1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary expresses the Virgin Mary’s “real and perpetual virginity, even in the act of giving birth to Jesus the Son of God made Man.” According to the doctrine, Mary was ever-virgin (Greek: ἀειπάρθενος aeiparthenos) for her whole life, making Jesus her only biological son, whose conception and birth are held to be miraculous.

By the fourth century, the doctrine was widely supported by the Church Fathers, and by the seventh century it had been affirmed in a number of ecumenical councils. The doctrine is common amongst many Christian sects, including Catholicism, so we will not dwell on it very long. (Interestingly enough, Sura 19 in the Qur’an also declares that Jesus was born of a virgin (verses 20-22).)

Fathers of the Church

Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:

• Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); • Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403); • Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419); • Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); • Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444); • and others.

Teaching of the Universal Church

A large number of ecumenical councils discuss Mary as “ever-virgin,” including:

• the Council of Constantinople II (553-554), who referred to Mary as “ever- virgin” twice; • The of 649; • The sixth in 680; and • Documented in the Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566.

2 Protestant Reformers

The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every- virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. … Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.1

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.2

John Calvin (1509-1564), a French reformer, also held that Mary was the Mother of God, and wrote:

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, and granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God.3

Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.4

1 Excepted from Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572. The specific text is titled On the Divine Motherhood of Mary. 2 Ibid. v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510. 3 Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35. 4 Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.

3 Objections

There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

1. The Bible frequently speaks of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus.

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary. Secondly, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other Semitic languages do not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for: a) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); b) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); c) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); d) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); e) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); f) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); g) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); h) mankind (Mt 25:40); i) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and j) believers (Mt 23:8).5

2. A second objection to Mary’s virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew 1:25: “He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus.”

The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.

3. A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated “first-born” in Luke’s gospel.

But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ’s relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.

5 From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.

4 The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (see, e.g., Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the “first- born” of Mary, it does not mean that there were second– or third-born children.

5 2. Mary, Mother of God

As Catholics, we firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord; Mary conceived Him by the power of the Holy Spirit (see Lk 1:26-38 and Mt 1:18-25). Through her, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, one-in-being (consubstantial) with the Father, and true God from true God – entered this world, taking on human flesh and a human soul. Jesus is true God and true man; in His person, a divine nature and a human nature are united.

Mary did not create the divine person of Jesus, who existed with the Father from all eternity. “In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly ‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos).”6 As St. John wrote, “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we have seen His glory: The glory of an only Son coming from the Father filled with enduring love” (Jn 1:14).

For this reason, sometime in the early history of the Church, our Blessed Mother was given the title “Mother of God.” St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), for example, composed in his Eucharistic Prayer for the Mass an anthem in honor of her: “It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You, who without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

In the fifth century, an objection to the title “Mother of God" arose because of confusion concerning the mystery of the incarnation. Nestorius, the of Constantinople (428-431), incited a major controversy by stating that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, a regular human person, period. To this human person was united the person of the Word of God (the divine Jesus). This union of two persons – the human Christ and the divine Word – was “sublime and unique,” but merely accidental. The divine person dwelt in the human person “as in a temple.” Following his own reasoning, Nestorius asserted that the human Jesus died on the cross, not the divine Jesus. As such, Mary would not be the “Mother of God,” but simply the “Mother of Christ” – the human Jesus. This might be confusing, but is the result of splitting Christ into two people and the denial of the incarnation.

St. Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria (d. 440) refuted Nestorius, asserting that “It was not that an ordinary man was born first of the Holy Virgin, on whom afterwards the Word descended; what we say is that, being united with the flesh

6 CCC, No. 495

6 from the womb, (the Word) has undergone birth in the flesh, making the birth in the flesh His own…”

On June 22, 431, the Third Ecumenical Council convened in Ephesus to settle this matter. The Council declared “If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is truly God and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) (since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh), anathema sit.”7 Therefore, the Council officially recognized that Jesus is one person with two perfectly united natures – human and divine. Secondly, the Council affirmed that our Blessed Mother could rightfully be called the Mother of God. Mary is not Mother of God, the Father, or Mother of God, the Holy Spirit; rather, she is Mother of God, the Son – Jesus Christ. The Council of Ephesus declared Nestorius a heretic, and the Emperor Theodosius ordered him deposed from his position as Bishop and exiled. (Interestingly, a small Nestorian Church still exists in Iraq, Iran, and Syria.)

