ST. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY

“Ought I wear a golden diadem in a place where I behold Jesus Christ crowned with thorns" – St. Elizabeth of Hungary

St. Elizabeth of Hungary, also known as St. Elizabeth of Thurigia was born probably at Pressburg, Hungary in 1207. However Historians have disputed on the place of her birth. She came from a royal of King Andrew II, king of Hungary. Her descendants are also saintly. She is related to two saints namely St. Hedwig, sister of her mother and St. Elizabeth of Portugal, her great-niece.[1]

Her parents taught her works of mercy. They were a figure of great piety. At an early age, little Elizabeth had already exhibited such character. She had engaged herself naturally with delight in prayer, almsgiving, retirement, and recollectedness. Such character continued throughout her life.[2]

Her happy childhood was interrupted at an early age of four when she was arranged for marriage with young Louis or Ludwig (eleven years old), son of Count of Thuringia, one of the most powerful of the princes of Germany. Such marriage was arranged due to her heavenly characters that have reached the ears of the Count. The Landgrave or Count of this region was one of the richest and most influential sovereigns in Europe at the beginning of the 13th century and his castle was a centre of magnificence and culture. In order to solidify the arranged marriage, little Elizabeth was sent immediately to the Court of Thurigia.

Upon her arrival, which was greeted with festivity, she has remained to be faithful to her bethroned. Young as Elizabeth and Louis were, they were used to call each other as brother and sister even after their marriage.[3]

Her Father-in-law Landgrave Hermann, a true religious man, had a great smile whenever he sees Elizabeth practiced her works of mercy. Not all, however, were pleased with the works of mercy of Elizabeth. After three years since she arrived, Hermann died. Elizabeth’s sister-in-law, Agnes and Sophia, her mother-in-law became her crosses. Though, Louis succeeded his father, he was still dependent on her mother, Sophia. He was most of the time absent from the court, as a result Sophia and Agnes continued to torment Elizabeth.[4]

An example of an event of her persecution was during the festival of the Assumption. Elizabeth received an order to dress royally in attending the Mass with sumptuous robes and golden crown. Elizabeth obeyed. However, upon entering the Church, she removed her crown. Agnes noticed this act of Elizabeth and tried to stop her and asked her. Elizabeth with humility replied, “Madam, ought I wear a golden diadem in a place where I behold Jesus Christ crowned with thorns?”[5]

This event triggered more the persecution of Elizabeth from Agnes and Sophia. They even told her that she should not expect that Duke Louis will marry her. Agnes even insulted her more with the words, “you are not fit to be the wife of a prince.” Duke Louis, however, knew the sincerity of the love of Elizabeth comforted her secretly.[6]

After six years of marriage, her husband died in the Crusades, and Elizabeth was grief-stricken. Her husband’s family looked upon her as squandering the royal purse.  It was then alleged that Elizabeth had embarrassed the treasury by her almsgiving, that it was necessary to re-establish the exhausted finances, that Prince Hermann, son of the deceased Landgrave, was too young to take the reins of government, that some one capable of protecting the domains of the State should be selected, and they finally concluded that the only one fit for this important duty, was Henry, the uncle of Hermann.[7]

The aristocracy succeeded in winning the sympathies of the populace, and Henry, therefore, seized the reins of government. His first act was to expel Elizabeth from her palace, and his cruelty was so excessive, that he refused her the very necessaries of life. Furthermore, he forbade all persons inhabiting his cities, to receive or succor her. The princess suffered all this outrages and cruelties with admirable patience, and not a word of murmuring or repining ever fell from her lips.[8]

The Bishop of Bamberg, her uncle, presented her with a mansion situated near his palace. The prelate, thinking that a new alliance was the only means by which she might be enabled to recover her own and children’s rights, counselled her to marry again; but the Saint informed him, that after her husband’s decease she had made a vow to remain a widow for the rest of her life, and that her only desire was to consecrate the remainder of her days to God alone.[9] 


