Adsum

May 2003

The Dignity and Virginity of the Mother of God

Excerpts from Fr. Franciscus Suarez, S.J., 1592

Not infrequently, Protestants have criticized Catholics for their love and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Well do we know that our devotion to her is firmly established in Sacred Scripture, especially in the Gospel of St. Luke when the angel Gabriel declared: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women,” and also when the Blessed Virgin prophesied, “For behold henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”

However, Protestants often will leave no stone unturned to attack our Catholic Faith in this area and have attempted to deny the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin.

The great Jesuit theologian, Franciscus Suarez, in his treatise De Mysteriis Vitae Christi, written in 1592, gives us a solid defense against such heresy.

I. The heretics maintain that after the birth of Christ, the Blessed Virgin conceived other sons by Joseph.

I maintain that the Blessed Virgin preserved her virginity perpetually and never knew man. This is an article of Faith. It is proved, first of all, by a single text from the Old Testament, Ezechiel (44:2): “This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it.” This passage, by a metaphor, it is true, refers literally to the Most Holy Virgin. So testifies Jerome in commenting on this passage. Moreover, this is the view of other Fathers who employ the text to establish the truth of this mystery; namely, Jerome himself, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, John Damascene, and others. Furthermore, this interpretation fully squares both with the sense and context of the quotation. For that gate, it is stated, will forever remain closed “because the Lord ... hath entered in by it.&8221; For this reason the phrase is added: “And it shall be shut for the prince” (Ezechiel 44:2-3) — that is, in His honor and reverence. Our doctrine is confirmed by the words of the Virgin: “How shall this be done since I know not man...” (Luke 1:34). They manifest an intention of perpetual virginity as we shall consider at greater length in the next disputation.

Not a few of the Fathers advance the argument that Christ hanging on the cross entrusted His Mother to John with the words “Behold thy Mother” (John 19:27); and John in turn to His Mother with: “Behold thy son” (John 19:26). Both from the fact and words themselves we can clearly conclude that she had no other sons by Joseph. Otherwise it seems she would have been commended to them rather than to John. Consequently, Christ spoke in the singular number: “Behold thy son” (John 19:26) — that is: Behold him whom you should have in place of your only Son. This argument can be found in Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Jerome.

Second, this truth is especially found in tradition, in the consent and definition of the Church. For in the Councils the Mother of God is frequently called “ever Virgin immaculate.” Thus in the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople are found the words “the virginity of Mary, inviolate before, in, and after childbirth.” The same doctrine is found in the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of the Lateran under Pope Martin I. the Decretal Letter of Pope Siricius and the Roman Synod, and in the Letter of Ambrose and the Council of Milan.

This tradition is confirmed, as Augustine points out, by the fact that in the universal Church the name “Virgin,” stated absolutely. is customarily used as a proper name of the Mother of God. Thus Epiphanius says, “Who in any age ever dared pronounce the name of Mary, and upon being questioned did not at once add the word ‘Virgin’? For from her very names, the marks of her virtue shine forth.” Indeed this is the way she is referred to in the Apostles’ Creed: “born of the Virgin Mary.” And this is the way the Fathers so often speak at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. So, too, speak Athanasius, Hilary, Maximum, and of set purpose Jerome in his letter to Eustochius wherein he beautifully discourses on the modesty and chastity of the Virgin.

Once again, the needs of the monastery were obtained by the intercession of the Divine Infant due to the donations of many prominent people.

When war threatened again, this time by the Swedish in 1648, the monks remained in their monastery, trusting that the Divine Infant Jesus would not desert them, and they were not harmed. So it is with these few and the many other recorded instances of the miraculous intervention of the Divine Infant that the statue is so well known.

II. How can Christ be said to have had brothers if His Mother always remained a Virgin?

I maintain that these brothers of the Lord were not the sons of the Blessed Virgin, and this position is not only held with the certitude of faith and tradition but also can be proved from the Gospels. The first part of the assertion is established by the preceding section where it was proved that the Mother of God forever remained a virgin. The latter part of the proposition is proved by the fact that from the Gospels one can establish that those called “brothers” had another mother than the Virgin.

This is proved as follows. In John (19:25) we read that there were by the cross three women; the Mother of the Lord, her sister Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. Matthew (27:56), however, and Mark (15:40) enumerate Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee or “Salome,” as Mark says. But it seems certain that the mother of James and Joseph (who in other places are called “brothers of the Lord”) was not the Mother of God.

First, wherever the Mother of God is mentioned with the other women, she is listed first in accord with her dignity as in John (19:25), or at all events, in the last place and uniquely marked off from the others as in Acts (1:14): “with the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus.” Second, this is confirmed by the fact that Matthew (28:1) when describing the resurrection of Christ says: “And in the end of the sabbath. when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Here it is evident that this other Mary was the one whom Matthew (27:56) had called “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” and about whom he had added the verse: ”And there was there Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre” (Matthew 27:61). This is even more clearly inferred from Mark (16:1) and Luke (24:10). Therefore, that “Mary the mother of James” (Mark 15:47) was not the Blessed Virgin. Moreover, argumentation establishes this conclusion. For, of the two Marys, Mary of Magdalen is more prominently mentioned. She is described as having a more fervent faith and charity and enjoying the privilege granted by Christ of seeing Him before the others on the day of the Resurrection. This is clear from Mark (16). But if Mary of James had been the Blessed Virgin, Mary Magdalen would not have been preferred in any of these ways.

A third argument, moreover, is the fact that it is unbelievable that the Blessed Virgin would have been one of the women who with such anxiety went to anoint the dead body of Christ on the day of the Resurrection. For (as can be gathered from the very fact of their going and the Gospel account) although those women acted in a holy way, nevertheless, they had an imperfect faith and labored under great ignorance concerning the mysteries of Christ. Furthermore, according to Luke (24: 11), the news related by this Mary of Joseph and the other women seemed nonsense to the Apostles. But who can believe the Apostles would have been so senseless as not to have shown her greater faith and respect if she had been the Mother of the Lord. Thus Bernard in treating of the Passion of the Lord says the Mother of God was not preoccupied with the dead body of the Lord, for she had a most firm faith in His resurrection and had been taught and instructed in all the mysteries by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it seems to be the common belief of the Church that the Blessed Virgin awaited at home the glorious arrival of her Son, and there merited to enjoy the sight of Him before anyone else.

The fourth argument is the good point Thomas makes here in the third article in answer to the sixth objection: that the Gospel gives the Blessed Virgin no further identifying name except that derived from her Son. For she is addressed as “the mother of Jesus,” or “of whom Jesus was born.” Thus Luke, who in his Gospel (24:10) names the other Mary “Mary of James,” in the Acts (1:14) calls “Mary, the mother of Jesus.” For this reason Ignatius addresses her as “Mary of Jesus” since this was her greatest dignity. Why, then, without any mention of Christ should she be called the “mother of James and Joseph,” if the same person were “the mother of Jesus”?

To be continued in next issue

Back to May 2003 Newsletter.
Back to top.

Printed copies of Adsum, a publication by the seminarians of Mater Dei Seminary for the reading enjoyment of friends and benefactors, are sent free of charge to all who request it. Most issues also contain photos of recent events involving the seminarians. If you would like to put on this mailing list, please use this form.