Mariology - A Dogmatic Treatise
Part 2 - Mary’s Special Prerogatives
Chapter 1 - The Negative Prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin
Section 3 – Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

The most beautiful jewel in the crown of Our Lady, aside from her immaculate conception, is her perpetual virginity.

Virginity, in the sense of internal purity, is included in the concept of sinlessness, with which we have dealt in the preceding Section. Here we are concerned only with external or bodily virginity (virginitas carnis), and, employing the term in this meaning, we affirm that Mary was an inviolate virgin before, during, and after the birth of her Divine Son.

Thesis I: Mary was a pure virgin before the birth of Christ.

This thesis embodies an article of faith.

Proof. The period here under consideration comprises the whole previous life of Our Lady up to the Annunciation, and particularly the moment when she conceived her Divine Son. The dogma embodied in our thesis was impugned by the ancient sects of the Ebionites and Cerinthians, by the Jews,[1] the Socinians, and many modern Rationalists, e.g. Wegscheider, De Wette, Strauss, Renan, Paulus, Venturini, etc. It is contained in the so-called Apostles’ Creed: “[Jesus Christ] was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,”[2] and has been echoed by many councils.[3]

a) That Mary was a virgin up to the time when the Angel announced to her the mystery of the Incarnation, is plain from Luke 1:26 sq.:  “… the Angel Gabriel was sent from God … to a virgin[4] espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.” Her virginity was not violated when she conceived our Lord Jesus Christ. Luke 1:35: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” Cfr. Matthew 1:18: “As his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together[5] she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.”[6] Conceived of the Holy Ghost, without the cooperation of a human male, Christ was not the son of Joseph, but merely supposed to be such.[7] In explanation of the unique miracle of the virgin birth, St. Matthew[8] refers to a famous Old Testament prophecy:[9] ”Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

Christian Tradition has always taken this passage to refer to the conception and birth of the Messias, because to none other can the name Emmanuel be fitly applied. We know as the result of a complete induction[10] that the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (‛almâh) hardly ever means simply “girl” (puella, νεᾶνις), but almost without exception “virgin,” in the proper sense of that term (virgo, παρθένος).[11] The phrase “a virgin shall be with child” must therefore be taken in sensu composito, that is, as denoting virginal conception without male cooperation. There would be nothing extraordinary in the prophecy of Isaias if it were interpreted in sensu diviso, i.e., as meaning that the virgin who was to be with child was to be a virgin only till the time of her conception, but not thereafter.[12]

b) The Fathers are unanimous in teaching that Christ was conceived by a virgin and that the prophecy of Isaias applies to Him.

St. Justin Martyr, for example, says: “The words ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child’ mean that the virgin shall conceive without fleshly commerce. For had she admitted such commerce, she would no longer be a virgin. But the power of God effected that she conceived as a virgin.”[13]

An ancient image of our Lady in the catacombs (perhaps the oldest that has come down to us from early Christian times)[14] shows the prophet Isaias clothed in a pallium, wearing sandals on his feet, and pointing with his right hand to a scroll in his left. At his right is a picture of the Madonna, in sitting posture, with stole and a short veil, holding the infant Jesus in her arms. The whole group is surmounted by an eight-cornered star.[15] Several of the Fathers illustrate the miraculous conception of our Lord by saying that Mary conceived Him through “faith.” “It behooved a virgin to bring forth Him who was conceived by His mother’s faith, not by her lust,” says St. Augustine.[16] Other Patristic writers develop the beautiful thought that the virginity of Mary, far from being violated, was sealed and consecrated by the conception of her Divine Son. The reasons which St. Thomas[17] gives why it was fit that Christ should be conceived by a virgin, may, at least in part, be traced to the writings of the Fathers. They are the following: (1) It was meet that the Heavenly Father should be the sole progenitor of His Divine Son; (2) It was in accord with the purity of Christ’s eternal γέννησις (Gennesis) in the bosom of the Father that His temporal generation also should be absolutely chaste and holy; (3) It behooved the sacred humanity of our Lord to be exempt from the taint of original sin; and (4) The virginal conception of Christ was highly appropriate in view of the chief purpose of the Incarnation, which was the regeneration of the human race “not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”[18]

c) From the theological point of view we may adduce the subjoined considerations.

Though the Blessed Virgin conceived her Divine Son without detriment to her virginity, she was the true spouse of St. Joseph.

