Praises of the Virgin Mother by St Bernard : Homily II : §11-12/17

St Bernard, by Juan Correa de Vivar,
c. 1540-45. Museo del Prado.
(Public domain)

The following posts present the text of four homilies by St Bernard (1090-1153) frequently given the title of Missus est but which he himself called Praises of the Virgin Mother.

 

He was the first Cistercian monk to be placed on the calendar of saints and was canonized by Alexander III on the 18th January 1174. Pope Pius VIII bestowed on him the title of Doctor of the Church, “Doctor mellifluus,” on the 20th of August 1830. 

I offer this annotated presentation of St Bernard’s Homilies as a small gift to our gentle Queen and Mother in gratitude for her multitudinous graces and favours, requesting her continued help and protection for the author and his family.

The Latin text and references are based upon De laudibus Virginis Matris (Patrologia latina, vol. 183. J. P. Migne). The English text is based upon the version compiled and translated at St. Mary's Convent, York, and published by Washbourne in 1909.

Homily II : §11-12/17

 §11.   But let us see if Isaias, who explained earlier the new flowers on Aaron’s rod[1], has not also brought considerable light to bear on this “new thing” of Jeremias. He says[2]: 

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son.” 

Behold here the “woman” who is referred to as “a virgin.” Do you want to hear what is known about the “man”? “And his name shall be called Emmanuel,” that is, ‘God with us.’[3] Therefore the woman compassing a man is the Virgin who conceives the Son of God. 

The Annunciation, by Filippo Lippi (ca. 1443). Alte Pinakothek, Munich.

Public domain.

How stupendous is this one miracle wrought in and through the Virgin – a miracle which so many other miracles foreshadowed and so many oracles foretold. There was, of course, but one spirit of the Prophets and although they spoke in different ways, by different signs and at different times[4], it was the same thing that they – different individuals, yet not in a different spirit – both foresaw and foretold. That which was shown to Moses in the burning bush, to Aaron in the flowering rod, to Gideon in the fleece and dew, is clearly foretold by Solomon in the valiant woman and her price; more clearly by Jeremias in the woman compassing a man; and most clearly by Isaias in the Virgin and Emmanuel. In the end, however, it was Gabriel who offered his salutation to this same Virgin, for she is the one of whom the Evangelist says[5]: 

“The angel Gabriel was sent from God . . . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph.”

Footnotes

[1] Isaias xi. 1. See §11 above.

[2] Isaias. vii. 14.

[3] That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us: Matt. i. 22-23.

[4] God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets: Hebr. i. 1.

[5] Luke i. 26-27.

 §12.   “To a virgin espoused.” Why espoused[1] ? Since she was, I am saying, a chosen virgin – and, as has been shown, a virgin destined to conceive and to give birth – it is a cause for wonder that she was betrothed who was not destined to marry. Is it possible this happened by chance? It certainly did not happen by chance but rather it had a rational cause – a highly useful and necessary cause, and one entirely worthy of the divine plan. 

Marriage of the Virgin, by Giotto (1304-06).
Scrovegni Chapel, Padua. Public domain.

Here is it how it appears to me, or in fact how it appeared to Fathers before me. The reason for Mary’s betrothal corresponds to the reason for the doubts Thomas had[2]. It was in fact the custom among the Jews for brides to be entrusted to the care of their future husbands from the day of betrothal until the time of the nuptials. The intention was that, being faithful by reason of the betrothal, the more diligently they would preserve their chastity. By first doubting and later touching, Thomas became a most steadfast confessor of the Lord’s resurrection. In the same way, by betrothing Mary to himself and being diligently watchful over her during the time of their betrothal, Joseph became a most faithful witness to her chastity. They could indeed have ensnared us in a corresponding error – casting suspicion upon the truth regarding his fidelity and her chastity; but, quite the contrary, everything was done with great prudence and piety, so that instead of suspicion there might be firm certainty. For regarding the resurrection of the Son, I – weak as I am – would sooner believe Thomas who doubted and touched rather than Cephas who heard and believed. As for the Mother’s chastity, it was easier for her spouse – who was both guardian and witness – to vouch for it than the Virgin herself whose only defence was her own conscience. Tell me, I pray, who, upon seeing her pregnant but not betrothed, would not call her a fallen woman rather than a virgin? It was not fitting, however, for this to be said about the Mother of the Lord. It was, therefore, more tolerable and honourable to suppose that Christ was born within a marriage, even if only for a time, rather than through fornication.

Footnotes

[1] For a detailed discussion of questions relating to the meaning of espoused, see The Great Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide on Luke i. 18.

[2] Isaias xi. 1. See §11 above.

.  

+       +        +

The Virgin of Tenderness. >12th century.

SUB tuum præsidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genitrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Amen. 

 

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me shall not sin. They that explain me shall have life everlasting. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) xxiv. 30-31.30-31.