Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/524

 vmciN

464 F

viftctm

Jerusalem (Anacreont., XX, 81-94, P.'G., LXXXVIl,

3822) Probatica, a name probably derived from the sanctuary's nearness to the pond called Probatica or Belhsaida in John, v, 2. It was here that Mary was born. About a century later, about a.d. 750, St. John Damascene (hom. I in Nativ. B. M. V., 6, II, P. G., CXVI, 670, 678) repeats the statement that Mary was born in the Probatica. It is said that, as early as in the fifth century, the empress Eudoxia built a church over the place where Mary was born, and where her parents lived in their old age. The present Church of St. Anna st ands at a distance of only about 100 feet from the pool Probatica. In 1889, 18 March, was discovered the crypt which encloses the supposed biu-ying-place of St. Aima. Probably this place was originally a garden in which both Joachim and Anna were laid to rest. At their time it was still outside of the city walls, about 400 feet north of the Temple. Another crypt near St. Anna's tomb is the supposed birthplace of the Blessed Vir- gin; hence it is that in early times the church was called St. Mary of the Nativity (cf. Gu^rin, J<^rusalem, Paris, 1889, pp. 284, 351-57, 430; Socin-Benzinger, Palastina und Syrien, Leipzig, 1891, p. 80; Revue biblique, 1893, pp. 245 sqq.; 1904, pp. 228 sqq.; Gariador, Les B^nedictins, I, Abbave de Ste-Anne, V, 1908, 49 sq.). In the Cedron Valley, near the road leading to the Church of the Assumption, is a little sanctuary containing two altars which are said to stand over the bm-ying-places of Sts. Joachim and Anna; but these graves belong to the time of the Crusades (cf. de Vogue, Les ^ghses de la Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1850, p. 310). In Sephoris too the Crusaders replaced by a large church an ancient sanctuary which stood over the legendary house of Sts. Joachim and Anna. After 1788 part of this church was restored by the Franciscan Fathers.

The Immaculate Conception of om- Blessed Lady has been treated in a special article. As to the place of the birth of Our Blessed Lady, there are three differ- ent traditions to be considered: First, the event has been placed in Bethlehem. This opinion rests on the authority of the following witnesses: it is expressed in a writing entitled "De nativ. S. Mariae" (2, 6, P. L., XXX, 298, 301) inserted after the works of St. Jerome; it is more or less vaguely supposed by the Pilgrim of Piacenza, erroneously called Antoninus Martvr, who WTote about A. l>. 580 (Itiner., 5, P. L., LXX'II, 901); finally, the popes Paul II (1471), Julius II (1507), Leo X (1519), Paul III (1535), Pius IV (1565), Sixtus V (1586), and Innocent XII (1698) in their Bulls concerning the Holy House of Loreto say that the Blessed Virgin was born, educated, and greeted by the angel in the Holy House. But these pontiffs hardly wish to decide an historical question; they merely express the opinion of their respective times. A second tradition places the birth of Our Blessed Lady in Sephoris, about three miles north of Bethlehem, the Roman Dioctesarea, and the resi- dence of Herod Antipas till late in the life of Oiu" Lord. The antiquity of this opinion may be inferred from the fact that under Constantine a church was erected in Sephoris to commemorate the residence of Joachim and Anna in that place (cf. Li^^vin de Hammo, Guide de la Terre-Sainte, Jerusalem, 1887, III, 183). St. Epiphanius speaks of this sanctuary (h!cr., XXX, iv, II, P. G., XLI, 410, 426). But this merely shows that Our Blessed Lady may have lived in Sephoris for a time with her parents, without forcing us to believe that she had been born there. The third tradition, that Mary was born in Jerusalem, is the most probable one. We have seen that it rests upon the testimony of St. Sophronius, St. John Damascene, and upon the evidence of the recent finds in the Probatica. The Feast of Our Lady's Nativity was not celebrated in Rome till toward the end of the seventh century; but two sermons found

among the writings of St. Andrew of Crete (d. 680) suppose the e.xistence of this feast, and lead one to suspect that it was introduced at an earlier date into some other churches (P. G., XCVII, 806). In 799 the 10th canon of the Synod of Salzburg prescribes four feasts in honor of the Mother of God: the Puri- fication, 2 Febr.; the Annunciation, 25 March; the Assumption, 15 Aug.; the Nativity, 8 Sept.

According to Ex., xii, 2, 12, all the Hebrew first-born male children had to be presented in the Temple. Such a law would lead pious Jewish parents to observe the same religious rite with regard to other favourite children. This inclines one to beheve that Joachim and Anna presented in the Temple their child, which they had obtained by their long, fervent prayers. As to Mary, St. Luke (i, 34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man". These words can hardly be under- stood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was be- trothed to St. Joseph (cf. Aug., de santa virginit., I, 4, P. L., XL, 398). The most opportune occasion for such a vow was her presentation in the Temple. As some of the Fathers admit that the faculties of St. John the Baptist were prematurely developed by a special intervention of God's power, we maj- admit a similar grace for the child of Joachim and Anna (cf. Luke, i, 41; Tertulhan, de carne Christi, 21, P. L., II, 788; St. Ambr., de fide, IV, 9, 113, P. L., XVI, 639; St. Cyril of Jerus., Catech., Ill, 6, P. G., XXXIII, 436). But what has been said does not exceed the certainty of antecedently probable pious conjectures. The consideration that Our Lord could not have re- fused His Blessed Motherany favours which depended merely on His munificence does not exceed the value of an a priori argument. Certainty in this ques- tion must depend on external testimony and the teaching of the Church. Now, the Protoevangelium of James, vii-viii, and the wTiting entitled "De nativit. Maria", vii-viii (Tischendorf, Evangeha apocrypha, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1876, pp. 14-17, 117- 179), state that Joachim and Anna, faithful to a vow they had made, presented the child Mary in the Tem- ple when she was three years old; that the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of virginity on this occasion. St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVII, 1137) and St. Germ, of Constantin. (P. G., XCVIII, 313) adopt this report; it is also followed by pseudo-Gregorv of Naz. in his "Christus patiens" (P. G., XXXVIII, 244). More- over, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Presen- tation, though it does not specify at what age the child Mary was presented in the Temple, when she made her vow of virginity, and what were the special natural and supernatural gifts with which God en- dowed her. The feast is mentioned for the first time in a document of Manuel Comnenus, in 1166; from Constantinople the feast must have been intro- duced into the western Church, where we find it at the papal court at Avignon in 1371; about a century later. Pope Sixtus IV introduced the Office of the Presentation, and in 1585 Pope Sixtus V extended the Feast of the Presentation to the whole Church.

The apocryphal writings to which we referred in the last paragraph state that Mary remained in the Temple after her presentation in order to be educated with other Jewish children. There she enjoyed ecstatic visions and daily visits of the holy angels. When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage. Mary reminded him of her vow of virginity, and in his embarrassment the high priest consulted the Lord. Then ho called all the young men of the family of David, and promised Mary in marriage to him whose rod should sprout and become the resting jjlace of the Holy Gliost in form of a dove. It was Joseph who was privileged