Chapter XXXIX. Compendium of mariology

AAW AWAAWAWABABABABRARBSBAAAAABABRRAAABBRAAARRREEEEBERSESE EERE DEE SB SE

HESE questions have been discussed fully enough in a special book.* Therefore we shall give a very brief explanation of them in the present treatise, considering them in their speculative aspect, as they pertain to the body of theological doctrine.

First ARTICLE

THE EMINENT DIGNITY OF THE DIVINE MOTHERHOOD

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, and is therefore truly and properly the Mother of God, as defined by the Council of Ephesus.” St. Thomas says: “Conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born, Since, therefore, the human nature was taken by the divine person (of the Word) in the very beginning of the conception, it follows that it can be truly said-that God was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary.” * Hence she is truly the Mother of God.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was first predestined to this divine motherhood and then as a consequence of this to fullness of glory and grace, so as to be worthy of being the Mother of God.* This is sufficiently clear from the bull of Pope Pius IX in which it is said: “The ineffable God from the beginning and from all eternity chose and ordained for His only-begotten Son, a mother from whom His Son

took flesh so as to be born in the blessed fullness of time, and pursued her with such great love above all creatures, so as to find the greatest of delight in her.” 5 A little farther on it says: “By one and the same decree [He chose her] along with the Incarnation of divine wisdom.” °

In other words, the eternal decree of the Incarnation is not directed toward the quasi-abstract Incarnation, but toward the Incarnation here and now to be brought into being or, so to speak, individualized ; that is, it concerns the incarnation of God’s Son from the Virgin Mary, as stated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.”

Therefore by the same eternal decree Christ as man was predestined to be by nature the Son of God, and the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God. But this decree is antecedent to the predestinating decree of men who are to be saved by Christ’s merits, and of whatsoever other human persons to glory and grace. Therefore the Blessed Virgin Mary was predestined to be the Mother of God, as to what was principally intended, prior to being predestined to glory, just as Christ was predestined to be the Son of God by nature, as to what was principally intended, prior to being predestined to glory. That to which anyone is first predestined is called the end, and is nobler than any other things to which a person is afterward predestined. From this it is already apparent that divine motherhood is nobler than fullness of grace and glory, which is a consequence of the former and which accompanies it so as to render the Blessed Virgin worthy of being the Mother of God.

This superiority of divine motherhood is evident also for several other reasons. First, because the Blessed Virgin Mary could indeed merit eternal life, but she could not merit the Incarnation, which is the eminent principle of all Mary’s merits, just as it is of all men after the Fall, and hence she could not merit the divine motherhood, which is closely connected with the Incarnation, and which, like the Incarnation, transcends the sphere of merit.’ From what has been said it

5 Ineffabilis Deus.

8 The Blessed Virgin Mary did not even merit congruously in the strict sense the Incarnation and the divine motherhood, because the principle of merit does not come under merit, as Billuart well explains, De incarnatione, diss. V, a. 3; for the Incarnation and future merits of Christ are the foundation and principle of all the Blessed

Virgin Mary’s merits and not the effects. From this it would also follow that the Blessed Virgin Mary merited something better than Christ Himself merited; and is also apparent that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s predestination is entirely gratuitous.

Secondly, the divine motherhood is a dignity which by reason of its terminus whereunto, namely, the Word incarnate, belongs to the hypostatic order, which transcends the order of grace and glory.

Thirdly, the divine motherhood is the reason for all the graces bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary. Thus it is their measure and end, and is therefore of a higher order than these. Such is the common teaching of the theologians.

Fourthly, the divine motherhood is the motive for the cultus of hyperdulia paid to Mary, to which she would not be entitled if she were only full of grace and the highest of all the saints, but not Mother of God.®

Fifthly, it follows from this that the divine motherhood is also considered in itself superior to the fullness of grace that was granted to Mary so as to render her worthy of being the Mother of God. So also in the natural order the spiritual soul, even considered in itself, because it belongs to the substantial order, is more perfect than its intellectual faculty, although it is perfected by this latter.'®

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

The plenitude of grace in Mary was first made manifest through the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, which was more and more explicitly admitted in the Church, and was finally solemnly defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8; 1854.'! Pius IX says in this definition: “We define the doctrine that holds the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception was by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race, preserved exempt from all stain of original sin, and that this is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” 1? so the Incarnation would not be a work of pure mercy, for congruous merit, strictly so called, implies an amicable right to a reward as a compensation.

But the Blessed Virgin Mary merited congruously in a the broad sense the Incarnation and divine motherhood.

? See reply of Congregation of Rites, June 1, 1884.

11 Denz., no. 1641; see also, nos. 256, 734 f., 792, 1073, 1100, 3035. 12 Ibid., no. 1641.

This privilege, according to the bull of definition, is implicitly affirmed by the archangel Gabriel to Mary on the day of the Annunciation, who said: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women”; ?* and St. Elizabeth uttered similar words.!4 The Blessed Virgin Mary would not have received this fullness of grace if her soul at any moment had been in a state of spiritual death because of original sin, that is, if at any moment she had been without sanctifying grace and charity, and therefore turned away from God the ultimate end, a daughter of wrath, whom the devil could have claimed as having once been his slave.

This is especially evident from tradition, as this same bull declares, for it quotes the testimonies of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Ephrem, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. The feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been celebrated especially in the Greek Church since the seventh century, and almost in the whole of Europe since the twelfth century.

The theological proof for this privilege completes by the notion of preservative redemption what St. Thomas had said for the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the womb before her birth. He had said: “For it is reasonable to believe that she who brought forth the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, received greater privileges of grace than all others.” 1°

Now it must be said to be fitting that the most excellent Redeemer most perfectly redeemed the person who was most closely connected with Him as Mother and associated with Him in the redemption of the human race. But most perfect redemption liberates not only from sin, but also preserves from sin. Therefore it was far more fitting that the most excellent Redeemer, by His merits, that were of infinite value, preserve His mother from original sin and also from actual sin, as tradition affirms.

This argument was proposed by Eadmer in the twelfth century, and was afterward more clearly explained by Scotus," and is valid even regardless of the special opinion held by Scotus concerning the motive of the Incarnation.

15 Cf. P. Le Bachelet, Dict. apol., art. “Marie,” Immaculate Conception, cols. 210- 75. Rouet de Journel, Ench. patrist., no. 435.

The bull of definition declares that it is not fitting for the most perfect Redeemer to have had a Mother conceived in sin.

The consequences of the particular privilege of the Immaculate Conception are that the Blessed Virgin Mary never had concupiscence, and never had any absolutely first deordinate movements arising in her sensitive nature, but that there was always perfect subordination of her sensitive nature to the intellect and will, which were fully in subjection to the divine good pleasure, as in the state of innocence. Thus the Blessed Virgin is inviolate and undefiled.

Her intellect was never exposed to either error or illusion, so that she was always correct in her judgments, and if she was not at any time enlightened about anything, then she suspended her judgment, avoiding all precipitation. Thus she is called Seat of Wisdom, Queen of Doctors, Virgin most Prudent, Mother of Good Counsel.

In what way was she subjected to pain and death? She submitted to it as Christ did, inasmuch as pain and death were in her not the result of original sin, but of human nature or of the body conceived in passible flesh. For human nature of itself, just like all animal nature, is subjected to pain and death, and man is by nature mortal. The human body in the state of innocence was endowed with the preternatural gift of immortality, but when this was taken away, then the laws of nature at once came into operation. But Jesus, that He might be our Redeemer by His passion and death, was conceived in passible flesh, and thus willingly accepted pain and death for our salvation. The Blessed Virgin Mary also accepted pain and death, so that she might be united with her Son in the sacrifice of redemption.

The privilege of the Immaculate Conception and the beginning of the fullness of grace very much increased in Mary her capacity of grieving for the greatest of all evils, which is sin. It is precisely because she was most pure, and loved God and her Son in the very highest degree, that she grieved to the utmost for our sins, whereby God is offended and for which Christ was crucified.

