Holiness of Christ and of Mary

HOLINESS OF CHRIST AND OF MARY. - I. HISTORICAL SURVEY. - 1. Holiness of Christ. - The New Testament formally applies to Jesus the adjective "holy" (ἅγιος: Lk. 1:35; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; Heb. 7:26) and also the noun (ὁ ἅγιος): the demons recognized in him "the Holy One" par excellence (Mk. 1:24); the same title is given him by Rev. 3:7.

The term "holy" lifts but a tiny corner of all that Scripture relates concerning the holiness of Christ; to adhere 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, the consecrated one (Dan. 9:25-26; Ps. 2:2), the righteous one (Is. 53:11), filled with the Holy Spirit (Is. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-2). The New Testament explicitly ratifies these essential data (Mt. 1:20; Lk. 1:35: the conception of Christ. Mt. 3:16 and the parallel synoptic passages; Acts 10:38: his Baptism; Lk. 4:18: his ministry). Jesus firmly asserted that he is without sin (Jn. 8:46; 14:30); an assertion expressed abstractly in II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; I Jn. 3:5 and I Pt. 2:22. He is the one in whom all others are, and are called, holy (I Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1).

Expressed under various forms in Scripture, the holiness of Christ shines forth in his whole life (L. de Grandmaison, Jésus-Christ, II, 18th ed., Paris 1931, pp. 79-121); it finds no detractors, except among the scribes and Pharisees (who accused him of gluttony [Mt. 11:19], of lawlessness, particularly of violating the sabbath [Jn. 5:18; 9:16] and of blasphemy [Mk. 2:7; Mt. 26:27; 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 among certain liberal neo-Protestants (DThC, VIII, coll. 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 admit it. Such concord, perfect from the very origins, dispenses one from adducing the testimonies of the Councils (Ephesian, can. 10, Denz-U, 122; Chalcedonian, ibid., 148; cf. 711) and of the Fathers.

2. Holiness of Mary

The holiness of Mary, on the other hand, has from the earliest centuries suffered strong attacks on the part of heretics and some uncertainties among ecclesiastical writers, and around it, as, moreover, around many other points of Marian theology, there was a true and proper development, whose stages must be examined. The New Testament, so clear concerning the holiness of Christ, is less explicit concerning that of Mary. The principal texts are: Lk. 1:28 (ἐνταγενόμεναι = "gratia plena"); 1:35 ("Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi"), 1:45-48 ("beata, quae credidisti..."). The objections against the holiness of Mary have been drawn from the following texts: Lk. 2:35 ("tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius", understood with true exegetical aberration in the sense that the sword foretold by Simeon would be nothing other than a doubt in Mary's soul); Lk. 2:48 ("Fili, quid fecisti nobis sic?", in which some wish to find an unjustified reproach); Jn. 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 does not at all appear that the Virgin had the same sentiments and participated in the plan of the "brethren of Jesus"); lastly, Lk. 8:20-21. This text positively confirms the holiness of Mary, if two observations are taken into account: only Luke reports this text: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it." Now, it is the same Luke who reports (here too, alone) and not insistence, that Mary has the supernatural beatitude of faith (Lk. 1:45: "Beata colei che ha creduto"; cf. 1:42 and 48: as well as 2:19 and 51).

On the basis of the implicit data of Scripture, dogmatic development takes place slowly and not without shocks. 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-Ephesine period, made 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 the holiness of Mary (G. Jouassard, Marie, p. 73). That was the period in which pagans and Jews attempted to cast discredit on the person of Jesus with quite vulgar calumnies concerning Mary (called quaestuaria). Perhaps the first developments of the Gospel of James could be considered as indirect reactions to such attacks.

Tertullian combated them directly and energetically (De spectaculis, ch. 30: PL 1, 662; CSEL, XX, 29), without however fully affirming the perfection of Mary's holiness: he thought to discover 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 assertions are found in Origen, who, nevertheless, 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 reservation), in Amphilochius of Iconium, in a very vivid manner in St. John Chrysostom and, even, in St. Ephrem (ibid., pp. 19-20). St. Epiphanius did not allow himself to be drawn by that current (ibid., p. 20). St. Athanasius, as appears from a writing of his on virginity (of which a Coptic version has come down, ed. and trans. in Le Muséon, 42 [1929], pp. 197-275) exalts Mary as the model of virgins.

This description fell under the eyes of St. Ambrose, three years after his elevation to the episcopate: he took possession of it (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 Westerners, who had remained until that moment wavering like the Greeks (Jouassard, Le problème de la sainteté, cit., pp. 21-22). St. Augustine employed even clearer expressions: "For the honor of the Lord, I do not wish even that the question be raised concerning Mary when it is a matter of sin" (De natura et Gratia, 42: PL 44, 267; CSEL, LX, 263-64).

