Of the Virgin-mother of our Redeemer, Mary, we have but little
information upon which we may rely, more than is related in the sacred
Scriptures. It is supposed that she died about the year 45 or 47, at Jerusalem.
Another opinion is, that she accompanied St. John to Ephesus, which could not
have been before the year fifty-six. (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, A
History of the Church, 4 vols. (trans. Edward Cox; London: C. Dolman,
1840], 1:31)
THE NEW DOGMA ABOUT MARY.
In comparison with the principles involved in sanctioning the
Syllabus, the new dogma proposed about Mary is harmless enough. No one indeed
can comprehend the urgent need for it only a few years after Pius IX has
solemnly proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a revealed truth. But there
never seems to be enough done for the glorification of Mary. It is worth while,
however, to take note of this second exhibition of the characteristic contempt
of the Jesuits for the tradition of the ancient Church.
Neither the New Testament nor the Patristic writings tell us anything
about the destiny of the Holy Virgin after the death of Christ. Two apocryphal
works of the fourth or fifth century—one ascribed to St. John, the other to Melito,
Bishop of Sardis—are the earliest authorities for the tradition about her
bodily assumption. It is contained also in the pseudo-Dionysius; he and Gregory
of Tours brought it into the Western Church. But centuries passed before it
found any recognition. Even the Martyrology of Usuard, used in the Roman Church
in the ninth century, confined itself to the statement that nothing was known
of the manner of the holy Virgin's death and the subsequent condition of her
body: "Plus eligebat sobrietas Ecclesiæ cum pietate nescire, quam aliquid
frivolum et apocryphum inde tenendo docere." If this floating tradition
too is made into a dogma under Jesuit inspiration, it may easily be foreseen
that the Order-lappétit vient en mangeant-will bestow many a jewel
hereafter on the dogma-thirsting world, out of the rich treasures of its
traditions and pet theological doctrines. There is, for instance, the doctrine
of Probabilism, which lies quite as near its heart as the Syllabus and Papal
Infallibility, and which has stood it in such excellent stead in practice. What
a glorious justification it would be for an Order which has been so widely
blamed, if the Council were to be so accommodating to set its seal to this
doctrine too as an article of faith!
We know that the Order expects another important service from the
Council, viz., that the gymnasia and schools of higher education should be
placed in its hands, as being specially called and fitted for the work, and
that the Bishops should engage, wherever they have the power to hand over these
establishments to the Fathers of the Society. It is therefore extremely
desirable, nay necessary, that that ever-gaping wound in the reputation of the
Order—its moral system—should be healed by a decree of the Council. (Johann
Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (using the pen name “Janus”), The Pope and the
Council [2d ed.; London: Rivingtons, 1869], 34-36)
