SANCTITY OF CHRIST AND OF MARIA. —
I. HISTORICAL OUTLINE
1. The sanctity of Christ
The New Testament formally applies to Jesus the adjective “holy” (ἅγιος: Lc. 1, 35; Act. 3, 14; 4, 27, 30; Hebr. 7, 26), as well as the substantive (ὁ ἅγιος): the demons recognized in him “the Holy One” par excellence (Mc. 1, 24); the Apocalypse gives him the same title (Apoc. 3, 7).The term “holy” lifts only the tiniest corner of the veil over all that Sacred Scripture relates concerning the sanctity of Christ; adherence to an exclusively lexicographical criterion does not allow one to grasp the essential element of the question. The sanctity of the Messiah already appears in the Old Testament. He is the Christ, that is, the Anointed One, the consecrated one (Dan. 9, 25-26; Ps. 2, 2), the just one (Is. 53, 11), filled with the Holy Spirit (Is. 11, 2; 42, 1; 61, 1-2). The New Testament explicitly confirms these essential facts (Mt. 1, 20; Lc. 1, 35: conception of Christ; Mt. 3, 16 and the parallel Synoptic passages; Act. 10, 38: his Baptism; Lc. 4, 18: his ministry). Jesus categorically affirmed that he was without sin (Io. 8, 46; 14, 30); this affirmation is expressed abstractly in II Cor. 5, 21; Hebr. 4, 15; I Io. 3, 5 and I Pt. 2, 22. He is the one in whom all the others are, and are called, holy (I Cor. 1, 2; Phil. 1, 1).
Expressed in various forms in Scripture, the sanctity of Christ shines throughout his entire life (L. de Grandmaison, Jésus-Christ, II, 18th ed., Paris 1931, pp. 79-121); it finds detractors only among the scribes and Pharisees (who accused him of gluttony [Mt. 11, 19], of illegality, particularly of violating the Sabbath [Io. 5, 18; 9, 16], and of blasphemy [Mc. 2, 7; Mt. 26, 27; Io. 5, 18]; indeed, they even went so far as to call him possessed by a demon [Io. 7, 20; 8, 48-49; 10, 20; cf. Mt. 12, 24]) and among certain liberal neo-Protestants (DThC, VIII, cols. 1381-82).
The fact of Christ’s sanctity is not merely a doctrine of the Church, but a patrimony of civilization: it is acknowledged even by those who do not believe in Christ. This unanimity, perfect from the beginning, makes it unnecessary to cite the testimonies of the Councils (Ephesine, can. 10, Denz-U, 122; Chalcedonian, ibid., 148; cf. 711) and of the Fathers.
2. The sanctity of Maria
The sanctity of Maria, by contrast, was strongly attacked by heretics from the earliest centuries, and there were certain uncertainties among ecclesiastical writers; around this question, as indeed around many other points of Marian theology, there was a genuine development, whose stages must be examined. The New Testament, so clear concerning the sanctity of Christ, is less explicit concerning that of Maria. The principal texts are: Lc. 1, 28 (ἐνταγενόμεναι = “gratia plena”); 1, 35 (“Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi”), 1, 45-48 (“beata, quae credidisti...” ). Objections to the sanctity of Maria have been drawn from the following texts: Lc. 2, 35 (“tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius,” understood, with genuine exegetical aberration, to mean that the sword foretold by Simeon was nothing other than a doubt in the soul of Maria); Lc. 2, 48 (“Fili, quid fecisti nobis sic?,” in which an unjustified reproach is said to be found); Io. 2, 3-4 (“quid tibi et mihi est, mulier,” cf. F.-M. Braun, La Mère de Jésus dans l'oeuvre de St Jean, in Revue Thomiste, 50 [1950], pp. 446-52); Mt. 12, 47 (“Ecce Mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te” (it in no way follows that the Virgin shared the same feelings or participated in the plan of the “brothers of Jesus”)); finally, Lc. 8, 20-21. This text positively confirms the sanctity of M., if two observations are taken into account: only Luke reports this text: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and put it into practice.” Now it is the same Luke who reports (here too, alone and not without insistence) that Maria possesses the supernatural beatitude of faith (Lc. 1, 45: “Blessed is she who believed”; cf. 1, 42 and 48: as well as 2, 19 and 51).On the basis of Scripture’s implicit data, doctrinal development proceeded slowly and not without upheavals. The fundamental study on this subject is that of G. Jouassard (Le problème de la sainteté de Marie depuis les origines de la patristique jusqu'au Concile d'Ephèse, in Bulletin de la Société française d'études mariales, 5 [1947], pp. 13-28), to which the same author’s study of the post-Ephesine period should be added (Marie à travers la patristique, in H. de Manoir, Maria, I, Paris 1949, pp. 139-53).
