shortly after the birth of the child, the shepherds, obedient to the angelic

invitation, arrived in the grotto, "and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant

lying in the manger" (Luke 2:16). We may suppose that the shepherds spread

the glad tidings they had received during the night among their friends in

Bethlehem, and that the Holy Family was received by one of its pious inhabitants

into more suitable lodgings.

The Circumcision of Our Lord

"And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised,

his name was called Jesus" (Luke 2:21). The rite of circumcision was performed

either in the synagogue or in the home of the Child; it is impossible to determine

where Our Lord's Circumcision took place. At any rate, His Blessed Mother must

have been present at the ceremony.

The Presentation

According to the law of Leviticus 12:2-8, the Jewish mother of a male child had to

present herself forty days after his birth for legal purification; according to Exodus

13:2, and Numbers 18:15, the first born son had to be presented on the same

occasion. Whatever reasons Mary and the Infant might have for claiming an

exemption, they complied with the law. But, instead of offering a lamb, they

presented the sacrifice of the poor, consisting of a pair of turtle-doves or two

young pigeons. In II Corinthians 8:9, St. Paul informs the Corinthians that Jesus

Christ "being rich. . .became poor, for your sakes, that through his poverty you

might be rich". Even more acceptable to God than Mary's poverty was the

readiness with which she surrendered her Divine Son to the good pleasure of His

Heavenly Father.

After the ceremonial rites had been complied with, holy Simeon took the Child in

his arms, and thanked God for the fulfilment of his promises; he drew attention to

the universality of the salvation that was to come through Messianic redemption

"prepared before the face of all peoples: a light to the revelation of the Gentiles,

and the glory of thy people Israel" (Luke 2:31 sq.). Mary and Joseph now began

to know their Divine Child more fully; they "were wondering at those things which

were spoken concerning him" (Luke 2:33). As if to prepare Our Blessed Mother

for the mystery of the cross, holy Simeon said to her: "Behold this child is set for

the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be

contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts,

thoughts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35). Mary had suffered her first great

sorrow at the time when Joseph was hesitating about taking her for his wife; she

experienced her second great sorrow when she heard the words of holy Simeon.

Though the incident of the prophetess Anna had a more general bearing, for she

"spoke of him (the Child) to all that looked for the redemption of Israel" (Luke

2:38), it must have added greatly to the wonder of Joseph and Mary. The

Evangelist's concluding remark, "after they had performed all things according to

the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth" (Luke 2:39),

has been variously interpreted by commentators; as to the order of events, see

the article CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST.

The visit of the Magi

After the Presentation, the Holy Family either returned to Bethlehem directly, or

went first to Nazareth, and then moved into the city of David. At any rate, after

the "wise men form the east" had followed the Divine guidance to Bethlehem,

"entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling

down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold,

frankincense, and myrrh" (Matthew 2:11). The Evangelist does not mention

Joseph; not that he was not present, but because Mary occupies the principal

place near the Child. How Mary and Joseph disposed of the presents offered by

their wealthy visitors has not been told us by the Evangelists.

The flight to Egypt

Soon after the departure of the wise men Joseph received the message from the

angel of the Lord to fly into Egypt with the Child and His mother on account of

the evil designs of Herod; the holy man's ready obedience is briefly described by

the Evangelist in the words: "who arose, and took the child and his mother by

night, and retired into Egypt" (Matthew 2:14). Persecuted Jews had ever sought a

refuge in Egypt (cf. III Kings 11:40; IV Kings 25:26); about the time of Christ

Jewish colonists were especially numerous in the land of the Nile [61]; according

to Philo [62] they numbered at least a million. In Leontopolis, in the district of

Heliopolis, the Jews had a temple (160 B.C.-A.D. 73) which rivalled in splendour

the temple in Jerusalem. [63] The Holy Family might therefore expect to find in

Egypt a certain amount of help and protection.

On the other hand, it required a journey of at least ten days from Bethlehem to

reach the nearest habitable districts of Egypt. We do not know by what road the

Holy Family effected its flight; they may have followed the ordinary road through

Hebron; or they may have gone by way of Eleutheropolis and Gaza, or again they

may have passed west of Jerusalem towards the great military road of Joppe.

There is hardly any historical document which will assist us in determining where

the Holy Family lived in Egypt, nor do we know how long the enforced exile

lasted. [64]

When Joseph received from the angel the news of Herod's death and the

command to return into the land of Israel, he "arose, and took the child and his

mother, and came into the land of Israel" (Matthew 2:21). The news that

Archelaus ruled in Judea prevented Joseph from settling in Bethlehem, as had

been his intention; "warned in sleep [by the angel, he] retired into the quarters of

Galilee. And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:22-23). In all

these details Mary simply followed the guidance of Joseph, who in his turn

received the Divine manifestations as head of the Holy Family. There is no need

to point out the intense sorrow which Mary suffered on account of the early

persecution of the Child.

The Holy Family in Nazareth

The life of the Holy Family in Nazareth was that of the ordinary poor tradesman.

According to Matthew 13:55, the townsfolk asked "Is not this the carpenter's

son?"; the question, as expressed in the second Gospel (Mark 6:3), shows a

slight variation, "Is not this the carpenter?" While Joseph gained the livelihood for

the Holy Family by his daily work, Mary attended to the various duties of

housekeeper. St. Luke (2:40) briefly says of Jesus: "And the child grew, and

waxed strong, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was in him". The weekly

Sabbath and the annual great feasts interrupted the daily routine of life in

Nazareth.

The finding of Our Lord in the Temple

According to the law of Exodus 23:17, only the men were obliged to visit the

Temple on the three solemn feasts of the year; but the women often joined the

men to satisfy their devotion. St. Luke (2:41) informs us that "his [the child's]

parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch". Probably

the Child Jesus was left in the home of friends or relatives during the days of

Mary's absence. According to the opinion of some writers, the Child did not give

any sign of His Divinity during the years of His infancy, so as to increase the

merits of Joseph's and Mary's faith based on what they had seen and heard at

the time of the Incarnation and the birth of Jesus. Jewish Doctors of the Law

maintained that a boy became a son of the law at the age of twelve years and

one day; after that he was bound by the legal precepts.

The evangelist supplies us here with the information that, "when he was twelve

years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast,

and having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in

Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not" (Luke 2:42-43). Probably it was after the

second festal day that Joseph and Mary returned with the other Galilean pilgrims;

the law did not require a longer sojourn in the Holy City. On the first day the

caravan usually made a four hours' journey, and rested for the night in Beroth on

the northern boundary of the former Kingdom of Juda. The crusaders built in this

place a beautiful Gothic church to commemorate Our Lady's sorrow when she

"sought him [her child] among their kinsfolks and acquaintance, and not finding

him,. . .returned into Jerusalem, seeking him" (Luke 2:44-45). The Child was not

found among the pilgrims who had come to Beroth on their first day's journey; nor

was He found on the second day, when Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem;

it was only on the third day that they "found him [Jesus] in the temple, sitting in

the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. . .And

seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou

done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Luke

2:40-48). Mary's faith did not allow her to fear a mere accident for her Divine Son;

but she felt that His behaviour had changed entirely from His customary

exhibition of docility and subjection. The feeling caused the question, why Jesus

had treated His parents in such a way. Jesus simply answered: "How is it that

you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business?"

(Luke 2:49). Neither Joseph nor Mary understood these words as a rebuke; "they

understood not the word that he spoke to them" (Luke 2:50). It has been

suggested by a recent writer that the last clause may be understood as

meaning, "they [i.e., the bystanders] understood not the word he spoke unto

them [i.e., to Mary and Joseph]".