THE TEACHING OF ST. THOMAS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

It seems that we must distinguish between three periods in the life of St. Thomas as to his teaching on this subject.

In the first period, which was from 1253 to 1254, he affirmed the privilege, for he wrote: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin

Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.” '8

In the second period, St. Thomas sees more clearly the difficulties of the problem, and, because some theologians said that Mary had no need of redemption, the holy Doctor affirms that, according to revelation,’® Christ is the Redeemer of the human race, and that nobody is saved without him. But giving no thought to preservative redemption, St. Thomas seems to deny the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, saying: “It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.” #° St. Thomas fails to distinguish, as he often does in other questions, between posteriority of nature, which is compatible with the privilege, and posteriority of time, which is incompatible with it. He says: “The Blessed Virgin did indeed, contract original sin,” ** not sufficiently distinguishing between the debt of incurring original sin and the fact of incurring it.

Concerning the question as to the precise moment when the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, St. Thomas does not come to any conclusion. He only says: “This sanctification took place immediately after her animation,” * and “it is not known when she was sanctified.” *#

Tt must be observed with Fathers del Prado, O.P.,24 Mandonnet, O.P.,°° and Hugon, O.P.,”° that the principles invoked by St. Thomas do not contradict the privilege and remain intact if preservative redemption be admitted. But St. Thomas, at least in this second period of his life as teacher, does not seem to have thought of this most perfect mode of redemption. Moreover, it must be noticed that the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin was not as yet celebrated in Rome; °? but what is not done in Rome, does not appear to be in conformity with tradition.

In the last period of his life, however, from 1272 until 1273, St. Thomas wrote a work that is certainly authentic.” In a recent critical

24 Santo Tomas y la Immaculada.

26 Tractatus dogmatici, II, 749.

27 Cf. Illa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3. 28 This work is entitled “Expositio super salutatione angelica.”

edition of this small work made by J. F. Rossi, C.M., we read: “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.” ° If it be so, then St. Thomas at the end of his life, after mature reflection, and in accordance with his devotion toward the Blessed Virgin, again affirmed what he had said in the first period of his life.°

We must note other passages indicative of this happy return to his first opinion.**

A similar change of opinion is often enough to be found in great theologians concerning very difficult questions that belong to Mariology. First something of the privilege is affirmed in accordance with tradition and devotion; afterward difficulties become more apparent which give rise to doubts, and finally upon more mature reflection, enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the theologian returns to his first opinion, considering that God’s gifts are more fruitful than we think and there must be good reasons for restricting their scope. But the principles of St. Thomas, as we have observed, do not decide against the privilege, they even lead to it, at the same time as the mind is acquiring an explicit notion of preservative redemption.

Thus St. Thomas probably at the end of life reafirmed the privilege of the Immaculate Conception. Father Mandonnet ** and Father J. M. Vosté ** thought so.

29 Cf, Divus Thomas, pp. 445-79, and Monografie del Collegio Alberoni. Sixteen out of the nineteen codices have the words “nec originale”; hence Father Rossi concludes that the text is authentic.

31. Cf. Compendium theologiae, chap. 224, whérein we read: “Not only was the Blessed Virgin Mary immune from actual sin, but also from original sin, being purified in a special manner.” But it would not have been a special privilege if she had been purified as Jeremias and St. John the Baptist had been in the womb, some time after her animation. Likewise in the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, the fifth petition, St. Thomas says: “Full of grace, in whom there was no sin.” Also in the Com. in Ps. 14:2, we read: “There was absolutely no stain of sin both in Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Also Com. in Ps. 18:6, he writes: “There was no obscurity of sin in the Blessed Virgin.”

88 See his Com. in Summam theol. S. Thomae. De mysteriis vitae Christi; 18 f. In the explanation of the Hail Mary, St. Thomas still says: “The Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin,” but, as Father Vosté observes: “Unless we admit an intolerable contradiction in this same passage, it must evidently be understood . . . as referring to the stain that is to be instrumentally transmitted through the seed and the flesh, but not at all of formal original sin personally, contracted by the soul and person of Mary.”

P COMPENDIUM OF MARIOLOGY 697

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY WAS PRESERVED FROM ALL ACTUAL SIN, EVEN VENIAL SIN

The Council of Trent declares the belief of tradition in the following words: “If anyone shall say that a man once justified . . . is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds concerning the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.” *4

St. Hippolytus, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin, Tertullian, and St. Ambrose are quoted as witnesses of tradition, who place opposition between Eve and Mary, and St. Augustine says: “About the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the Lord’s honor, concerning sins, I will that no questions at all be raised.” 35

St. Thomas gives the theological proof in the following words: “God so prepares and endows those whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, for St. Paul says: “Who hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ ** But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God if she had ever sinned. . . . So that what is written is fulfilled: “Thou are all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee.’ ” 37

Mary was not only sinless but incapable of sinning, yet not absolutely so and in her own right as Christ was, but in virtue of the confirmation of grace that was granted her from the beginning and because of the special assistance of divine providence. This special assistance was the effect of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s predestination, and under this particular help she retained her complete freedom in the performance of good, without deviating from the right path. This is a participation in the immortality and impeccability of God’s supreme liberty.

It is the common teaching of theologians that the Blessed Virgin was also preserved from every imperfection, either directly or indirectly willed, which means that she was never less prompt in following the inspirations of grace given by way of counsel, and her acts of charity did not vary in intensity.

THE BEGINNING OF PERFECTION IN THE BLESSED VIRGIN’S FULLNESS OF GRACE

Pius IX says: “The ineffable God . . . from the beginning and from all eternity chose and ordained for His only-begotten Son a mother from whom His Son took flesh, so as to be born in the blessed fullness of time, and pursued her with such great love above all creatures so as to find the greatest of delight in her. Wherefore, far excelling all the angelic spirits and the saints, He so enriched her with an abundance of all heavenly charismata drawn from the treasury of His divine nature, that always absolutely free from all stain of sin, and all beautiful and perfect as she is, He might present in her a fullness of innocence and sanctity, greater than which, after God, cannot at all be known and, after God, no one can be thought to attain.” "S

St. Thomas manifests the fitness of this privilege by this principle: “In every genus the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part it has in the effect of that principle. . . . But Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity. But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity, because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fullness of grace than others.” *°

If this incipient fullness of grace in the Blessed Virgin is compared with the final grace of men and angels before their entrance into heaven, theologians commonly teach that this beginning of fullness already surpassed the final grace of any man or angel whatever. This is today considered certain and is expressed by Pius IX.*°

The reason is that grace is the effect of God’s active love, which makes us pleasing in His eyes, as His adopted sons. But the Blessed Virgin from the first moment of. her conception, destined to be the Mother of God, was loved by Him more than any saint or angel whatever. Therefore the Blessed Virgin received greater grace than any of them. Moreover, this incipient fullness of grace was already a worthy preparation, although remote, for divine motherhood, which

38 Bull [neffabilis Deus. 89 Summa theol., Ila, q. 27, a. 5. 4° Bull /neffabilis Deus.

transcends the order of grace inasmuch as terminatively it belongs to the hypostatic order.

In fact, the majority of theologians now teach as most probable, if not certain, that this incipient fullness of grace in the Blessed Virgin already transcended the final grace of all the saints and angels taken together.

Pius IX evidently favors this view, for he says: “God pursued her with such great love above all creatures, so as to find the greatest delight in her. Wherefore, far above all the angelic spirits and the saints, He so enriched her with grace . . . , and this fullness of grace is, after God, the greatest conceivable.” *!

But these expressions denote not only every one of the saints and angels, but all of them taken together. In fact; a little farther on in this papal bull, the Blessed Virgin is said to be “above all the choirs of angels,” *” that is, all the angels taken together.

This assertion is conceded by all concerning Mary as she is in heaven, but the degree of glory in heaven corresponds to the degree of merit at the moment of death, and this in the Blessed Virgin was in proportion to her dignity as Mother of God, for which the incipient fullness of grace already disposed her.