St. Matthew[19] tells us that Joseph was not merely the fiancé, but the husband of Our Lady. “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary,[20] of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Mark well, the Evangelist does not say: “Joseph begot Jesus.”[21] Though his marriage with the Blessed Virgin was never consummated, St. Joseph was truly “the husband of Mary,” and consequently the adoptive and legal father of Jesus. As such he enjoyed all the rights and prerogatives of a true father, e. g., that of naming the child. Cfr. Matthew 1:20, sq.: “Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife,[22] for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost; and she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.”[23] This text furnishes a key which unlocks for us the deeper meaning of such passages as Luke 2:33: “His father[24] and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him;” and Luke 2:48: “His mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold, thy father[25] and I have sought thee sorrowing.” St. Augustine lays special emphasis on this point. “Joseph,” he says, ” is said to be the father of Christ in the same way in which he is understood to be the husband of Mary, without carnal intercourse, by the connexion of marriage, that is to say, far more intimately than if he had been adopted in some other way.”[26]

In 1892 Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis and her twin sister Mrs. Margaret Dunlop Gibson discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai a palimpsest manuscript of the fourth or fifth century which lacks only about eight pages of the four Gospels. Professor Gregory[27] believes it to be “essentially the earliest Syriac text.” This text renders Matthew 1:16, thus: “Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the virgin, begot Jesus, who is called the Messias.” Of course we do not know whether the Syriac translator rendered his Hebrew or Greek original faithfully; but even if he did, the passage need not necessarily be explained as contradicting the virginal conception of Our Lord. The term “begot” may be taken in a wider sense as supplying the basis for a legal paternity.[28]

That the Holy Ghost is no more the natural father of Jesus than is St. Joseph, was expressly defined by the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675).[29] The intrinsic metaphysical reason is this: divine generation can manifest itself outwardly only as generatio aequivoca (as, for instance, in the process of supernatural regeneration), whereas every true generation is a generatio univoca, aiming at the production of a being consubstantial with its progenitor. Such is, e. g., the eternal generation of the Son by the Father; such, too, is all organic generation on earth. The part which the Third Person took in the conception of our Divine Saviour was of the nature of a divine appropriation and consisted in supernaturally supplying the missing male principle and furnishing the impetus necessary for the development of the embryo conceived in the virgin’s womb.[30]

The great dignity of St. Joseph, which renders him particularly worthy of our veneration, is based on the unique privilege which he enjoyed, of being both the legal father of our Lord and the true husband of His Blessed Mother. Needless to say, he was a just and holy man.[31] Very properly do the faithful link his name with the sacred names of Jesus and Mary, and place themselves under the special protection of the Holy Family, which presents such a perfect model of all virtues. One hundred and fifty-three of the Fathers assembled for the Vatican Council petitioned the Holy See to declare St. Joseph patron of the Universal Church,[32] This wish was gratified by Pius IX,[33] and the patronage of St, Joseph was reaffirmed and his cult recommended by Leo XIII.[34]

Thesis II: The Blessed Virgin Mary remained an inviolate virgin during parturition.

This is likewise an article of faith.

Proof. The virginal conception of Our Lord offers less difficulty to the human mind than His virgin birth, for the reason that maternity necessarily presupposes parturition. It is owing to this difficulty that Mary’s virginitas in partu has become a dogma logically distinct from her virginitas in conceptione. Its chief opponent in ancient times was the infamous Jovinian, a heretic of the fourth century.[35] The fourteenth-century Lollards likewise held that the Blessed Virgin gave birth to her Son just as any ordinary mother. Modern Rationalists and infidel Bible critics quite naturally have nothing but scorn for the dogma of the virgin birth. Jovinian was condemned as a heretic by Pope Siricius at a council held in Rome, A. D. 390. The bishops of Italy and Gaul convoked in Milan by St. Ambrose solemnly declared: “Perversely they assert that she [Mary] conceived as a virgin but was no longer a virgin when she brought forth [her Son] … But if men will not believe the teaching of the priests, let them believe the pronouncements of Christ, let them believe the Apostles’ Creed ['He was born of the Virgin Mary'], which the Church has always guarded and continues to preserve.”[36]

a) The Gospel narrative of the birth of our Divine Saviour contains nothing either to prove or to disprove His virgin birth.[37] However, the dogma has sufficient Scriptural warrant in the prophecy of Isaias. In the sentence: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,”[38] the consequent (“a virgin will bear a son”), like the antecedent (“a virgin will conceive”), must manifestly be taken in sensu composito.[39] In other words, “a virgin will bear a son” means that she will remain a virgin though bearing a son.[40] A passage in Ezechiel is interpreted as referring typically to the virgin birth. “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord God of Israel hath entered in by it. …”[41]