The remainder of Our Lord's youth

After this, Jesus "went down with them, and came to Nazareth" where He began

a life of work and poverty, eighteen years of which are summed up by the

Evangelist in the few words, and he "was subject to them, and. . .advanced in

wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men" (Luke 2:51-52). The interior life

of Mary is briefly indicated by the inspired writer in the expression, "and his

mother kept all these words in her heart" (Luke 2:51). A similar expression had

been used in 2:19, "Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart".

Thus Mary observed the daily life of her Divine Son, and grew in His knowledge

and love by meditating on what she saw and heard. It has been pointed out by

certain writers that the Evangelist here indicates the last source from which he

derived the material contained in his first two chapters.

Mary's perpetual virginity

In connection with the study of Mary during Our Lord's hidden life, we meet the

questions of her perpetual virginity, of her Divine motherhood, and of her personal

sanctity. Her spotless virginity has been sufficiently considered in the article on

the Virgin Birth. The authorities there cited maintain that Mary remained a virgin

when she conceived and gave birth to her Divine Son, as well as after the birth of

Jesus. Mary's question (Luke 1:34), the angel's answer (Luke 1:35, 37), Joseph's

way of behaving in his doubt (Matthew 1:19-25), Christ's words addressed to the

Jews (John 8:19) show that Mary retained her virginity during the conception of

her Divine Son. [65]

As to Mary's virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew's

expressions "before they came together" (1:18), "her firstborn son" (1:25), nor by

the fact that the New Testament books repeatedly refer to the "brothers of

Jesus". [66] The words "before they came together" mean probably, "before they

lived in the same house", referring to the time when they were merely betrothed;

but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse; but even if the words

be understood of marital intercourse, they only state that the Incarnation took

place before any such intercourse had intervened, without implying that it did

occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God. [67]

The same must be said of the expression, "and he knew her not till she brought

forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist tells us what did not

happen before the birth of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his

birth. [68] The name "firstborn" applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a

virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a legal

name [69], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.

Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of

Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or

less near relatives. [70] The Church insists that in His birth the Son of God did

not lessen but consecrate the virginal integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of

Purification). The Fathers express themselves in similar language concerning this

privilege of Mary. [71]

Mary's Divine motherhood

Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the

writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew

(1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born son" and that He was called

Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word

Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother

of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception,

Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to

draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St.

Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary

the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of

Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]

Mary's perfect sanctity

Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor

moral defects in Our Blessed Lady. [77] St. Basil, e.g., suggests that Mary

yielded to doubt on hearing the words of holy Simeon and on witnessing the

crucifixion. [78] St. John Chrysostom is of opinion that Mary would have felt fear

and trouble, unless the angel had explained the mystery of the Incarnation to her,

and that she showed some vainglory at the marriage feast in Cana and on visiting

her Son during His public life together with the brothers of the Lord. [79] St. Cyril

of Alexandria [80] speaks of Mary's doubt and discouragement at the foot of the

cross. But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition,

when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition

agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived

without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in

her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most

trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John 19:25-27). When there is question

of sin, Mary must always be excepted. [81] Mary's complete exemption from

actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any

one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even

venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege

of God, let him be anathema." Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not

by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege.

Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously

maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of

concupiscence.

The miracle in Cana

The evangelists connect Mary's name with three different events in Our Lord's

public life: with the miracle in Cana, with His preaching, and with His passion.

The first of these incidents is related in John 2:1-10.

There was a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. . .and the mother of

Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to

the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to

him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is

that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

One naturally supposes that one of the contracting parties was related to Mary,

and that Jesus had been invited on account of his mother's relationship. The

couple must have been rather poor, since the wine was actually failing. Mary

wishes to save her friends from the shame of not being able to provide properly

for the guests, and has recourse to her Divine Son. She merely states their need,

without adding any further petition. In addressing women, Jesus uniformly

employs the word "woman" (Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26;

20:15), an expression used by classical writers as a respectful and honorable

address. [82] The above cited passages show that in the language of Jesus the

address "woman" has a most respectful meaning. The clause "what is that to me

and to thee" renders the Greek ti emoi kai soi, which in its turn corresponds to

the Hebrew phrase mah li walakh. This latter occurs in Judges 11:12; II Kings

16:10; 19:23; III Kings 17:18; IV Kings 3:13; 9:18; II Paralipomenon 35:21. The

New Testament shows equivalent expressions in Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke

4:34; 8:28; Matthew 27:19. The meaning of the phrase varies according to the

character of the speakers, ranging from a most pronounced opposition to a

courteous compliance. Such a variable meaning makes it hard for the translator

to find an equally variable equivalent. "What have I to do with thee", "this is

neither your nor my business", "why art thou troublesome to me", "allow me to

attend to this", are some of the renderings suggested. In general, the words

seem to refer to well or ill-meant importunity which they endeavour to remove.

The last part of Our Lord's answer presents less difficulty to the interpreter: "my

hour is not yet come", cannot refer to the precise moment at which the need of

wine will require the miraculous intervention of Jesus; for in the language of St.

John "my hour" or "the hour" denotes the time preordained for some important

event (John 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:29; 12:23; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1). Hence the

meaning of Our Lord's answer is: "Why are you troubling me by asking me for

such an intervention? The divinely appointed time for such a manifestation has

not yet come"; or, "why are you worrying? has not the time of manifesting my

power come?" The former of these meanings implies that on account of the

intercession of Mary Jesus anticipated the time set for the manifestation of His

miraculous power [83]; the second meaning is obtained by understanding the

last part of Our Lord's words as a question, as was done by St. Gregory of

Nyssa [84], and by the Arabic version of Tatian's "Diatessaron" (Rome, 1888).

[85] Mary understood her Son's words in their proper sense; she merely warned

the waiters, "Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye" (John 2:5). There can be no

question of explaining Jesus' answer in the sense of a refusal.

Mary during the apostolic life of Our Lord

During the apostolic life of Jesus, Mary effaced herself almost completely. Not

being called to aid her Son directly in His ministry, she did not wish to interfere

with His work by her untimely presence. In Nazareth she was regarded as a

common Jewish mother; St. Matthew (3:55-56; cf. Mark 6:3) introduces the

people of the town as saying: "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?" Since the people wish to lower Our Lord's

esteem by their language, we must infer that Mary belonged to the lower social

order of townspeople. The parallel passage of St. Mark reads, "Is not this the

carpenter?" instead of, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" Since both evangelists

omit the name of St. Joseph, we may infer that he had died before this episode

took place.

At first sight, it seems that Jesus Himself depreciated the dignity of His Blessed

Mother. When He was told: "Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without,

seeking thee", He answered: "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And

stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and

my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is

my brother, and my sister, and my mother" (Matthew 12:47-50; cf. Mark 3:31-35;

Luke 8:19-21). On another occasion, "a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up

her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that

gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of

God, and keep it" (Luke 11:27-28).

In reality, Jesus in both these passages places the bond that unites the soul with

God above the natural bond of parentage which unites the Mother of God with her

Divine Son. The latter dignity is not belittled; as men naturally appreciate it more

easily, it is employed by Our Lord as a means to make known the real value of

holiness. Jesus, therefore, really, praises His mother in a most emphatic way; for

she excelled the rest of men in holiness not less than in dignity. [86] Most

probably, Mary was found also among the holy women who ministered to Jesus

and His apostles during their ministry in Galilee (cf. Luke 8:2-3); the Evangelists

do not mention any other public appearance of Mary during the time of Jesus's

journeys through Galilee or Judea. But we must remember that when the sun

appears, even the brightest stars become invisible.

