Understanding Catholic

Teaching on the
Blessed Virgin Mary
 F a i t h B a s i c s

Understanding
Catholic
Teaching on
the Blessed
Virgin Mary

by Tom Perna

Steubenville, Ohio
www.emmausroad.org
 Emmaus Road Publishing
1468 Parkview Circle • Steubenville, Ohio 43952

© 2015 Thomas J. Perna

All rights reserved. Published 2015
Printed in the United States of America
19 18 17 16 15 14 1 2 3 4 5 6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014957462

ISBN: 978-1-634460-10-1

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from The Revised Standard
Version Second Catholic Edition (Ignatius Edition) Copyright © 2006 by the Divi-
sion of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in
the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Excerpts from the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the
United States of America copyright © 1994, United States Catholic Conference,
Inc.—Libreria Editrice Vaticana. English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church: Modifications from the Editio Typica copyright © 1997, United States Catho-
lic Conference, Inc.—Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Noted as “CCC” in the text.

Cover design and layout by Mairead Cameron

Nihil Obstat: Rev. James M. Dunfee, Censor Librorum

Imprimatur: Jeffrey M. Monforton, Bishop of Steubenville

December 10, 2014

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a work is considered to
be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted
the same agree with the content, opinions, or statements expressed.
 To my parents, Tom and Joyce, for your constant
prayers, guidance, and support. Your encouragement
inspired me to begin writing.
 Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Relationship Between Sacred

Scripture and Sacred Tradition . . . . . . . 5

Mary, The Mother of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Nestorian Heresy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Church Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A Dogma Declared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Motherhood Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Mother of God in Sacred

Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Mother of God in Sacred Tradition . . . . 22

Mary, The Perpetual Virgin . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

The Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Virgin Before the Birth of Christ in Sacred

Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Virgin Before the Birth of Christ in Sacred

Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Virgin During the Birth of Christ in Sacred

Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Virgin During the Birth of Christ in Sacred

Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Virgin After the Birth of Christ in Sacred

Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Virgin After the Birth of Christ in Sacred

Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

The Three Most Common Objections

to Mary as Perpetual Virgin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Immaculate Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Before the Papal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

The Papal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

 Three Primary Gifts Given to Mary . . . . . . . 53

Blessed Duns Scotus and Preservative

Redemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

The Immaculate Conception in

Sacred Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

The Immaculate Conception in

Sacred Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

Mary into Heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Before the Papal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

The Papal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

The Assumption of Mary in Sacred

Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant . . . . . 68

The Assumption of Mary in Sacred

Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Did Mary Die? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
 Introduction

M any Catholics, without really knowing much

about Marian Theology (also known as Mari-
ology), that is, the theology that focuses on the
Blessed Virgin Mary, have a devotion to her either
through the Holy Rosary or one of the many titles
attributed to her over the centuries. If you were to
ask many Catholics if they are familiar with the
four Marian dogmas, some would say yes, but few
would know how to articulate them or why it’s im-
portant to study Mariology. While not a separate
course of study, it is an essential element of the
grand scope of Catholic theology.
When we have a better intellectual understand-
ing of Mary, it can catapult us into having a more
Marian spirituality, which is a fundamental aspect
of the Christian life of prayer. If our disposition

1
towards God is Marian, as in her fiat, her yes to
God at the Annunciation, then we will come to a
better understanding of God’s will for our life. Like
Mary, we should align our wills with the will of
God. Mary’s obedience to God every day of her life
is what we must emulate every day of our lives.
On March 25, 1988, the Solemnity of the
Annunciation of the Lord, the Congregation for
Catholic Education promulgated a letter titled, The
Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation.
The document provides an overall basis for why
studying Marian theology is so important. At the
conclusion of the letter, the congregation provides
three advantages of studying Marian theology for
the formation of one’s faith.
The first advantage is the intellectual level,
which states, “so that the truth about God, about
Man, about Christ and about the Church are un-
derstood the more in understanding the ‘truth
about Mary.’” The second advantage is the spiritual
level. It states, “so that such information will help
a Christian to welcome the Mother of Jesus and
‘bring her into everything that makes up his in-
ner life.’” The third advantage is the pastoral level,
which says, “so that the Mother of the Lord may
2
be strongly felt as a presence of grace among the
Christian people.”
The Catholic Church has declared four Marian
doctrines dogmatic: Mother of God, Perpetual
Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and the
Assumption into Heaven. So what’s the difference
between a dogma and a doctrine?
A dogma is a truth immediately revealed by
God that has been solemnly defined by the teach-
ing Church and is to be believed by the faithful. A
dogma can be defined in two ways. First, the pope
can define it with an ex cathedra (from the chair)
statement, which means that the pope speaks in-
fallibly, without error. Second, an Ecumenical
Council can make a statement that is then con-
firmed by the Holy Father.
A doctrine is a teaching that is theologically
certain, for which the magisterium guarantees its
truth but has not solemnly defined its truth. Even
though some doctrines have not been solemnly de-
clared dogmatic by the magisterium, they are still
to be believed and followed by the faithful.
With that brief introduction on the importance
of studying Marian Theology, as well as under-
standing the differences between a dogma and a
3
doctrine, let us turn to the four Marian dogmas:
the Mother of God (Theotokos), Perpetual Virginity,
Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of
Mary into Heaven.

4
The Relationship Between
Sacred Scripture and
Sacred Tradition

O n the relationship between Sacred Scripture

and Sacred Tradition, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church states,

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture,

then, are bound closely together, and com-
municate one with the other. For both of
them, flowing out from the same divine
well-spring, come together in some fashion
to form one thing, and move towards the
same goal” [DV 9]. Each of them makes
present and fruitful in the Church the
mystery of Christ, who promised to remain

5
 with his own “always, to the close of the
age” [Mt 28:20]. (80)

Since I cite Tradition in this booklet often, I

would like to briefly explain what Sacred Tradition
is and how it relates to Sacred Scripture. The word
tradition means “to transmit” or “to deliver.” It
comes from the Latin term tradere, which means
to “to hand over an object.” Tradition is the whole
outline in its simplest form of salvation history.
Tradition is not something that was just developed
in the past two thousand years of the Church, but
Tradition has been an on-going development from
the Old Testament into the New Testament and
throughout the history of the Church.
In the light of Christianity, Tradition can be
seen as a doctrine and as fellowship. By way of doc-
trine, Christianity is what God gives to His Son,
then what Jesus hands to the Apostles, then what
the Apostles give to the churches as they found
them—this being first and foremost the Gospel.
Within fellowship, Tradition can be described as
teaching, since through fellowship we teach others.
When we teach, we transmit the truths that Christ

6
has given to us and we hand down those truths to
others. 1 John 1:1–3 states,

That which was from the beginning, which

we have heard, which we have seen with
our eyes, which we have looked upon and
touched with our hands, concerning the
word of life—the life was made manifest,
and we saw it, and testify to it, and pro-
claim to you the eternal life which was
with the Father and was made manifest to
us—that which we have seen and heard we
proclaim also to you, so that you may have
fellowship with us; and our fellowship is
with the Father and with his Son Jesus
Christ.

At the heart of the debate between Catholics

and non-Catholics are the disagreements between
Scripture and Tradition. Non-Catholics claim that
the Holy Scriptures are all you need to under-
stand God’s Word. This is known as sola scriptura
or Scripture alone. An important fact to point
out here is that no Scripture verses ever claim this

7
point. The Scriptures contain what was transmitted
orally by the Apostles and then later written down.
Where the non-Catholics completely ignore the
Traditions of the Church, Catholics embrace those
Traditions, for they understand that the Word of
God is both Tradition and Scripture and they work
together as the Deposit of Faith. In his book, The
Meaning of Tradition (New York: Hawthorn, 1964),
Yves Congar, O.P. makes this point when he says,

What follows, in fact, will show us that

apart from certain most exceptional eccle-
siastical traditions—and not always even
then!—there is not a single point of belief
that the Church holds by tradition alone,
without any reference to Scripture; just as
there is not a single dogma that is derived
from Scripture alone, without being ex-
plained by tradition.

Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council’s

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,
Dei Verbum states, “Sacred Tradition and sacred
Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the

8
Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.”1
Understanding the Scriptures properly can
only be understood by reading them through the
eyes of the Church and her Traditions. Just as one
needed to enter the Hebrew community and learn
their traditions to understand the Pentateuch and
other Old Testament Scriptures, so today one must
enter the Church and read the Scriptures through
her Traditions. The early Church Father Origen,
writing early in the third century, states,

The true disciple of Jesus is he who enters

the house, that is to say, the Church. He
enters it by thinking as the Church does
and living as she does; this is how he under-
stands her Word. The key to the Scriptures
must be received from the tradition of the
Church, as from the Lord himself.

The Catholic Church is the “proprietor” of the

Scriptures since they belong to her. It is only through
the Catholic Church where the fullness of truth

1. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine

Revelation Dei Verbum (November 18, 1965), 10.

9
can be guaranteed. It is through the community of
Christians and the teaching office of the Church, the
magisterium by way of Apostolic Succession, who
transmits the truths given by Christ as they were
handed down to the apostles. Dei Verbum states,

The task of giving an authentic interpre-

tation of the Word of God, whether in its
written form or in the form of Tradition,
has been entrusted to the living teaching
office of the Church alone. Its authority
in this matter is exercised in the name of
Jesus Christ. (10)

Reading the Scriptures alone, apart from

Tradition, does not explain them explicitly. When
non-Catholics take away Tradition and focus solely
on the Scriptures, they are destroying the harmony
that exists between the two. It would be like di-
viding a drum and bugle corps. Removing the
bugles from the band would allow you to hear mu-
sic, but it would not be complete unless the bugles
were providing the harmony for the drums. The
two together are complete and sound. In the same

10
manner, Congar says, “Tradition creates a total-
ity, a harmony, a synthesis. It lives by and teaches
others to live by the comprehensive spirit of God’s
plan, from which unfolds and develops the whole
structure of the economy . . .”
In the end, we need to completely understand
the Word of God as God intended. We must see
the clear relationship that exists between Sacred
Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As the written
words of Sacred Scripture remain permanent, it
is the living Tradition that enables the Church
to grow through the centuries. As Pope Benedict
XVI says, “Ultimately, it is the living Tradition of
the Church which makes us adequately understand
sacred scripture as the word of God.”2

2. Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation of the Holy Father Pope

Benedict XVI, The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the
Church Verbum Domini (September 30, 2010), 17.

11
Mary, the Mother of God

The Nestorian Heresy

T he genesis of the Nestorian heresy begins

with Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople.
Nestorius was a well-educated monk known for his
great preaching ability. He was trained in Antioch,
a city fundamental in the organic growth of the
Catholic Church in the early centuries. Because
of Nestorius’ great skills as an orator, Emperor
Theodosius II, in AD 428, elevated him to the See
of Constantinople. Nestorius was fifty years old.
As Nestorius begins his new role as bishop,
he speaks to the emperor about the routing of the
many heresies that still remained in the city of
Constantinople. He also writes to Pope Celestine
I about the many challenges he faced. In one of his

13
letters to the pope, Nestorius speaks of this par-
ticular issue that has arisen among good orthodox
Catholics, monks, and the clergy in Constantinople:
the “meaning of the belief that Christ is God.”
In his letters to Celestine I, Nestorius writes
about how the people don’t properly understand
the great mystery that Christ is equally God and
man. He says that the people think the humanity
of Christ was divine, and that they believe God
was both born and buried. He continues to say
that the people profess that Mary, the ever virgin
who brought God forth, is the Mother of God, the
Greek term Theotokos.
Simply, the Nestorian Heresy claimed that
Jesus Christ was two separate persons, and not
one person with two natures: divine and human
(which would become the doctrine known as the
Hypostatic Union). Nestorius believed that Christ
was only a human person who was joined to the
divine person (Son of God) and Mary was only the
mother of Christ’s human person. Nestorius’ in-
correct Christological understanding led him to an
incorrect understanding of proper titles for Mary.
Nestorius claimed that we shouldn’t call Mary the

14
Theotokos, God-Bearer, but rather Christotokos, bearer
of the human person of Jesus Christ. A correct un-
derstanding of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ leads
to a correct understanding of the motherhood
of Mary. Correct Christology safeguards proper
Marian titles.

The Church Answers

As Nestorius was prophesying his false doc-
trine, St. Cyril of Alexandria became aware of it
and engaged him in a series of correspondence. The
exchange of those letters did nothing to change the
mind of Nestorius and actually led to some serious
malcontent between the two men. These battles
with the pen were not just about the right doctrine
of the Church, but proved to be competitive be-
cause of the two rivaling patriarchal sees.
After minor gatherings in the West (St. Cyril
requested assistance from Pope Celestine I) and
minor gatherings in the East (Nestorius went
to Emperor Theodosius II to plead his case) did
nothing to remedy the false doctrine that clearly
attacked the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the

15
motherhood of Mary, a council was convened in
the city of Ephesus.
Leading the charge for the Church at the
Council of Ephesus was St. Cyril of Alexandria.
Educated in the city of his name, St. Cyril lived
as a monk for some time in the desert before
serving as bishop for thirty-two years in Alexan-
dria. He was considered a holy terror while his
holiness remained hidden. He was forceful, dom-
inating, and impatient. He had some enemies
because of his personality, but as he gained in age
and wisdom, Cyril learned to control his temper,
and when needed, he showed that he could make
concessions for the good of the Church.
Although Pope Celestine would not attend the
council in Ephesus, he sent legates, papal diplo-
mats, in his stead to hold fast to the position of St.
Cyril and to condemn Nestorius’ teachings.

A Dogma Declared
The Council of Ephesus began on Pentecost
Sunday in the year AD 431. Although the papal
legates were still en route from Rome, and other

16
bishops were not in attendance, St. Cyril opened
the council in the Church of Saint Mary where he
assumed the executive position. Nestorius and his
supporters protested, refusing to attend this coun-
cil, and convened their own anti-council.
As the Council of Ephesus proceeded, the let-
ters of both St. Cyril and Nestorius were read aloud.
In the end, all in attendance unanimously con-
demned the false doctrines professed by Nestorius.
Following the lead of and in union with St. Cyril of
Alexandria, the bishops at Ephesus stated,

If anyone does not confess that the

Emmanuel [Christ] in truth is God and
that on this account the Holy Virgin is
the Mother of God [Theotokos] in as
much as she gave birth to the Word of
God made flesh . . . let him be anathema.

As a result, Nestorius was immediately excom-

municated and unseated from his see as Patriarch
of Constantinople. On June 22, as the bishops re-
turned to their quarters for the night, the Catholic
faithful living in Ephesus gathered and supported

17
the decision with great zeal, shouting: “Praised be
the Theotokos.”
The proceedings of this council were a bit ir-
regular. The council would not officially close until
the late summer months of AD 431, and the pa-
pal legates would not arrive until after the council
had declared its teaching. Once the papal legates
did arrive, however, the emperor had both St. Cyril
and Nestorius incarcerated while the situation was
sorted out. In the end, the Church would allow
the statements and doctrines declared to stand.
The Council of Ephesus defined three important
teachings of the Church. First, it articulated the
dogma of the Theotokos (God-Bearer); second, it
stated that the two natures of Jesus Christ, human
and divine, cannot be separated but are united in
one divine person; and third, the council not only
defined Christology, that is to say who Christ is, but
also took an important step in clarifying Marian
theology (referred to today as Mariology).

