MARIOLOGY
Mariology, the doctrine of the Mother of God, cannot be separated either from the person or
from the work of the Redeemer and therefore has the deepest connection with both
Christology (the doctrine of Christ) and Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Here the
central idea is the Divine Maternity, since this is at once the source of Mary's unspeakable
dignity and of her surpassing fullness of grace. Just as the Hypostatic Union of the Divinity
and humanity of Christ stands or falls with the truth of the Divine Maternity, so too is this
same maternity the foundation of all special privileges which were accorded to Mary on
account of Christ's dignity. These singular privileges are four: 1) her Immaculate
Conception, 2) personal freedom from sin, 3) perpetual virginity, and 4) her bodily
Assumption into heaven. For the three former we have doctrinal decisions of the Church,
which are final. However, though Mary's bodily Assumption has not yet been solemnly
declared an article of faith, nevertheless the Church has practically demonstrated such to
be her belief by celebrating from the earliest times the feast of the Assumption of the
Mother of God. Two more privileges are connected with Mary's dignity: her special
mediatorship between the Redeemer and the redeemed and her exclusive right to
hyperdulia*. Of course, it is clear that the mediatorship of Mary is entirely subordinate to
that of Her Divine Son and derives its whole efficacy and power therefrom.
*Hyperdulia - Honor given to the Virgin Mary as the most exalted
of mere creatures; higher honor than dulia.
Dulia - A theological term signifying the honor paid to the saints
(Note: Webster's dictionary lists dulia and hyperdulia, but defines them as
honor and worship. However, this definition has no historical or factual basis,
as dulia is a theological term that specifically designates the honor paid a saint.)
1) IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the
active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the
mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern
the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the
passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which,
according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is
truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved
exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying
grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal
active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by
baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of
original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her,
by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities,
essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made
exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus
Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from original sin was given
to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by
which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to
obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum)
of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from
Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of
the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn
from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's
redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred
than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term Immaculate Conception.
2) MARY'S PERFECT SANCTITY (freedom from sin)
Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects
in Our Blessed Lady. St. Basil, e.g., suggests that Mary yielded to doubt on hearing the
words of holy Simeon and on witnessing the crucifixion. St. John Chrysostom is of the
opinion that Mary would have felt fear and trouble, unless the angel had explained the
mystery of the Incarnation to her, and that she showed some vainglory at the marriage feast
in Cana and on visiting her Son during His public life together with the brothers of the Lord.
St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of Mary's doubt and discouragement at the foot of the cross.
But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express
their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the
greatest personal sanctity; she is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the
greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); she exhibits an heroic
patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John 19:25-27). When
there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted. Mary's complete exemption from
actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that
man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church
holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."
Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature,
but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century,
almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of
concupiscence.
3) MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY
In connection with the study of Mary during Our Lord's hidden life, we meet the questions
of her perpetual virginity, of her Divine motherhood, and of her personal sanctity. Her
spotless virginity has been sufficiently considered in the article on the Virgin Birth. The
authorities there cited maintain that Mary remained a virgin when she conceived and
gave birth to her Divine Son, as well as after the birth of Jesus. Mary's question (Luke 1:34),
the angel's answer (Luke 1:35, 37), Joseph's way of behaving in his doubt (Matthew 1:19-25),
Christ's words addressed to the Jews (John 8:19) show that Mary retained her virginity during
the conception of her Divine Son.
As to Mary's virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew's expressions "before
they came together" (1:18), "her firstborn son" (1:25), nor by the fact that the New Testament
books repeatedly refer to the "brothers of Jesus". The words "before they came together"
mean probably, "before they lived in the same house", referring to the time when they were
merely betrothed; but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse, they only state
that the Incarnation took place before any such intercourse had intervened, without implying
that it did occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God.
The same must be said of the expression, "and he knew her not till she brought forth her
firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist tells us what did not happen before the birth
of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his birth. The name "firstborn" applies
to Jesus whether his mother remained a virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus;
among the Jews it was a legal name, so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.
Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in
the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or less near relatives. The
Church insists that in His birth the Son of God did not lessen but consecrate the virginal
integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of Purification). The Fathers express themselves in
similar language concerning this privilege of Mary.
4) MARY'S BODILY ASSUMPTION INTO HEAVEN
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The
earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S.
Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from
Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about
it. The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension.
Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common
consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus.
The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De
Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or
fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito
of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult
genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John
Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours
mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however,
are spurious. St. John of Damascus thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon
(451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who
wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in
the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened,
upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the
Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the
West; according to Benedict XIV it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and
blasphemous.
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia Online
Articles:
Feast of the Assumption of Mary;
Dogmatic Theology;
Dulia;
Immaculate Conception;
The Blessed Virgin Mary
CSF Archives