Mary during the Passion of Our Lord

Since the Passion of Jesus Christ occurred during the paschal week, we

naturally expect to find Mary at Jerusalem. Simeon's prophecy found its fulfilment

principally during the time of Our Lord's suffering. According to a tradition, His

Blessed Mother met Jesus as He was carrying His cross to Golgotha. The

Itinerarium of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux describes the memorable sites which the

writer visited A.D. 333, but it does not mention any locality sacred to this

meeting of Mary and her Divine Son. [87] The same silence prevails in the

so-called Peregrinatio Silviae which used to be assigned to A.D. 385, but has

lately been placed in A.D. 533-540. [88] But a plan of Jerusalem, dating from the

year 1308, shows a Church of St. John the Baptist with the inscription "Pasm.

Vgis.", Spasmus Virginis, the swoon of the Virgin. During the course of the

fourteenth century Christians began to locate the spots consecrated by the

Passion of Christ, and among these was the place was the place where Mary is

said to have fainted at the sight of her suffering Son. [89] Since the fifteenth

century one finds always "Sancta Maria de Spasmo" among the Stations of the

Way of the Cross, erected in various parts of Europe in imitation of the Via

Dolorosa in Jerusalem. [90] That Our Blessed Lady should have fainted at the

sight of her Son's sufferings, hardly agrees with her heroic behaviour under the

cross; still, we may consider her woman and mother in her meeting with her Son

on the way to Golgotha, while she is the Mother of God at the foot of the cross.

Mary's spiritual motherhood

While Jesus was hanging on the cross, "there stood by the cross of Jesus, his

mother, and his mother's sister, Mary Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. When

Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved,

he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the

disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own"

(John 19:25-27). The darkening of the sun and the other extraordinary

phenomena in nature must have frightened the enemies of Our Lord sufficiently

so as not to interfere with His mother and His few friends standing at the foot of

the cross. In the meantime, Jesus had prayed for His enemies, and had

promised pardon to the penitent thief; now, He took compassion on His desolate

mother, and provided for her future. If St. Joseph had been still alive, or if Mary

had been the mother of those who are called Our Lord's brethren or sisters in the

gospels, such a provision would not have been necessary. Jesus uses the same

respectful title with which he had addressed his mother at the marriage feast in

Cana. Then he commits Mary to John as his mother, and wishes Mary to

consider John as her son.

Among the early writers, Origen is the only one who considers Mary's

motherhood of all the faithful in this connection. According to him, Christ lives in

his perfect followers, and as Mary is the Mother of Christ, so she is mother of

him in whom Christ lives. Hence, according to Origen, man has an indirect right

to claim Mary as his mother, in so far as he identifies himself with Jesus by the

life of grace. [91] In the ninth century, George of Nicomedia [92] explains Our

Lord's words on the cross in such a way as to entrust John to Mary, and in John

all the disciples, making her the mother and mistress of all John's companions.

In the twelfth century Rupert of Deutz explained Our Lord's words as establishing

Mary's spiritual motherhood of men, though St. Bernard, Rupert's illustrious

contemporary, does not enumerate this privilege among Our Lady's numerous

titles. [93] After this time Rupert's explanation of Our Lord's words on the cross

became more and more common, so that in our day it has found its way into

practically all books of piety. [94]

The doctrine of Mary's spiritual motherhood of men is contained in the fact that

she is the antitype of Eve: Eve is our natural mother because she is the origin of

our natural life; so Mary is our spiritual mother because she is the origin of our

spiritual life. Again, Mary's spiritual motherhood rests on the fact that Christ is

our brother, being "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). She

became our mother at the moment she consent to the Incarnation of the Word,

the Head of the mystical body whose members we are; and she sealed her

motherhood by consenting to the bloody sacrifice on the cross which is the

source of our supernatural life. Mary and the holy women (Matthew 17:56; Mark

15:40; Luke 23:49; John 19:25) assisted at the death of Jesus on the cross; she

probably remained during the taking down of His sacred body and during His

funeral. The following Sabbath was for her a time of grief and hope. The eleventh

canon of a council held in Cologne, in 1423, instituted against the Hussites the

feast of the Dolours of Our Blessed Lady, placing it on the Friday following the

third Sunday after Easter. In 1725 Benedict XIV extended the feast to the whole

Church, and placed it on the Friday in Passion Week. "And from that hour, the

disciple took her to his own" (John 19:27). Whether they lived in the city of

Jerusalem or elsewhere, cannot be determined from the Gospels.

Mary and Our Lord's Resurrection

The inspired record of the incidents connected with Christ's Resurrection do not

mention Mary; but neither do they pretend to give a complete account of all that

Jesus did or said. The Fathers too are silent as to Mary's share in the joys of her

Son's triumph over death. Still, St. Ambrose [95] states expressly: "Mary

therefore saw the Resurrection of the Lord; she was the first who saw it and

believed. Mary Magdalen too saw it, though she still wavered". George of

Nicomedia [96] infers from Mary's share in Our Lord's sufferings that before all

others and more than all she must have shared in the triumph of her Son. In the

twelfth century, an apparition of the risen Saviour to His Blessed Mother is

admitted by Rupert of Deutz [97], and also by Eadmer [98] St. Bernardin of

Siena [99], St. Ignatius of Loyola [100], Suarez [101], Maldon. [102], etc. [103]

That the risen Christ should have appeared first to His Blessed Mother, agrees at

least with our pious expectations.

Though the Gospels do not expressly tell us so, we may suppose that Mary was

present when Jesus showed himself to a number of disciples in Galilee and at

the time of His Ascension (cf. Matthew 28:7, 10, 16; Mark 16:7). Moreover, it is

not improbable that Jesus visited His Blessed Mother repeatedly during the forty

days after His Resurrection.

IV. MARY IN OTHER BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Acts 1:14-2:4

According to the Book of Acts (1:14), after Christ's Ascension into Heaven the

apostles "went up into an upper room", and: "all these were persevering with one

mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his

brethren". In spite of her exalted dignity it was not Mary, but Peter who acted as

head of the assembly (1:15). Mary behaved in the upper room in Jerusalem as

she had behaved in the grotto at Bethlehem; in Bethlehem she had carried for the

Infant Jesus, in Jerusalem she nurtured the infant Church. The friends of Jesus

remained in the upper room till "the days of the Pentecost", when with "a sound

from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming. . .there appeared to them parted

tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them, and they were all

filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:1-4). Though the Holy Ghost had descended

upon Mary in a special way at the time of the Incarnation, He now communicated

to her a new degree of grace. Perhaps, this Pentecostal grace gave to Mary the

strength of properly fulfilling her duties to the nascent Church and to her spiritual

children.

Galatians 4:4

As to the Epistles, the only direct reference to Mary is found in Galatians 4:4:

"But when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman,

made under the law". Some Greek and Latin manuscripts, followed by several

Fathers, read gennomenon ek gynaikos instead of genomenon ek gynaikos,

"born of a woman" instead of "made of a woman". But this variant reading cannot

be accepted. For

gennomenon is the present participle, and must be rendered, "being born

of a woman", so that it does not fit into the context. [104]

though the Latin variant rendering "natum" is the perfect participle, and

does not imply the inconveniences of its Greek original, St. Bede [105]

rejects it, on account of its less appropriate sense.

In Romans 1:3, which is to a certain extent a parallel of Galatians 4:4, St.

Paul writes genomenos ek stermatos Daveid kata sarka, i.e. "made of

the seed of David, according to the flesh".

Tertullian [106] points out that the word "made" implies more than the

word "born"; for it calls to mind the "Word made flesh", and establishes

the reality of the flesh made of the Virgin.

Furthermore, the Apostle employs the word "woman" in the phrase under

consideration, because he wishes to indicate merely the sex, without any ulterior

connotation. In reality, however, the idea of a man made of a woman alone,

suggests the virginal conception of the Son of God. St. Paul seems to

emphasize the true idea of the Incarnation of the Word; a true understanding of

this mystery safeguards both the Divinity and the real humanity of Jesus Christ.