18
 Motherhood Defined

The doctrine that teaches Mary as the Mother

of God was solemnly declared a dogma at the
Council of Ephesus. The motherhood of Mary is
an important aspect and one that some of the early
Church Fathers focused on in their writings. So
why is motherhood so important?
A woman, by an act of love, gives her offspring
the exact nature that she holds. This gift is given
by conception, gestation, and birth. The child is
the fruit of this process, not just a body. The gift of
motherhood refers to the same nature given to the
child and also includes the complete human person.
In the case of Mary and Jesus, Mary did not give
Jesus His divine personhood and nature, since they
had always existed. Mary did give Jesus His indis-
tinguishable human nature that was equal to her
own. Through the hypostatic union, Jesus’ divine
and human will are united as one. Mary truly gave
birth to Jesus who is truly human and truly divine.
Mary gave to Jesus “an immaculate human nature.”
The key to her motherhood is, simply, that the
human nature of Jesus is inseparably connected to

19
His divine nature. Mary gave to Jesus a nature of
her own that is identical. Mary gave birth to a Son
who is truly God, and therefore Mary is rightly
called the Mother of God.

The Mother of God in

Sacred Scripture
The Sacred Scriptures reveal Mary’s role as
the Mother of God in three places: Luke 1:31–35;
43 and Galatians 4:4. Let us examine each one
carefully.
In the Gospel of St. Luke, at the Annunciation
of Our Lord, the Archangel Gabriel appears to
Mary and professes, “Behold, you shall conceive
in your womb and shall bring forth a son, and you
shall call his name Jesus. . . . therefore, the child to
be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” The
divine message from the heavenly Father delivered
by Gabriel states two points. First, Mary, because of
her Immaculate Conception, has been prepared by
God to become the mother of Jesus; and second, the
true and only son of God is Jesus. Understanding
these two points, we come to the conclusion that

20
if Jesus Christ is God, and Mary is the mother of
Jesus Christ, therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
Being that Jesus is the true and only Son of God,
and Mary is the mother of Jesus (frequently stated in
the Scriptures: cf. Mt 2:13, 20; Jn 2:1, 3; Acts 1:14),
we conclude that the Mother of God is Mary.
The second Scripture verse that focuses on Mary
as the Mother of God is Luke 1:43, the Visitation
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We see Mary’s cousin
Elizabeth say the words, “mother of my Lord.” This
title used by Elizabeth to describe Mary is united to
the dual mysteries of Jesus’ divinity and the divine
maternity of Mary. The term “Lord” in this context
and in verse 45 always means God. Therefore, when
Elizabeth says “mother of my Lord,” she knows
that Mary is the Mother of God.
The third Scripture verse that speaks of Mary
as the Mother of God is found in St. Paul’s Letter
to the Galatians. In his letter, St. Paul confesses,
“When the fullness of time had come, God sent
his Son, born of a woman” (4:4). St. Paul is saying
that since Mary gave birth, and her flesh, to the
Son of God, she can rightly be called the Mother
of God.

21
 The Mother of God in
Sacred Tradition
Not only do the Sacred Scriptures reveal Mary
as the Mother of God, but Sacred Tradition also
sheds light on this first important dogma. The
Apostles’ Creed is a first-century doctrinal creed
that predates the Nicene-Constantinople Creed
(AD 325–381) and is commonly believed to hail
from the Apostles themselves; hence its name, “the
Apostles’ Creed.” This creed states that the early
Church’s faith believes in “Jesus Christ, his only
Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy
Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.”
Furthermore, beginning with St. Irenaeus
of Lyons in the middle of the second century,
many early Church Fathers such as Origen, St.
Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Alexandria,
St. Augustine of Hippo, Pope St. Gregory the
Great, St. Peter Chrysologus, and many others de-
clared in their writings that Mary is the Mother of
God. The Church was aided in large part by these
writings in defining what she believed during the
early years of Christianity.

22
 Decades before the Council of Ephesus,
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, in his document
On Virginity, uses the term Theotokos and states,
“Christ being God, became man for our sake
and was born of Mary, Mother of God, to free
us from the devil’s power.” In Against the Arians,
he also states, “It is for our sake that Christ be-
came man, taking flesh from the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God.”
From his Fourth Homily at Ephesus against
Nestorius (ca. 428–431), St. Cyril of Alexandria says,

Hail, we say, O holy and mystic Trinity,

who have called us together in this church
dedicated to Mary, Mother of God. We hail
you, O Mary Mother of God, venerable
treasure of the entire world, inextinguish-
able lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of
orthodoxy, imperishable temple, container
of him who cannot be contained, Mother
and Virgin, through whom it is said in the
holy Gospels: “Blessed is he who comes in
the name of the Lord” (Mt 21:9).

23
 St. John Cassian responds to Nestorius in his
Seven Books on the Incarnation of the Lord (ca. 420–
429), and says,

And so you say, O heretic, whoever you

may be, who deny that God was born
of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of
God of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not
to be called Theotokos, i.e., Mother of God,
but Christotokos, i.e., only the Mother of
Christ, not of God. For no one, you say,
brings forth what is anterior in time. And
of this utterly foolish argument whereby
you think that the birth of God can be
understood by carnal minds, and fancy
that the mystery of His Majesty can be
accounted for by human reasoning, we
will, if God permits, say something later
on. In the meanwhile we will now prove
by Divine testimonies that Christ is God,
and that Mary is the Mother of God.

Paragraph 495 of the Catechism of the Catholic

Church quoting the Sacred Scriptures and the

24
Council of Ephesus states,

Called in the Gospels the “mother of

Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth,
at the prompting of the Spirit and even
before the birth of her son, as “the mother
of my Lord” [Lk 1:43; Jn 2:1; 19:25; cf.
Mt 13:55; et al]. In fact, the one whom
she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit,
who truly became her Son according to
the flesh, was none other than the Father’s
eternal Son, the second person of the Holy
Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that
Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theo-tokos)
[Council of Ephesus (431): DS 251].

25
 Mary,
The Perpetual Virgin

The Definition

T he second dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary

defined by the Catholic Church is her perpet-
ual virginity. Many of the early Church Fathers,
which we will see shortly, without question, under-
stood and taught this dogma to be truth since the
early days of the Church. It was also affirmed by
papal and council documents.
The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
professes that she was a virgin before the birth of
Christ (ante partum), during the birth of Christ (in
partu), and after the birth of Christ (post partum).
This dogma was declared at the Lateran Synod in

27
AD 649 by Pope Saint Martin I. As an article of
the faith, the Holy Father professed, “The blessed
ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived,
without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without the
loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His
birth preserved her virginity inviolate.”

Virgin Before the Birth of Christ in

Sacred Scripture
The first segment of the dogma, Mary as vir-
gin before the birth of Christ, is clearly seen in the
Sacred Scriptures in two places. The first is in the
Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14, and the second place
is in a number of verses in the first chapter of the
Gospel of St. Luke.
Isaiah 7:14 states: “Therefore the Lord him-
self shall give you a sign. Behold a [“the” in some
translations] virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” In the
Hebrew language, the word virgin (the Hebrew
almah) can be translated into the word maiden
(unmarried woman) as well, but the term maiden
always has a virginal context to it. In the Septuagint

28
(Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word
parthenos can only mean virgin. In the end, the
words almah, virgin, and maiden overlap one an-
other in their meaning. The two important words
in this Scripture verse are bearing and conceiving
since they are the same words that St. Luke uses to
explain Mary’s virginity in his Gospel.
Although this Scripture passage from Isaiah is
fulfilled with the birth of Jesus Christ in chapter 1
of St. Matthew’s account, it is St. Luke’s account
that clearly defines for us the virgin bearing and
conceiving Emmanuel—“God with us”—with the
exchange of the Annunciation between Mary and
the angel Gabriel. Now let us examine the dialogue
of Scripture verses in the New Testament that
fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah: Luke 1:26–27, 31,
and 35.
Luke 1:26–27 says, “In the sixth month the an-
gel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee
named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man
whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and
the virgin’s name was Mary.” As the conversation
continues between Mary and Gabriel, the virginity
of Mary is confirmed again in Luke 1:31 as the angel

29
says, “You will conceive in your womb and bear a
Son.” Mary responds not with doubt but with per-
plexity since she does not fully understand how she
will conceive: “How will this be since I know not
man?” (Lk 1:34). To answer her, Gabriel then says,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power
of the Most High will overshadow you” (Lk 1:35).
Luke 1:35 means that Jesus’ conception within
the womb of Mary (different than “to receive in her
womb” or “to have in her womb” by way of a man
giving himself to the woman) was a supernatural
conception. This conception is the result of God’s
work within Mary through the Holy Spirit. It is
the same term used in Genesis 40:35 when Yahweh
“overshadowed” the tabernacle and God’s presence
was in Israel. Mary is the new tabernacle, the New
Ark of the Covenant, for in her womb is the pres-
ence of God.

