MARIA, SANTISSIMA

### MOST HOLY MARY

MOST HOLY MARY — Mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man.

In the Masoretic Hebrew, M. is Miryām; Aramaic form: Marjām (Syriac and Targumim); Mazdāv in the Septuagint and in the Gospels for the Blessed Virgin; the apocopated form Mazjāz appears in the Gospels and in Flavius Josephus (Bell. Jud., VI, 3, 4), though he usually employs Mazjāzē and Mazjāzēm.

The etymology is uncertain; many explanations have been proposed. O. Bardenhewer has reviewed about 60 of them. Most are based on mere assonance and ignore the rules governing the formation of Hebrew words. Thus, “illuminator of the sea” (mē’rī jām); “star of the sea” (St. Bernard); “bitter sea,” mar jām (though it should be jām mar). Miryām is not a compound name. Modern scholars revive the ancient sense of “Lady” (cf. St. Jerome, *Onomastica sacra*) in accordance with popular usage at the time of Jesus, linking it to the Aramaic mārē, “lord” (M.-J. Lagrange, A. Valensin-J. Huby, F. Prat, L. Marchal, G. Dorado). The equivalent is found in Italian “Madonna,” French “Notre Dame,” and German “Unsere Frau.” The original semiotic meaning of the name M. now appears sufficiently confirmed by a text from Ras Shamra, where a noun mṛjm (prob. marjām[u]) is derived from the root rwm: “exalted,” “august” (cf. the name Mībhūrā of similar meaning in 1 Chron. 11:38).

**Summary:**
I. M. in Holy Scripture.
II. Mariology.
III. Marian devotion.
IV. Marian liturgy.
V. Archaeology and Marian iconography.
VI. Marian folklore.

---

### I. M. in Holy Scripture

**I. The figure of M. in the Old Testament.** — Ancient Christian writers and liturgical literature extensively use the Old Testament to illustrate the privileges and virtues of M., interpreting texts, figures, and events “with a certain freedom” (cf. the apostolic constitution *Munificentissimus Deus* of Pius XII, 1 Nov. 1950) with respect to literal-historical exegesis and for the purpose of rigorous theological proof.

It should be recalled, in particular, that from the 2nd century the Virgin Mary has been presented by the Fathers as the “New Eve” (cf. the apostolic constitution cited above). Marian literature appeals to many other figures, e.g.: the burning bush (Ex. 3:2), which burns without being consumed, representing M. who conceived and gave birth to the Son without detriment to her virginity; the ark of the covenant, made of incorruptible wood like the body of M.; the fleece of Gideon (Judg. 6:37–38), which receives dew from heaven as M. received her Son from heaven; the bride of the Song of Songs (v.); the enclosed garden (Cant. 6:12) and the sealed fountain (ibid., 4:12), figures of M.’s virginity. The texts on Wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31; Sir. 24:5–31) and Psalm 44 (Heb. 45) greatly nourish the liturgy, not to mention the Marian applications drawn from noble women such as Sarah, Deborah, Judith, and Esther. These motifs, drawn from texts rich in theological thought and spirituality, do not diminish the precise value of the true messianic prophecies concerning the Mother of the Savior.

The first and most debated is that contained in the Protoevangelium (v.), where “the enmity” established between God and “the woman” (Gen. 3:15), between the offspring of the woman and that of the serpent—Satan—is clearly a moral enmity (victory over sin), and since it is to be resolved by the defeat of the serpent, it presupposes qualities and powers that Eve, even when in possession of God’s greatest gifts, could not personally demonstrate after her fall and its dire consequences.