[107]

The Apostle St. John never uses the name Mary when speaking of Our Blessed

Lady; he always refers to her as Mother of Jesus (John 2:1, 3; 19:25-26). In his

last hour, Jesus had established the relation of mother and son between Mary

and John, and a child does not usually address his mother by her first name.

Apocalypse 12:1-6

In the Apocalypse (12:1-6) occurs a passage singularly applicable to Our

Blessed Mother:

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the

sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of

twelve stars; and being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and

was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in

heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and

ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems; and his tail drew the

third part of the stars of heaven; and cast them to the earth; and

the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered;

that when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And

she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an

iron rod; and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. And

the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place

prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two

hundred sixty days.

The applicability of this passage to Mary is based on the following

considerations:

At least part of the verses refer to the mother whose son is to rule all the

nations with a rod of iron; according to Psalm 2:9, this is the Son of God,

Jesus Christ, Whose mother is Mary.

It was Mary's son that "was taken up to God, and to his throne" at the

time of His Ascension into heaven.

The dragon, or the devil of the earthly paradise (cf. Apocalypse 12:9;

20:2), endeavoured to devour Mary's Son from the first moments of His

birth, by stirring up the jealousy of Herod and, later on, the enmities of the

Jews.

Owing to her unspeakable privileges, Mary may well be described as

"clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a

crown of twelve stars".

It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as

applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited

to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both

a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of

the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the

Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of

accommodation [108], but applies to her in a truly literal sense which

appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole

Church. Mary's relation to the Church is well summed up in the

expression "collum corporis mystici" applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin

of Siena. [109]

Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing

interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly

supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a

picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age. As to the first exception, the

eminent writer says:

Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines,

till there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy; if in

those times the Blessed Virgin's dignity was unchallenged on all

hands, as a matter of doctrine, Scripture, as far as its

argumentative matter was concerned, was likely to remain a sealed

book to them.

After developing this answer at length, the cardinal continues:

As to the second objection which I have supposed, so far from

allowing it, I consider that it is built upon a mere imaginary fact,

and that the truth of the matter lies in the very contrary direction.

The Virgin and Child is not a mere modern idea; on the contrary, it

is represented again and again, as every visitor to Rome is aware,

in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is there drawn with the

Divine Infant in her lap, she with hands extended in prayer, he with

his hand in the attitude of blessing.

V. MARY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS

Thus far we have appealed to the writings or the remains of the early Christian

era in as far as they explain or illustrate the teaching of the Old Testament or the

New, concerning the Blessed Virgin. In the few following paragraphs we shall

have to draw attention to the fact that these same sources, to a certain extent,

supplement the Scriptural doctrine. In this respect they are the basis of tradition;

whether the evidence they supply suffices, in any given case, to guarantee their

contents as a genuine part of Divine revelation, must be determined according to

the ordinary scientific criteria followed by theologians. Without entering on these

purely theological questions, we shall present this traditional material, first, in as

far as it throws light on the life of Mary after the day of Pentecost; secondly, in

as far as it gives evidence of the early Christian attitude to the Mother of God.

VI. POST-PENTECOSTAL LIFE OF MARY

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost had descended on Mary as He came

on the Apostles and Disciples gathered together in the upper room at Jerusalem.

No doubt, the words of St. John (19:27), "and from that hour the disciple took her

to his own", refer not merely to the time between Easter and Pentecost, but they

extend to the whole of Mary's later life. Still, the care of Mary did not interfere

with John's Apostolic ministry. Even the inspired records (Acts 8:14-17;

Galatians 1:18-19; Acts 21:18) show that the apostle was absent from Jerusalem

on several occasions, though he must have taken part in the Council of

Jerusalem, A.D. 51 or 52. We may also suppose that in Mary especially were

verified the words of Acts 2:42: "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the

apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers".

Thus Mary was an example and a source of encouragement to the early

Christian community. At the same time, it must be confessed that we do not

possess any authentic documents bearing directly on Mary's post-Pentecostal

life.

Place of her life, death, and burial

As to tradition, there is some testimony for Mary's temporary residence in or

near Ephesus, but the evidence for her permanent home in Jerusalem is much

stronger.

Arguments for Ephesus

Mary's Ephesian residence rests on the following evidence:

(1) A passage in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus [111] reads:

"Wherefore also Nestorius, the instigator of the impious heresy, when he had

come to the city of the Ephesians, where John the Theologian and the Virgin

Mother of God St. Mary, estranging himself of his own accord from the gathering

of the holy Fathers and Bishops. . ." Since St. John had lived in Ephesus and

had been buried there [112], it has been inferred that the ellipsis of the synodal

letter means either, "where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived", or, "where

John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived and are buried".

(2) Bar-Hebraeus or Abulpharagius, a Jacobite bishop of the thirteenth century,

relates that St. John took the Blessed Virgin with him to Patmos, then founded

the Church of Ephesus, and buried Mary no one knows where. [113]

(3) Benedict XIV [114] states that Mary followed St. John to Ephesus and died

there. He intended also to remove from the Breviary those lessons which mention

Mary's death in Jerusalem, but died before carrying out his intention. [115]

(4) Mary's temporary residence and death in Ephesus are upheld by such writers

as Tillemont [116], Calmet [117], etc.

(5) In Panaghia Kapoli, on a hill about nine or ten miles distant from Ephesus,

was discovered a house, or rather its remains, in which Mary is supposed to

have lived. The house was found, as it had been sought, according to the

indications given by Catharine Emmerich in her life of the Blessed Virgin.

Arguments against Ephesus

On closer inspection these arguments for Mary's residence or burial in Ephesus

are not unanswerable.

(1) The ellipsis in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus may be filled out in

such a way as not to imply the assumption that Our Blessed Lady either lived or

died in Ephesus. As there was in the city a double church dedicated to the Virgin

Mary and to St. John, the incomplete clause of the synodal letter may be

completed so as to read, "where John the Theologian and the Virgin. . .Mary

have a sanctuary". This explanation of the ambiguous phrase is one of the two

suggested in the margin in Labbe's Collect. Concil. (l.c.) [118]

(2) The words of Bar-Hebraeus contain two inaccurate statements; for St. John

did not found the Church of Ephesus, nor did he take Mary with him to Patmos.

St. Paul founded the Ephesian Church, and Mary was dead before John's exile in

Patmos. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the writer were wrong in what he

says about Mary's burial. Besides, Bar-Hebraeus belongs to the thirteenth

century; the earlier writers had been most anxious about the sacred places in

Ephesus; they mention the tomb of St. John and of a daughter of Philip [119], but

they say nothing about Mary's burying place.

(3) As to Benedict XIV, this great pontiff is not so emphatic about Mary's death

and burial in Ephesus, when he speaks about her Assumption in heaven.

(4) Neither Benedict XIV nor the other authorities who uphold the Ephesian

claims, advance any argument that has not been found inconclusive by other

scientific students of this question.

(5) The house found in Panaghia-Kapouli is of any weight only in so far as it is

connected with the visions of Catherine Emmerich. Its distance from the city of

Ephesus creates a presumption against its being the home of the Apostle St.

John. The historical value of Catherine's visions is not universally admitted. Mgr.

Timoni, Archbishop of Smyrna, writes concerning Panaghia-Kapouli: "Every one

is entire free to keep his personal opinion". Finally the agreement of the condition

of the ruined house in Panaghia-Kapouli with Catharine's description does not

necessarily prove the truth of her statement as to the history of the building.