Nevertheless, carried away by his overly rigorist conception of original sin and by the polemical impetus against Pelagius, who taught that not only Mary but all men are born without original sin, he rejects 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 the ancient authors as a denial of the Marian privilege. And so the West, after having preceded the East in affirming the perfection of Mary's present holiness, was then to remain behind it; 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 concerning the holiness of Mary depend on the following causes: ambiguity of certain biblical texts, polemical exaggerations (Tertullian), search for brilliant effects among preachers (cf. Chrysostom), reasonings set up on the analogy with the defects of the Apostles, too narrow theological interpretation of the principle that Christ is "the only holy one." The explicit formulation of the doctrine of Mary's holiness is linked to that of her virginity (v.) which Christian consciousness affirmed more rapidly. It is connected also with the development of asceticism and of its most perfect form: virginity. The ascetics intuited, by a kind of mystical connaturality, the spiritual force of Mary's virginity and recognized in her the perfect model of h.

II. THEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS

Between the holiness of Christ and the holiness of Mary there are profound analogies. It is therefore necessary to examine these two points in parallel, so as to specify at the same time their similarities and differences. This exposition is limited to the concept of holiness itself and does not touch at all on the problems connected with it: Grace, virtues and gifts (cf. E. Campana, Maria nel dogma, 6th ed., Turin 1943, pp. 505-54; G. Alastriwy, Mariologia, I, Valladolid 1934, pp. 175-442; G. Roschini, Mariologia,

III, Rome 1947, pp. 7-190). The four aspects of holiness are examined in turn, which involve two planes (being and acting) and two aspects (positive and negative).

Of the four aspects, the most profound is consecration (ontological, positive). But the holiness of Christ, which is the substantial anointing of the divinity itself and is resolved in his divine personality, is one thing; the holiness of Mary, which is accidental, is another. 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 on this ontological plane or must be posed in function of it.

The problems relating to the holiness of Christ can be reduced to four principal ones: whether the hypostatic union is formally sanctifying; what is the formal principle of substantial sanctification; 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.]; it is the most complete monograph on the problem; A. Michel, in DThC, VIII, coll. 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 the divine maternity is formally sanctifying (J. M. Delgado Varela, Maternidad formalmente sanctificante: 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 because of her divine maternity, independently of Grace, remains an isolated opinion.

For both Christ and Mary there is talk of a fullness of Grace, which renders their acts acceptable to God and regulates their positive holiness in the operative order; such fullness, however, is not to be understood in the same measure; 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, proportioned 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 here too the analogy involves profound differences. The divine maternity requires the fullness of holiness according to a moral necessity; the hypostatic union, on the other hand, according to a physical necessity; the hypostatic union, in fact, is the adequate principle of the fullness of Grace, whereas the divine maternity is only a title to the fullness of Grace. This difference is connected with another. In the first instant Mary received the fullness of Grace because of the divine maternity, which she was called to realize in the future; in Christ, from the first instant, Grace flowered from within, from the divinity, in which his humanity subsisted.

On the negative ontological aspect (preservation from original sin contracted in Adam by the human race) the difference is likewise notable. Mary is conceived in the common manner by a father and a mother, who have contracted the original stain. God must intervene formally to preserve her from that stain. On the contrary, the immaculate conception of Christ is a normal consequence of the virginal generation and does not require a formally preserving intervention of God. Thus, the Immaculate Conception of Mary prepares 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, absolute: assumed personally by the Divine Word, the humanity of Christ could not sin in any manner. This point has rarely been contested (cf. DThC, VIII, col. 1275). The manner in which this impeccability is realized is more debated (ibid., VIII, coll. 1290-1308). One could distinguish in this way what is commonly admitted: Christ is impeccable radically, by virtue of the hypostatic union; formally, by virtue of the fullness of Grace. On the contrary, the impeccability of Mary (cf. Council of Trent, sess. VI, cap. 23; Denz-U, 833) is not absolute: that is, it does not rest on a metaphysical intrinsic repugnance between God and sin, but on the requirement of absolute purity demanded for the divine maternity. There is discussion about the degree of this impeccability in the various phases of Mary's life. In all respects it is necessary, therefore, to distinguish the supereminent holiness of Mary and the transcendent holiness of Christ. All that has been set forth here concerns the holiness of Christ according to his humanity. It must be added that Jesus is a divine person and that, therefore, he possesses in an intrinsic and formal manner the very holiness of God.

Renato Laurentin