From these mysterious depths, the figure of the Virgin Mother of Emmanuel clearly emerges on the messianic horizon at the time of Isaiah (73 BC), and the prophecy is explicitly cited by Matt. 1:22 in direct relation to M. ACAZ (v.) of God’s help, the prophet offers him a “sign,” hypocritically rejected by the king. The miracle rejected will nonetheless be granted: “Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” Attempts to see in the Virgin an anonymous, symbolic, or contemporary woman of Isaiah’s time fail to account for the solemnity of the oracle (introduced by “Behold”), the mystery that surrounds it, the drama of the moment, and the context. The Virgin is specified by the definite article, which does not require that the subject be known to the hearers: the Virgin is determined in herself and in the prophet’s vision, even if she escapes precise identification by the listeners. The usage of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Cant. 1:2 and 6:7; Ps. 68 [67]:26; Prov. 30:18–19) leads to the rendering of the noun “almah” as a young, unmarried woman, who must be presumed to be intact, as the Septuagint understood before any polemic with Christians, translating η παρθένος. If the Virgin was to become a mother according to natural law, “all her greatness would consist in being the mother of the Messiah; consequently, why designate her according to her previous state of virginity, which no one considers and which is of no importance?” (A. Condamin, *Le livre d’Isaye*, Paris 1905, p. 69). Ahaz had thought he must provide by human means for the stability of the throne of Judah; but the “house of David” (Isa. 7:13) must not doubt divine assistance, for it is to give the world the Messiah, who, moreover, will be born of a Virgin, without the cooperation of man (cf. S. Garofalo, *L’Emanuele*, in *Il Regno*, Assisi 1942, pp. 43–46).

The prophet Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, also speaks of “she who is to give birth” to the “ruler in Israel,” who will be born in the humble village of Bethlehem (Mic. 5:1–2; Vulg. 5:2–3). The very difficult text of Jer. 31:22, in the translation of St. Jerome: “The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man,” is taken to refer to the virginal conception of the Savior—a common interpretation since the Middle Ages and supported by modern exegetes (Knabenbauer, Trochon, Filion, etc.)—though G. Closenn (*in Verbum Domini*, 16 [1936], pp. 295–304) argues for a messianic sense by another route. However, the most recent Catholic commentators (Condamin, Tobac, Ötscher, Clamar, Ceuppens, Dennefeld) hold that there is no traditional theological interpretation of the text, which, philologically and contextually, assumes another meaning and value.

---

### II. THE LIFE OF M. IN THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

**1. During the childhood of Jesus.** — The biographical data and texts for a direct understanding of the life and personality of M. are found in the four Gospels, especially in Matthew and Luke, which contain the richest information about the early years of Jesus. The relative scarcity of such data and texts in the inspired narrators of Jesus’ life is explained not by a lesser interest or secondary consideration of the Mother of the Son of God, but by the requirements of apostolic catechesis as collected in their writings. The testimony of the Twelve (cf. Acts 1:8, 22; 2:32–33, 15; 5:32; 10:36–43) focused on the words and deeds of Jesus’ public life to extract fundamental teachings and highlight polemical allusions and concrete demonstrations of the divine nature and power of the Master, while the accounts of the Passion and Resurrection aimed to provide extensive proof of the two revelatory events that give meaning to Christ’s entire life. A greater attention to the messianic content and prophetic references in Jesus’ life led Matthew to record certain episodes from Christ’s infancy, which are complemented by the narratives of Luke, who undertook the task of an orderly and diligent historian of Jesus’ life from its very beginning (Luke 1:1–4).

The circumstances of these events obviously assigned to MARY a place of primary importance, but the Gospel narratives clearly reveal the significance which their authors, sparing of words, attribute to the presence and participation of the Virgin. The two observations of Luke (2:19, 51), concerning MARY’s attention and meditation during these events, make it clear that the historian drew from her (cf. INFANCY OF JESUS).

had the juridical effects of Christian Matrimony (Philo, De leg., especially 3, 12, 72), and the actual cohabitation of the spouses (Mt. 1:18; 20:24).