[120]

Arguments against Jerusalem

Two considerations militate against a permanent residence of Our Lady in

Jerusalem: first, it has already been pointed out that St. John did not

permanently remain in the Holy City; secondly, the Jewish Christians are said to

have left Jerusalem during the periods of Jewish persecution (cf. Acts 8:1; 12:1).

But as St. John cannot be supposed to have taken Our Lady with him on his

apostolic expeditions, we may suppose that he left her in the care of his friends

or relatives during the periods of his absence. And there is little doubt that many

of the Christians returned to Jerusalem, after the storms of persecution had

abated.

Arguments for Jerusalem

Independently of these considerations, we may appeal to the following reasons in

favour of Mary's death and burial in Jerusalem:

(1) In 451 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, testified to the presence of Mary's tomb

in Jerusalem. It is strange that neither St. Jerome, nor the Pilgrim of Bordeaux,

nor again pseudo-Silvia give any evidence of such a sacred place. But when the

Emperor Marcion and the Empress Pulcheria asked Juvenal to send the sacred

remains of the Virgin Mary from their tomb in Gethsemani to Constantinople,

where they intended to dedicate a new church to Our Lady, the bishop cited an

ancient tradition saying that the sacred body had been assumed into heaven,

and sent to Constantinople only the coffin and the winding sheet. This narrative

rests on the authority of a certain Euthymius whose report was inserted into a

homily of St. John Damascene [121] now read in the second Nocturn of the

fourth day within the octave of the Assumption. Scheeben [122] is of opinion that

Euthymius's words are a later interpolation: they do not fit into the context; they

contain an appeal to pseudo-Dionysius [123] which are not otherwise cited before

the sixth century; and they are suspicious in their connection with the name of

Bishop Juvenal, who was charged with forging documents by Pope St. Leo. [124]

In his letter the pontiff reminds the bishop of the holy places which he has under

his very eyes, but does not mention the tomb of Mary. [125] Allowing that this

silence is purely incidental, the main question remains, how much historic truth

underlies the Euthymian account of the words of Juvenal?

(2) Here must be mentioned too the apocryphal "Historia dormitionis et

assumptionis B.M.V.", which claims St. John for its author. [126] Tischendorf

believes that the substantial parts of the work go back to the fourth, perhaps even

to the second, century. [127] Variations of the original text apeared in Arabic and

Syriac, and in other languages; among these must be noted a work called "De

transitu Mariae Virg.", which appeared under the name of St. Melito of Sardes.

[128] Pope Gelasius enumerates this work among the forbidden books. [129] The

extraordinary incidents which these works connect with the death of Mary do not

concern us here; but they place her last moments and her burial in or near

Jerusalem.

(3) Another witness for the existence of a tradition placing the tomb of Mary in

Gethsemani is the basilica erected above the sacred spot, about the end of the

fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. The present church was built by the

Latins in the same place in which the old edifice had stood. [130]

(4) In the early part of the seventh century, Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem,

located the passing of Our Lady on Mount Sion, in the house which contained

the Cenacle and the upper room of Pentecost. [131] At that time, a single church

covered the localities consecrated by these various mysteries. One must wonder

at the late evidence for a tradition which became so general since the seventh

century.

(5) Another tradition is preserved in the "Commemoratorium de Casis Dei"

addressed to Charlemagne. [132] It places the death of Mary on Mt. Olivet where

a church is said to commemorate this event. Perhaps the writer tried to connect

Mary's passing with the Church of the Assumption as the sister tradition

connected it with the cenacle. At any rate, we may conclude that about the

beginning of the fifth century there existed a fairly general tradition that Mary had

died in Jerusalem, and had been buried in Gethsemani. This tradition appears to

rest on a more solid basis than the report that Our Lady died and was buried in

or near Ephesus. As thus far historical documents are wanting, it would be hard

to establish the connection of either tradition with apostolic times. [133]

Conclusion

It has been seen that we have no absolute certainty as to the place in which

Mary lived after the day of Pentecost. Though it is more probable that she

remained uninterruptedly in or near Jerusalem, she may have resided for a while

in the vicinity of Ephesus, and this may have given rise to the tradition of her

Ephesian death and burial. There is still less historical information concerning the

particular incidents of her life. St. Epiphanius [134] doubts even the reality of

Mary's death; but the universal belief of the Church does not agree with the

private opinion of St. Epiphanius. Mary's death was not necessarily the effect of

violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of

disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages

the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be united to her Son

either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them.

Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her

life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die.

There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary's death. Baronius in his

Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that

Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later

interpolation. [135] Nirschl relies on a tradition found in Clement of Alexandria

[136] and Apollonius [137] which refers to a command of Our Lord that the

Apostles were to preach twelve years in Jerusalem and Palestine before going

among the nations of the world; hence he too arrives at the conclusion that Mary

died A.D. 48.

Her assumption into heaven

The Assumption of Our Lady into heaven has been treated in a special article.

[138] The feast of the Assumption is most probably the oldest among all the

feasts of Mary properly so called. [139] As to art, the assumption was a favourite

subject of the school of Siena which generally represents Mary as being carried

to heaven in a mandorla.

VII. EARLY CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TO THE MOTHER OF GOD

Her image and her name

Depictions of her image

No picture has preserved for us the true likeness of Mary. The Byzantine

representations, said to be painted by St. Luke, belong only to the sixth century,

and reproduce a conventional type. There are twenty-seven copies in existence,

ten of which are in Rome. [140] Even St. Augustine expresses the opinion that

the real external appearance of Mary is unknown to us, and that in this regard we

know and believe nothing. [141] The earliest picture of Mary is that found in the

cemetery of Priscilla; it represents the Virgin as if about to nurse the Infant

Jesus, and near her is the image of a prophet, Isaias or perhaps Micheas. The

picture belongs to the beginning of the second century, and compares favourably

with the works of art found in Pompeii. From the third century we possess

pictures of Our Lady present at the adoration of the Magi; they are found in the

cemeteries of Domitilla and Calixtus. Pictures belonging to the fourth century are

found in the cemetery of Saints Peter and Marcellinus; in one of these she

appears with her head uncovered, in another with her arms half extended as if in

supplication, and with the Infant standing before her. On the graves of the early

Christians, the saints figured as intercessors for their souls, and among these

saints Mary always held the place of honour. Besides the paintings on the walls

and on the sarcophagi, the Catacombs furnish also pictures of Mary painted on

gilt glass disks and sealed up by means of another glass disk welded to the

former. [142] Generally these pictures belong to the third or fourth century. Quite

frequently the legend MARIA or MARA accompanies these pictures.

Use of her name

Towards the end of the fourth century, the name Mary becomes rather frequent

among Christians; this serves as another sign of the veneration they had for the

Mother of God. [143]

Conclusion

No one will suspect the early Christians of idolatry, as if they had paid supreme

worship to Mary's pictures or name; but how are we to explain the phenomena

enumerated, unless we suppose that the early Christians venerated Mary in a

special way? [144]

Nor can this veneration be said to be a corruption introduced in later times. It has

been seen that the earliest picture dates from the beginning of the second

century, so that within the first fifty years after the death of St. John the

veneration of Mary is proved to have flourished in the Church of Rome.

Early writings

For the attitude of the Churches of Asia Minor and of Lyons we may appeal to

the words of St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John's disciple Polycarp [145]; he calls

Mary our most eminent advocate. St. Ignatius of Antioch, part of whose life

reached back into apostolic times, wrote to the Ephesians (c. 18-19) in such a

way as to connect the mysteries of Our Lord's life more closely with those of the

Virgin Mary. For instance, the virginity of Mary, and her childbirth, are

enumerated with Christ's death, as forming three mysteries unknown to the devil.

