**HOLINESS OF CHRIST AND OF MARY – HISTORICAL OUTLOOK**
**I. Holiness of Christ**
The New Testament formally applies the adjective “holy” (ἅγιος) to Jesus (Lk. 1:35; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; Heb. 7:26) and also the noun (ἅγιος): the demons recognized in Him “the Holy One” par excellence (Mk. 1:24); the same title is given to Him by Rev. 3:7.
The term “holy” merely lifts a small corner of the veil over what Holy Scripture says about Christ’s holiness; adherence to an exclusively lexicographical criterion does not allow one to grasp the essential element of the question. The holiness 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 data (Mt. 1:20; Lk. 1:35; 2:2: Christ’s conception. Mt. 3:16 and parallel Synoptic passages; Acts 10:38: His Baptism; Lk. 4:18: His ministry). Jesus firmly affirmed that He is without sin (Jn. 8:46; 14:30); this affirmation is expressed abstractly in 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Jn. 3:5 and 1 Pt. 2:22. He is the One in Whom all others are, and are called, holy (1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1).
Expressed in various forms in Scripture, Christ’s holiness shines forth throughout His life (L. de Grandmaison, *Jésus-Christ*, 2nd ed., Paris 1931, pp. 79-121); it has no detractors, except for the scribes and Pharisees (who accused Him of gluttony [Mt. 11:19], of illegality, particularly of violating the Sabbath [Jn. 5:18; 9:16] and of blasphemy [Mk. 2:7; Mt. 26:65; Jn. 5:18]; indeed, they even went so far as to call Him possessed by a demon [Jn. 7:20; 8:48-49; 10:20; cf. Mt. 12:24]) and some liberal neo-Protestants (DThC, VIII, cols. 1381-82).
The fact of Christ’s holiness is not only a doctrine of the Church, but a patrimony of civilization: even those who do not believe in Christ acknowledge
II. This perfect agreement, present from the earliest times, makes it unnecessary to cite texts: “Nation of the Councils” (Ephesus, canon 10, Denz
U., 122; Chalcedon, ibid., 148; cf. 711) and of the Fathers.**II. Holiness of Mary**
The holiness of Mary, instead, has from the earliest centuries faced strong attacks from heretics and some uncertainties among ecclesiastical writers, and concerning it—as, moreover, concerning many other points of Mariology—there was a genuine development, the stages of which must be examined. The New Testament, so clear about Christ’s holiness, is less explicit about Mary’s. The principal texts are: Lk. 1:28 (ἀγιοῦντα, “full of grace”); 1:35 (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you”); 1:45-48 (“Blessed are you who believed...”). Objections against Mary’s holiness have been drawn from the following texts: Lk. 2:35 (“a sword will pierce through your own soul,” interpreted with a true aberration as meaning that the sword foretold by Simeon is nothing other than a doubt in Mary’s soul); Lk. 2:48 (“Son, why have you treated us so?” in which an unjustified reproach is sought); Jn. 2:3-4 (“Woman, what does this have to do with me?” cf. F.-M. Braun, *La Mère de Jésus dans l'œuvre de St Jean*, in *Revue Thomiste*, 50 [1950], pp. 446-52); Mt. 12:47 (“Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you” [it is not at all evident that the Virgin shared the same sentiments or participated in the plan of Jesus’ brothers]); and finally, Lk. 8:20-21. This last text positively confirms Mary’s holiness if one takes into account two observations: only Luke records this text: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” Now, it is Luke himself who reports (also here, uniquely) and insistently that Mary possesses the supernatural beatitude of faith (Lk. 1:45: “Blessed is she who believed”; cf. 1:42 and 48, as well as 2:19 and 51).
On the basis of the implicit data of Scripture, the dogmatic development occurs slowly and not without setbacks. 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 should be added the study of the post-Ephesus period by the same author (*Marie à travers la patristique*, in H. de Manoir, *Maria*, I, Paris 1949, pp. 139-53).
From the end of the apostolic era to the last texts of St. Irenaeus clearly favorable to Mary’s holiness (G. Jouassard, *Marie*, p. 73), this was a period in which pagans and Jews attempted to cast discredit upon the person of Jesus with quite vulgar slanders about Mary (called a fornicatress). Perhaps the first developments of the *Protoevangelium of James* could be considered as indirect reactions to such attacks.
Tertullian directly and energetically combated them (De spectaculis, ch. 30; PL 1, 662; CSEL, XX, 29), without, however, fully affirming the perfection of Mary’s holiness: he thought he detected in her some shadow of unbelief (Adv. Marc., IV, ch. 19; PL 2, 404-406, CSEL, XLVII, 482-83; De carne Christi, ch. 7; PL 2, 766-69). Similar affirmations are found in Origen, who, however, shows immense esteem for Mary (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 St. Cyril of Alexandria, in St. Basil (with some reservations), in Amphilochius of Iconium, vividly in St. John Chrysostom, and even in St. Ephrem (ibid., pp. 19-20). St. Epiphanius did not yield to this trend (ibid., p. 20). St. Athanasius, as far as can be gathered from a writing of his on virginity (of which a Coptic version survives, ed. and trans. in *Le Muséon*, 42 [1920], pp. 197-275), extols Mary as the model of virgins.