Recently an ancient exegesis has been revived, according to which, at the time of the Annunciation, MARY and Joseph had already begun to live together; but philology and the customs of the time still give greater credence to the first interpretation. The Angel greets MARY with solemn words that attest to a stable fullness of grace (κεχαριτωμένη) already present before their encounter (cf. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION) and indicate that the Lord is about to entrust her with a difficult mission, committing Himself to sustain her with the necessary graces (cf. the value of the greeting “the Lord is with you” in biblical tradition). MARY’s profound “turmoil” demonstrates that she understood the solemnity of the Angel’s words and reflected (δειλούμενοι) on precisely what he intended to convey (Lk. 1:29). Gabriel speaks to her with clear biblical resonances (cf. Is. 7:14) of the birth of Jesus the Messiah and Son of the Most High, and MARY replies with a question from which the Angel’s demeanor excludes any trace of doubt. The Virgin reveals her vow or intention (cf. VIRGINS TADIM.) of not having marital relations with Joseph (“the knowledge of man” is a well-known biblical euphemism: Gen. 19:8; Num. 31:17; Judg. 11:39) and asks, in practical terms, for further clarification regarding the circumstances surrounding the miracle she believes will occur—circumstances that will also guide her in how to behave with Joseph. Gabriel entrusts everything to the power and holiness of the Most High (Lk. 1:35), and MARY, who will remember his words (ibid., 49), decides she must remain silent even with her spouse (Mt. 1:18-22). Her absolute abandonment to the will of the Lord (Lk. 1:38), as one who is a “handmaid” (Gr. δοῦλη), gives, along with the turmoil stirred by her humility, the prudence shown in her decisive questioning of the Angel and the purity revealed in her intention—a picture, both initial and complete, of the depth of MARY’s interior life, to whose spiritual richness, bestowed by God, the heavenly messenger had already paid homage.

From Nazareth, the setting of the preceding events, MARY, after being informed by the Angel of the miraculous conception of John the Baptist by Elizabeth, sets out—probably not in Joseph’s company but with a caravan of relatives or friends, near one of the three great solemnities that required a journey to Jerusalem—toward the hill country of Judea to offer her services promptly (Lk. 1:39) to her elderly relative. MARY greets Elizabeth first (ibid., 1:40), but at her voice, the Baptist leaps mysteriously in his mother’s womb; Elizabeth, in turn, “filled with the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 1:41), blesses MARY and the Son conceived within her, hailing her as the Mother of the Lord, protesting her own humility before MARY, and praising the faith of “she who believed that what was spoken to her would be fulfilled” (ibid., 1:45, according to the Greek).

Faced with this soul open to the mysteries of God, in the exquisite intimacy of such delicate confidences, MARY can no longer contain her joy, which bursts forth in the canticle of the Magnificat (cf.): a lyrical outpouring in which the spontaneity of improvisation reveals a soul ever attentive in its faith to the ancient literature of its people. Yet within it there is already an announcement of the new era: the exaltation of humility and poverty (ibid., 1:48; 51-53) foreshadows the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:1-12; Lk. 6:20-23), which will inaugurate the abiding economy of God’s old and new mercy (Lk. 1:55). MARY exalts the dignity conferred by the Lord (ibid., 1:48), yet refers all glory to Him (ibid., 1:47, 49), reserving for herself only a humble awareness (ibid., 1:48).

After three months in Judea, MARY returned to Nazareth. Luke (ibid., 1:56), by placing MARY’s departure before the birth of the Forerunner, seems to suggest that she was absent for that event, but the evangelist is accustomed

to conclude his narratives with sweeping retrospective glances (cf. V. 80; 3:19 sg.). Ancient Western interpreters held that MARY remained until after the birth.

In Nazareth, the brief and intense drama of Joseph’s perplexity unfolds, as he is confronted with MARY’s motherhood, the cause of which he does not know (Mt. 1:18-24). MARY has remained silent and continues to do so, mindful of Gabriel’s assurances, and it is again an angel who dispels the heavy shadow from the heart of her spouse. The solemnity of their cohabitation (v. 24) brings the drama to a joyful conclusion.