An apparent difficulty arises from the Scriptural account of the Presentation. Luke 2:22 sq.: “After the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”[42] The sacred writer here seems to put Mary on a level with ordinary mothers. But in matter of fact he merely cites a provision of the Mosaic law, to which the Mother of God conformed in all humility and obedience, despite the fact that the physiological suppositions did not exist in her case. We must remember that the law of Moses was made for the common run of humanity, not for the exceptional few. We must also note that the presentation of the Christ-child in the Temple is accounted for, not by the apertio vulvae et purgatio sanguinis, but by the Mosaic requirement that every firstborn infant should be consecrated to the Lord. As Jesus was the first-born son of His virgin mother, He had to be presented in the Temple and consecrated to God according to the law.[43]

b) Tradition unmistakably attests Mary’s virginitas in partu, in fact there is not a single Father who can be said to be uncertain in his attitude towards this question.

a) The nineteenth among the “Odes and Psalms of Solomon,” lately rediscovered by Rendel Harris,[44] expresses belief in the virgin birth. As these Odes in their present form are probably the work of a Jewish-Christian who lived about A. D. 70, the passage to which we refer may be regarded as the most ancient extra-biblical testimony to the dogma of the virginitas in partu. It reads as follows: “The Virgin’s body sprouted and she conceived and gave birth without pain to a Son; and by the fact that He became nought [humbled Himself] she received aplenty [became rich] and she asked not for a midwife; for He made her to live.”[45] St. Ambrose declares: “The prophet Ezechiel[46] says that he saw the building of a city upon a very high mountain. The city had many gates. Of these one is described as shut. What is this gate but Mary? And shut because a virgin. Mary, then, is the gate through which Christ came into this world, when he was shed forth by a virginal birth, without loosing the bars of virginity. The inclosure of purity remained unscathed, and the seals of integrity were kept inviolate, as He went forth from the virgin. … A good gate is Mary, that was closed, and was not opened. By her Christ passed, but He opened not.”[47] St. Augustine thus descants on the miraculous character of this supernatural process: “The same power evolved the body of the infant from the virginal viscera of the inviolate mother, which afterwards conducted the body of the grown-up youth through locked doors. If we ask for the reason, it is not miraculous; if we demand an example, it is not singular. Let us grant that God can do something which we may as well admit we cannot fathom. In such matters the sole reason for a fact is the power of Him who causes it.”[48] We will conclude the argument by a quotation from Pope Hormisdas (514-523): “The child by the power of God did not open his mother’s womb nor destroy her virginity. It was in truth a mystery worthy of the God who was born, that He who wrought the conception without seed, preserved the birth from corruption.”[49]

The Fathers employ a number of beautiful analogies to elucidate the dogma of the virgin birth. Thus they point to the spotless generation of the Logos in the bosom of the Father; to the genesis of thought in the spiritual soul; to the passage of light through a glass; to Christ’s triumphant resurrection from a sealed tomb, His passing through locked doors, and so forth.

β) There are only two among the early Christian writers, Origen and Tertullian,[50] who can be accused of false teaching in regard to the virgin birth. They were misled by a mistaken regard for the motherhood of our Lady, and partly also by a misapprehension of Luke 2:22. A few ecclesiastical writers employ the expression “vulva aperta,” but the context shows (especially when they argue against Docetism) that, far from denying the virginal character of Christ’s birth, they merely mean to assert its reality.

c) It is a certain theological conclusion that the Blessed Virgin was spared the throes of childbirth.

St. Jerome quotes Sacred Scripture in support of this pious belief. “There was no obstetrician there,” he says, “there were no sedulous women attendants. … She ‘wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger.’”[51] St. John of Damascus testifies to the belief of the Greeks that “no pleasure preceded this delivery, no birth-throes accompanied it.”[52] St. Bernard observes that Christ’s conception “was without reproach and His birth without pain.”[53]

Thesis III: The Blessed Mary remained a virgin after the birth of her Divine Son.

This thesis likewise embodies an article of faith.