This description came to the attention of St. Ambrose three years after his elevation to the episcopate: he took it up (De virg. ad Marcellinum, II, ch. 2, nn. 6-18; PL 16, 108 ff.), thus putting an end, with his authority, to the uncertainties of the West, which until then had been as wavering as the Greeks (Jouassard, *Le problème de la sainteté*, cit., pp. 21-22). St. Augustine used even clearer expressions: “For the sake of the Lord’s honor, I do not even wish the question to be raised about Mary when it comes to sin” (De natura et Gratia, 42: PL 44, 267; CSEL, LX, 263-64).
Nevertheless, carried away by his overly rigorous conception of original sin and by his polemical zeal against Pelagius—who taught that not only Mary but all men are 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, ch. 122: PL 45, 1418 ff.) has been 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 Mary’s present holiness, then lagged behind; the East began to recognize Mary’s original holiness already toward the end of the patristic period (cf. Jouassard, *Marie*, pp. 139-52).
The doubts that arose about Mary’s holiness stem from the following causes: ambiguity of certain biblical texts, polemical exaggerations (Tertullian), the search for striking effects among preachers (cf. Chrysostom), reasoning based on the analogy with the defects of the Apostles, and a too narrow theological interpretation of the principle that Christ is “the only holy One.” The clarification of the doctrine of Mary’s holiness is linked to that of her virginity (v. which Christian consciousness affirmed more rapidly. It is also connected with the development of asceticism and its most perfect form: virginity. Ascetics, by a kind of mystical connaturality, perceived the spiritual strength of Mary’s virginity and recognized in her the perfect model of holiness.
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, so as to clarify both their similarities and their differences. This exposition is limited to the very concept of holiness and does not touch upon the problems connected with it: grace, virtues, and gifts (cf. E. Campana, *Maria nel dogma*, 6th ed., Turin 1943, pp. 505-54; G. Alastruey, *Mariologia*, I, Valladolid 1934, pp. 175-442; G. Roschini, *Mariologia*, III, Rome 1947, pp. 7-190). The four aspects of holiness are examined in succession, as it involves two planes (being and acting) and two aspects (positive and negative).
The four aspects of holiness are examined in succession, as it involves two planes (being and acting) and two aspects (positive and negative).
Of the four aspects, the most profound is consecration (positive ontological). But there is a great difference between the holiness of Christ, which is the substantial anointing of the divinity itself and is resolved in His divine personality, and the holiness of Mary, which is accidental. It would be 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 Mary depend on this ontological plane or must be considered in relation to II.
The problems concerning the holiness of Christ can be reduced to four main ones: whether the hypostatic union is formally sanctifying; what the formal principle of substantial sanctification is; whether it should be conceived as physical or as moral; whether it is infinite (cf. Juan Barbiano [d. 1676], *De gratia et sanctitate animae Christi* [1658], ms. of the University of Salamanca, no. 975, 110 ff. [cf. no. 974, 72 ff.]; this is the most complete monograph on the subject; A. Michel, in *Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique*, VIII, cols. 1275-79; A. Moran, *La santità de la humanitas de Christo en la teologia de los siglos XVI e XVII*, in *Estudios Marianos*, 25 [1951], pp. 33-62).
By analogy, the same problems have been raised regarding Mary. Here too the most important is the first: whether the divine maternity is formally sanctifying (J. M. Delgado Varela, *Maternidad formalmente santificante: origen y desenvolvimiento de la controversia*, in *Estudios Marianos*, 8 [1949], pp. 132-84). While the majority of theologians hold that the hypostatic union formally sanctifies Christ, the doctrine of a formal sanctification of Mary on account of her divine maternity, independently of grace, remains an isolated opinion.
One speaks, both of Christ and of Mary, of a fullness of grace, which renders their acts pleasing to God and regulates their positive holiness in the operative order; yet this fullness must not be understood in the same way. It is absolute in Christ, inasmuch 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.
The divine maternity is to the grace of Mary what the hypostatic union is to the grace of Christ. But even here the analogy involves profound differences. The divine maternity requires the fullness of holiness according to a physical necessity; the hypostatic union, in fact, is the adequate principle of the fullness of grace, whereas the divine maternity is merely a title to the fullness of grace. This difference is connected with another. At the first instant, Mary received the fullness of grace on account of the divine maternity, which she was called to realize in the future; in Christ, from the first instant, grace flowed from within, from the divinity in which His humanity subsisted.
As regards the negative ontological aspect (preservation from original sin, contracted by the human race in Adam), the difference is also considerable. Mary was conceived in the usual way by a father and mother who had contracted original sin. God had to intervene formally to preserve her from this stain. On the contrary, the Immaculate Conception of Christ is a normal consequence of the virginal generation and does not require a formally preservative intervention by God. Thus, the Immaculate Conception of Mary prepares for that of Christ, which is more perfect, since it excludes any bond, even extrinsic and mediate, with sinners and with sin.
The impeccability of Christ is metaphysical and absolute: assumed personally by the Divine Word, the humanity of Christ could not sin in any way.