7 Anathema sit – Let him be excommunicated (cut off)

7 3. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

In teaching that Mary was conceived immaculate, the Catholic Church teaches that from the very moment of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from all stain of original sin. This simply means that from the beginning, she was in a state of grace, sharing in God’s own life, and that she was free from the sinful inclinations which have beset human nature after the fall.

History of the Doctrine

There are two passages in scripture that point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve of which the early Church fathers already spoke: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church sees in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary8 .

If there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an immaculate conception.

We can also reason from the text of Luke 1:28, in which the angel calls her “full of grace.” If we can validate the translation, then in this, we see even more strongly the complete enmity with the serpent – for God’s grace is complete opposed to Satan’s reign. But if Mary was “full of grace,” it seems that she must have been conceived immaculate.

Let us turn to the early fathers of the Church. First, many make sweeping statements about her holiness. That could imply an Immaculate Conception. Secondly, even more of them speak of her as the new Eve. They could have reasoned: the first Eve had an immaculate start in life – no sin was yet committed. So, the new Eve, who was to share in undoing the harm of original sin, should have also an immaculate start. However, none of the fathers actually followed this line of reasoning (a few even tried to find sins she had committed9).

During the middle ages, authors such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. At this time, the data from scripture and the Church fathers was still not clear. In addition, the understanding of original sin was not as clear as it should have been – it was often thought of as having a positive element, instead of merely being an original lack of the grace to which God calls us. This positive element was thought to be transmitted from parents to children through the marital act (which

8 Vatican II, Lumen gentium, #55 9 See, e.g., St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 21, pp. 59, 130ff.

8 was itself was thought to be somehow sinful, although pardoned by God), and so it was hard to see how there could be an immaculate conception. This conception had been found in some, though by no means all, of the early Church fathers. Now, of course, we know this to be false. Finally, it was not generally seen at this time how an immaculate conception of Mary would not take away from the universality of redemption through Christ.

After a while, however, the theological tide began to turn, and the objections that had long obscured the content of divine revelation began to be overcome. This was due especially to the work of the Franciscan priest, Venerable John Duns Scotus. He showed that for God to preserve Mary from original sin was a greater redemption than to allow her to fall into it and then rescue her. Scotus wrote: “Either God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to preserve her, and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so.”10

We also note again that behind most of the objections was the rather positive notion of original sin. If we jump ahead several centuries to the clearer understanding of original sin that we now have, we can remove this objection. John Paul II expressed this understanding in a general audience on October 1, 1986: “In context it is evident that original sin in Adam’s descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fall of the first parents, has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a ‘sin of nature’ only analogically comparable to ‘personal sin.’”

After that this change in theological tide had gone far towards removing objections, the began to make statements of varying clarity. Sixtus IV praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception11. The same Pope added further support in 1483, condemning those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception (these preachers were declared heretics)12. The Council of Trent explicitly declared in its decree on original sin: “… it is not its intention to include in this decree … the blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Rather, the Constitutions of Sixtus [IV] of happy memory are to be observed.”13

After Trent, the attacks on the Immaculate Conception were greatly moderated. Then, in 1567, Pope St. Pius V condemned the error of Baius who

10 J. B. Carol, Mariology I, 368 11 Sixtus IV, Constitution Cum Praeexcelsa. 14 February 1477. DS 1400 12 Sixtus IV, Constitution Gave Nimis. 4 September 1483. DS 1425–1426 13 DS 1516

9 said Our Lady was subject to original sin14; in 1568, the same Pope put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Alexander VII explained the doctrine in 1661, much as Pius IX did later15. Pope Clement XI made December 8 a holy day of obligation in 1708. Further, the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore declared Mary Immaculate to be Patroness of the United States in 1846, and on February 7, 1847, Pius IX confirmed this dedication.