Proof. Though married, our Lady preserved her virginity till death. The same is true of St. Joseph, who as St. Jerome remarks, “was Mary’s protector rather than her husband, and like her, led a celibate life.”[54]

This dogma was impugned in the early days by a sect called Antidicomarianites,[55] in the fourth and fifth centuries by Helvidius, Jovinian, and Bonosus, and in modern times by Th. Zahn[56] and other rationalist theologians. The Council of Capua (A. D. 389) denounced Bonosus as a heretic; his false teaching was censured at about the same time (A. D. 390) by synods held in Rome and Milan against Jovinian. The dogmatic term ever-virgin (ἀειπαρθένος, semper virgo), which had been coined early in the history of the Church, was incorporated in the Creed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553.[57] The essential elements of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity are severally emphasized by the Lateran Council of 649, which says: “If any one refuse to confess, in accordance with the holy Fathers, that Mary was properly speaking and of a truth the holy mother of God and always an immaculate virgin … that she conceived of the Holy Ghost without seed and gave birth without corruption, her virginity remaining inviolate also after parturition, let him be anathema.”[58] The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A. D. 680) expresses this truth more tersely as follows: “The virginity of Mary . . . remained before, during, and after parturition.”[59]

"How shall this be done, because I know not man?"

a) Mary’s virginitas post partum cannot be cogently proved from Sacred Scripture, but the dogma is deducible with moral certainty from the fact that she had resolved to remain a virgin all her life. It was this resolution which inspired her timid query: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”[60] Only after the Angel had assured her that her chastity would remain intact, did she consent to become the mother of Jesus: “Be it done to me according to thy word.”[61]

a) Some of the Fathers (SS. Gregory of Nyssa,[62] Ambrose,[63] and Augustine[64]) held that Mary was bound by a vow of perpetual virginity. Suarez does not hesitate to call this “the Catholic view.”[65] It is confirmed by the fact that Jesus, when dying on the Cross, entrusted His mother to the care of St. John.[66] ”The words ‘Behold thy son,’” says the Protestant exegete Hengstenberg, “indicate that Mary had no other sons besides Jesus. To honor one’s parents by faithfully providing for them is not only the duty but the right of every child, and Jesus would have violated the rights of His brethren, had he had any, by entrusting His mother to John.”[67]

β) All Antidicomarianite heretics since Bonosus have appealed to those well-known passages of the New Testament in which mention is made of the “brethren” of Jesus.[68] It is to be noted, however, that these ” brethren ” are nowhere referred to as sons of Mary. Jesus alone is called the son of Mary.[69] So long as the Rationalists do not bring proof to show that “brethren of Jesus” is synonymous with “sons of Mary,” their assertion is gratuitous.

But what does the Gospel mean when it speaks of the “brethren of Jesus”? Were they perhaps sons of St. Joseph by a previous marriage? This explanation was suggested by St. Epiphanius,[70] but has been generally rejected since the time of St. Jerome, (1) because it is based on apocryphal sources and (2) because the universal belief of Christians is and has always been that St. Joseph, like his holy spouse, abstained from carnal intercourse throughout his life.[71] A simpler explanation, now generally accepted is, that since the term “brother”[72] is used in both Testaments as a synonym for “kinsman” (nephew, cousin, etc.),[73] the so-called “brethren of Jesus” were probably near relatives of His Blessed Mother. We know this for certain in the case of three among the four who are enumerated by name as His brethren. St. Matthew records the query: “Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude?”[74] And, indeed, there appears under the Cross, as the “mother of Jacob and Joseph,” a certain Mary[75] who, according to St. John, was identical with the wife of Cleophas and is expressly designated as a “sister” (which probably means “cousin”) of the Blessed Virgin.[76] Hence St. James the Less, who is emphatically called “the brother of the Lord,”[77] was a son of Cleophas and Mary, not of Joseph and Mary. That this “Iacobus Cleophae” is elsewhere called “Iacobus Alphaei” is presumably due to the circumstance that Κλωπᾶ and Ἀλφαῖος are merely two different Greek forms of the same Aramaic name. Now, if St. James the Less was a son of Cleophas (alias Alphaeus), it follows that his brother Joseph, (who is also numbered among the “brethren of Jesus”), was not a son of Joseph and Mary. St. Jude, too, who introduces himself in his Epistle as “the brother of James,” was probably a cousin of our Lord.[78]