The theological proof of the aforesaid teaching, which is more generally accepted, is this. A person that is loved more by God than all creatures taken together, received greater grace. But God from all eternity loved Mary more than all creatures taken together, because He loved her as His future mother. Therefore He enriched her with a greater fullness of grace. And He considered her as His future mother from the first moment of her conception, in fact from all eternity, when He predestined her to divine motherhood.

Moreover, if this incipient fullness of grace surpasses the final grace of the highest saint or the highest angel, for this reason it surpasses the grace of all the saints taken together, for grace does not belong to the quantitative order, but to the qualitative order.

Thus the intelligence of an archangel surpasses the intelligence of all angels inferior to him. The intellectual vigor of St. Thomas exceeds that of all his commentators taken together. Likewise the power of the king not only surpasses the power of his prime minister, but of all his ministers taken together.

Hence the Blessed Virgin even in this life, without the cooperation of the saints and angels, could obtain more by her prayers and merits than all the saints and angels taken together could obtain without her.

The consequences of this beginning in the fullness of grace are that all the infused virtues, and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are connected with charity, were from the beginning in Mary in a proportionate degree.

Moreover, many theologians think that the Blessed Virgin more probably received, through infused knowledge, the use of reason and of free will from the first moment of her conception, for the purpose of offering herself to God and for the purpose that this beginning in the fullness of the graces of the virtues and gifts might produce fruit in her. It is also probable that she was not afterward deprived of this use of free will, because thus she would have become less perfect through no fault of her own.**

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY'S INCREASE IN GRACE

Whereas Christ received in the first moment of His conception, absolute fullness of grace, for the Second Council of Constantinople says, “He never was made better in the advancement of good works,” ** the Blessed Virgin Mary always was made better until death, increasing in the grace of the virtues and the gifts. Just as a stone falls more swiftly as it approaches the ground, so, says St. Thomas, the just soul more promptly goes to God the more it approaches Him and is attracted and drawn by Him.** Thus there was always an increase of progress in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This spiritual progress in the Blessed Virgin Mary was the fruit of merit and prayer.

It was especially on the day of the Annunciation at the moment

*® This point has been more fully examined by us in La Mère du Sauveur, pp. 77 £., in which we quote authors who admit this opinion, especially St. Francis de Sales

(Sermon 38) and St. Alphonsus (Glories of Mary, Il, discourse 2, second point). 44 Denz., no. 224.

45 St. Thomas says (Com. in Epist. ad Heb. 10:25): “The natural motion (for example of a falling stone), the more swift it becomes, the more it approaches its destined end. . . . But grace inclines the will after the manner of nature. Therefore those who are in a state of grace must all the more increase in it, the more they approach their end ... for the path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards and increaseth even to perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).

re of the Incarnation that she received a great increase of grace. Then when the Word was made flesh, she received this Word with the greatest fervor, and the Incarnation by reason of the operation effected (ex opere operato) produced in her a great increase of grace more so than Eucharistic Communion does in a person very well disposed.

The spiritual joy of the Blessed Virgin Mary was made manifest on the day she uttered her canticle of praise, when visiting Elizabeth.**

The Church has defined ' that the holy Mother of God was a virgin before her parturition, in her parturition, and after parturition, and always remained a virgin; wherefore she did not need to be purified.* The Fathers of the Church have often said this.*® St. Thomas says: “The error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children . . . is derogatory to Christ’s perfection . . . , is an insult to the Holy Ghost . . . , and is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother, for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son, and were she of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.” 5°

Then the grace of the virtues and the gifts was in a special manner increased in Mary on the day of our Lord’s birth, on the day when Jesus was presented in the Temple, during His flight into Egypt, afterward when the holy family lived in Nazareth. But this grace was especially increased in her on Mount Calvary, when the mother of our Savior was intimately associated with the sacrifice of her Son, also on the day of Pentecost, and when she most fervently received Holy Communion from the hands of St. John the Evangelist.

Therefore the Blessed Virgin Mary had the greatest of faith, illumined by the gifts of understanding, wisdom, and knowledge, and hence her knowledge of Sacred Scripture was profound, especially as regards those things that are more closely related to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption.

It is commonly held that she was exempt not only from error, but also from ignorance in the strict sense, which is a privation in a fit

49 Cf. Rouet de Journel’s Enchiridion patrist., no. 432. 5° Summa theol., IIa, q. 28, a. 3.

subject. Certain things she did not know, but she was not ignorant of those things which it befitted her to know.

It is more probable that she had infused knowledge for the use of reason and free will from the first moment of her conception, and afterward was not deprived of this use, because she would have become less perfect through no fault of her own.

From her Canticle of the Magnificat it is evident that she had the gift of prophecy. Like many of the saints, she also received the gift of discernment of spirits, especially in giving counsel to those who appealed to her. Finally, perhaps toward the end of her life, she had the beatific vision in a transient manner, as St. Augustine and St. Thomas affirm that St. Paul probably had.

The principal virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary were her most firm hope, especially her heroic charity on Mount Calvary, eminent prudence, enlightened by the gift of counsel, justice always tempered by the greatest mercy, the greatest of piety, invincible fortitude, most renowned virginity, exceeding meekness, and most profound humility. Thus she is the exemplar of the contemplative life in the hidden apostolate made most fruitful by prayer and sacrifice.

THE FINAL PLENITUDE OF GRACE IN MARY

1. What was this plenitude at the moment of death ? The immaculate Mother of God did not die on account of original sin; ** her death, like that of Christ, as we have said, was not the result of sin but of nature, or of natural consequences, inasmuch as she was conceived in passible flesh, as Christ was, for man is by nature mortal.

In union with her Son on Calvary she offered the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of her own life, and, as St. John Damascene,? St. Francis de Sales,° and Bossuet ** testify and explain, she died not only in love, but from love for her divine Son, that is, from a strong desire of seeing God immediately and forever. In accordance with this final plenitude of grace and charity, her soul was ultimately disposed for the beatific vision.

2. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to

52 Homiliae duae de dormitione Virginis Mariae.

54 Premier Sermon pour la fête de l’Assomption, ler point.

m COMPENDIUM OF MARIOLOGY 703 documents of tradition the feast of the Assumption has been solemnly celebrated both in the Latin Church and in the Greek Church since the seventh century. But this solemn feast is the liturgical expression of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the whole Church, for the law of praying is the law of believing, and this presupposes that the privilege of the Assumption is certain and at least implicitly revealed. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s entrance into heaven could not be naturally known with certainty; even though the apostles saw His body rise from the ground as to its term wherefrom, they did not see it as to its term whereunto as St. Thomas says of our Lord’s ascension.*® Therefore the certainty of the Assumption as expressed in the institution of this solemn feast can be the result only of at least implicit revelation.

That this privilege, however, was implicitly revealed, is evident from especially two traditionally alleged theological reasons. For the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the angelic salutation was “full of grace and blessed among women.” "* But this exceptional benediction excludes the malediction, “Unto dust thou shalt return.” 57 Therefore the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary was under no obligation to suffer the corruption of the tomb.

Moreover, according to the words of Simeon, “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce,” °* the Blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated on Calvary with Christ’s perfect victory over the devil and sin. Therefore she was associated with Christ’s perfect victory over death, which is a part of the victory over the devil, and victory over sin follows, inasmuch as “death is the wages of sin.” 5° But perfect victory over death requires that the Mother of God “could not have been held down by the bonds of death.” °° Therefore this victory requires an anticipated resurrection and assumption. Thus the privilege of the Assumption seems proximately definable as one hundred and ninety-seven Fathers of the Vatican Council postulated. Denzinger also points out: “Concerning the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the time of the Vatican Council two hundred and four bishops and theologians urged its dogmatic definition since, unless

59 Rom. 6:23. 6° Hymn Veneranda in Ambrosian and Dominican rites.

we wish to say that the most firm faith of the Church savors too much of slight credulity, which it is impious to think, without doubt it is of divine and apostolic tradition, that is, it must be most firmly held to have been revealed.” ®

3. The final plenitude of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s grace received its confirmation in heaven for she was raised “above the choirs of angels” ° as the liturgy says, to the highest degree of essential glory or of the beatific vision after Christ, as His worthy Mother, who was intimately associated with Him in the work of our salvation, and reached the highest degree of charity after Him. The degree of glory corresponds to the degree of merits acquired at the end of this life.