A decree of Augustus ordering the census of Palestine obliges Joseph to go to Bethlehem in Judea, the city of his ancestral house (cf. Quirinius), where it seems the descendants of David held property in common (Mishnah, Ta’anith, 4, 5). MARY accompanies him either because, on the eve of childbirth, the spouses do not wish to separate, or, more likely, because women were also required to make a personal declaration for the census, and MARY belonged to the lineage of David.

The account of Jesus’ birth places MARY in significant prominence (Lk. 2:16). Among the details of the event, the Evangelist notes that MARY herself attended to the newborn’s first care, from which the Fathers deduced that the birth took place without weakness or pain (cf. Virginity of MARY). Luke’s restraint is most delicate in comparison with the coarse and tasteless narratives of the apocrypha (cf. G. Bonaccorsi, Vangeli apocrifi, I, Florence 1948, p. 303). When the shepherds, warned by an angel, came to the cave, in contrast to the people’s amazement (Lk. 2:18), Luke presents MARY’s demeanor: “she kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (ibid., 2:19). MARY compared (Gr. συνέβαλλον) the revelations and the events, deepening in joy and humility her meditation on the mysteries of the Incarnation and the birth of the Son. Eight days after the birth, Jesus’ circumcision took place (ibid., 2:21), with the imposition of the name already revealed to MARY (ibid., 1:31).

Forty days after the birth of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin presents Him in the Temple for the rites of purification (Lev. 12:2-8) and the redemption of Jesus in accordance with the law concerning the firstborn (Ex. 13:2, 11-16). Although the miraculous nature of her childbirth exempted her from common obligations, she, reluctant to prematurely reveal the mysteries accomplished within her, and finding it difficult otherwise to justify a clear delay, out of religious attachment to the laws given by God to His people, scrupulously fulfills the rite. Availing herself of the dispensation granted to the poor, she substitutes a turtledove or a pigeon for the lamb in the prescribed sacrifice (Lk. 2:24). In the Temple, the pious Simeon (q.v.), enlightened by the Holy Spirit, identifies the nature and messianic destiny of the infant Jesus, to the "wonder" of Mary and Joseph at this extraordinary revelation (ibid., 2:33). The man of God showed particular attention to Mary (ibid., 2:34-35), announcing to her a deep participation in the destiny of contradiction that awaited Jesus: a "great sword" (ἐμυχάζει) would pierce her soul. The Mother would be afflicted in the deepest seat of her being (ψυχή) in witnessing the contradictions and persecutions culminating in the unjust condemnation and cruel death inflicted upon Jesus.

In the episode of the visit of the Magi (q.v.), whose chronology is not easily determined, Mary is prominently featured (Mt. 2:11). Having fled to Egypt to escape Herod’s persecution, the three from Bethlehem finally return home, withdrawing to Galilee, to Nazareth (ibid., 2:19-23; Lk. 2:39).

The long interval of Jesus’ adolescence is interrupted by the episode of the twelve-year-old Boy’s being lost and then found in the Temple, which He had accompanied His parents to Jerusalem for Passover (Lk. 2:41-51). In this painful circumstance,

Mary’s search in the city and her anguish at not finding Him, which revealed nothing extraordinary to human eyes (cf. ibid., 13:55-57; Mk. 6:2-3), provided her with matter for meditation, faith, and sweet memories (Lk. 1:51).

2. Mary during the public ministry of Jesus. For this period the Gospel texts are sparse, but Mary’s presence and role at the wedding at Cana (q.v.), on the occasion of Jesus’ first miracle (Jn. 2:1-11), is of decisive significance. She

MARY, the Most Holy — St. Anne holding the child Mary: the Virgin with the Child; St. Elizabeth with St. John. Fresco (8th century) — Rome, Church of Santa Maria Antiqua.