γ) Another difficulty against the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady is taken from Matthew 1:18: “When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.”[79] ”Came together” (convenirent) in this case probably means, “dwelled together under the same roof.” But even if the term were used in the sense of marital intercourse, “the πρὶν or πρὶν ἤ with infinitive, which follows, indicates either that the act was not performed or that its performance is regarded as of secondary importance.”[80] ”From the phrase ‘before they came together’ it does not follow,” says St. Jerome, “that they came together afterwards; Holy Scripture merely intimates what did not happen.”[81] Writing against Helvidius, the same Saint cleverly argues ad hominem in this fashion: “If I say: ‘Helvidius died before he did penance for his sins.’ does it follow that he did penance after his death?”[82]

δ) Still another text alleged against the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is Matthew 1:25: “And he [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she brought forth her firstborn son.”[83] Helvidius heretically concluded from this statement that Joseph “knew” (i.e., had marital intercourse with) his spouse after she had brought forth her firstborn son. St. Jerome demonstrates the absurdity of this inference by pointing to such analogous texts as Psalm 109:1 “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool,” and Gen. 8:6 sq.: … the raven . . . did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth.” Does it follow, he asks, that Christ will no longer sit at the right hand of God the Father when His enemies lie defeated at His feet? Or did the raven return to the ark after the waters were dried up?

But does not the term “firstborn” imply that Mary gave birth to more children than one? Not at all, for, as St. Jerome points out, the Scriptures[84] frequently employ the word “firstborn” to denote a mother’s first child, no matter whether it is followed by others or remains the only one.[85]

b) The belief in Mary’s virginitas post partum, or, more generally speaking, her perpetual virginity, is so firmly rooted in primitive Tradition that the Fathers regard its denial as an insult to our Lord Himself.

Siricius and Bede indignantly charge the opponents of this dogma with “perfidy;” Gennadius accuses them of “blasphemy,” St. Ambrose of “sacrilege,” St. Jerome of “impiety,” and St. Epiphanius of “a rashness exceeding all bounds.” St. Basil declares: “Those who love Christ will not brook the assertion that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin.”[86] St. Ambrose enthusiastically exclaims: “But Mary did not fail, the mistress of virginity did not fail; nor was it possible that she who had borne God, should be regarded as bearing a man. And Joseph, the just man, assuredly did not so completely lose his mind as to seek carnal intercourse with the mother of God.”[87] St. Jerome appeals in support of the dogma to Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and other sub-Apostolic Fathers.[88] Mary is venerated as ever-virgin (ἀειπαρθένος) in the earliest liturgies,[89] and this title of honor evidently supposes that she remained a virgin all her life. It is in this sense that St. Augustine says in one of his sermons: “Behold the miracle of the Mother of our Lord: She conceived as a virgin, she gave birth as a virgin, she remained a virgin after child-birth.”[90]

St. Thomas enumerates four principal reasons why it was morally necessary that the Blessed Virgin Mary should preserve perpetual virginity. These reasons are: (1) The unique character of Christ as the Only-begotten Son of God; (2) The honor and dignity of the Holy Ghost, who overshadowed her virginal womb; (3) The excellency of the title Deipara, and (4) The honor and chivalry of St. Joseph, who was commissioned to be the protector and guardian of his chaste spouse.[91]

Readings : — See the Readings following Section 1, pp. 35 sqq., supra, and in addition: St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 28, art. 1-4, and the commentators, especially Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss. I, art. 3 sqq., and Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 5, sect, 1 sqq.

The teaching of the Fathers is copiously expounded by Petavius, De Incarnatione, XIV, 3 sqq. and Thomassin, De Incarnatione, II, 3 sqq.

Cfr. also *Reinke, Die Weissagung von der Jungfrau und vom Immanuel, Münster 1848; Galfano, La Vergine delle Vergini, Palermo 1882.— Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 15, 4th ed., Rome 1910.—*Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der HI. Schrift, 2nd ed., pp. 11 sqq., Münster 1900 (English translation by F. Brossart, The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, pp. 17 sqq., New York 1913).—J. H. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 204 sqq., 9th ed., London 1903.— E. Neubert, Marie dans I’Eglise Antinicienne, pp. 159-208, Paris 1908.


Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. Cfr. the Sanhedrin and the Toledoth Jeschuah.↵
  2. “Conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine.”↵
  3. Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 144, 256, etc.↵
  4. Virgo, παρθένος.↵
  5. πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς.↵
  6. εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.↵
  7. Luke 3:23.↵
  8. Matthew 1:22 sq.↵
  9. Isaiah 7:14 : “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” “Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel.”↵
  10. Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:26; Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8; Proverbs 30:18 sq.↵
  11. St. Irenaeus was probably the first to call attention to this distinction. (Adv. Haer., III, 21; cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 8).↵
  12. For a detailed exegetical explanation of Isaiah 7:14 consult Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der Hl. Schrift, pp. 22 sqq. (Engl. tr., pp. 28 sqq.); Knabenbauer, Comment. in Isaiah., VII, 14, Paris 1887; Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 351 sqq., New York 1893.↵
  13. Apol., I.↵
  14. This image was discovered in the Roman catacomb of St. Priscilla, A. D. 1851, and probably dates back to the end of the first or the beginning of the second century.↵
  15. Cfr. C. M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der christlichen Archäologie, p. 362, Paderborn 1905; Scaglia-Nagengast, The Catacombs of Saint Callistus, p. 67, Rome 1911.↵
  16. Enchiridion, n. 34: “De virgine nasci oportebat, quem fides matris, non libido conceperat.”↵
  17. Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 28, art. 1.↵
  18. Cfr. John 1:13.↵
  19. Matthew 1:16.↵
  20. Virum Mariae, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας.↵
  21. V. supra, p. 6.↵
  22. Coniugem tuam, τὴν γυναῖκά σου.↵
  23. Cfr. Matthew 1:25; 2:13,20 sqq.↵
  24. Pater eius.↵
  25. Pater tuus.↵
  26. De Consensu Evangel., II, 1: “Eo modo pater Christi dicitur Ioseph, quo et vir Mariae intelligitur sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione coniugii, multo videlicet coniunctius quam si esset aliunde adoptatus.”↵
  27. C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, p. 398, New York 1907; cfr. Holzhey, Der neuentdeckte Syrus Sinaiticus, München 1896. Holzhey’s work contains a thorough examination of the Lewis codex, as well as a comparison of it with Cureton’s text.↵
  28. Cfr. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der Hl. Schrift, p. 21, note 3, (English translation, p. 27, n. 6; M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible, tr. by A.M. Buchanan, pp. 245., New York 1911.↵
  29. “Novâ autem nativitate est genitus, quia intacta virginitas et virile coitum nescivit et foecundata per Spiritum Sanctum carnis materiam ministravit. … Nec tamen Spiritus Sanctus pater esse credendus est Filii, pro eo quod Maria eodem Sancto Spiritu obumbrante concepit, ne duos patres Filii videomur asserere, quod utique nefas est dici.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 282.↵
  30. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica., 3a, qu. 32, art. 3, ad. 1: “Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, who supplied the matter of His conception unto likeness of species. For this reason He is called her Son. But as man He was conceived of the Holy Ghost as the active principle of His conception, but not unto likeness of species, as a man is born of his father. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of the Holy Ghost.” Latin: “Christus conceptus est de Maria Virgine materiam ministrante in similitudinem specie, et ideo dicitur Filius eius. Christus autem secundum quod homo conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto sicut de activo principio, non tamen secundum similitudinem specie, sicut homo nascitur de patre suo, et ideo Christus non dicitur filius Spiritus Sancti.”↵
  31. δίκαιος ὤν. Matthew 1:19.↵
  32. Cfr. C. Martin, Conc. Vati. Docum Collectio, p. 214, Paderborn 1873.↵
  33. Decree of December 8, 1870.↵
  34. Encyclical Letter “Quamquam pluries,” of August 15, 1889. On the dogmatic aspects of the part taken by St. Joseph in the economy of the Redemption cfr. Jamar, Theologia S. Iosephi, Louvain 1898. On the historic development of the devotion to the foster-father of our Lord, see J. Seitz, Die Verehrung des hl. Joseph in ihrer geschichtelichen Entwicklung bis zum Konzil von Trient, Freiburg 1908; Kellner, Heortology, pp. 272 sqq., London 1908; Ricard, S. Joseph, sa Vie et son Culte, Lille 1896; C. L. Souvay, art. “Joseph, Saint” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII. On the history of the dogma of Christ’s virgin birth cfr. Durand-Bruneau, The Childhood of Jesus Christ according to the Canonical Gospels, pp. 45 sqq., Philadelphia 1910.↵