The result was that roughly a century and a half before the definition of 1854, the whole Church believed the Immaculate Conception. Finally, in 1854, Pius IX defined this doctrine and added that Mary was conceived immaculate by anticipation of the merits of Christ.16

Even now, the Church continues to elucidate the scriptural basis of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pius XII wrote: “ … the foundation of this doctrine is seen in the very Sacred Scripture itself, in which God … after the wretched fall of Adam, addressed the … serpent in these words … ‘I will put enmity…’ But if at any time, the Blessed Virgin Mary, defiled in her conception with the hereditary stain of sin, had been devoid of divine grace, then at least, even though for a very brief moment of time, there would not have been that eternal enmity between her and the serpent … but instead there would have been a certain subjection.”17

Preventive redemption

We have said that Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin, nor did she have an “obligation” to contract sin (as some have foolishly said: there can be no obligation to any sin). We can merely say she would have been in original sin in the sense just explained; i.e., she would have been born without grace, were it not for the preventive redemption. The word “preventive” here means “anticipatory:” the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation (Latin praevenire) of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace.

14 DS 1973 15 DB 1100 16 Pius IX, Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. 8 December 1854. 17 Pius XII, Fulgens Corona. 1953

10 The nature of Mary's grace at the Immaculate Conception

In Luke 1:28, the archangel hails Mary as, “full of grace.” Most translations today do not use that rendering, but greatly weaken it. Yet, “full of grace” is the correct translation.18 Let’s examine the translation more closely.

For the Greek word in the Gospel is κεχαριτωµενη (kecharitōmĕnē), the perfect passive participle of the verb χαριτóω (charitŏō; derived from χαρισµα – “grace”19). It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state. In addition, charitŏō belongs to a group of verbs ending in ŏō (omicron omega); e.g., haimatŏō (turn into blood), thaumatŏō (fill with wonder), and spodŏōmai (burn to ashes). These words have in common that they mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root, and they frequently express the full intensity of the action. Charitŏō should mean to put into χαρισ. Charis can mean either “favor” or “grace,” but if we translate it as “favor,” we must ensure that “favor” must not mean merely that God, as it were, sits there and smiles at someone, without giving anything20. That would be Pelagian21 (and therefore heresy): salvation possible without grace. We know that God does give something, and that something is grace – a share in His life. At the same time, kecharitōmĕnē is used in place of the name “Mary.” This is similar to English usage in which we call someone “Mr. Football” to mean that he is the ultimate in football. We can then draw the conclusion that kecharitōmĕnē should mean “Miss Grace,” the ultimate in grace, and therefore reason that fullness of grace implies an Immaculate Conception.

Overflowing grace: Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception: “He [God] attended her with such great love, more than all other creatures, that in her alone He took singular pleasure. Wherefore He so wonderfully filled her, more than all angelic spirits and all the Saints, with an abundance of all heavenly gifts taken from the treasury of the divinity, that she, always free from absolutely every stain of sin, and completely beautiful and perfect, presented such a fullness of innocence and holiness that none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”22

18 We can see this both from the Magisterium (Pius XII, Fulgens Corona, AAS 45, 579, and constant use of the Church) and from philology. 19 Note that caritów is used twice in the New Testament (Luke 1:27 and Eph 1:6); both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor). 20 See, e.g., Strong’s Concordance, 5487 21 Pelagius was a heretic in the 5th century who denied original sin and grace. Additional information can be found the online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia. 22 Pius IX, Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. 8 December 1854.

11 Someone may ask about the words used by Jesus in Luke 11:27–28 (cf. Mt. 12:46–50 and Mk 3:35), in which a woman in the crowd exclaimed: “Blessed is the womb that bore you …” and He replied, “Rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.” The dignity of being the mother of God (theotokos) is a quasi-infinite dignity, just as we saw from Pius XI. Here, Christ is teaching us that the holiness coming from hearing the word of God and keeping it is something greater still. Mary’s holiness must indeed be great – so great that “none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”

Even though Mary was full of grace from birth, she could still grow in grace; i.e., her capacity for grace could increase. In general, a soul will grow in proportion to these things:

1. The greater the dignity of the person, the greater the merit. In Mary’s case, the dignity of mother of God is the highest possible for a creature. 2. The greater the work, the greater the merit. Mary’s cooperation in the redemption was the greatest work possible to a creature. 3. The greater the love, the greater the merit. Love of God means the attachment of our will to His. Mary’s will adhered supremely, with no obstacle at all, so that even ordinary household duties, which she saw as the will of the Father for her, were supremely valuable.