participates with solicitous care in the joyous feast and notes the unexpected lack of wine. Her simple words to the Son, “They have no wine,” as judged from His response, implied an urging to intervene with supernatural power. Jesus addresses His Mother with a term of respect (“woman,” cf. Ar. sitt = lady; q.V. E. Zolli, *Christus*, Rome 1946, pp. 125-32), underscoring the gravity of Mary’s request. From His tone and manner, Mary must have understood that He was disposed, despite everything, to accede to her plea, and she instructed the servants to follow Jesus’ directions. He indeed performed the miracle, not thereby anticipating “His hour” but conferring upon His Mother an exception more significant than an advance. The event reveals Mary’s faith in the powers of the Son and His respect for the Mother, whose delicate yet decisive intercession He accepts. John notes that after the episode at Cana, Mary accompanied Jesus to Capernaum (Jn. 2:12), where they remained for a few days.

The Gospels do not say that Mary usually followed Jesus in His apostolic wanderings, though the presence and assistance of other pious women (Lk. 8:2-3) may implicitly suggest that of the Mother, who, at least once in Galilee, sought out the Son when He was besieged by the crowd (Mt. 12:46-49; Mk. 3:31-35; Lk. 8:19-21).

Someone announced to Jesus the presence of His Mother and relatives, and the reply was that His mother and relatives were those who did the will of the Father. It is beyond dispute that Mary had already given perfect example of doing the will of the Father (Lk. 1:38), and thus her natural bonds were strengthened by other spiritual and intimate ones. On another occasion, Jesus responds to a woman’s heartfelt praise of the fortunate Mother who had borne and nursed such a Son, and again He directs attention to the true measure of Mary’s greatness: her adherence to the word of God and her dedication to putting it into practice (Lk. 11:27-28). To the gratuitous privilege of Mary’s motherhood corresponds her capacity and willingness for love, obedience, and sacrifice. The words of the anonymous listener to Jesus seem to mark, in Luke, the first fulfillment of Mary’s prophecy: “All generations will call me blessed” (Lk. 1:48). Mary reappears during Jesus’ Passion, sorrowful beneath the Cross of the Son, to whom He addresses one of His last words, entrusting her to His beloved disciple John (Jn. 19:25-27). The solemnity and gravity of the hour, the messianic context of the tragedy, have rightly led to the view that Jesus’ words, “Woman, behold your son (John),” are the sign and pledge of a broader spiritual maternity (q.V. SPIRITUAL MOTHERHOOD OF MARY).

3. Mary after the death of Jesus

In a manner consonant with their essentiality and brevity, the inspired sources thus provide sufficient material of sayings, deeds, and observations to bring fully to light the Mother of God, filled with privileges and gifts, whom all Sacred Scripture “presents to us... closely united to her divine Son and always sharing in His lot” (Pius XII, *Munificentissimus Deus*, 10 Nov. 1950).

III. THE APOCALYPSE OF THE VIRGIN M.

Two recensions are known. One, in Greek, was edited by Rh. James: Ἀποκάλυψις τῆς ἀγίως θεοτόκου περὶ τῶν κολάσεων («Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God concerning the punishments»), in *Apocrypha anecdotae* (Texts and studies, 4), Cambridge 1893; an Armenian text, edited by the Mechitarists (Ankanton girkh Nor Ketakar anatz, I, Venice 1898, pp. 388-450), is also extant.

While the Virgin is praying on the Mount of Olives, the Archangel St. Michael shows her the punishments of Hell. The damned Christians beg her to intercede in their favor; other saints of the Old and New Testaments also intercede. After her Assumption, the Virgin obtains from her Son that damned Christians should have rest on the feast of Pentecost to be able to glorify the Most Holy Trinity. This recension dates from the 9th century.

Another Apocalypse or Vision of the Virgin, in Ethiopic, relates that while she was praying on Golgotha at the sixth hour of the sixth day of the week, she was caught up to the third heaven; she saw the judgment of souls unfold and beheld the kingdoms of the afterlife. She obtained a mitigation of punishments especially for monks and ecclesiastics from vespers of the sixth day of the week until matins of the second day. This recension was written after the 7th century. Edited by J. Chaine: *Apocalypsis B. Mariae Virginis*, *Apocrypha de B. Maria Virgine*, III, *Visio seu Apocalypsis*, in *Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium*, *Script. Aeth.*, 1st series, VII, Rome 1909.