Elizabeth then related to the knights who had accompanied her husband’s mortal remains, the sad story of her sufferings. She besought them to plead her cause and that of her children, and to obtain justice for them and her from her brother-in-law.[10]

On their arrival in Thuringia, the nobles energetically reproached Prince Henry with the disloyalty of his conduct. “Remember,” said they to him, “that there is a God who sees all things. What crime has this woman committed? Is not the weakness of her sex quite enough to prevent her undertaking any emprise injurious to the State? Know you not that she is distinguished for her wonderful piety and many inestimable virtues? What have her children, your own blood, done to you? Ought not their age plead in their favor? You, who should have been their protector, have proved yourself their unrelenting enemy. Have you not violated all laws, human and divine?”[11]

The return of her husband’s allies from the Crusades resulted in her being reinstated, since her son was legal heir to the throne.[12] After being reinstalled to her proper place she continued her works of charity.  She founded a hospital in honor of St. Francis of Assisi at Marburg and donned the gray habit of the Franciscan tertiaries and devoted herself to the care of the sick.[13]

In November 1231 she was stricken with a high fever. When the news of her illness spread, may people flocked to see her. After about 10 days, she asked for the doors to be closed so that she might be alone with God. In the night of 17 November, she fell asleep gently in the Lord. The testimonies of her holiness were so many and such that after only four years Pope Gregory ix canonized her and, that same year, the beautiful church built in her honour at Marburg was consecrated.[14]

[1] Michael Bihl, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/05389A.HTM.

[2] ________, Patron Saints for Girls – The Life of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, Widow, http://catholicsaints.info/patron-saints-for-girls-the-life-of-saint-elizabeth-of-hungary-widow/.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Michael Bihl, St. Elizabeth of Hungary.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] ________, Patron Saints for Girls: The Life of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, Widow.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Enzo Lodi, Saints of the Roman Calendar including Feasts Proper to the English-speaking World, Translated and adapted by Jordan Aumann, OP (St. Pauls: Makati City, 2013), 375.

[14] Benedict XVI, General Audience, October 20, 2010: Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20101020.html.

JULY 25: FEAST OF ST. JAMES THE GREAT

Today, we celebrate the feast of St. James the Apostle. This feast has been celebrated in the West since eight century on July 25. But who is St. James? James was the son of Zebedee and Salome (Mk 15:40; Mt 27:59). He is the brother of John the Evangelist.

Among the important events in the history of James, he was the first apostle to shed blood for Christ. He was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I in the year 42 or 44, according to the Acts of the Apostles 12: 2-3.

James was one of the three privileged apostles, together with Peter and John. He witnessed the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mt 1: 29-31), the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5: 37-43), the transfiguration of Jesus (Mk 9: 2-8), and the agony in the Garden (Mt 26: 37).

Among the passages of the Sacred Scripture that gave a picture of James, the event of the two brothers asking for the seats, one at his right and the other at his left (Mk 10: 35-45); would be the most familiar. The lesson of this feast is like St. James, we sometimes ask of the Lord more than we are ready or worthy to receive. We must become as little children and accept from the hands of our heavenly Father whatever he deigns to give us.

Let us try to look back in our life. How often do we pray and ask God for many things? Most of us would say always. Have we ever thought that He knows what we need? Have we ever considered that instead of asking, he just wants us to talk to him and be with him? This is our task today. Pray not asking things but pray to talk to Jesus and just be with Jesus.

MARY: A GENTLE HEART

One of the many well-known passages pointing towards Mary is the line that says, “…Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart.” We can find this passage in the Gospel of Luke (2:19). This passage is in the context of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the same passage being used during the Solemnity of Mary as the Mother of God, which is being celebrated every January 1 of the year.

Let us begin to reflect on the passage with the question on why it is the passage being used during the solemnity? The passage is being used maybe with pure reflection that this capitulates a characteristic of a mother. All of us have mothers. Our mothers gave birth to us. One of the many characteristics of a mother is their heart. We may describe a mother as someone who uses more of her heart rather than her mind.