The sub-apostolic author of the Epistle to Diognetus, writing to a pagan inquirer

concerning the Christian mysteries, describes Mary as the great antithesis of

Eve, and this idea of Our Lady occurs repeatedly in other writers even before the

Council of Ephesus. We have repeatedly appealed to the words of St. Justin and

Tertullian, both of whom wrote before the end of the second century.

As it is admitted that the praises of Mary grow with the growth of the Christian

community, we may conclude in brief that the veneration of and devotion to Mary

began even in the time of the Apostles.

NOTES

[1] Quaest. hebr. in Gen., P.L., XXIII, col. 943

[2] cf. Wis., ii, 25; Matt., iii, 7; xxiii, 33; John, viii, 44; I, John, iii, 8-12.

[3] Hebräische Grammatik, 26th edit., 402

[4] Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung, 30

[5] cf. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, 2nd ed.,

Leipzig, 1906, 216; Himpel, Messianische Weissagungen im Pentateuch,

Tubinger theologische Quartalschrift, 1859; Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy,

I, 199 sqq., New York, 1893; Flunck, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1904,

641 sqq.; St. Justin, dial. c. Tryph., 100 (P.G., VI, 712); St. Iren., adv. haer., III,

23 (P.G., VII,, 964); St. Cypr., test. c. Jud., II, 9 (P.L., IV, 704); St. Epiph., haer.,

III, ii, 18 (P.G., XLII, 729).

[6] Lagarde, Guthe, Giesebrecht, Cheyne, Wilke.

[7] cf. Knabenbauer, Comment. in Isaiam, Paris, 1887; Schegg, Der Prophet

Isaias, Munchen, 1850; Rohling, Der Prophet Isaia, Munster, 1872; Neteler, Das

Bush Isaias, Munster, 1876; Condamin, Le livre d'Isaie, Paris, 1905; Maas,

Christ in Type and Prophecy, New York, 1893, I, 333 sqq.; Lagrange, La Vierge

et Emmaneul, in Revue biblique, Paris, 1892, pp. 481-497; Lémann, La Vierge et

l'Emmanuel, Paris, 1904; St. Ignat., ad Eph., cc. 7, 19, 19; St. Justin, Dial.,

P.G., VI, 144, 195; St. Iren., adv. haer., IV, xxxiii, 11.

[8] Cf. the principal Catholic commentaries on Micheas; also Maas, "Christ in

Type and Prophecy, New York, 1893, I, pp. 271 sqq.

[9] P.G., XXV, col. 205; XXVI, 12 76

[10] In Jer., P.L., XXIV, 880

[11] cf. Scholz, Kommentar zum Propheten Jeremias, Würzburg, 1880;

Knabenbauer, Das Buch Jeremias, des Propheten Klagelieder, und das Buch

Baruch, Vienna, 1903; Conamin, Le texte de Jeremie, xxxi, 22, est-il

messianique? in Revue biblique, 1897, 393-404; Maas, Christ in Type and

Prophecy, New York, 1893, I, 378 sqq..

[12] cf. St. Ambrose, de Spirit. Sanct., I, 8-9, P.L., XVI, 705; St. Jerome, Epist.,

cviii, 10; P.L., XXII, 886.

[13] cf. Gietmann, In Eccles. et Cant. cant., Paris, 1890, 417 sq.

[14] cf. Bull "Ineffabilis", fourth Lesson of the Office for 10 Dec..

[15] Response of seventh Nocturn in the Office of the Immaculate Conception.

[16] cf. St. Justin, dial. c. Tryph., 100; P.G., VI, 709-711; St. Iren., adv. haer., III,

22; V, 19; P.G., VII, 958, 1175; Tert., de carne Christi, 17; P.L., II, 782; St.

Cyril., catech., XII, 15; P.G., XXXIII, 741; St. Jerome, ep. XXII ad Eustoch., 21;

P.L., XXII, 408; St. Augustine, de agone Christi, 22; P.L., XL, 303; Terrien, La

Mère de Dien et la mère des hommes, Paris, 1902, I, 120-121; II, 117-118; III, pp.

8-13; Newman, Anglican Difficulties, London, 1885, II, pp. 26 sqq.; Lecanu,

Histoire de la Sainte Vierge, Paris, 1860, pp. 51-82.

[17] de B. Virg., l. IV, c. 24

[18] La Vierge Marie d'apres l'Evangile et dans l'Eglise

[19] Letter to Dr. Pusey

[20] Mary in the Gospels, London and New York, 1885, Lecture I.

[21] cf. Tertul., de carne Christi, 22; P.L., II, 789; St. Aug., de cons. Evang., II, 2,

4; P.L., XXXIV, 1072.

[22] Cf. St. Ignat., ad Ephes, 187; St. Justin, c. Taryph., 100; St. Aug., c. Faust,

xxiii, 5-9; Bardenhewer, Maria Verkundigung, Freiburg, 1896, 74-82; Friedrich,

Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus, Cöln, 1907, 19 sqq.

[23] Jans., Hardin., etc.

[24] hom. I. de nativ. B.V., 2, P.G., XCVI, 664

[25] P.G., XLVII, 1137

[26] de praesent., 2, P.G., XCVIII, 313

[27] de laud. Deipar., P.G., XLIII, 488

[28] P.L., XCVI, 278

[29] in Nativit. Deipar., P.L., CLI, 324

[30] cf. Aug., Consens. Evang., l. II, c. 2

[31] Schuster and Holzammer, Handbuch zur biblischen Geschichte, Freiburg,

1910, II, 87, note 6

[32] Anacreont., XX, 81-94, P.G., LXXXVII, 3822

[33] hom. I in Nativ. B.M.V., 6, II, P.G., CCXVI, 670, 678

[34] cf. Guérin, Jérusalem, Paris, 1889, pp. 284, 351-357, 430; Socin-Benzinger,

Palästina und Syrien, Leipzig, 1891, p. 80; Revue biblique, 1893, pp. 245 sqq.;

1904, pp. 228 sqq.; Gariador, Les Bénédictins, I, Abbaye de Ste-Anne, V, 1908,

49 sq.

[35] cf. de Vogue, Les églises de la Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1850, p. 310

[36] 2, 4, P.L., XXX, 298, 301

[37] Itiner., 5, P.L., LXXII, 901

[38] cf. Lievin de Hamme, Guide de la Terre-Sainte, Jerusalem, 1887, III, 183

[39] haer., XXX, iv, II, P.G., XLI, 410, 426

[40] P.G., XCVII, 806

[41] cf. Aug., de santa virginit., I, 4, P.L., XL, 398

[42] cf. Luke, i, 41; Tertullian, de carne Christi, 21, P.L., II, 788; St. Ambr., de

fide, IV, 9, 113, P.L., XVI, 639; St. Cyril of Jerus., Catech., III, 6, P.G., XXXIII, 436

[43] Tischendorf, Evangelia apocraphya, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1876, pp. 14-17,

117-179

[44] P.G., XLVII, 1137

[45] P.G., XCVIII, 313

[46] P.G., XXXVCIII, 244

[47] cf. Guérin, Jerusalem, 362; Liévin, Guide de la Terre-Sainte, I, 447

[48] de virgin., II, ii, 9, 10, P.L., XVI, 209 sq.

[49] cf. Corn. Jans., Tetrateuch. in Evang., Louvain, 1699, p. 484; Knabenbauer,

Evang. sec. Luc., Paris, 1896, p. 138

[50] cf. St. Ambrose, Expos. Evang. sec. Luc., II, 19, P.L., XV, 1560

[51] cf. Schick, Der Geburtsort Johannes' des Täufers, Zeitschrift des Deutschen

Palästina-Vereins, 1809, 81; Barnabé Meistermann, La patrie de saint

Jean-Baptiste, Paris, 1904; Idem, Noveau Guide de Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1907,

294 sqq.