Virgin Before the Birth of Christ in

Sacred Tradition
Now that we have seen the places in the Sacred
Scriptures where the virginity of Mary before the

30
birth of Christ is written, let us turn to Sacred
Tradition. The first source of Tradition that men-
tions Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ is
the Apostles’ Creed. We also find extensive writ-
ings by nearly every early Church Father about
Mary’s virginity. That’s how important this teach-
ing was to the early Church.
The Apostles’ Creed professes that Jesus Christ
was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the
Virgin Mary. Since it is one of the earliest creeds of
the Church, we can understand that the Apostles of
Jesus knew this to be true and even taught it orally
to the early Christians.
The second source of Tradition that focuses
on Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ is
the many writings of the early Church Fathers.
Although we could quote nearly all of the Fathers,
let us read the words of St. Hippolytus of Rome,
St. John Chrysostom, and Pope St. Leo the Great.
Focusing on the mystery of the Incarnation of
Jesus Christ, St. Hippolytus of Rome (early third cen-
tury) asks the Virgin Mary herself to shed light on it:

Tell me, O blessed Mary, whom did you

31
 conceive in your virginal womb? Yes, even
from the firstborn of God, who came down
from heaven into you and was formed,
the firstborn of man, in your womb, so
that the firstborn Word of God might
appear united with the firstborn of man.
(Eranistes, Dialogue 1)

Writing on the Old Testament Scripture verse

from Isaiah 7:14, in his Commentary on Isaiah (late
fourth to early fifth century), St. John Chrysostom says,

If she had not been a virgin, there would

have been no sign, since a sign has to be
something out of the ordinary and beyond
the laws of nature, something new and
unexpected, something that makes an im-
pression on those who see it and hear of
it. That is why it is called a sign, because
it stands out . . . therefore, in the begin-
ning of his speech, he did not say simply:
Behold, a virgin, but: Behold, the Virgin.
By adding the article, he indicates a unique
virgin, distinct from all the others.

32
 In number 22:2 of his Sermons, Pope St. Leo
the Great (mid fifth century) speaks about how
Christ’s nativity is unique when he says,

And by a new nativity [Christ] was begot-

ten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin,
without paternal desire, without injury to
the mother’s chastity. . . . The origin is dif-
ferent but the nature like: not by intercourse
with man but by the power of God was it
brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a
Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.

Paragraph 497 of the Catechism of the Catholic

Church states,

The gospel accounts understand the virginal

conception of Jesus as a divine work that
surpasses all human understanding and
possibility [cf. Mt 1:18–25; Lk 1:26–38]:
“That which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Spirit,” said the angel to Joseph about
Mary his fiancée [Mt 1:20]. The Church
sees there the fulfillment of the divine

33
 promise given through prophet Isaiah:
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son.” (Also see 496 and 498)

In the above Scripture reference to Matthew

1:20, the term translated as “fiancée” comes from
the original Latin sponsam, meaning wife, bride,
betrothed. Due to the inherent limitations of the
English language, and translations in general, an ex-
planation is in order regarding the use of the word
“fiancée.” Sponsam is the past participle of sponso (to
become betrothed/engaged to marry). In short, the
modern English word “betrothed” does not carry
the same definition that it did in the ancient Jewish
vocabulary and culture. As Pope St. John Paul II
explains in Redemptoris Custos 18: “According to
Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages:
first, the legal, or true marriage was celebrated [i.e.
“the betrothal”], and then, only after a certain pe-
riod of time, the husband brought the wife into his
own house. Thus, before he lived with Mary, Joseph
was already her ‘husband.’ . . . Addressing Joseph
through the words of the angel, God speaks to him
as the husband of the Virgin of Nazareth. What took

34
place in her through the power of the Holy Spirit
also confirmed in a special way the marriage bond
which already existed between Joseph and Mary.
God’s messenger was clear in what he said to Joseph:
‘Do not fear to take Mary your wife into your home.’”

Virgin During the Birth of Christ in

Sacred Scripture
The definition given to us by Pope St. Martin
I during this part of the dogma specifically speaks
about the event, the appointed time of history, where
the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ.
At this point, when heaven and earth unite at the
Nativity in Bethlehem, without removing Mary’s
physical virginity, Jesus left the womb of Mary.
Through the power of the Almighty God, Jesus
Christ exited the womb of Mary without physically
violating her seal of virginity (virginitas in partu).
As light passes through glass without damag-
ing the glass, so too did our Lord Jesus Christ pass
through the birth canal of his mother, the Virgin
Mary, without violating her perfect body. This act
by God reveals to the world that Mary’s virginity is

35
the perfect sign of her interior and exterior virgin-
ity, a pure body and soul. The Church has taught
this from its earliest centuries.
The second part of this dogma is in reference
to Mary’s physical virginity during the birth of
Christ. Before examining the references of Sacred
Tradition as we did with the first part of this dogma,
let us first examine the Sacred Scriptures yet again.
Like the first part of the dogma, the Scripture
verse that specifically speaks about Mary’s virgin-
ity is from Isaiah 7:14. This prophecy by one of the
major prophets in the Old Testament speaks of a
virgin not only conceiving a child, but also bearing
a son: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son.” Isaiah 7:14 not only speaks of the conception
by a virgin, but also speaks to the actual birth itself.

Virgin During the Birth of Christ in

Sacred Tradition
Since the Catholic Church teaches that Mary’s
virginity remained perfectly intact even during the
birth of Christ, let us briefly look at some of the early
Church Fathers who taught this doctrine from the

36
early centuries. For this section we will read from
St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Peter Chrysologus, and
St. John Damascus.
In a letter, St. Augustine writes about the su-
preme power of God and our lack of knowledge on
the virginal birth of Christ, stating:

That very greatness of His power, which

feels no narrowness in narrow quarters,
enriched the Virgin’s womb, not by an
externally caused but by an intrinsic child-
birth. . . . That same power brought forth
the body of the infant from the inviolate
virginal womb of the mother, as afterward
the Body of the Man penetrated closed
doors. . . . Let us grant that God can do
something which we confess we cannot
fathom. In such matters the whole expla-
nation of the deed is in the power of the
doer. (Letters [pre-AD 430], no. 317)

Speaking in a sermon about the difference be-

tween the virginal birth of Christ and the birth of
children through other women, “the golden-worded”

37
Church Father, St. Peter Chrysologus states,

Where are they who think that the Virgin’s

conception and giving birth to her child
are to be likened to those of other women?
For, this latter case is one of the earth, and
the Virgin’s is one from heaven. The one is
a case of divine power; the other of human
weakness . . . the blood was still, and the
flesh astonished; her members were put at
rest, and her entire womb was quiescent
during the visit of the Heavenly One. . . .
The Virgin conceives, the Virgin brings
forth her child, and she remains a virgin.
(Sermons [pre-AD 450], no. 117)