From the end of the apostolic age to the last texts of s. Irenaeus clearly favorable to the sanctity of Maria (G. Jouassard, Marie, p. 73). This was the period in which pagans and Jews attempted to discredit the person of Jesus through extremely vulgar calumnies concerning Maria (called quaestuaria). Perhaps the earliest developments of the Gospel of James may be regarded as indirect reactions to these attacks.
Tertullian fought against them directly and energetically (De spectaculis, chap. 30: PL 1, 662; CSEL, XX, 29), without, however, fully affirming the perfection of the sanctity of Maria: he believed he had detected in her some shadow of unbelief (Adv. Marc., IV, chap. 19: PL 2, 404-406, CSEL, XLVII, 482-83; De carne Christi, chap. 7: PL 2, 766-69). Similar statements are found in Origen, who nevertheless displays immense esteem for Maria (C. Vagaggini, Maria nelle opere di Origene, Rome 1942, pp. 136-71 and G. Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté, cit., pp. 17-19), in s. Cyril of Alexandria, in s. Basil (with some reservations), in Amphilochius of Iconium, very vividly in s. John Chrysostom and even in s. Ephrem (ibid., pp. 19-20). s. Epiphanius did not allow himself to be swept along by this current (ibid., p. 20). s. Athanasius, as appears from a writing of his on virginity (of which a Coptic version has survived, ed. and trans. in Le Muséon, 42 [1929], pp. 197-275), exalts Maria as the model of virgins.
This account came to the attention of s. Ambrose three years after his elevation to the episcopate: he adopted it (De virg. ad Marcellinum, II, chap. 2, nn. 6-18: PL 16, 108 ff.), thus bringing to an end, through his authority, the uncertainties of the Westerners, who until then had remained as hesitant as the Greeks (Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté, cit., pp. 21-22). s. Augustine used even clearer expressions: “For the honor of the Lord, I do not even wish the question of Maria to be raised when the matter concerns sin” (De natura et Gratia, 42: PL 44, 267; CSEL, LX, 263-64).
Nevertheless, carried along by his excessively rigorist conception of original sin and by the polemical impetus of his opposition to Pelagius, who taught that not only Maria but all human beings were born without original sin, he rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception. The compromising text he left on this subject (Opus imperfectum adv. Julianum, IV, chap. 122: PL 45, 1418 ff.) was interpreted by all ancient authors as a denial of the Marian privilege. Thus the West, after having preceded the East in affirming the perfection of Maria’s present sanctity, was subsequently to remain behind it; the East began to recognize Maria’s original sanctity as early as the end of the patristic period (cf. Jouassard, Marie, pp. 139-52).
The doubts that arose concerning the sanctity of Maria depend on the following causes: the ambiguity of certain biblical texts, polemical exaggerations (Tertullian), the search for striking effects among preachers (cf. Chrysostom), arguments constructed on the analogy with the defects of the Apostles, and an excessively narrow theological interpretation of the principle that Christ is “the only holy one.” The explicit formulation of the doctrine of the sanctity of Maria is virginity (v.) which the Christian consciousness affirmed more rapidly. It is also connected with the development of asceticism and of its most perfect form: virginity. Through a kind of mystical connaturality, ascetics intuited the spiritual power of Maria’s virginity and recognized in her the perfect model of sanctity.
II. THEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS
There are profound analogies between the holiness of Christ and the holiness of Mary. It is therefore necessary to examine these two points in parallel, in order at the same time to clarify their similarities and differences. This exposition is limited to the concept of holiness itself and does not touch at all upon the problems connected with it: Grace, virtues, and gifts (cf. E. Campana, Maria nel dogma, 6ª ed., Torino 1943, pp. 505-54; G. Alastriwy, Mariologia, I, Valladolid 1934, pp. 175-442; G. Roschini, Mariologia,III, Roma 1947, pp. 7-190). The four aspects of holiness are examined successively; it involves two planes (being and action) and two aspects (positive and negative).