But the accidental beatitude of the Blessed Virgin Mary consists in the intimate knowledge of Christ’s glorious human nature, in the functioning of her office as universal mediatrix and spiritual mother, and in the cult of hyperdulia that is owing to her as Mother of God. To her is attributed the threefold aureole of martyrs, confessors of the faith, and virgins.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY'S UNIVERSAL MEDIATION

The holy Mother of the Redeemer is often called by the Fathers “the new Eve” or the spiritual mother of all men.®* Afterward, more and more explicitly her universal mediation was affirmed in the liturgy and in the works of theologians. In the Middle Ages St. Bernard says: “Mary is the procurer of grace, the mediator of salvation, the restorer of the ages.” °* St. Albert the Great calls Mary “the coadjutor and associate of Christ.” ° Finally, in most recent times, the Supreme Pontiffs expressly affirm that she is the mediatrix of all graces.

Leo XIII says: “It is God’s will that nothing be bestowed on us ex-

$1 Enchiridion, no. 1641, note 1; see also Coll. Lacensis, VII, 868 f.; and Appendix: The definability of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption.

62 Responsory for Vespers of Assumption.

63 cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchir. patrist., no. 433. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Ephrem are quoted, agreeing substantially in praying: “Hail, best mediatrix between God and men. Hail, most efficacious conciliatrix . . . and after the Mediator, the Mediatrix of the whole world.” Cf. St. Ephrem, Opera omnia, Vol. III, col. 528.

cept through Mary; so that, as nobody can reach the supreme Father except through the Son, so that almost nobody can approach Christ except through Mary.” ê Leo XIII also says: “She is the one from whom Jesus was born, His true Mother, and for this reason the worthy and most accepted Mediatrix to the Mediator.” °7

Pius X more explicitly declared: “But from the communion of griefs and purpose between Mary and Christ she merited, as Eadmer says, to become most worthily the reparatrix of a lost world, and therefore the dispenser of all the gifts which Jesus procured for us by His death and the shedding of His blood. . . . Since she excelled all others in sanctity and in her union with Christ and was summoned by Him in the human work of salvation, it was congruous, as they say, that she should merit for us what Christ condignly merited for us; and she is the principal minister in the dispensation of graces.” 6°

Benedict XV likewise says: “As she suffered with her Son in His passion and, so to speak, shared in His death, so she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men and, as far as it was in her power, sacrificed her Son for the appeasement of divine justice, so that it can truly be said, that along with Christ she redeemed the human race.” °°

Pius XI said in equivalent words: “The most sorrowful Mother participated in the work of redemption with Jesus Christ.” 7°

Finally, a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office praises the custom of attaching the name of Jesus to that of Mary: “His Mother, our coredemptress, the blessed Mary.” 7? Therefore the title “Coredemptress of the human race” is approved.””

Theological proof. It shows the genuineness of this title, for in the strict sense this title of coredemptress and universal mediatrix befits the Mother of the Redeemer, if she is associated with Christ in the work of the redemption of the human race by way of merit and satisfaction. But she was truly so associated with Him by a perfect communion of will and suffering, inasmuch as she gave her consent to the mystery of the Incarnation. Thus she gave us the Redeemer, and

86 Encyclical, On the Rosary, September 22, 1891.

67 Encyclical Fidentem, September 20, 1896.

T1 Section, De indulgentiis, decree “Sunt quos amor,” June 26, 1913. 72 Denz., no. 3034 note.

afterward, especially on Calvary, along with Christ congruously merited and satisfied for all of us; now finally in heaven she intercedes with Christ for us and distributes all graces we receive. Therefore the aforesaid title strictly befits her.

But this association with Christ the Redeemer is properly understood when we exclude what it is not. Certainly the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the principal and perfective cause of our redemption, for she could not condignly redeem us in justice. For this, Christ’s theandric act of infinite value, as the head of the human race, was necessary. The Mother of the Savior could not elicit a theandric act of reparation, nor was she constituted the head of the human race. But, subordinated to Christ, she is really the secondary and dispositive cause of our redemption.

It is said “subordinated to Christ” not only in this sense, that she is inferior to Him, but that she concurs in our salvation, by the grace which comes from Christ’s merits. Thus she operated in Him and through Him. Hence Christ is the supreme mediator of all, and the Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed by Him by a most perfect redemption, not by being freed from sin, but by being preserved from it.

She is also the dispositive cause of our redemption, inasmuch as she disposes us to receive Christ’s influence who, as the author of salvation, perfects the work of our redemption.

Some have raised the objection, that the principle of merit does not come under merit. But the Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed by the sacrifice of the cross. Therefore she could not even congruously merit the attainment of graces for us.

Reply. I concede the major and minor, but the conclusion does not follow. All that follows is that she could not even congruously merit the attainment of all these graces for herself, this I concede. But she could merit these for us.

Christ merited condignly all the effects of the Blessed Virgin Mary's predestination, except the divine motherhood, because in such a case He would have merited the Incarnation and therefore Himself, Hence Christ merited the first grace and final perseverance for the Blessed Virgin Mary. But the Blessed Virgin Mary did not even congruously merit for herself either the first grace or final perseverance, because the principle of merit does not come under merit. But the Blessed Virgin Mary merited for us congruously what Christ merited for us condignly, namely, all the graces we receive, even the first grace and final perseverance. In this there is no contradiction, but great harmony.

Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary was indeed redeemed by Christ through the sacrifice of the cross in the preservative sense, and so she was immaculate; but as a consequence of this, she merited congruously with Christ for us, not only the distribution or application of graces, but the attainment of graces that flow from the sacrifice of the cross; for in the strict sense together with Christ she offered this sacrifice. Thus she merited with Him redemption in the objective sense, namely, our liberation from sin and our reinstatement in grace.

But I insist. The Blessed Virgin Mary merited congruously for us what, for example, St. Monica congruously merited and obtained for St. Augustine, namely, the grace of conversion. Therefore there is only a difference of degree between her and other saints who intercede for us, and it must not be said that she is the coredemptrix in the strict sense, but only in an improper sense, as the apostles are said to have labored for the salvation of souls.

Reply. The difference is that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave us the Redeemer, and with Him offered the sacrifice of the cross by meriting and satisfying. St. Monica and other saints, on the contrary, did not offer with Christ the sacrifice of the cross, and therefore did not merit congruously the attainment of graces that flow from this sacrifice but only the application of these, and therefore cannot be called coredeemers. They can be said only to labor in the salvation of souls. They did not merit congruously our redemption in the objective sense.

Hence St. Albert the Great could say that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not assumed into the ministry of our Lord, but as a consort and help, in accordance with the saying: “Let us make him a help like unto himself” (Gen. 2:18).7 In this the Blessed Virgin is above the apostles and she alone can be properly called the mediatrix and coredemptrix of the human race.

THE WAY THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY MERITED THE LIBERATION AND RESTORATION OF THE HUMAN RACE

In these times, as is known, in divers theological periodicals, especially in Belgium, and also in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, there was and still is a controversy concerning the exact meaning of this doctrine that is commonly accepted among theologians and is sanctioned by Pius XI, namely, that what Christ merited de condi gno

for us, the Blessed Virgin Mary merited de congruo for us as the mediatrix of the human race.

What is the exact meaning of saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary merited de congruo for us? Many theologians say that, although she did not merit condignly, yet she still merited in the proper sense, or strictly congruously, the liberation and restoration of the human race. The Blessed Virgin Mary properly merited for us de congruo also the first grace and also the last grace, namely, that of final perseverance, but under Christ, through Him and in Him, inasmuch as she was most closely and indissolubly united with Him in offering up the sacrifice of the cross.