In his book, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (early

to mid-eighth century), an Eastern Church Father, St.
John Damascus, writes about Mary’s virginity being
intact before and during the birth of Christ:

But just as He who was conceived kept her

who conceived still virgin, in like manner
also He who was born preserved her virginity

38
 intact, only passing through her and keeping
her closed. . . . For it was not impossible for
Him to have come by this gate, without in-
juring her seal in any way. The ever-virgin
One thus remains even after the birth still
virgin, having never at any time up till death
consorted with a man. (Book 4, Chap. 14)

Over the course of the centuries, popes, ecu-

menical councils, and catechisms have continued to
have the same continuity of teaching we see with
the early Church Fathers on this part of the dogma.
Bl. Pius XII writes about the miraculous birth
of Jesus Christ in his encyclical Mystici Corporis
Christi, stating: “within her virginal womb Christ
our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of
the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him
forth as the source of all supernatural life.”
In chapter 8 in the Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church, Lumen Gentium, from the Second
Vatican Council, the Council Fathers professed,
“this union of the mother with the Son in the
work of salvation is made manifest from the time
of Christ’s virginal conception . . . then also at the

39
birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother’s
integrity but sanctified it ” (no. 57, emphasis added).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in
paragraph 499 professes, “The deepening of faith in
the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess
Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act
of giving birth to the Son of God made man [cf. DS
291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880].”

Virgin After the Birth of Christ in

Sacred Scripture
Now that we have examined the first two parts
of this dogma, the virginity of Mary before and
during the birth of Christ, let us turn to the final
and third part, the virginity of Mary after the birth
of Christ. This part of the dogma specifically speaks
of the earthly life of the Blessed Virgin where she
did not have any sexual relations with St. Joseph,
even following the birth of Jesus Christ.
Let’s first examine this teaching in the Sacred
Scriptures. One Scripture verse implicitly ref-
erences that Mary was a virgin after the birth of
Christ. In her amazement and awe she asks the

40
angel Gabriel this question: “How will this be since
I know not man?” (Lk 1:34).
We have a clear understanding that Mary is a
virgin from the words of Gabriel in Luke 1:26–27,
31, and 34. Questioning the Angel, Mary uses
the word “know” in reference to sexual relations.
The Greek translation of “I do not know man” is
referencing Mary’s virginal status rather than her
marital status. Mary is a virgin now and desires to
remain one in the future. She is also wondering how
God will bless her with a son while still remain-
ing a virgin. Mary’s betrothal to St. Joseph was a
marriage that was legally bound by Jewish law; her
only worry was that even in marriage she wanted to
remain a virgin. And, as we’ll see below, two early
Church Fathers believed that Mary took a lifelong
vow of virginity when she was a young girl.

Virgin After the Birth of Christ in

Sacred Tradition
Although this entire dogma was passionately
defended by many of the early Church Fathers
when non-believers denied this teaching, it was this

41
part of the dogma that was defended the most. The
reason why the Church Fathers fought so much for
this part is because for all eternity, Mary’s virgin-
ity would protect the divinity of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. She would safeguard the importance of the
Incarnation, and it would define her as the perfect
example of discipleship, selfless love, and immacu-
late model of the Church.
In Sacred Tradition, we read the robust words
of St. Ephraem, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and many
others who defended Mary’s virginity, but it was
specifically St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine
of Hippo who taught that Mary, as a young girl,
took a lifelong vow of virginity and would remain
faithful to keeping that vow with God.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (fourth century), the
Cappadocian Father and first to claim that Mary
took a vow of virginity, says,

What is Mary’s response? Listen to the

voice of the pure Virgin. The angel brings
the glad tidings of childbearing, but she is
concerned with virginity and holds that her
virginity should come before the angelic

42
 message. She does not refuse to believe the
angel; neither does she move away from
her convictions. She says: I have given up
any contact with man . . .
For if Joseph had taken her to be his
wife, for the purpose of having children,
why would she have wondered at the an-
nouncement of maternity, since she herself
would have accepted becoming a mother
according to law of nature?
But just as it was necessary to guard
the body consecrated to God as an un-
touched and holy offering, for this reason,
she states, even if you are an angel come
down from heaven and even if this phe-
nomenon is beyond man’s abilities, yet it is
impossible for me to know man. How shall
I become a mother without [knowing]
man? For though I consider Joseph to be
my husband, still I do not know man. (On
the Holy Generation of Christ, 5)

It wasn’t just the “eastern lung” of the Church

who believed Mary took a vow of virginity, but

43
we also read words from the western lung of the
Church, in the Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine. He
thinks that if Mary was going to lead a normal life
where she would give up her virginity to her hus-
band in marriage, the amazing question she asks
would have never entered her mind nor left her lips:

Because she had made a vow of virginity

and her husband did not have to be the thief
of her modesty instead of its guardian (and
yet her husband was not its guardian, since
it was God who guarded it; her husband
was only the witness of her virginal chas-
tity, so that her pregnancy would not be
considered the result of adultery), when the
angel brought her the news, she said: “How
can this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk
1:34). Had she intended to know man, she
would not have been amazed. Her amaze-
ment is a sign of the vow. (Sermons 225, 2)

Confirming the teaching of the Fif th Ecumenical

Council that took place in Constantinople in 553, also
known as the Second Council of Constantinople,

44
and Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council,
the Catechism states,

The deepening of faith in the virginal

motherhood led the Church to confess
Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in
the act of giving birth to the Son of God
made man [cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503;
571; 1880]. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not
diminish his mother’s virginal integrity
but sanctified it” [LG 57]. And so the
liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as
Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-Virgin” [cf. LG
52]. (499; see also 500–507)

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the

Blessed Virgin Mary is supported in both Sacred
Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Even the Protestant
Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin,
John Wesley, and Ulrich Zwingli believed in Mary’s
perpetual virginity. The individuals who denied it
were the same heretics who taught that Jesus was
not divine. The most famous are the followers of
Arius, known as Arians, and the Ebionites who

45
also claimed this false teaching, as do the rational-
ists of today.

The Three Most Common Objections

to Mary as Perpetual Virgin
Objection #1: The Brethren of the Lord.
Since there is no word in the ancient Hebrew
language for cousin, the term ah in Hebrew or adel-
phos in Greek are the terms used when a brother
relationship cannot be established. These two terms
can be translated into brother, cousin, near relative,
and kinsmen. In the Scriptures, the word “brother”
does not always mean two male siblings having the
same parents. In Genesis 13:8, Abraham refers to
Lot as his “brother,” but in regards to familial rela-
tionships Lot was his nephew. Similarly, we can say
to each other, “we brothers and sisters in Christ,”
although this does not imply that we are all blood
related. When Jesus asks who are His mother and
brothers [brethren] (Mt 12:46–50), He is speaking
in a spiritual sense, not a literal sense.
Furthermore, if Mary had other sons after
Jesus, it would have been the norm for them to have

46
taken custody and care of her after Jesus was cru-
cified on the Cross, not St. John the Apostle (Jn
19:26–27). Given the important role of family in
the Hebrew culture, it’s highly unlikely that our
Lord would have entrusted His mother to someone
not blood related.

Objection #2: Matthew 1:25—“Knew her not

until.”
In the original Greek, “until” is translated with
the term heos, which implies that sexual relations
between Joseph and Mary did not happen prior
(before Jesus’ birth) or thereafter (after Jesus’ birth).
This phrase is also translated as “to” or “till” to
show a point of time, without it changing in the fu-
ture. St. Matthew is making the point that Joseph
did not have anything do with Mary’s pregnancy
before the birth of Jesus. Simply because something
is said not to have occurred before a specific point
in time, does not necessarily mean that it occurred
after that point in time. It is not intended to say
anything about the future beyond that point. A
couple Scripture examples should suffice: In 2
Samuel 6:23, are we to understand that Michal had

47
children after she died? “And Michal the daugh-
ter of Saul had no child to [until] the day of her
death.” Or in 1 Timothy 4:13, are we to understand
that Timothy is to stop teaching after Paul arrives?
“Till [until] I come, attend to the public reading of
Scripture, to preaching, to teaching.”