When a child is injured his or her mother usually asked, “is it painful? Are you alright?” A mother tries to know the condition of her child. She tries to feel the emotion of her child. Analysis of what happened only comes later. A mother forgets none of the things, which occur, involving her child. Everything a mother does or experiences – everything that is said of her, is treasured up in her mind.  A mother often thinks of those things, and anxiously seeks what the event may indicate respecting the future character and welfare of her child. That is why we could consider this as maybe one of the many reasons why the passage is being used during the solemnity.

Now let us try to look at the passage carefully. To start with we ask ourselves, what did Mary keep in her heart? Mary must have remembered all that happened: the cold journey, the faith and trust of Joseph, the place where they stayed, the first cry of the Jesus, the gross smell of the manger and the many unexpected visitors. All these things are some of what she kept in her heart.

Mary did not only treasure these events and details but rather she also tries to reflect on them. Mary reflects on everything that happens. She patiently connects all them and waits for the unfolding plan of God for her. She accepts things as they are and ponders on them in the silence of her heart. Her attitude allows God to take control of her very life. With love, she follows God’s will and God’s plan.

Mary reflected these things in silence. She remained quite and reflected. Mary stayed calm. Despite of the many things that happened to her so far, she kept her tranquility. She did not complain. She did not ask more questions. She was silent. It was not because she did not know what to do. It was not because she did not know what to say. It was not because she cannot accept what was happening. It was because she understands what she needed to do and that is to remain at peace.

Heart is what Mary used. She did not only think about the things that were happening. Mary did not only memorize them. She used her heart. We can equate the heart as to that of emotion.

Mary used her heart not without a reason. She did not only memorize what was happening because all these things are in the hand of God. She knew that her rational mind could not comprehend the events that are taking place. I once heard a person that says, “If your mind cannot comprehend something, use your heart.”

Mary also used her heart to sing praises to God. She knew that what the shepherds were saying were praises not for herself but to God. She praised God with her heart.

What then can we learn from this passage that points toward Mary? First, Mary is a model for reflecting. She studies them, ponders them and stores them in the silence of her heart. Mary teaches us how to reflect.

As theologians, we are called to reflect. We now ask ourselves, what are we reflecting about? We have lives, responsibilities, problems and so on. Yet, is this what we should be reflecting? What do we do in reflecting? Do we just merely sit and wait until an idea pops out from our mind? Do we talk until a good concept comes out from our mouth? What do we do in reflecting?

We cannot deny the fact that we are do the things asked above when we are reflecting. We forget to acknowledge the important elements in reflecting. Mary showed us.

Mary is showed us that we must reflect in silence. Silence does not necessarily means quietness in the surrounding. One can remain in silence even when his or her neighbor is playing loud music. Silence is an internal preparation. We are asked to be in silence when we reflect. Mary showed us that we do not need to talk when reflect. We just have to remain silent.

Mary also demonstrated to us that when we are reflecting we must use our heart. One of the key elements that we forget is the usage of heart. Sometimes, we have the tendency to use more of the mind than the heart. We think that reflecting is done using our mind but Mary has presented to us if we really want to reflect we need to use our heart.

Mary is truly a model, a model not only for mothers but also to all of us. Her exemplar life is full of demonstration of we should do. Mary not only in words but also in deeds showed us how we should live. As children of God, Mary showed us the value of reflecting in silence and with our heart.

Mary truly reflected the plan of God to her. She reflected them with her heart in silence. We then ask ourselves, how do we reflect? Do we reflect in silence with our Heart like Mary?