Among these theologians, some, a few indeed, hint and sometimes say that merit in the strict sense is condign merit. Therefore the Blessed Virgin Mary, if she strictly merited for us the first grace, merited it also condignly, which is admitted by very few theologians.

Against this last conclusion several wrote that this would detract from the primacy of Christ the Redeemer, by whom the Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed by preservative redemption, and they appealed to the common teaching as formulated by St. Thomas, who says: “No one can merit condignly for another the first grace, except Christ alone . . . inasmuch as He is the head of the Church, and the Author of human salvation.” ** In fact, some, but a few, replied that merit in the strict sense is condign merit; but the common teaching is that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not merit condignly for us. Therefore she did not merit properly but only improperly for us the first and the ultimate grace.

Therefore these last theologians wish to reduce the Blessed Mary’s merit for us to merit improperly so called or to the impetratory power of prayer, which can be in the sinner without merit, and which continues now in the blessed with merit. They interpret the following words of Pius X in this sense: “Since she excelled all others in sanctity and in her union with Christ, and was summoned by Him to the work of human salvation, it was congruous, as they say, that she should merit for us what Christ condignly merited for us.” 7° According to this interpretation Pius X, concerning the merit of the Blessed Virgin Mary for us, would have had in mind only merit improperly so called of intercession such as that which continues in

heaven, which is not strictly merit, and which therefore does not refer to the attainment of graces, but only to their application, just as other saints intercede for us. This last opinion is admitted by very few.

Theologians generally hold that the Blessed Virgin Mary merited for us strictly speaking, but only congruously, the first and last grace.”

I do not now wish to enter into the particulars of this controversy, but I should like to make sorhe preliminary observation, which has not been sufficiently noted, the necessity of which is clearly seen from the extremely oppésite views on both sides. Both parties to the controversy hold that merit in the strict sense is condign merit; and one party to the controversy deduced therefore that the Blessed Virgin Mary merited condignly for us, which is contrary to the common teaching; the other party to the controversy deduces therefore that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not strictly merit for us, which is likewise against the common teaching, but in the opposite sense.

This controversy seems to result from an insufficient analysis of the notion of merit in general. On the one hand, the adversaries take a quasi-univocal view of merit, and therefore consider merit in the strict sense to be only condign merit. Wherefore either the Blessed Virgin Mary merited condignly for us, or did not strictly merit for us; and both parties depart from the common opinion.

But the first question to be asked is whether the notion of merit is univocal or analogical; and whether merit that has its foundation in an amicable right may be called analogically but still properly merit.

We often take univocally what must be understood analogically, and we do not sufficiently distinguish between what is said analogically and metaphorically, as when we say that God is angry, and what is said analogically and properly, as when we say that God is just.

Some, for example, seem to consider that cause in general is predicated univocally of the four causes, whereas it is predicated only analogically, or proportionately, but nevertheless it is still predicated properly of the final cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause, and the material cause. Others speak as if cognition would be predicated univocally of intellection and sensation, whereas it is predicated of them analogically, but still properly, for sensation is the lowest kind of cognition, but it is still cognition in the strict sense. Likewise love

76 On this controversy, cf. B. H. Merchelbach, O.P., Mariologia, pp. 327-44, and C. Friethoff, O.P., De Alma socia Christi mediatoris. P. G. M. Roschini, O.S.M., De Corredemptrice.

is predicated analogically of spiritual love and of sensitive love, but this second kind is strictly love. Also, life is predicated analogically of divine life, of our intellectual life, our sensitive life, even of vegetative life, which still is life properly so called, distinct from life in the metaphorical sense, as when we speak of living water. Also, being is not predicated univocally but analogically of God, created substance, and accident; although accident is being in another, it is still properly something real; the quantity of bread, the wisdom of the doctor, are strictly something real and entirely distinct from a logical being, which is not strictly being. In all these examples analogy of proper and not merely metaphorical proportionality is verified.

Finally, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, sin is not predicated univocally but analogically of mortal sin and venial sin; nevertheless, venial sin is still sin in the strict sense, and thus is distinct from imperfection, for example, from less generosity or promptness in following the divine counsel. But if sin or demerit is predicated analogically, but still properly, of venial sin, likewise merit is not predicated univocally but analogically of condign merit and congruous merit; and why could it not still be properly predicated of merit that has its foundation in an amicable right?

What St. Thomas says of sin or of demerit is equally applicable to merit. He writes: “The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a division of a genus into a species, which have an equal share of the generic nature, but it is the division of an analogous term into its parts, of which it is predicated, of the one first, and of the other afterward, consequently the perfect notion of sin, which Augustine gives, applies to mortal sin. On the other hand, vénial sin is called a sin in relation to mortal sin, even as an accident is called a being, in relation to substance, in reference to the imperfect notion of being.” 77 Nevertheless, just as accident is still properly something real and not a logical being, so venial sin is still in the proper sense sin, but imperfectly so, just as vegetative life is very imperfect life, but it is still, however, properly called life.

Likewise merit, or the right to a reward analogically and not univocally is predicated of merit in the natural order, for example, in civil life or military life, and of supernatural merit. Likewise, in the supernatural order merit is predicated analogically: (1) of merit that has its foundation in strict justice in accordance with the absolute

COMPENDIUM OF MARIOLOGY 7II equality between the work performed and the reward, namely, Christ’s theandric merit is of infinite value; (2) condign merit still has its foundation in justice, yet not so that the work performed is equal to the reward, but proportionately so and according to the divine ordination and promise; (3) congruous merit properly so called has its foundation in merit, or in an amicable right to a reward, presupposing the state of grace, and in the Blessed Virgin Mary fullness of grace. So far merit has been predicated analogically, indeed, but still in the proper sense, just as accident still is being, and just as vegetative life still is life properly so called; (4) merit is predicated improperly or metaphorically of congruous merit in the broad sense which has its foundation in God’s liberality or mercy; then there is no more a right, not even an amicable right to a reward, because this last improperly called right does not suppose the state of grace, but a certain disposition for grace or prayer that the sinner offers, which has not a meritorious but an impetratory power.

St. Thomas, inquiring whether a man can merit the first grace for another, says: “No one can merit condignly for another his first grace; since each one of us is moved by God to reach life everlasting through the gift of grace; hence condign merit does not reach beyond this motion, but Christ’s soul is moved by God through grace, not only so as to reach the glory of life everlasting, but so as to lead others to it, inasmuch as He is the head of the Church, and the author of human salvation. . . . But one may merit the first grace for another congruously; because a man in grace fulfills God’s will, and it is congruous and in harmony with friendship that God should fulfill man’s desire for the salvation of another.” 78 Thus it is commonly held that St. Monica not only obtained by her prayers, but also merited fittingly, though not condignly, the conversion of St. Augustine; a fortiori, the Blessed Virgin Mary, full of grace, the Mother of God and the spiritual mother of all men, merited for us in a strictly congruous sense the first grace, in fact, all the graces we receive and for the elect the ultimate grace of final perseverance, which they cannot strictly merit for themselves, because thus the principle of merit or the state of grace lasting until the moment of death would come under merit.

This congruous merit has its foundation not only in God’s liberality and mercy, like the impetratory power of a sinner’s prayer, but has

its foundation in an amicable right or in the rights of friendship, and presupposing the state of grace, and in the Blessed Virgin Mary fullness of grace, is still merit properly so called.

Nevertheless the idea of merit is not absolutely the same in condign merit and in strictly congruous merit; this notion is simply different, but in a qualified manner the same, that is, in accordance with a proper proportionality and is not merely metaphorical.

Thus the notion of life is not simply the same in the divine life and in the vegetative life, they are only proportionately the same; nevertheless the vegetative life is still life properly so called, and is not so metaphorically as when we speak of “living water.” Thus it remains true that the Blessed Virgin Mary properly merited for us the first grace and others, yet not condignly, but in a strictly congruous sense. Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary with Christ, through Him, and in Him congruously merited objective redemption, that is, the liberation and restoration of the human race, or the attainment of graces, which afterward are applied to individuals.