Objection #3: Mary and Joseph are not truly

married.
The objection that Mary and Joseph were not
married is based on an erroneous idea of marriage
and canon law. The essence of marriage is the life-
time vow of fidelity to Christ. According to canon
law, consent (the vows) is what makes it a marriage.
The gift of body is the expression of the vow, but
not the essence of the vow. Mary and Joseph are
truly married because they give themselves as total
gift to one another, but not bodily. Over the cen-
turies the Church has allowed for certain spiritual
marriages; however, they are very rare. Even in the
Sacred Scriptures we have examples of couples re-
nouncing their marital relations at the request of
God (Ex 19:5; 1 Sam 21:5; 1 Cor 7:5).

48
 The Immaculate
Conception

Before the Papal Definition

W hile the dogma of the Immaculate

Conception was not solemnly declared un-
til the middle of the nineteenth century, it has been
a doctrine believed by the faithful of the Church
going back to the early Church Fathers. Although
theologians and even some of the doctors of the
Church, including St. Thomas Aquinas and St.
Bernard of Clairvaux, denied this teaching, it does
not take away from the beauty and theological
balance that this dogma brings to the life of the
Catholic Church.
In his work, On the Immaculate Conception,

49
published four years before the dogma would be
solemnly declared, the French Benedictine Dom
Prosper Guéranger states,

Thus, then, today we believe in Mary’s

Immaculate Conception because the
various methods of theology united to
demonstrate the truth towards which the
Catholic conviction already inclines itself.
. . . On the day when this truth is defined
as a dogma of faith we shall believe it
on the word of God transmitted by the
Church, and it would be then that, with
complete freedom, we would render Mary,
on this point, the highest honour it could
ever be in our power to offer her. (Chap. 7)

The Papal Definition

For many years the Church’s magisterium
discussed the points that some had against this
doctrine. After corresponding with the bishops of
the world, and with the great effort and works from
Bl. Dons Scotus (d. 1308), on December 8, 1854

50
Bl. Pope Pius IX declared in Ineffabilis Deus,

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we

unceasingly offered our private prayers as
well as the public prayers of the Church
to God the Father through his Son, that
he would deign to direct and strengthen
our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In like manner did we implore the help
of the entire heavenly host as we ardently
invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the
honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity,
for the glory and adornment of the Virgin
Mother of God, for the exaltation of the
Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance
of the Catholic religion, by the authority
of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:
We declare, pronounce, and define that
the doctrine which holds that the most
Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance
of her conception, by a singular grace
and privilege granted by Almighty God,

51
 in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
Savior of the human race, was preserved
free from all stain of original sin, is a doc-
trine revealed by God and therefore to be
believed firmly and constantly by all the
faithful. (Emphasis added)

In this statement from Pius IX, there are four

detailed points that are fundamental to under-
standing Mary’s Immaculate Conception: from the
very moment of her conception, in the womb of her
mother, Mary’s soul was created, and infused into
her own body. Her soul was then preserved from
the corruption of original sin, which allowed her to
enter the human race in a state of perfection, com-
plete with sanctifying grace.
With the fall of Adam and Eve, original sin en-
ters the world and becomes a generational sin for all
of humanity, except for the Virgin Mary. The sanc-
tifying grace that was intended for all souls, which
we don’t receive at our conception, was preserved
and given to Mary at her conception. For us, the
Sacrament of Baptism, given to us by Jesus Christ,
restores our life and fills us with God’s grace.

52
 According to Pius IX, the uniqueness of
Mary’s Immaculate Conception, given by God
to her alone, is “a singular privilege.” In order for
Mary to be the God-Bearer (Theotokos), she who
bore God Himself in her womb, she had to be free
from all sin and the effects of sin. Her perfected
nature also allowed her to give Jesus an immaculate
nature. Since God is perfect and without sin, He
needed a perfect and immaculate vessel to be born
into this world as man. That immaculate vessel
is Mary.

Three Primary Gifts Given to Mary

Since Mary does not have original sin, she
holds on to the natural gifts, the preternatural
gifts, and the supernatural gift given to Adam and
Eve by God. Where these gifts are imperfect for
us, since we are conceived with original sin, these
gifts remained perfect and complete with Mary.
The natural gifts are human intellect, will, body,
and soul. The preternatural gifts are integrity,
perfect harmony between emotion and reason; in-
fused knowledge, supernatural knowledge of God’s

53
providence, that is, seeing God’s hand at work in
life, history, the world; and natural immortality
of the body, no material corruption of the body at
death. The supernatural gift is sanctifying grace in
the original state of perfection.

Blessed Duns Scotus and

Preservative Redemption
Mary is conceived and receives sanctifying
grace in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ
on the Cross. Like all human beings, Mary needed
to be saved; however, she was saved in a higher
fashion than any other human being.
To answer the scholastic theologians of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, who had difficul-
ties understanding Mary’s Immaculate Conception
in light of Jesus Christ’s universal redemption as
written by St. Paul in Romans 5 (all humanity
must be saved because of original sin), Bl. Duns
Scotus developed the principle of “preserva-
tive redemption.”
Preservative redemption is the idea that Mary’s
Immaculate Conception, which kept her free from
54
original sin, was a gift from God that provided
graces from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the
Cross. Because of the merits performed by Jesus
on the Cross, Mary was saved and conceived with
sanctifying grace. Since God is outside of time, He
has the power to give the graces needed to redeem
one person in different points of history. This is
what God did for Mary at her conception.
Where our souls are tainted with original
sin at our conception, Mary, by her Immaculate
Conception, was preserved from receiving that sin
through the application of sanctifying grace given
by God through Jesus Christ on Golgotha. In real-
ity, Mary received a higher form of redemption from
her Son. Where we are redeemed after receiving
the sacramental grace of Baptism, Mary was saved
and redeemed at her conception before original sin
could affect her soul. It can be said that Mary owed
more to the redemption of Jesus Christ than anyone
else. As Mary stood at the Cross watching her Son
die, she received the merits of His actions at the
point of her conception before the effects of original
sin could occur.

55
 The Immaculate Conception in
Sacred Scripture
Now that we have a primary understanding of
the definition of the Immaculate Conception, let
us turn to understanding the scriptural teachings
of the dogma. There are two Scripture verses that
speak directly to Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
The primary verse is Genesis 3:15 and the second-
ary verse is Luke 1:28.
Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between
you and the woman, and between your seed and her
seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise
his heel.” In this Scripture verse, God is addressing
the serpent (nahash, the Hebrew term for dragon).
We read that there will be complete “enmity” or
separation between the serpent and the woman,
between the seed of the serpent and her seed. She
and her seed will crush the head of the serpent with
their heel.
To understand this passage a little better, the
serpent is Satan; the seed of the serpent is sin, fallen
humanity, and the fallen angels who chose to re-
ject God. The seed of the woman is Jesus Christ,

56
He who conquers all sin, and the woman is Mary.
We see this foreshadowed in Eve in Genesis 3:16.
On the first day of the disaster, we already see God
planning to redeem us. Genesis 3:15 is known as
the Protoevangelium (First Gospel). It is here, for
the first time, that we hear the Good News of
God’s saving power and redemption.
In his divine will, God gives Mary—as the
New Eve—complete separation (enmity) from the
woman (Eve) and Satan. Just as Jesus is completely
opposed to all sin, so does Mary receive that very
same opposition to Satan and all his evil wants.
With this enmity that she receives from God,
Mary never endures the effects of original sin. The
seed that the woman will give birth to in the fu-
ture will triumph over sin and death. This future
woman will be completely free from sin. She will
be “immaculate.”
The secondary verse of the Immaculate
Conception is Luke 1:28: “And he came to her and
said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.’” In
this passage we don’t see Mary’s name used, but in-
stead we see the angel address Mary with the title
“full of grace.” As it is in the Scriptures, a person’s