[52] cf. Plinius, Histor. natural., V, 14, 70

[53] cf. Aug., ep. XLCCCVII, ad Dardan., VII, 23 sq., P.L., XXXIII, 840; Ambr.

Expos. Evang. sec. Luc., II, 23, P.L., XV, 1561

[54] cf. Knabenbauer, Evang. sec. Luc., Paris, 1896, 104-114; Schürer,

Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4th edit., I, 508 sqq.;

Pfaffrath, Theologie und Glaube, 1905, 119

[55] cf. St. Justin, dial. c. Tryph., 78, P.G., VI, 657; Orig., c. Cels., I, 51, P.G.,

XI, 756; Euseb., vita Constant., III, 43; Demonstr. evang., VII, 2, P.G., XX, 1101;

St. Jerome, ep. ad Marcell., XLVI [al. XVII]. 12; ad Eustoch., XVCIII [al. XXVII],

10, P.L., XXII, 490, 884

[56] in Ps. XLVII, II, P.L., XIV, 1150;

[57] orat. I, de resurrect., P.G., XLVI, 604;

[58] de fide orth., IV, 14, P.G., XLIV, 1160; Fortun., VIII, 7, P.L., LXXXVIII, 282;

[59] 63, 64, 70, P.L., XXXVIII, 142;

[60] Summa theol., III, q. 35, a. 6;

[61] cf. Joseph., Bell. Jud., II, xviii, 8

[62] In Flaccum, 6, Mangey's edit., II, p. 523

[63] cf. Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,

Leipzig, 1898, III, 19-25, 99

[64] The legends and traditions concerning these points may be found in Jullien's

"L'Egypte" (Lille, 1891), pp. 241-251, and in the same author's work entitled

"L'arbre de la Vierge a Matarich", 4th edit. (Cairo, 1904).

[65] As to Mary's virginity in her childbirth we may consult St. Iren., haer. IV, 33,

P.G., VII, 1080; St. Ambr., ep. XLII, 5, P.L., XVI, 1125; St. Aug., ep CXXXVII, 8,

P.L., XXXIII, 519; serm. LI, 18, P.L., XXXVIII, 343; Enchir. 34, P.L., XL, 249; St.

Leo, serm., XXI, 2, P.L., LIV, 192; St. Fulgent., de fide ad Petr., 17, P.L., XL,

758; Gennad., de eccl. dogm., 36, P.G., XLII, 1219; St. Cyril of Alex., hom. XI,

P.G., LXXVII, 1021; St. John Damasc., de fide orthod., IV, 14, P.G., XCIV, 1161;

Pasch. Radb., de partu Virg., P.L., CXX, 1367; etc. As to the passing doubts

concerning Mary's virginity during her childbirth, see Orig., in Luc., hom. XIV,

P.G., XIII, 1834; Tertul., adv. Marc., III, 11, P.L., IV, 21; de carne Christi, 23,

P.L., II, 336, 411, 412, 790.

[66] Matt., xii, 46-47; xiii, 55-56; Mark, iii, 31-32; iii, 3; Luke, viii, 19-20; John, ii,

12; vii, 3, 5, 10; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., ix, 5; Gal., i, 19; Jude, 1

[67] cf. St. Jerome, in Matt., i, 2 (P.L., XXVI, 24-25)

[68] cf. St. John Chrys., in Matt., v, 3, P.G., LVII, 58; St. Jerome, de perpetua

virgin. B.M., 6, P.L., XXIII, 183-206; St. Ambrose, de institut. virgin., 38, 43, P.L.,

XVI, 315, 317; St. Thomas, Summa theol., III, q. 28, a. 3; Petav., de incarn., XIC,

iii, 11; etc.

[69] cf. Exod., xxxiv, 19; Num., xciii, 15; St. Epiphan., haer. lxxcviii, 17, P.G.,

XLII, 728

[70] cf. Revue biblique, 1895, pp. 173-183

[71] St. Peter Chrysol., serm., CXLII, in Annunt. B.M. V., P.G., LII, 581;

Hesych., hom. V de S. M. Deip., P.G., XCIII, 1461; St. Ildeph., de virgin. perpet.

S.M., P.L., XCVI, 95; St. Bernard, de XII praer. B.V.M., 9, P.L., CLXXXIII, 434,

etc.

[72] ad Ephes., 7, P.G., V, 652

[73] adv. haer., III, 19, P.G., VIII, 940, 941

[74] adv. Prax. 27, P.L., II, 190

[75] Serm. I, 6, 7, P.G., XLVIII, 760-761

[76] Cf. Ambr., in Luc. II, 25, P.L., XV, 1521; St. Cyril of Alex., Apol. pro XII cap.;

c. Julian., VIII; ep. ad Acac., 14; P.G., LXXVI, 320, 901; LXXVII, 97; John of

Antioch, ep. ad Nestor., 4, P.G., LXXVII, 1456; Theodoret, haer. fab., IV, 2, P.G.,

LXXXIII, 436; St. Gregory Nazianzen, ep. ad Cledon., I, P.G., XXXVII, 177;

Proclus, hom. de Matre Dei, P.G., LXV, 680; etc. Among recent writers must be

noticed Terrien, La mère de Dieu et la mere des hommes, Paris, 1902, I, 3-14;

Turnel, Histoire de la théologie positive, Paris, 1904, 210-211.

[77] cf. Petav., de incarnat., XIV, i, 3-7

[78] ep. CCLX, P.G., XXXII, 965-968

[79] hom. IV, in Matt., P.G., LVII, 45; hom. XLIV, in Matt. P.G., XLVII, 464 sq.;

hom. XXI, in Jo., P.G., LIX, 130

[80] in Jo., P.G., LXXIV, 661-664

[81] St. Ambrose, in Luc. II, 16-22; P.L., XV, 1558-1560; de virgin. I, 15; ep. LXIII,

110; de obit. Val., 39, P.L., XVI, 210, 1218, 1371; St. Augustin, de nat. et grat.,

XXXVI, 42, P.L., XLIV, 267; St. Bede, in Luc. II, 35, P.L., XCII, 346; St. Thomas,

Summa theol., III. Q. XXVII, a. 4; Terrien, La mere de Dieu et la mere des

hommes, Paris, 1902, I, 3-14; II, 67-84; Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive,

Paris, 1904, 72-77; Newman, Anglican Difficulties, II, 128-152, London, 1885

[82] cf. Iliad, III, 204; Xenoph., Cyrop., V, I, 6; Dio Cassius, Hist., LI, 12; etc.

[83] cf. St. Irenaeus, c. haer., III, xvi, 7, P.G., VII, 926

[84] P.G., XLIV, 1308

[85] See Knabenbauer, Evang. sec. Joan., Paris, 1898, pp. 118-122; Hoberg,

Jesus Christus. Vorträge, Freiburg, 1908, 31, Anm. 2; Theologie und Glaube,

1909, 564, 808.

