Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/532

 VIRGIN

470

VIRGIN

this answer at length, the cardinal continues: "As to the second objection which I have supposed, so far from allowing it, I consider that it is built upon a mere imaginary fact, and that the truth of the matter lies in the very contrary direction. The Virgin and Child is not a mere modern idea; on the contrary, it is represented again and again, as every visitor to Rome is aware, in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is there drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, she with hands extended in prayer, he with his hand in the attitude of blessing".

IV. Mary in the Early Chhisti.a.n Documents. — Thus far we have appealed to the writings or the re- mains of the early Christian era in as far as they explain or illustrate the teaching of the Old Testament or the New, concerning the Blessed Virgin. In the few following paragraphs we shall have to draw atten- tion to the fact that these same sources, to a certain extent, supplement the Scriptural doctrine. In this respect they are the basis of tradition; whether the evidence they supply suffices, in any given case, to guarantee their contents as a genuine part of Divine revelation, must be determined according to the ordi- nary scientific criteria followed by theologians. Without entering on these purely theological ques- tions, we shall present this traditional material, first, in as far as it throws Ught on the life of Mary after the day of Pentecost; secondly, in as far as it gives evi- dence of the early Christian attitude to the Mother of God.

V. Post-Pentecostal Life op Mary. — On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost had descended on Mary as He came on the Apostles and Disciples gathered together in the upper room at Jerusalem. No doubt, the words of St. John (xix, 27), "and from that hour the disciple took her to his own", refer not merely to the time between Easter and Pentecost, but they extend to the whole of Mary's later life. Still, the care of Mary did not interfere with John's Apostolic ministry. Even the inspired records (Acts, viii, 14-17; "Gal., i, 18-19; Acts, xxi, 18) show that the apostle was absent from Jerusalem on several occa- sions, though he must have taken part in the Council of Jerusalem, A. D. 51 or 52. We may also suppose that in Mary especially were verified the words of Acts, ii, 42: "And they were persevering in the doc- trine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers". Thus Mary was an example and a source of encouragement for the early Christian community. At the same time, it must be confessed that we do not possess any authentic documents bearing directly on Mary's post-Pentecostal life. As to tradition, there is some testimony for Mary's temporary residence in or near Ephesus, but the evidence for her permanent home in Jerusalem is much stronger.

Mary's Ephesian residence rests on the following evidence: (1) A passage in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus reads (Labbe, Collect. Concilior., Ill, 573): "Wherefore also Nestorius, the instigator of the impious heresy, when he had come to the city of the Ephesians, where John the Theologian and the Virgin Mother of God St. Mary, estranging him- self of his own accord from the gathering of the holy Fathers and Bishops ..." Since St. John had lived in Ephesus and had been buried there (Eu.sebius, Hist. Eccl., Ill, 31; V, 24, P. G., XX, 2S0, 493), it has been inferred that the ellipsis of the synodal letter means either, "where John . . . and the Virgin . . . Mary lived", or, "where John . . . and the Virgin . . . Mary lived and are buried". (2) Bar-Hebra-us or Abulpharagius, a Jacobite bishop of the thirteenth century, relates that St. John took the Ble.'^.'ied Virgin with him to Patinos, then founded the Church of Ephesus, and buried Mary no one knows where (cf. Asscmani, Biblioth. orient., Home, 1719-172S, III, 318). (3) Benedict XIV (do fest. D. N. J. C, I, vii,

101) states that Mary followed St. John to Ephesus and died there. He intended also to remove from the Breviary those lessons which mention Mary's death in Jerusalem, but died before carrying out his inten- tion (cf. Arnaldi, super transitu B. M. V., Genes 1879, I, c. I). (4) Mary's temporary residence and death in Ephesus are upheld by such WTiters as Tille- mont (M6m. pour servir a I'histoire eccl^s., I, 467- 471), Calmet (Diet, de la Bible, art. Jean, Marie, Paris, 184(5, II, 902; III, 975-976), etc. (5) In Panaghia Kapouli, on a hill about nine or ten miles distant from Ephesus, was discovered a house, or rather its remains, in which Mary is supposed to have lived. The house was found, as it had been sought, according to the indications given by Catharine Em- merich in her life of the Blessed Virgin.

On closer inspection these arguments for Mary's residence or burial in Ephesus ai-e not unanswerable.

(1) The elhpsis in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus may be filled out in such a way as not to imply the assumption that Our Blessed Lady either Uved or died in Ephesus. As there was in the city a double church dedicated to the Virgin Mary and to St. John, the incomplete clause of the synodal letter may be completed so as to read, "where John the Theologian and the Virgin . . . Mary have a sanc- tuary". This explanation of the ambiguous phrase is one of the two suggested in the margin in Labbe's Collect. Concil. (1. c.) (cf. Le Camus, Les sept Eglises de I'Apocalypse, Paris, 1896, 131-133. (2) The words of Bar-HebriEUS contain two inaccurate state- ments; for St. John did not found the Church of Ephesus, nor did he take Mary with him to Patmos. St. Paul founded the Ephesian Church, and Mary was dead before John's exile in Patmos. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the WTiter were WTong in what he says about Mary's burial. Besides, Bar-Hebra?us belongs to the thirteenth century; the eariier writers had been most anxious about the sacred places in Ephesus; they mention the tomb of St. John and of a daughter of Phihp (cf. Polyt rates, in Eusebius's Hist. Eccl., XIII, 31, P. G., XX. 280), but they say nothing about Mary's burying place. (3) As to Benedict XIV, this great pontiff is not so emphatic about Mary's death and burial in Ephesus, when he speaks about her Assumption in heaven. (4) Neither Bene- dict XIV nor the other authorities who uphold the Ephesian claims, advance any argument that has not been found inconclusive by other scientific students of this question. (5) The house found in Panaghia- Kapouli is of any weight only in so far as it is con- nected with the visions of Catharine Emmerich. Its distance from the city of Ephesus creates a presump- tion against its being the home of the Apostle St. John. The historical value of Catharine's visions is not universally admitted. Mgr. Timoni, Archbishop of Smyrna, writes concerning Panaghia-Kapouli: "Every one is entirely free to keep his personal opin- ion". Finally, the agreement of the condition of the ruined house in Panaghia-Kapouli with Catharine's description does not necessarily prove the truth of her statement as to the history of the building. In connexion with this controversy, see Le Camus, Les sept Eghses de TApocalypse, Paris, 1896, pp. 133-136; Nirschl, Das Grab der hi. Jungfrau Maria, Mainz, 1896; id.. Das Haus und Grab der hi. Jungfrau, Mainz, 1900; P. Barnab6, Le tombeau de la Sainte Vierge i Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 1903; Gabri(51ovich,Le tombeau de la Sainte Vierge i Ephcse, r^ponse au P. Barnab6, Paris, 1905.

Two considerations militate against a permanent residence of Our Lady in Jerusalem: first, it has al- ready been pointed out that St. John did not per- manently remain in the Holy City; secondly, the Jewish Christians are said to have left Jerusalem dur- ing the periods of Jewish per.^ecution (cf. Acts, viii, 1; xii, 1). But as St. John caimot be supposed to