57
name is not just their identification, but it rep-
resents their mission to the world. Here, in Luke
1:28, it is no different with Mary. The term “full of
grace” speaks directly to the very nature and mis-
sion of Mary.
In God’s divine economy, it was planned that
Mary would be the Mother of God, but even before
that role is established we see the angel addressing
her as “full of grace.” This title speaks directly to her
immaculate nature that was given to her when she
was conceived in the womb of her mother. Without
a perfect nature, she would not have been able to
bring forth Jesus Christ untainted from her womb.
When speaking to Mary, the Angelic
Messenger uses the term and past participle, ke-
charit[ō]men[ē], “having-been-graced-one.” It is
stating the action was completed in the past but
with a relevance to the present, such as: you who
have been perfected in grace or you who have been
transformed in grace. It is an action completed in
the past but relevant to the present. The angel is us-
ing the term as a name for Mary and the event that
has happened to Mary in the past (her Immaculate
Conception). Pope St. John Paul II said that Mary

58
is full of Grace called upon to the mission of re-
demption. Where Eve brought death; Mary, the
New Eve, brings life.

The Immaculate Conception in

Sacred Tradition
As we have seen in the previous dogmas, from
the earliest days of the Church the Church Fathers
played an integral role in explaining Marian the-
ology. Throughout the writings of the Patristic
Fathers, we see them use a variety of terms to de-
scribe Mary’s immaculate nature: “purer than the
angels,” “all holy,” “most innocent,” “all together
without sin,” and others.
In showing Mary’s immaculate nature, the
Patristic Fathers also wrote on pinpointing the
differences between Eve and Mary (the New Eve).
All the faults that Eve possesses after the Fall are
redeemed with the New Eve. St. Irenaeus of Lyon
says, “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied
by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound
through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith”
(Against Heresies, 3, 22). Following along the

59
same theme, St. Jerome and others stated, “Death
through Eve, life through Mary.”
Writing on Christ’s perfect nature, which is
mirrored in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, St.
Ephraem the Deacon says, “Truly you, Lord, and
your mother are the only ones who are beautiful,
completely so in every respect; for, Lord, there is
no spot in you, nor any spot at all in your mother”
(Nisibene Hymns, 27).
Focusing on the theme of the New Eve and
how it relates to the Immaculate Conception,
the mid-fifth-century poet, Caelius Sedulius, in
his most famous text, Carmen Paschale (“Easter
Hymn”) writes,

Because of one woman, the deadly door

opened; And life returned, because of one
woman. . . . We are the blind offspring
of the children of pitiful Eve, Bringing
with us the shadows born of an age-old
error. But when God deigned to assume
the mortal form of a human nature, then
came forth from the Virgin a world of
Salvation. . .

60
 Citing the Second Vatican Council docu-
ment Lumen Gentium, and St. Paul’s Letter to the
Ephesians, the Catechism says the following about
the Immaculate Conception:

The “splendor of an entirely unique ho-

liness” by which Mary is “enriched from
the first instant of her conception” comes
wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in
a more exalted fashion, by reason of the
merits of her Son” [LG 53, 56]. The Father
blessed Mary more than any other created
person “in Christ with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places” and chose
her “in Christ before the foundation of
the world, to be holy and blameless before
him in love” [cf. Eph 1:3–4]. (492; see also
490–491 and 493)

61
 The Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin Mary
into Heaven

Before the Papal Definition

B efore Bl. Pope Pius XII solemnly declared (in

1950) the dogma of the Assumption of the
Virgin Mary into Heaven, he asked the bishops of
the Church two questions: first, is the Assumption
definable, and second, do you and your flocks desire
such a definition? From the 1,232 bishops asked,
1,210 responded overwhelmingly with an affirma-
tion of yes to both questions. It was the consensus of
the Church that this doctrine be solemnly defined.
From 1854, the year the Immaculate Concep-
tion was solemnly declared a dogma, to 1946,
the Vatican received over eight million petitions
63
from the universal Church asking for this dogma.
The Council Fathers of the First Vatican Council
(1869–1870) also signed a petition desiring
that the Assumption of Mary into Heaven be
declared dogmatic.

The Papal Definition

With the complete and total consensus of the
bishops in union with the lay faithful of the Church,
on December 1, 1950 Bl. Pope Pius XII spoke “ex
cathedra” (“from the chair”) declaring,

For which reason, after we have poured

forth prayers of supplication again and
again to God, and have invoked the light
of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of
Almighty God who has lavished his special
affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the
honor of her Son, the immortal King of the
Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for
the increase of the glory of that same august
Mother, and for the joy and exultation of
the entire Church; by the authority of our

64
 Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles
Peter and Paul, and by our own author-
ity, we pronounce, declare, and define it
to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the
Immaculate Mother of God, the ever
Virgin Mary, having completed the course
of her earthly life, was assumed body and
soul into heavenly glory. (Emphasis added)

In this declaration, Bl. Pope Pius XII focuses

on the Sacred Scriptures, with the primary
Scripture verse being Genesis 3:15, given to him
by the bishops of the Church as the main verse
confirming this teaching. The Holy Father also
draws on Sacred Tradition where we see Church
Fathers, beginning in the fifth and sixth centuries,
writing about Mary’s Assumption and celebrating
this common belief in the Eastern liturgies.
Furthermore, with the Assumption of Mary
into Heaven we see the conclusion of her earthly
life that began with her Immaculate Conception
and led to her being the Mother of God. The
Assumption of Mary is the clear natural effect of
the Immaculate Conception.

65
 The Assumption of Mary in
Sacred Scripture
Now that we have a primary understanding of
the definition of the Assumption of Mary, let us
turn our attention to understanding the scriptural
teachings of the dogma. There are two Scripture
verses that speak directly to Mary’s Assumption
into Heaven. Like the Immaculate Conception, the
primary verse is Genesis 3:15. In accordance with
this Scripture verse, we also have the writings of
St. Paul on sin. The secondary verse is Luke 1:28,
but also in accordance with this verse is Revelation
11:19 and 12:1.
In Genesis, Mary shares the same victory
over sin and death as does Jesus due to their mu-
tual enmity with Satan and sin. St. Paul addresses
this victory in Romans chapters 5–8, and again in
Hebrews 2:14: “Since therefore the children share
in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of
the same nature, that through death he might de-
stroy him who has the power of death, that is, the
devil.” The effects of the seed of Satan are sin and
death, therefore Mary had to triumph over sin and

66
death. Through the Immaculate Conception Mary
triumphs over sin and through the Assumption into
Heaven she triumphs over death.
The secondary verse supporting the Assumption
of Mary we have learned about already. Luke 1:28
says, “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with you.’” Being that Mary was
“full of grace,” the effects of sin would not taint her,
which would be bodily death. In union with Luke
1:28, we also have Revelation 11:19: “Then God’s
temple in heaven was opened and the ark of the cov-
enant was seen within his temple” and 12:1, “And
a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed
with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on
her head a crown of twelve stars.” In the heavenly
Jerusalem, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant
and the woman crowned and assumed.
There are other Scripture verses that give sup-
port to a potential bodily assumption. 1 Corinthians
15:23 states, “But each in his own order: Christ the
first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to
Christ” (emphasis added). “At his coming” is in
reference to when Christ will return and the bod-
ies of the saints will rise in glory. Matthew 27:52

67
says, “the tombs also were opened, and many bod-
ies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.”
Besides St. Matthew’s Gospel, there is nothing
written about this in secular history. Verified by
many (27:53), we don’t know who was raised, or
the length of time, or what their bodies appeared
like. Psalm 132:8 prophesies, “Arise, O Lord, out
of your resting place: you and the ark which you
have sanctified.”