II. Mariology

This term is used to designate that part of theology which has as its object the Most Holy Virgin Mary. As an integral part of theological science, it shares in its scientific character. In recent times, following numerous studies—both positive and speculative—conducted with rigorously scientific method, mariology has received a development that confers upon it a certain autonomy.

I. ORIGIN

Among these, in the ante-Nicene period, the concept of Mary as the new Eve, the restorer of the fault of the first mother, predominates (cf. E. Neubert, *Marie dans l'Église anténicéenne*, Paris 1908). It suffices to cite St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus (cf. J. Garçon, *La Mariologie de st Irénée*, Lyon 1932), the first theologian of Mary, St. Hippolytus of Rome, and Origen (cf. C. Vagagnini, *M. nelle opere di Origene*, Rome 1942).

After the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), the following contribute greatly to the development of mariology: St. Ephrem (cf. M. Ginnetti, *Un precursore di Efeso: s. Efrem e la sua mariologia*, Milan 1931), the great singer of Mary; St. Epiphanius, author of the first monograph on the Madonna; St. John Chrysostom; St. Ambrose (cf. M. Pagnamenta, *La mariologia di s. Ambrogio*, Milan 1931); the father of Western mariology, St. Jerome (cf. M. Niessen, *Die Mariologie des hl. Hieronymus*, Münster 1913), and St. Augustine (F. Friedrich, *Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus*, Cologne 1907), who first addressed the problem of the Immaculate Conception and gave it a tentative solution.

II. DEVELOPMENT

Prominent in this era are St. Cyril of Alexandria, president of the Council of Ephesus (cf. Nilo da S. Brocardo, *De Maternitate divina B. Mariae semper Virginis Nestorii Constantinopolitan et Cyrilli Alexandrini sententia*, Rome 1944), St. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Romanos the Melodist (cf. C. Chevalier, *Mariologie de Romanus*, in *Recherches de science religieuse*, 28 [1938], pp. 48-71), St. Modestus of Jerusalem (cf. L. Carli, *L'Encomium in Dormitionem S.mae Deiparae di s. Modesto di Gerusalemme*, in *Marianum*, 2 [1940], pp. 386-400), St. Germanus of Constantinople (cf. M. Jugie, *Les homélies de st Germain de Constantinople sur la domination de la ste Vierge*, in *Échos d'Orient*, 16 [1913], pp. 210-21), St. Andrew of Crete, and St. John of Damascus, with whom Eastern mariology reached its zenith (cf. C. Chevalier, *La mariologie de st Jean Damascène*, Rome 1936). After St. John of Damascus, special mention should be made of St. Theodore the Studite (cf. M. Jugie, *La doctrine mariale de st Théodore Studite*, in *Échos d'Orient*, 25 [1926], p. 421 ff.), Leo the Wise, Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Cabasilas, Theophanes of Nicaea (cf. M. Jugie, *Sermo Theophani Nicaeni in S.mae Deiparam*, Rome 1935), George Scholarios, and Elias Miniatis.

In the West, from the Council of Ephesus to St Bernard, Mariology was still in its initial stage. Only in the 12th century did a true scientific development begin, especially through the work of St Anselm (cf. E. R. Jones, S. Anselmi mariologia, Mundelein 1937), St Bernard (cf. D. Nogues, Mariologie de st Bernard, Paris 1935), Eadmer, Hugh of St Victor, St Amadeus of Lausanne, and Arnold of Chartres. In the following centuries, important contributions were made by St Anthony of Padua (cf. G. Roschini, La mariologia di s. Antonio da Padova, in Marianum, 8 [1946]).

MARIO, SAINT MOST HOLY — Madonna in Prayer (7th century) — Rome, Oratory of St Venantius