12 4. The Assumption of Mary into Heaven

Evidence for the Assumption

There was at one point a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in scripture on it, and what things there were in the tradition of the early Church fathers seemed to not come from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century.

A Pope is not required to specify precisely where in the sources of revelation he finds a given doctrine, and yet, those documents often review things that should support the teaching. An excellent example of this can be seen in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus in which Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception.

One thought that was clearly in the mind of Pius XII was the principle of consortium – that Mary was “always sharing His [Christ’s] lot”23. In the same vein, Pope Pius showed the relation of the Assumption to the Immaculate Conception: “For these two privileges are most closely related to each other. Christ has overcome sin and death by His own death; and one who is reborn in a heavenly way through baptism has, through Christ Himself, conquered sin and death. However, in accord with His general rule, God does not wish to grant the full effect of victory over death to the just until the end of time shall have come… Yet God wished that the Blessed Virgin Mary be exempt from this general law. For she, by a completely singular privilege, conquered sin in her Immaculate Conception, and thus was not liable to that law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, nor did she have to wait for the end of time for the redemption of her body”24.

Pius XII asked the opinions of all the of the world on the Assumption. Their response was almost unanimous in the affirmative. The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, gives us a proof25.

Pius XII then reviewed some of the outstanding statements of Church tradition. This teaching is found at a very early date in the liturgical books. After early Church fathers, scholastic theologians studied the same doctrine in detail. For example, Pius XII quotes St. Bernardine of Siena who “ … gathered up and carefully treated everything that medieval theologians had said and discussed on this matter. He was not satisfied to repeat the chief considerations which doctors of previous times had already proposed, but added others of his own. For the likeness of the Mother of God and the Divine Son in regard to nobility of soul and

23 Pius IX, Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. 8 December 1854. AAS 42, 768 24 Ibid. AAS 42, 754 25 Cf. Lumen gentium #25 and #12

13 body – a likeness which forbids the very thought that the heavenly Queen should be separated from the heavenly King – absolutely demands that Mary ‘must not be anywhere but where Christ is.’ And furthermore, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have already attained heavenly glory. Finally, since the Church has never sought for bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin, nor exposed them for the veneration of the faithful, we have an argument which can be considered as ‘practically a proof by sensory experience.’”26 Pope Pius then speaks of St. Francis de Sales, who “after stating that it would be wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has kept in the most perfect way the divine commandment that children honor their parents, puts this question: ‘What son, if he could, would not bring his mother back to life, and take her, after death, into paradise?’”27

This is only a sample of the great review of earlier teachings given in the Munificentissimus Deus. After this survey, the Pope concludes with: “All these arguments and considerations of the Holy Fathers rest on the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These place the revered Mother of God as it were before our eyes, as most closely joined to her Divine Son, and always sharing in His lot. Hence it seems practically impossible to think of her who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, gave Him milk, held Him in her hands and pressed Him to her heart as being separated from Him after this earthly life in body, even though not in soul.”28

The Key to the Doctrine

It seems that the precise ground for the definition is in the passage just prior the definition: “We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been presented by the Holy Fathers as the New Eve, who, although subject to the New Adam, was most closely associated with Him in that struggle against the infernal enemy which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, was to result in that most complete victory over sin and death, which are always correlated in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Wherefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so also that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son had to be closed by the ‘glorification’ of her virginal body.”29

The Pope first recalled the New Eve theme, then focused on the fact that the New Eve had been closely associated with the New Adam in the struggle against sin and death. Still further, in the case of her Son, that struggle had brought glorification. Since the struggle was in common to both, then a common

26 Pius IX, Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. 8 December 1854. AAS 42, 765-66 27 Ibid. AAS 42, 766 28 Ibid. AAS 42, 767-68 29 Ibid. AAS 42, 768

14 cause would have a common effect: it had to bring a parallel glorification to her, the Assumption. Note that Pius XII carefully refrained from saying that Mary died. Even a few of the early Church fathers denied that she ever died, basing this on the fact that death was the result of original sin, which she lacked. However, because as Pius XII also said, she was “always sharing His lot,” for this reason, likeness to Him, it seems much more probable that she did die.

15