[86] cf. St. Augustin, de virgin., 3, P.L., XL, 398; pseudo-Justin, quaest. et

respons. ad orthod., I, q. 136, P.G., VI, 1389

[87] cf. Geyer, Itinera Hiersolymitana saeculi IV-VIII, Vienna, 1898, 1-33;

Mommert, Das Jerusalem des Pilgers von Bordeaux, Leipzig, 1907

[88] Meister, Rhein. Mus., 1909, LXIV, 337-392; Bludau, Katholik, 1904, 61 sqq.,

81 sqq., 164 sqq.; Revue Bénédictine, 1908, 458; Geyer, l. c.; Cabrol, Etude sur

la Peregrinatio Silviae, Paris, 1895

[89] cf. de Vogüé, Les Eglises de la Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1869, p. 438; Liévin,

Guide de la Terre-Sainte, Jerusalem, 1887, I, 175

[90] cf. Thurston, in The Month for 1900, July-September, pp. 1-12; 153-166;

282-293; Boudinhon in Revue du clergé français, Nov. 1, 1901, 449-463

[91] Praef. in Jo., 6, P.G., XIV, 32

[92] Orat. VIII in Mar. assist. cruci, P.G., C, 1476

[93] cf. Sermo dom. infr. oct. Assumpt., 15, P.L., XLXXXIII, 438

[94] cf. Terrien, La mere de Dieu et la mere des hommes, Paris, 1902, III,

247-274; Knabenbauer, Evang. sec. Joan., Paris, 1898, 544-547; Bellarmin, de

sept. verb. Christi, I, 12, Cologne, 1618, 105-113

[95] de Virginit., III, 14, P.L., XVI, 283

[96] Or. IX, P.G., C, 1500

[97] de div. offic., VII, 25, P.L., CLIX, 306

[98] de excell. V.M., 6, P.L., CLIX, 568

[99] Quadrages. I, in Resurrect., serm. LII, 3

[100] Exercit. spirit. de resurrect., I apparit.

[101] de myster. vit. Christi, XLIX, I

[102] In IV Evang., ad XXVIII Matth.

[103] See Terrien, La mere de Dieu et la mere des hommes, Paris, 1902, I,

322-325.

[104] cf. Photius, ad Amphiloch., q. 228, P.G., CI, 1024

[105] in Luc. XI, 27, P.L., XCII, 408

[106] de carne Christi, 20, P.L., II, 786

[107] Cf. Tertullian, de virgin. vel., 6, P.L., II, 897; St. Cyril of Jerus., Catech., XII,

31, P.G., XXXIII, 766; St. Jerome, in ep. ad Gal. II, 4, P.L., XXVI, 372.

[108] cf. Drach, Apcal., Pris, 1873, 114

[109] Cf. pseudo-Augustin, serm. IV de symbol. ad catechum., I, P.L., XL, 661;

pseudo-Ambrose, expos, in Apoc., P.L., XVII, 876; Haymo of Halberstadt, in

Apoc. III, 12, P.L., CXVII, 1080; Alcuin, Comment. in Apoc., V, 12, P.L., C, 1152;

Casssiodor., Complexion. in Apoc., ad XII, 7, P.L., LXX, 1411; Richard of St.

Victor, Explic. in Cant., 39, P.L., VII, 12, P.L., CLXIX, 1039; St. Bernard, serm.

de XII praerog. B.V.M., 3, P.L., CLXXXIII, 430; de la Broise, Mulier amicta sole,in

Etudes, April-June, 1897; Terrien, La mère de Dieu et la mere des hommes,

Paris, 1902, IV, 59-84.

[110] Anglican Difficulties, London, 1885, II, 54 sqq.

[111] Labbe, Collect. Concilior., III, 573

[112] Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 31; V, 24, P.G., XX, 280, 493

[113] cf. Assemani, Biblioth. orient., Rome, 1719-1728, III, 318

[114] de fest. D.N.J.X., I, vii, 101

[115] cf. Arnaldi, super transitu B.M.V., Genes 1879, I, c. I

[116] Mém. pour servir à l'histoire ecclés., I, 467-471

[117] Dict. de la Bible, art. Jean, Marie, Paris, 1846, II, 902; III, 975-976

[118] cf. Le Camus, Les sept Eglises de l'Apocalypse, Paris, 1896, 131-133.

[119] cf. Polycrates, in Eusebius's Hist. Eccl., XIII, 31, P.G., XX, 280

[120] In connection with this controversy, see Le Camus, Les sept Eglises de

l'Apocalypse, Paris, 1896, pp. 133-135; Nirschl, Das Grab der hl. Jungfrau,

Mainz, 1900; P. Barnabé, Le tombeau de la Sainte Vierge a Jérusalem,

Jerusalem, 1903; Gabriélovich, Le tombeau de la Sainte Vierge à Ephése,

réponse au P. Barnabé, Paris, 1905.

[121] hom. II in dormit. B.V.M., 18 P.G., XCVI, 748

[122] Handb. der Kath. Dogmat., Freiburg, 1875, III, 572

[123] de divinis Nomin., III, 2, P.G., III, 690

[124] et. XXIX, 4, P.L., LIV, 1044

[125] ep. CXXXIX, 1, 2, P.L., LIV, 1103, 1105

[126] cf. Assemani, Biblioth. orient., III, 287

[127] Apoc. apocr., Mariae dormitio, Leipzig, 1856, p. XXXIV

[128] P.G., V, 1231-1240; cf. Le Hir, Etudes bibliques, Paris, 1869, LI, 131-185

[129] P.L., LIX, 152

[130] Guerin, Jerusalem, Paris, 1889, 346-350; Socin-Benzinger, Palastina und

Syrien, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 90-91; Le Camus, Notre voyage aux pays bibliqes,

Paris, 1894, I, 253

[131] P.G., LXXXVI, 3288-3300

[132] Tobler, Itiner, Terr. sanct., Leipzig, 1867, I, 302

[133] Cf. Zahn, Die Dormitio Sanctae Virginis und das Haus des Johannes

Marcus, in Neue Kirchl. Zeitschr., Leipzig, 1898, X, 5; Mommert, Die Dormitio,

Leipzig, 1899; Séjourné, Le lieu de la dormition de la T.S. Vierge, in Revue

biblique, 1899, pp.141-144; Lagrange, La dormition de la Sainte Vierge et la

maison de Jean Marc, ibid., pp. 589, 600.

[134] haer. LXXVIII, 11, P.G., XL, 716

[135] cf. Nirschl, Das Grab der hl. Jungfrau Maria, Mainz, 1896, 48

[136] Stromat. vi, 5

[137] in Eus., Hist. eccl., I, 21

[138] The reader may consult also an article in the "Zeitschrift fur katholische

Theologie", 1906, pp. 201 sqq.

[139] ; cf. "Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie", 1878, 213.

[140] cf. Martigny, Dict. des antiq. chrét., Paris, 1877, p. 792

[141] de Trinit. VIII, 5, P.L., XLII, 952

[142] cf. Garucci, Vetri ornati di figure in oro, Rome, 1858

[143] cf. Martigny, Dict. das antiq. chret., Paris, 1877, p. 515

[144] cf. Marucchi, Elem. d'archaeol. chret., Paris and Rome, 1899, I, 321; De

Rossi, Imagini scelte della B.V. Maria, tratte dalle Catacombe Romane, Rome,

1863

[145] adv. haer., V, 17, P.G. VIII, 1175

The works treating the various questions concerning the name, the birth, the life,

and the death of Mary, have been cited in the corresponding parts of this article.

We add here only a few names of writers, or of collectors of works of a more

general character: BOURASSE, Summa aurea de laudibus B. Mariae Virginis,

omnia complectens quae de gloriosa Virgine Deipara reperiuntur (13 vols., Paris,

1866); KURZ, Mariologie oder Lehre der katholischen Kirche uber die

allerseligste Jungfrau Maria (Ratisbon, 1881); MARACCI, Bibliotheca Mariana

(Rome, 1648); IDEM, Polyanthea Mariana, republished in Summa Aurea, vols IX

and X; LEHNER, Die Marienerehrung in den ersten Jahrhunderten (2nd ed.,

Stuttgart, 1886).

A. J. Maas

Transcribed by Michael T. Barrett

Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV

Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org

[A copy of this picture suitable for framing (101/2" X14") will be sent to those making a donation of $10 to this Rosary Crusade - Send a money order or check made out to: S.McDonough, 139 Medford St., Arlington, MA 02474.]