Thus the solution of the objections against the title “coredemptress” presents no difficulty.

Objection. Only Christ is the Redeemer.

Reply. That Christ alone is the Redeemer essentially, condignly, perfectively, this I concede; the Blessed Virgin Mary is coredemptress through Christ, congruously and imperfectly.

But I insist. The principle of merit does not come under merit. But Mary was redeemed by Christ. Therefore she cannot be the coredemptress.

Reply. That she cannot be her own coredemptress, this I concede; of others, I deny. Thus she could not even congruously merit for herself either the first grace or the immaculate conception, or the grace of final perseverance; for in such cases the principle of merit would fall under merit. But she could merit in a strictly congruous sense for us the first and last graces which Christ merited for us condignly. First of all the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from sin, and she was afterward the coredemptress.

Still I insist. Redemption is one and indivisible. Therefore, if the Blessed Virgin Mary is redeemed and hence is not her own coredemptress, she is also not the coredemptress of others.

Reply. Father Merkelbach distinguishes the antecedent as follows: That redemption is one and undivided according to the principal and perfective cause, and thus is a theandric act of Christ, this I concede; that redemption is one and undivided in its effects as a secondary and subordinated cause, this I deny. This presupposes the preservative redemption of the Virgin in her action as mediatrix and coredemptress for others. Thus the soul, which vivifies the head, through the mediation of the head moves the members. Thus Christ was predestined first of all before us.7°

Thus Christ’s primacy is absolutely maintained, for the Blessed Virgin Mary is mediatrix only, subordinately and in dependence on Christ. Only in virtue of her suffering and grace in union with Christ has she merited and satisfied congruously for us. It is only by Christ’s grace that the Blessed Virgin gave her consent on the day of the Annunciation, and on Calvary said: “May the Father’s will be done.”

Final objection. The Blessed Virgin Mary could not immediately cooperate with the act of redemption, or offer the sacrifice of the cross, because she was not a priest.

Reply. That she could not immediately cooperate in the redemptive act, by eliciting a theandric act, or by exercising a truly sacerdotal and sacrificial action, this I concede: that she could not by suffering with Him, this I deny. It is in this sense that Benedict XV says: “As she suffered with her Son in His passion and, so to speak, shared in His death, so she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men and, as far as it was in her power, sacrificed her Son . .

19 The present objection is similar to this: Christ Himself was predestined, therefore He could not merit our predestination. We reply with St. Thomas, Ila, q. 24, a. 4: Christ was predestined by an eternal decree before us, and could not merit our predestination on the part of God predestining, that is, He could not merit the eternal act of our predestination, for, as St. Thomas says: “By one and the same act God predestined Him and us” (ibid.}. But He merited our predestination on the part of the effects, that is, He merited all the effects of our predestination. Christ has a condign right to these effects, and this does not exclude a congruous right, in a subordinate sense, by the Blessed Virgin Mary to these effects. Christ vivifies us through the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, just as the head through the medium of the neck moves the members. We never said that the Blessed Virgin Mary merited the theandric act of Christ the Redeemer, which is impossible, just as Christ did not merit the uncreated and eternal act of our predestination. These distinctions, which all should know, are classical ones.

Thus in an army, although the head of a legion is commanded by the general of the whole army, this latter commands the soldier, because between the two commanders there is not coordination but subordination. More briefly, although the Blessed Virgin Mary is redeemed by Christ, she is our coredemptrix, because between her and us there is not coordination but subordination, just as between Christ and Mary. Hence it is easy to see that she is the mediatrix to the Redeemer.

so that it can truly be said, that along with Christ she redeemed the human race.” °°

In this sense the Blessed Virgin Mary congruously merited in the strict sense the attainment of graces that flow to us from Christ’s passion, whereas other saints can only congruously merit for us not the attainment but the application of graces that flow from the passion. And just as Christ condignly merited all the graces we receive, so the Blessed Virgin Mary merited them congruously; and just as Christ merited for the elect all the effects of predestination, namely, calling, justification, and glorification, so the Blessed Virgin Mary congruously merited these effects for the elect. Thus she is to us the mediatrix of all graces, and can and must be called the coredemptress as subordinated to Christ in the work of our salvation. This nowise detracts from Christ’s primacy, but better affirms it, for just as God gave to creatures the dignity of causality, so Christ gave to His mother the dignity of causality, as regards meriting and satisfying for us.

Thus the unity of Mariology is preserved intact. There are not two quasi-equal principles, namely, Mary is the Mother of God, and Mary is the mediatrix of all. The supreme principle in Mariology is: Mary is the Mother of God the Redeemer, and hence she is intimately associated with Him in the work of redemption.

The mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary as subordinated to Christ’s mediation, is not necessary, but most useful and efficacious and is granted to us by God because of His mercy and our weakness. Truly the Blessed Virgin Mary congruously merited for us in the strict sense what Christ condignly merited. She also congruously satisfied for us, whereas Christ condignly satisfied for us.

Now in heaven the Mother of the Savior exercises her universal mediation by means of her all-powerful intercession, and by the distribution of all graces, congruously, since she already merited what she asks for. In this distribution, she is more probably, like Christ, not only the moral cause, but also the physical and instrumental cause of grace. Thus the parallelism with the Savior is preserved, as regards these four: namely, merit, satisfaction, intercession, distribution. There is no reason to deny this causality, which is found also in the priest absolving a penitent and in the wonderworker when he performs miracles. This causality is suggested in the liturgy when it

8° Denz., no. 3034 note. Pius XI is also quoted in this note as saying: “The Virgin by her bitter sorrows shared with Jesus Christ in the work of redemption.”

ST. JOSEPH 715 chants: “Make my heart burn with the love of God. . . . Make me bear in my body the death of Christ... . Grant that I may be wounded with His wounds. . . . Grant that I may be inebriated with the teaching of the Cross.” 8!

On account of the aforesaid reasons the Blessed Virgin Mary’s universal mediation seems to be proximately definable.

The Blessed Virgin Mary especially shows herself as Mother of mercy toward men, inasmuch as she is the health of the sick, the refuge of sinners, comforter of the afflicted, help of Christians, mother of holy joy.

Similarly, as Mother of the Savior, she is queen of all, queen of angels, of patriarchs, of apostles, of prophets, of martyrs, of confessors, of virgins. As Mother of God, she is entitled to the cult of hyperdulia.*?

THE EXCELLENCE OF ST. JOSEPH OVER ALL OTHER SAINTS

Finally, something must be said of St. Joseph’s predestination and of his eminent sanctity. The doctrine according to which St. Joseph among the saints in heaven is the highest after the Blessed Virgin Mary, is the quasi-commonly accepted teaching in the Church, especially from the sixteenth century.’ It was approved by Leo XIII in proclaiming St. Joseph patron of the universal Church, who wrote: “Certainly the dignity of Mary as the Mother of God in heaven is so great that nothing greater can be attributed to her. But, because there intervened between St. Joseph and the most Blessed Virgin Mary a marital bond, there is no doubt that to the most distinguished dignity whereby the Mother of God very far surpasses all creatures, it came about that nobody is greater than St. Joseph. Marriage is a partnership and a necessity that is the greatest of all, which by its nature has added to it the mutual communication of goods. Wherefore, if God gave Joseph as spouse to the Virgin, He assuredly gave him not only as companion in life, as witness of her virginity, guardian of her virtue, but also as sharer by this conjugal bond in her high dignity.” *

The Church invokes St. Joseph immediately after the Blessed Virgin

81 Cf. Hymns of the Breviary, by Matthew Britt, O.S.B., though I preferred to depart slightly at times from his rendition. (Tr.)

82 In what our true and perfect devotion toward her should consist is best explained in Blessed Louis Mary de Montfort’s golden book entitled: Le traité de la vraie devotion à la Sainte Vierge.

°t Encyclical Quamquam pluries, August 15, 1889.