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Introduction

The Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity are two of the Dogmas dedicated to Mary. As a Catholic, one cannot overlook the Marian thread of our belief. We learned the traditional devotions to Mary in our own family such as the Holy Rosary and the Novena to our Lady of Perpetual Help. Mary has been the woman whom many of the books in the Scripture mentioned. She had been introduced in the early part of the Sacred Scripture. She comes into the story of the fall, as the woman whom Satan cannot degrade, as the inevitable mother he cannot prevent.[1] To the end, the Blessed Mother remains a scriptural favorite. As such, Mary invites recurrent attention. We then try to look at the historical development of the two dogmas on Mary.

I. Dogma on the Immaculate Conception of Mary

We now have the December 8 dedicated to the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. But how did the dogma on the Immaculate Conception developed?

Eastern and Western Tradition:

As early as the Seventh Century A.D, the Eastern Church observed the feast of the Immaculate Conception.[2] According to J.D. Crichton, there had been an existence of a certain feast regarding the conception of Mary even before the feast on the Immaculate Conception was celebrated.[3]

There was a feast of the Conception of Mary long before there was a feast of the Immaculate Conception. Furthermore, Crichton said that such feast was based on the Proto-Evangelium of James, which is considered as an apocryphal gospel.[4]

Crichton elaborated that this feast was focused on St. Anne of Mary.[5] He cited some Byzantine preachers like Andrew of Crete and Epiphanius who asserted such feast. These teachings of the byzantine, according to him, are still vague.[6]

The West only embraced such feast on the Immaculate Conception centuries later than the East.[7] However, there had already been some individuals who advocated on the purity of Mary. We will discuss some of them on the next topic.

Theological Arguments and the Immaculate Conception

Historically the first and greatest difficulty to the progress and understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been the universal law of Original Sin, by which all Adam’s descendants by way of natural propagation as such, are thereby constituted sinners.

Even before the presentation of Augustine on his concept of Universality of Original Sin, there had been some contentions by Church Fathers regarding Mary’s status as purely conceived. In the East, Origen, presented by Kathleen Coyle, “did not believe Mary to be without fault.”[8] Athanasius followed such line of thinking. According to Coyle, “Athanasius ... presented Mary as a model of holiness, but one whose good works were not perfect.”[9]

Such a concept was also present in the West before Augustine. We have the likes of Tertullian and Irenaeus who argued regarding the sinlessness of Mary. Colye, citing Irenaeus, “(He) did not consider Mary free from all human fault.”[10]

After Augustine’s presentation on his concept of Original Sin, many of the Church Fathers followed his line of thinking just like St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure. They, presented by H. Holstein, believed that “Mary inherited the legacy of Adam and contracted Original Sin. But she was sanctified in her mother’s womb.”[11]

On the other hand, there were also Church Fathers and theologians who believed that Mary is immaculately conceived. An example is St. Ambrose. According to Mark Miravalle, a professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, St. Ambrose “refers to the Blessed Virgin as ‘free from all stain of sin.’”[12]

After some centuries, a disciple of St. Anselm by the name of Eadmer of Canterbury contented on the possibility of Mary’s purity from Original Sin. He said, cited by Coyle, “‘God certainly could do it; if therefore he willed it, he did it,’ (Potuit, decuit, fecit: it was possible, it was fitting, therefore, it was done).”[13] Coyle, furthermore, explained that such maxim was considered undefined by many theologians.[14]

In the Thirteenth Century A.D., a Franciscan Theologian named John Duns Scotus provided a solution.[15] He gave a theological key to understand the mystery, affirming that Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of Christ. According to Coyle:

(John Scotus) He developed the idea of preservative redemption as being a more perfect one: to have been preserved free from original sin was a greater grace than to be set free from sin. Scotus pointed out that not only is prevention better than cure, but that all cure aspires to being prevention. He considered original sin a lack, a privation in our human nature, and he believed that this privation did not exist for Mary because a redemption that preserves from sin is more perfect than one that frees from sin. The very purpose of Christ’ coming was to bring us the fullness of life. In Mary’s case this redemption was anticipatory. Scotus showed that even in a fallen world, a human being conceived through sexual union could be created sinless and this possibility had been realized in Mary. The debated did not end with Scotus, but his position solved the principal Christological objection.[16]

From these concepts of different Church Fathers and theologians contributed to the development of the dogma. Such conflicts of ideas were also discussed in some Council, which will be discussed on the next topic.