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant

The ark of the covenant in the Old Testament
contained the Ten Commandments, a gold vessel
(similar to a ciborium) holding the manna that
fed the Israelites in the desert (read Ex 16:34),
and the staff of Aaron that blossomed (read Heb
9:4). The ark was the visible sign of God’s pres-
ence and protection among the sons and daughters
of Israel. A cloud, which also represented God’s
presence, would overshadow the ark. This cloud be-
came known as the shekinah, which means “Divine
Presence” or “Divine Glory.” At the Annunciation,
the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, the New Ark

68
of the Covenant, just as the shekinah overshadowed
the old ark of the covenant.
The New Testament is a covenant that is ever-
lasting between God and all of humanity through
the person of Jesus Christ. Mary, the God-Bearer
(Theotokos), becomes the sacred vessel, for she is im-
maculately created by God to carry God Himself in
the person of Jesus Christ. Just as the original ark
was layered with gold, a precious metal that does
not fade, so Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant,
through her Immaculate Conception would not
fade.
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the articles
that were placed in the ark of the covenant. He is
the New Law (Beatitudes) that fulfills the Old Law
(the Ten Commandments). He is the fulfillment of
the manna come down from heaven that fed the
Israelites. Jesus is the living bread come down from
heaven (see Jn 6:51) to feed all of us with his Holy
Eucharist (read Jn 6:22–71). He is the fulfillment of
the staff of Aaron, as Aaron was the first high priest
of the Levitical priesthood and Jesus is the eternal
and Royal High Priest.

69
 The Assumption of Mary in
Sacred Tradition
Even though the Assumption of Mary was
not declared dogmatic until 1950, recall that the
Church has held this teaching sacred from her ear-
liest centuries.
By the fifth and sixth centuries, the Eastern
rites of the Church developed liturgies to the
Blessed Virgin Mary celebrating her Assumption
in Egypt and Syria. In the middle of the fifth cen-
tury, the feast of the Anapausis (“fallen asleep) or
the Dormition of the Mother of God began to be
celebrated in a basilica near Jerusalem, specifically
Gethsemane, which tradition taught held her tomb
and final resting place. By the end of the sixth
century and reign of Emperor Maurice (AD 582–
602), this feast had spread throughout the Eastern
Empire and was to be celebrated on August 15.
After appearing in Egypt, the tradition of the
Dormition of Mary made its way to France in the
sixth century and was celebrated on January 18.
During the pontificate of Pope Sergius I in the
late seventh century, the Feast of the Dormition of

70
the Mother of God was commonly celebrated and
eventually became known in the West as the Feast
of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. By
the twelfth century, the doctrinal teaching of the
Assumption of Mary was accepted and celebrated
in the universal Church in both the East and West.
The writings of St. Gregory of Tours, St.
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and St.
John Damascene also wrote about the Assumption
(and Dormition) of Mary.
When speaking about Mary’s departure from
this earth in De Gloria Beatorum Martyrum (late
sixth century), St. Gregory of Tours says,

When finally the Blessed Virgin had ful-

filled the course of this life, and was now to
be called out of this world, all the apostles
were gathered together from each region
to her house . . . and behold the Lord
Jesus came with his angels and, receiving
her soul, entrusted it to the Archangel
Michael and departed. At the break of day
the apostles lifted the body with the couch
and laid in the sepulcher, and they guarded

71
 in awaiting the coming of the Lord. And
behold the Lord again stood by them, and
commanded that the holy body be taken up
and borne on a cloud into paradise, where
now, reunited with (her) soul and rejoicing
with the elect, it enjoys the good things of
eternity which shall never come to an end.

In Praise of the Holy and Venerable Falling-Asleep

of our Most Glorious Lady Mother of God Mary ever
Virgin (pre-AD 730), Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Germanus speaks about the appointed time of
Mary’s falling asleep:

When Christ had willed that His Mother,

she who had borne Life Itself within her,
should be taken upwards to Himself, He
tells her, by the message of an angel who
was already known to her, that the time of
her falling asleep is now at hand. And this
he did so that through the imitation of Her
coming death, she might not be troubled at
departure from the living; as will happen
to the rest of mortal men. For we know

72
 that the separation of the soul from the
body can bring distress to the spirit of even
strong men. Therefore, lest death, coming
unawares, should trouble the natural in-
stinct of the body, and so that His Mother
might know beforehand of her own depar-
ture, He Who knows all things sent an
angel to her, to give her strength of soul . . .

Speaking in his second homily of three given in

Jerusalem on the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin,
St. John Damascene says,

This day the Immaculate Virgin, unac-

quainted with early affections, and nurtured
on heavenly affections, has not returned to
earth; but, belonging truly to the life of
heaven, she has taken up abode in heav-
enly dwellings . . . it crossed over to it by
way of an earthly tomb. And first it was
taken through the midst of the city [by the
Apostles], like a bride in her beauty, but
she is adorned in the unapproachable radi-
ance of the Spirit, and thence it was born to

73
 that most holy place, Gethsemani, angels
overshadowing her with their wings, going
before and with her and following after,
together with the whole assembly of the
Church.

Paragraph 974 of the Catechism states, “The

Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her
earthly life was completed, was taken up body and
soul into the glory of heaven, where she already
shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, antici-
pating the resurrection of all members of his Body”
(see also 966).

Did Mary Die?

From what the early Church Fathers have
given us, now arises the question that has been de-
bated for centuries and is still debated today: Did
the Blessed Virgin Mary die? There are two posi-
tions on this question, one from the Mortalists and
the second from the Immortalists.1

1. The two terms were used by Dr. Mark Miravalle, professor

of Theology and Mariology, in the class Mary in the Modern World at
Franciscan University of Steubenville.
74
 The Mortalists position is that Mary experi-
enced a temporary separation of soul and body but
without bodily corruption. Her soul would have as-
sumed directly into heaven and her body remained
on earth for three days [like her Son]. Pope St. John
Paul II favored this position when he said, “The fact
that the Church proclaims Mary free from origi-
nal sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to
the conclusion that she also received physical im-
mortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son
who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and
changing it into a means of salvation.” If our Lord
endured death, then so did His mother.
The Eastern rites of the Catholic Church
(and the Orthodox churches) celebrate this as the
Dormitio or Dormition. When time had come for
the Theotokos to pass from this life to the next, the
Apostles, including St. Paul, traveled, gathered,
and briefly spent time with her. St. Thomas arrived
three days after Mary had fallen asleep (a term we
use when someone passes into death) and wanted
to see her. When the Apostles went to the tomb
where she was placed, they found that it was empty.
An angel of the Lord appeared to them saying

75
the Theotokos was assumed into heaven. By the
fourth century, the majority of the East celebrated
this feast.
The Immortalists position is that Mary with
body and soul intact was assumed into heaven.
Timothy of Jerusalem does not think Mary died
and argues by saying, “Wherefore the Virgin is
immortal up to now, because he who dwelt in her,
assumed her to the heavenly regions.”
Between the two positions, the position of
the Mortalists is the stronger theological position.
Most of the theologians and doctors of the Church,
from St. Augustine of Hippo to Venerable John
Cardinal Newman, conclude that Mary did suffer
death, but without bodily corruption. It was not a
painful death, as some have claimed that she was
martyred (Simeon’s prophecy), but as St. Francis
de Sales says, it was a death “due to a transport
of love.”

76
 Conclusion

T he four Marian dogmas should in no way take

away from our relationship with Jesus Christ.
Knowing these dogmas of the Virgin Mary will
only increase and strengthen our relationship with
our Lord each day. If you want to get to know a
person, spend time with his mother. This is exactly
what we need to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The more time we spend with her and learn about
her, the more we will come to know and love Jesus.
Don’t be afraid to study Mary! Having a relation-
ship with her will only improve our relationship
with Him.

77
78