Mary and before the apostles in the oration of the Mass. She also addresses him with the following titles: “St. Joseph, light of patriarchs, spouse of the Mother of God, chaste guardian of the Virgin, foster father of the Son of God, diligent protector of Christ, head of the holy family . . . , glory of home life, guardian of virgins, pillar of families, solace of the wretched, hope of the sick, patron of the dying, terror of demons, protector of the holy Church, pray for us.” °°

No one is greater among the saints after the Mother of the Savior.

But what is the principle of this doctrine about the excellence of St. Joseph, admitted for the last five centuries? It is that proportionate sanctity is required for an exceptional divine mission, as in the case of Christ, His holy Mother, the apostles, founders of orders, and others who are immediately chosen by God.

But Joseph was predestined for an exceptional mission, one that is unique in the world and throughout all time, namely, that he should be the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the foster father of the Son of God, and that he should have in the guardianship of the Word incarnate the heart of a father, full of benevolence and love. There is nothing more exalted after the dignity of divine motherhood. Therefore St. Joseph received sanctity in proportion to this mission, and this sanctity increased until the end of his life. In fact, St. Joseph was probably predestined to his exceptional mission before he was predestined to glory, for there is no distinction between his predestination and the decree of the Incarnation, which is directed to the Incarnation not in a general way but as to something individualized, namely, as concerning the incarnation of the Word by the Virgin Mary “espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David.” $ This decree includes both Christ’s predestination to be the natural Son of God, predestination of Mary to be the Mother of God, predestination of Joseph to the protection of the Son incarnate and His Mother. Hence it can be said that just as Christ was predestined to be the natural Son of God before He was predestined to glory, and the Blessed Virgin to divine motherhood before glory, so it seems that St. Joseph was first predestined to his exceptional mission, on account of which he was afterward predestined to a very high degree of glory and grace. The reason for this conclusion is that Christ’s predestina-

ST. JOSEPH 717 tion as man to be the natural Son of God, precedes the predestination of any of the elect, because Christ is the first of all the predestined.** But Christ’s predestination to be the natural Son of God is nothing but the decree of the Incarnation thus fulfilled here and now. But this decree implies Mary’s predestination to divine motherhood and Joseph’s predestination to the protection of the Son of God incarnate and of His Mother.

Monsignor G. Sinibaldi says: “The mystery of St. Joseph is in close relation with the order of the hypostatic union as so constituted. . . . The cooperation of St. Joseph is not equal to Mary’s cooperation. Whereas Mary’s cooperation is intrinsic, physical, immediate, St. Joseph’s is extrinsic, moral, through Mary’s mediation; but it is a true cooperation.” °°

It has recently been asked exactly in what sense St. Joseph is called father of Jesus, for example, when the Evangelist says: “The child Jesus remained in Jerusalem,'and His parents knew it not. . . . And His mother said to Him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.” °°

Reply. St. Joseph is not called father in the strict sense. Three things are required to be father in the strict sense, namely, that he produce of his own substance, one like himself in species, and principally, as St. Thomas shows in many places,** that the father gives to his son three things, namely, being, nourishment, and education. If he gives being, he is already father in the strict sense, even though his son be illegitimate; but to be father in the full sense he must give not only being, but nourishment, good education, and instruction. Father in the strict sense is attributed analogically to the eternal Father because of the eternal generation of His only-begotten Son, and to the earthly father because of his temporal generation.

But many times the term “father” is not attributed in the strict sense, as in the cases of adoptive father, spiritual father, foster father intellectual father. Among these paternities not taken in the strict sense, the most exalted is the paternity of St. Joseph toward Jesus. It is a paternity absolutely of its own kind, which transcends common adoptive paternity and foster paternity. St. Thomas says: “The child is not called the good of marriage only inasmuch as it is the result of

89 La Grandezza di S. Giuseppe, pp. 36 f.

90 Luke 2:43, 48. 91 Cf. Tabula aurea, under the words “Father,” no. 3, and “Sonship,” nos. 6, tr.

marriage, but inasmuch as it is received and educated in marriage. And so the good of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s marriage was that child, not taken in the first sense; neither a child born in adultery nor an adopted son who is educated in matrimony is the good of marriage, because matrimony is not ordered to the education of those, as this marriage between Mary and Joseph was ordered especially to this, that the child be both received and educated in marriage.” °? Thus St. Joseph’s paternity was absolutely of its own kind and therefore Joseph received from God, as Bossuet says, a paternal heart, so that with the greatest of affection, he might take care of the Word incarnate, the Son of God, who was truly and properly the Son of his consort, the Blessed Virgin Mary.’

°8 This has been more fully explained by us in the Angelicum of October 1, 1945, under the title, ‘De paternitate Sancti Joseph,” and in the book, The Mother of the Savior, pp. 342-61: “The predestination of St. Joseph and his eminent sanctity.”

APPENDIX

ABWBBWBBRABRRARRRERERERE REE ERERERRERRERERERR ERE RE EERE R EER EERE EE

THe DEFINABILITY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN Mary’s AssUMPTION

EVELATION declares that the Mother of the Savior is the vanquisher of and is not vanquished by the devil, sin, and death.

In recent times William Hentrich and Rudolf Gualtero de -Moos published a work in two volumes, which contains the petitions addressed to the Holy See postulating the definition of the corporeal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. These petitions were proposed by various members of the hierarchy, starting with the highest and included the reasons of the more prominent dogmatic theologians, from various parts of the world, and were arranged in chronological order in manifestation of the consent of the Church.

From the day when the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was proclaimed a dogma of our faith, many bishops throughout the Catholic world, very many priests, religious, and faithful postulated the definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption as constituting the crowning doctrine of the Church concerning the privileges that stem from her divine maternity. From the time of Leo XIII these petitions have been placed on file by a special department of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, but up to the present time these had not been published. The Most Reverend Fathers W. Hentrich and R. G. de Moos, S.J., qualifiers of the Holy Office, with the greatest of care prepared for publication a work containing all these petitions. For this all lovers of this cause of Mary’s Assumption are most thankful, and especially theologians who study the questions about the definability of this privilege.

As explained in the introduction to the first part of this work, contained in the first volume and in the second volume up to page 658, these petitions are arranged in hierarchical order, beginning with the

1 Typis polyglottis Vaticani, 1942. 719

THE BLESSED VIRGIN’S ASSUMPTION 721 with resident bishops in union with Rome, also postulate the dogmatic definition of the Assumption.®

The geographical location of all the dioceses from which these petitions came is set forth,”

Finally, the above-mentioned work records the history of this movement that postulates the dogmatic definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven.®

The publication of this great work was most gratefully received by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, by all Catholic universities and seminaries, and by all who discuss theologically the definability of this truth and who pray that this privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary may be solemnly defined as a dogma.

DIFFICULTY TO BE SOLVED

Some will say perhaps that it is not quite certain that these petitions of the bishops are postulating the definition of the Assumption as formally and implicitly revealed. Several perhaps think that it is only virtually revealed, and according to the majority of theologians, this is not enough so that any truth can be defined as a dogma of the faith formally to be believed on the authority of God revealing.

There are two ways of answering this objection.

1. The bishops of almost the whole Catholic Church do not speak as private theologians, using the precise terminology of Scholasticism; but they speak as witnesses of tradition and judges in matters of faith, and, as was said: “many argue from the fact that the faith of the whole Church in the Assumption cannot be explained without formal divine revelation.” ° This was already made clear by two hundred fathers of the Vatican Council, who said: “Most ancient and constant in both the Western Church and the Eastern Church, in the Church both teaching and taught, is the opinion about the corporeal assumption of the Mother of God. But this fact, namely, that a man’s body be living in heaven before the Judgment Day, cannot be confirmed either by the senses or any human authority. . . . Therefore, unless we wish to say that the most firm faith of the Church regarding the corporeal assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary savors of

8 The movement began in 1863 and showed notable progress, excluding the period of Modernism, until 1940. ? Op. cit., I, 740.¹

slight or excessive credulity, which is undoubtedly impious even to think of, it must be most firmly held that this opinion is of divine and apostolic tradition, namely, that it originates from revelation. We assert that this glorious event could have been revealed to the divinelike Evangelist St. John who died after the Blessed Virgin’s repose.” +°

It must be observed that the fact of the Assumption is certain from tradition, inasmuch as the solemn feast of the Assumption is universally celebrated in the Latin and Greek Churches, at least from the seventh century. For the institution of this solemn and universally celebrated feast is an expression of the general tradition of the Church, even of her ordinary and universal magisterial authority, and expresses the consent of the Church both teaching and taught, which is confirmed by these recent and most numerous petitions, which strictly postulate the dogmatic definition. All these facts presuppose that the fact of the Assumption is a certainty in the Church.