Council of Basel and Council of Trent regarding The Immaculate Conception

There were two important councils that tackled the doctrine on the Immaculate Conception. The first council is the Council of Basel. A book entitled, The Christian Faith cited one of the sessions of the Council of Basel that touched on the Immaculate Conception. It said:

The doctrine asserts that the glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God, through the working of a singular prevenient grace of the divine power was never subject to original sin and was always immune from original and actual sin, holy and immaculate, is a pious doctrine which accords with the liturgy of the Church, with the Catholic faith, with sound reasoning and Holy Scripture; we define that it is to be approved by all Catholics and that from now on no one should be allowed to preach or teach the contrary.[17]

The Council defined the Immaculate Conception. However many, just like the Dominicans, did not accept such definition. According to The Christian Faith, “(the) … session of the Council of Basel, however, took place at a time when the Council was no longer in communion with the Pope and, therefore, its decrees were not held as binding.”[18]

The Council of Trent has already proclaimed that Mary should be sinless during her birth even before the dogma proclaimed by Pius IX. The Council, quoted by Peter Brookby, said, “If anyone says that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema.”[19] Though indirectly pronouncing the immaculate conception of Mary, the Council of Trent at the very least recognized that Mary received a special privilege from God.

Pope Sixtus IV and the Immaculate Conception

Pope Sixtus IV is a Franciscan Pope. During his time the Dominicans rejected the doctrine on the Immaculate Conception while the Franciscans have accepted it.[20] He approved, according to J.D. Crichton, the feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1476, which was added in the calendar of the church in Rome.[21]

Pope Sixtus IV said, “We deem indeed only fitting that all the faithful in Christ should give thanks and praise to Almighty God for the marvelous Conception of the Immaculate Virgin, should celebrate and take part in the Masses and other Offices appointed for that purpose, and also strive to gain indulgences and the remission of their sins.”[22]

He did not only establish the feast of the Immaculate Conception but he made a strong statement for those who criticize it. According to The Christian faith, “(Pope Sixtus IV) forbade anyone to censure those who celebrated the feast and held the Immaculate Conception as doctrine of faith.“[23]

Paul V, Gregory XV, Alexander VII, and the Immaculate Conception

After Sixtus IV, there were also popes who stressed the importance of the Immaculate Conception. There arose a teaching of Michael de Bay and the Jansenists regarding the “fundamental sinfulness of the human will” which they viewed that Mary is not exception to such concept.[24]  This teaching was condemned in the bull “Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus in 1567.[25]

Like Sixtus IV, Pope Paul V, in 1617, also banned those who proclaim their refusal on the Immaculate Conception.[26] After some years in 1622, the proscription was broadened under the papacy of Gregory XV.[27] And in 1661, Pope Alexander VII clarified and guarded the doctrine on Immaculate Conception.[28]

Pope Pius IX and the Immaculate Conception

The sense of the faithful, the liturgy and theology finally received the confirmation of the Magisterium of the Church which, following situations of different kinds, arrives at the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX on December 8, 1854, with the Papal Bull “Ineffabilis Deus.”[29]

What is this dogma all about? Pope Pius IX, cited by Mark Miravalle, in the Ineffabilis Deus said;

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, was preserved immune from all stain of sin, by a singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was revealed by God and must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.[30]

This means that the dogma explains the total immunization of Mary from sin due to the exceptional grace bestowed by God to her. Mary is preserved from original sin, beginning with the moment of her conception.