  35. Our information about Jovinian is principally derived from St. Jerome’s two books, Adversus Jovinianum. Cfr. Haller, Jovinianus, die Fragmente seiner Schriften, die Quellen zu seiner Geschichte, sein Leben und seine Lehre, Leipzig 1897.↵
  36. “De via perversitatis produntur dicere: Virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit. … Sed si doctrinis non creditor sacerdotum, creadatur oraculis Christi, credatur symbol apostolico [scil. natus de Maria virgine], quod ecclesia Romana intemeratam semper custodivit et servat.”↵
  37. Cfr. Luke 2:5 sqq.↵
  38. Isaiah 7:14; “Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet Filium.”↵
  39. See Thesis I, supra.↵
  40. “Mater inviolate” (Litany of Loreto).↵
  41. Ezekiel 44:2:  “Porta hæc clausa erit: non aperietur, et vir non transibit per eam, quoniam Dominus Deus Israël ingressus est per eam.” On the traditional exegesis of this text cfr. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter, pp. 56 sqq. (English translation, pp. 63 sqq.)↵
  42. “Et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis ejus (αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ)secundum legem Moysi, tulerunt illum in Jerusalem, ut sisterent eum Domino, sicut scriptum est in lege Domini: Quia omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam,(διανοῖγον μήτραν) sanctum Domino vocabitur.”↵
  43. Cfr. proposition number 24 among the Propositiones damnatae ab Alexandro VIII, d. 7. Dec. 1690 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1314): “Oblatio in temple. … sufficienter testator, quod indiguerit purification et quod Filius (qui offerebatur) etiam macula matris maculatus esset, secundum verbal legis.”↵
  44. Published at Cambridge, 1909.↵
  45. Odes of Solomon, verses 6-8.↵
  46. Ezekiel 44:2 sq.↵
  47. St. Ambrose, De Instit. Virg., VIII, n. 52: “… Quae est haec porta nisi Maria? Ideo clausa, quia virgo. Porta igitur Maria, per quam Christus intravit in hunc mundum, quando virginali fusus est partu et genitalia virginitatis claustra non solvit. Mansit intemeratam septum pudoris et inviolate integritatis duravere signacula. … Bona porta Maria, quae clausa erat et non aperiebatur, transivit per eam Christus, sed non aperuit.”↵
  48. Ep. 137 ad Volus., II, 8: “Ipsa virtus per inviolatae matris virginea viscera membra infantis eduxit, quae posteo per clausa ostia membra invenis introduxit. Hic si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile; si exemplum poscitur, non erit singulare. Demus Deum aliquid posse, quod nos fateamur investigare non posse: in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis.”↵
  49. Ep. 79 ad Iustin.: “Matris vulvam natus non aperiens et virginitatem matris deitatis virtute non solvens. Dignum plane Deo nascentis mysterium, ut servaret partum mysterium, ut servaret partum sine corruption, qui conceptum fecit esse sine semine.”↵
  50. Tertullian says (De Carne Christi, c. 23): “She was “a virgin,” so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and “yet not a virgin,” as regards her bearing a child. … She was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of “opening the womb,” “Et virgo quantum a viro, et non virgo quantum a partu. … Etsi virgo concepit, in partu suo nupsit ipsa, patefactâ corporis lege.”↵
  51. Contra Hevild., c. 4: “Nulla ibi obstetrix, nullâ muliercularum sedulitas intercessit. … Pannis, inquit, involvit infantem et posuit in praesepio.”↵
  52. De Fide Orth., IV, 15: “… quam nativitatem nullâ voluptas anteivit nec dolor quidem in partu secutus est.”↵
  53. Serm. de Virg. Nativitate, 4: “Conceptus fuit sine pudore, partus sine dolore.”—St. Thomas states the intrinsic reason of this phenomenon as follows: “Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption.”“Christua egressus est ex clause utero matris et sic nulla violentia apertionis meatuum ibi fuit, et propter hoc in illo partu nullus fuit dolor, sicut nec aliqua corruptio.” (Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 35, art. 6)↵
  54. Contra Helvid., 19: “Mariae custos potius fuit quam maritus; relinquitur, virginem eum mansisse cum Maria.”↵
  55. Gr. ἀντίδικοι Μαρίας.↵
  56. Brüder und Vettern Jesu, Leipzig 1900.↵
  57. “… qui de coelis descendit et incarnates de sancta gloriosa Dei genitrice et semper virgine Maria (ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐνδόξου θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας), natus est ex ea.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 214.)↵