But this fact of the Assumption cannot be certain without divine revelation, as regards the term whereunto of the Assumption, or as regards the entrance of the Blessed Virgin Mary body and soul into heaven. St. Thomas well explains this for our Lord’s ascension, whose term whereunto transcended any natural knowledge of the witnesses.**

We already gather from the preceding that the certainty the Church has about the fact of the Assumption presupposes formal and at least implicit revelation. The history of this question was never concerned with any private revelation of the Assumption, which might have resulted, apart from any discussion, in the institution of this solemnity in both the Western and Eastern Churches.

Hence now, in our times, the bishops in almost all parts of the world speak, not as private theologians, but as witnesses and judges in the matters of faith, for whom the fact of the Assumption is certain because of the universal tradition, and it cannot be certain without formal and at least implicit revelation. Hence there is no need to inquire whether these bishops, as private theologians, maintain these two propositions, namely: for the definability of any truth it must be formally and implicitly revealed and not merely virtually, and that it is sufficiently proved theologically that the privilege of the Assumption is formally and implicitly revealed. This calls for a deep and

THE BLESSED VIRGIN’S ASSUMPTION 723 complex study of the question, and it is no wonder that in this diffcult question not all theologians are in agreement.

2. Moreover, these bishops are aware of the fact that the majority of theologians maintain that for any truth to be defined as a dogma of the faith, it must be at least formally and implicitly revealed, which seems to us to be absolutely true, and many of the aforesaid petitions clearly state this. For many of these petitions point out that it was gradually and formally revealed that the Mother of the Savior is the vanquisher of the devil, sin, and death.

For example, 144 of the petitioners argue from the special victory gained by Mary over the devil and sin or from the absolute opposition prevailing between the Virgin and the devil and his kingdom." But this reason frequently proclaimed by the Fathers !* was invoked by Pius IX in the definition of the Immaculate Conception; * it was proposed by 200 fathers of the Vatican Council, to show that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is formally and implicitly revealed, that is, not only as the effect is contained in the cause but as the part is in the whole; whereas the cause can be without its actual effect that is virtually contained in it, the whole cannot be without its parts.

The postulation of 200 of the fathers of the Vatican Council begins by saying: “O most blessed Father, since in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, as given in Rom. V-VIII; I Cor. 15:24, 26, 54, 57; Heb., 2:12, 15, and in other passages, the threefold victory over sin, and the fruits thereof, concupiscence and death, constitute the quasi-integral parts of this triumph that Christ obtained over Satan, the ancient serpent; together with what is said in Gen. 3:15, the Mother of God is presented as singularly associated with her Son

‘in this triumph; together with the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers, we do not doubt that in the above-mentioned oracle, the same blessed Virgin is presignified as illustrious in that threefold victory. Therefore, just as by her immaculate conception she conquered sin, and by her virginal maternity concupiscence, so also in

18 This theological proof was invoked by St. Germanus Constant, P.G., XCVII, 345; by St. Anselm, P.L., CLVIII, 966; by Peter Cell., P.L., CCII, 850; by St. Bernardine of Siena, De assumpt., a. 3, chap. 1.

14 Bull Ineffabilis Deus: “[The holy Virgin Mary] united by a most close and indissoluble bond with Him [Christ] together with Him and through Him exerted everlasting enmity against the venomous serpent, and completely triumphing over him crushed his head with her immaculate foot.”

this same scriptural text it was foretold that she will obtain a singular triumph over hostile death, like her Son, by an anticipated resurrection.” +

This reason that associates the Blessed Virgin Mary with Christ’s perfect victory over the devil and sin is a more proximate reason for the Assumption than the divine maternity, the fullness of grace and her divine blessedness among all women, all of which are likewise referred to by many of the petitioners. Hence it is no wonder that 144 of the petitions invoke this first reason, as well as 200 fathers of the Vatican Council. +°

There are two revealed premises, however, in this argument, which would be already sufficient for its definability, and moreover it is not a strictly illative argument of a new truth, but an explanatory argument wherein the conclusion is contained in the premises, not only virtually as the effect is contained in the cause, but also formally and implicitly, as the part is contained in the whole; whereas the cause can be without the effect afterward to be produced, on the contrary, the whole cannot be without its actual parts.

This theological reason may be expressed by the following syllogism.

Christ gained a perfect victory over the devil, which contains as parts a perfect victory over sin, and consequently a perfect victory over death, manifested by His glorious resurrection and ascension. This major is formally revealed even explicitly in the texts of St. Paul quoted by 200 fathers of the Vatican Council in their postulation."

But the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Mother of the Savior, who in all tradition is called the second Eve, is most closely associated with Christ’s perfect victory over the devil and sin.*8

Therefore the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Mother of the Savior and the new Eve, is also most closely associated with Christ’s perfect victory over death, so that “she could not be held down or detained by

18 The minor is likewise formally and progressively revealed in the following texts: Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:28, 42; 2:35, 51; John 19:25. These texts must be read by the guiding light of tradition, and this minor was proclaimed by Pius IX in his above-quoted dogmatic bull.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN’S ASSUMPTION 725 the bonds of death,” as the liturgy says; !® otherwise she would have been vanquished by death and would not have been the vanquisher, and her parallelism with Christ’s resurrection and ascension, before the general resurrection of the dead, would be destroyed. Moreover, the exceptional benediction, “blessed art thou among women,” 2° excludes the malediction “into dust thou shalt return.” 2

As we said, the major and minor of this argument are revealed, and this already suffices for the definability of the conclusion. Moreover, it is not a strictly illative argument resulting in a new truth, but an explanatory argument, whereby the parts contained in Christ’s victory over the devil are shown, namely, victory over sin and consequently over death. But the whole cannot exist without its parts. Hence in this way its definability is certainly proved.

Moreover, 171 petitions argue from the Immaculate Conception,”* showing in the same way that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s victory over sin infers victory over death according to this revelation.

Likewise 196 petitioners argue almost the same way from the intimate union and consent prevailing between the Virgin and Christ, her Son.

Therefore the conclusion of the aforesaid traditional argument is not only virtually revealed, but is also formally and implicitly revealed. The denial of the Assumption means the denial of the major or minor, both of which are revealed; doubt about the Assumption means doubt about the major or minor. Therefore it was progressively and formally revealed that the Mother of the Savior, the new Eve, is the vanquisher of, and is not vanquished by, the devil, sin, and death.

Hence these very many petitions show the definability of this privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary and with equal clarity they manifest the opportuneness of its dogmatic definition, as the crowning doctrine of the Church concerning the divers privileges that stem from the divine maternity. Thus also the existence of eternal life would again be solemnly affirmed, of which the present life, unless it be to no purpose, must be ordered as merit to reward, and as the precious commencement for the ultimate end.

19 See the ancient oration “Veneranda,” which was formerly recited in Rome before the procession on the feast of the Assumption, and which still remains in the Dominican rite and also in the Ambrosian rite.²

Footnotes

1. Cf. Com. in IV Sent., d. 30, q. 2, a. 2, ad 4. ↩

2. Rom. 5:9-21; 6:12-17; I Cor. 15:24-26, 54-57; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14 f.; John 12:31; 1:29; 6:40-44, 55; 10:25; Acts 27:31. ↩