II. Dogma on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The Church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the second dogma attributed to her. This dogma teaches that Mary was virgin before conception, that she was a virgin during birth, and that she remained a virgin after giving birth.[31]

Protoevangelium of James and Perpetual Virginity

In the year between 150 and 200 A.D., there was an account entitled the Protoevangelium of James that had been written. It spoke of Joseph as the husband of Mary. The account described him as “old and a widower with several children.” This account, as cited by Anthony Bruno, implies that the idea in Mary’s perpetual virginity was by now prevalent and it challenges the claim on the idea regarding “brothers of Jesus.”[32]

Church Fathers and the Perpetual Virginity

Many of the Church Fathers professed that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin. However on the other two characteristics of the perpetual virginity, they have different views. Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, expressly states belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. In the words of Luigi Gambero, “Origen not only has no doubts but seems directly to imply that this is a truth already recognized as an integral part of the deposit of faith.”[33] Furthermore, Origen cannot recognize that Mary gave birth to other children because he believes that “Jesus is the beginning of chastity for men, Mary of chastity for women.”[34]

Other Church Fathers adhere to the perpetual virginity of Mary.  Reference can be found in the writings of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine.[35] Furthermore, Tertullian, while holding that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, denied that her virginity was preserved in his birth, thus emphasizing the reality of her son's body.[36]

Zeno of Verona, around 350-370 A.D. affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. He, cited by J. Laurenceau, said, “How great a Mystery! The Virgin Mary conceived inviolate. After the conception, a virgin gave birth. After the birth, a virgin she remained.”[37]

In providing the appropriateness of Mary’s virginity, St. Bede the Venerable, quoted by Buono, stated, “It is indeed fitting in every respect that when God decided to become incarnate for the sake of the whole human race none but a virgin should be his mother, and that, since a virgin was privileged to bring him into the world, she should bear no other son but God.”[38]

Church Councils and the Perpetual Virginity

The official proclamation was not made until the Lateran Synod of 649 AD, under the direction of Pope Martin I.[39] Pope Martin I, cited by Mark Miravalle, said:

The blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate.[40]

Many Popes and different Councils of the Church have made proclamations regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Some of them talked about the virginity during the birth of Jesus. Some of these Popes and Councils are St. Leo the Great in his Papal proclamation Tome to Flavian, Pope Paul VI in his Papal constitution Cum quorumdam hominum, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical regarding the Mystical Body of Jesus as a testimony to the marvelous birth of Jesus, and the Second Vatican Council which confirms the virginity of Mary before and during the birth of Jesus.[41]

One of the Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council, the Lumen Gentium, qouted by Miravalle, said:

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 birth of our Lord, who did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it…(n. 57)[42]

Many Popes and Councils did not only affirm the virginal birth but also defended the virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus. Some of these Popes and Councils are Pope Siricius who defended the virginity of Mary against Bishop Bonosus, St. Leo the Great, Pope Paul IV who reprimanded those who would reject the Virginity of Mary, the Fifth General Council at Constantinople that which allowed the title, “Perpetual Virginity,” to be attributed to Mary, the Second Vatican Council to which it honoured Mary as the “glorious ever Virgin Mary.”[43]

Protestants and the Perpetual Virginity

It is astonishing to know that even the leading Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century affirmed and proclaimed Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Mark Luther, quoted by Miravalle, for example said, “Mary realized she was the mother of the Son of God, and she did not desire to become the mother of the son of man, but to remain in this divine gift.”[44]

Luther was not alone. His fellow reformists like Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Wesley supported him.[45]

Conclusion

What the Church teaches about Mary is what we hope for ourselves. Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Perpetual Virginity are not some outdated mythological notion but rather fundamental to the life of Jesus and to the life of the Church. What the Catholic faith believes about Mary, including her Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity, is based on what it believes about Christ.[46]

We then invite you to pray two prayers that are dedicated to the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. May her example always be a shining instrument for us to be nearer to her Son, Jesus Christ.