  58. “Si quis secundum sanctus patres non confitur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanctam semperque virginem immaculatam Mariam. … absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto et incorruptibiliter eam geniuses indissollubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitatem, condemnatus sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 256.)↵
  59. “Mariae illibatam virginitas quae ante partum, in partu et post partum est interminabilis.”↵
  60. Luke 1:34.↵
  61. Luke 1:38.↵
  62. In Nat. Domini (Migni, P. G., XLVI, 311).↵
  63. De Instit. Virg., V. 35.↵
  64. De Sanct. Virginit., n. 4.↵
  65. De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 6, sect. 2. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 28. art. 4.↵
  66. Cfr. John 19:26 sqq.↵
  67. Das Evangelium des hl. Johannes, Vol. III, p. 267, Leipzig 1863.↵
  68. Cfr. Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31 sq., Mark 6, 3; Luke 8:20; John 2:12, 7:3 sqq.; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19.↵
  69. ὁ υἱὸς Μαρίας. Cfr. Mark 6:3.↵
  70. “Ceterum Iosephus primam e tribu Iudae Coniugem habuit, ex qua sex libros suscepti, mares quatuor, feminas duas.” (Haer., 78, 7.)↵
  71. Cfr. St. Jerome, Contr. Helvid., c. 9: “Tu dicis Mariam virginem non permansisse; ego mihi plus vindico, etiam ipsum Ioseph virginem fuisse per Mariam, ut ex virginali coniugio virgo filius nasceretur.” Further details in Bucceroni, Comment. de SS. Corde Iesu, de B. Virgine et de S. Iosepho, pp. 228 sqq., Rome 1896.↵
  72. Frater, ἀδελφός.↵
  73. Cfr. Genesis 12:5, 13:8, 29:15 – and in explanation thereof, Lamy, Comment. in Genesis, 13, 8, Mechlin 1883.↵
  74. Matthew 13:55.↵
  75. Cfr. Matthew 27:56.↵
  76. Cfr. John 19:25: “Stabant autem juxta crucem Jesu mater ejus, et soror matris ejus, Maria Cleophæ (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ), et Maria Magdalene.”↵
  77. Galatians 1:19.↵
  78. Cfr. J. Friedlieb, Das Leben Jesu Christi des Erlösers, pp. 325 sqq., Paderborn 1887. There are other acceptable explanations. Consult on this topic especially Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 5, sect. 4; also Schegg, Jakobus der Bruder des Herrn und sein Brief, p. 53, München 1883. The whole subject is treated with thoroughness by Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der Hl. Schrift, pp. 79 sqq. (English translation, pp. 85 sqq.). Against Zahn see M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief, pp. 6-54, Freiburg 1905. A good summary of the problem in English will be found in the appendix to Durand-Bruneau, The Childhood of Jesus Christ according to the Canonical Gospels, pp. 259-316, Philadelphia 1910.↵
  79. “Quum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Joseph, antequam convenirent (πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς)inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto.”↵
  80. Cfr. Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter, p. 76 (English translation p. 82).↵
  81. In Matthew, I, 18 (Migne, P. L., XXVI, 24): “Quod autem dicitur antequam convenirent, non sequitur quod postea convenerint, sed Scriptura, quod factum non sit, ostendit.”↵
  82. In Matthew I, 18 sqq.↵
  83. “Et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit (ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν) filium suum primogenitum (τὸν πρωτότοκον).”↵
  84. Cfr. Exodus 34:19 sq., Numbers 18:15.↵
  85. St. Jerome, apud Migne, P. L., XXVI, 25: “Mos est divinarum scripturarum, ut primogenitum non eum vocent, quem fratres sequuntur, sed eum qui primus nalus est.”↵
  86. Hom. in Chr. Gener., 25.↵
  87. De Inst. Virg., VI, 44: “Sed non deficit Maria, non deficit virginitatis magistra; nec fieri poterat, ut quae Deum portaverat, portandum hominem arbitraretur. Nec Ioseph, vir iustus, in hanc prorupisset amentiam, ut matri Domini corporeo concubitu misceretur.”↵
  88. De Perpet. Virginit. B. Mariae contra Helvid., 17: “Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commovere: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaum, Iustinum M. multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem et Theodotum. … haec eadem sentientes plena sapientiae volumina conscripserunt? Quae si legisses aliquando, plus saperes.”↵
  89. Cfr. Renaudot, Vol. I, pp. 18, 42, 72, 113, 150.↵
  90. “Videte miraculum Matris dominicae: virgo concepit, virgo peperit, virgo post partum permansit.” (Serm. de Temp., 23.)↵
  91. Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 28, art. 3.↵

Tagged with: • •

Filed under: Apologetics • Catholic • Christian • God • Jesus • Mariology • Virgin Mary

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!