Of the four aspects, the deepest is consecration (positive ontological holiness). But Christ’s holiness is one thing: it is the substantial anointing of divinity itself and is resolved in his divine personality; Mary’s holiness is another: it is accidental. It is to fall into a certain equivocation to call the latter, by analogy, a “substantial” or “quasi-substantial holiness” (J. M. Bover, Soteriologia mariana, Madrid 1946, pp. 345-53).
All questions relating to the holiness of Christ and of Mary depend upon this ontological plane or must be posed in relation to II.
The problems relating to Christ’s holiness can be reduced to four principal ones: whether the hypostatic union is formally sanctifying; what the formal principle of substantial sanctification is; whether it should be conceived as physical or moral; and whether it is infinite (cf. Juan Barbiano [d. in 1676], De gratia et sanctitate animae Christi [1658], ms. of the University of Salamanca, n. 975, 110 ff. [cf. n. 974, 72 ff.]; it is the most complete monograph on the problem; A. Michel, in DThC, VIII, cols. 1275-79; A. Moran, La santidad de la humanitas de Christo en la teología de los siglos XVI y XVII, in Estud. ed., 25 [1951], pp. 33-62).
By analogy, the same problems have been posed concerning Mary. Here too the most important is the first: whether divine motherhood is formally sanctifying (J. M. Delgado Varela, Maternidad formalmente sanctificante: origen y desenvolvimiento de la controversia, in Estudios Marianos, 8 [1949], pp. 132-84). Whereas the majority of theologians hold that the hypostatic union formally sanctifies Christ, the doctrine of Mary’s formal sanctification on account of her divine motherhood, independently of Grace, remains an isolated opinion.
For both Christ and Mary, one speaks of a fullness of Grace that renders their acts acceptable to God and regulates their positive holiness in the operative order; this fullness, however, is not to be understood in the same measure. It is absolute in Christ, insofar as it is the greatest possible in the order created by God; it is relative in Mary, that is, proportionate to her dignity as Mother of God and of men.
Divine motherhood is to Mary’s Grace what the hypostatic union is to Christ’s Grace. But here too the analogy involves profound differences. Divine motherhood requires the fullness of holiness according to a moral necessity; the hypostatic union, on the other hand, according to a physical necessity. Indeed, the hypostatic union is the adequate principle of the fullness of Grace, whereas divine motherhood is only the title to the fullness of Grace. This difference is connected with another. At the first moment Mary received the fullness of Grace on account of her divine motherhood, which she was called to realize in the future; in Christ, from the first moment, Grace blossomed from within, from the divinity in which his humanity subsisted.
With regard to the negative ontological aspect (preservation from original sin contracted in Adam by the human race), the difference is likewise considerable. Mary was conceived in the ordinary manner by a father and a mother who had contracted original sin. God had to intervene formally to preserve her from that stain. By contrast, the immaculate conception of Christ is a normal consequence of virginal generation and does not require a formally preservative intervention by God. Thus Mary’s Immaculate Conception prepares that of Christ, which is more perfect, since it excludes every bond, even extrinsic and mediated, with sinners and with sin.
(phot. Barbu Castillo)
SANTO DOMINGO - Altare della Patria, dove riposano i resti di Duarte Sánchez y Mella - Ciudad Trujillo.
è stato raramente contestato (cf. DThC, VIII, col. 1275). Il modo, secondo il quale si realizza tale impeccabilità, è più discusso (ibid., VIII, coll. 1290-1308). Si potrebbe distinguere così ciò che è comunemente ammesso: il Cristo è impeccabile radicalmente, in virtù dell'unione ipostatica; formalmente, in virtù della pienezza di Grazia. Al contrario, l'impeccabilità di Maria (cf. Concilio di Trento, sess. VI, cap. 23; Denz-U, 833) non è assoluta: non poggia cioè su ripugnanza metafisica intrinseca tra Dio e il peccato, ma sull'esigenza di purezza assoluta richiesta per la divina maternità. Si discute sul grado di tale impeccabilità nelle varie fasi della vita di Maria. Sotto tutti gli aspetti è necessario, perciò, distinguere la sovraeminente s. di Maria e la trascendente s. di Cristo. Tutto ciò che è stato qui esposto riguarda la s. di Cristo secondo l'umanità. Occorre aggiungere che Gesù è persona divina e che, pertanto, possiede in maniera intrinseca e formale la s. stessa di Dio.