Prayer to Mary the Virgin[47]

O Virgin Mary,

who are flooded with the purest joy

in the presence of the Divine Word made Man

from your most pure flesh

and nourished in your virginal womb,

grant that we may imitate on earth

your purity that was resplendent

in the Mystery of the Annunciation

and your love of the newly born Jesus.

Like you, may we make it our increasing aim

ever to seek Jesus during life

so that we may love God

with all our heart, soul, and strength

and be completely dedicated to him

both in this world and in the next.

Prayer to the Immaculate Conception[48]

Mary, Virgin most pure,

your greatness began

at the first instant of your existence

with the privilege of your Immaculate Conception.

It was fitting that you should be adorned

with the greatest purity ever possible to a creature.

You are the Immaculate Virgin

to whom God the Father decreed

to give his only Son.

You are the Immaculate Virgin

whom God the Son himself chose to make his Mother.

You are the Immaculate Virgin

whom the Holy Spirit willed to make his Bride

and in whom he would work the tremendous miracle

of the Incarnation.

Help me to imitate your sinlessness

by keeping my soul free from willful sin

through the faithful observance of God’s commandments.

Let me imitate your fullness of grace

by frequent reception of Communion

and assiduous prayer –

which will make my soul holy

and give me the grace and need to practice virtue.

Transform me into a living image of Jesus

 just as you were.

[1] Cf. Genesis 2: 15.

[2] H. Holstein, “Immaculate Conception,” Trans. Anthony Buono, Dictionary of Mary (New Jersey, Catholic Book Publishing, 1997), 191.

[3] J.D. Crichton, Our lady in the liturgy (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 64.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7]  H. Holstein, Immaculate Conception, 191.

[8] Kathleen Coyle, Mary, So Full of God, Yet So Much Ours (Manila: Logos Publications, 2010), 100.

[9] Ibid., 101.

[10] Ibid.

[11] H. Holstein, “Immaculate Conception,” 192.

[12] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary the Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion Third Edition (United States of America: Queenship Publishing, 2006), 67.

[13] K. Coyle, Mary, So Full of God, Yet So Much Ours, 101.

[14] Ibid.

[15] H. Holstein, “Immaculate Conception,” 192.

[16] K. Coyle, Mary, So Full of God, Yet So Much Ours, 102.

[17] J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church fifth revised and enlarged edition (New York:  Alba House, 1990), 216.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Peter Brookby, ed., Virgin Wholly Marvelous Praises of Our Lady from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and Doctors of the Church (Cambridge: The Ravengate Press, 1981), 43.

[20] J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith, 216.

[21] J.D. Crichton, Our lady in the liturgy, 65.

[22] Peter Brookby, ed., Virgin Wholly Marvelous, 42.

[23] J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith, 216.

[24] Ibid., 218.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Anthony Buono, The Greatest Marian Titles Their History, Meaning, and Usage (Makati City: St. Pauls, 2008), 85.

[27] Ibid.

[28] J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith, 218.

[29] K. Coyle, Mary, So Full of God, Yet So Much Ours, 103.

[30] M. Miravalle, Introduction to Mary, 69.

[31] Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, Trans., Bernard Kelly (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, 1993), 107.

[32] A. Buono, The Greatest Marian Titles, 94.

[33] L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, trans. T. Buffer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1991), 75.

[34] A. Buono, The Greatest Marian Titles, 95.

[35] J. Laurenceau, “Virginity, Perpetual,” Trans. Anthony Buono, Dictionary of Mary (New Jersey, Catholic Book Publishing, 1997), 487.

[36] Ibid., 486.

[37] A. Buono, The Greatest Marian Titles, 95.

[38] Ibid., 96.

[39] Ibid., 56.

[40] Ibid.

[41] M. Miravalle, Introduction to Mary, 58-59.

[42] Ibid., 59.

[43] Ibid., 60.

[44] Ibid., 61.

[45] Ibid.

[46] See Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 487.

[47] A. Buono, The Greatest Marian Titles, 100.

[48] Ibid., 87.