Praises of the Virgin Mother by St Bernard : Homily II : §14-15/17

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 : §14-15/17

 §14.   Why had he a mind to put her away? I give you on this point not my own opinion, but that of the Fathers. 

Lord, I am not worthy (Matt. viii. 8).

James Tissot (1886–1896). Brooklyn Museum, N.Y.

Joseph wished to put her away in the same way that Peter sought to distance himself from the Lord when he said[1]: 

“Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord;” 

and that of the Centurion when he exclaimed[2]: 

“Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof.” 

Joseph too, deeming himself unworthy and a sinner, felt that he ought no longer to share the intimate company of one so exalted – whose wondrous dignity, far surpassing his own, filled him with awe. He saw and trembled before someone bearing the most certain signs of the divine presence and, as he could not penetrate the mystery, he wished to put her away. Peter was struck with awe at the greatness of Christ’s power; and the Centurion by the majesty of His presence. Joseph too naturally recoiled as a man at the novelty of so great a matter and the depth of the mystery. For this reason, he wished to put her away privately. 

Do you marvel that Joseph deemed himself unworthy of the company of the pregnant Virgin when you hear that even the holy woman Elizabeth could not bear her presence except with trembling and reverence? For as she said[3]: 

“Whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” 

Accordingly, Joseph wanted to put her away, but why privately are not openly? Presumably so that the reason for the divorce would not be investigated, nor an explanation demanded. For what answer could a just man give to a stiff-necked people – a people who would not believe and would in fact reject his explanation? If he were to explain his thoughts and feelings – to declare what he had confirmed regarding her purity – would not the incredulous and cruel Jews immediately mock him and stone her? For why would they have believed the Truth who was silent in the womb, whom they later scorned when He spoke out in the Temple? What would they do – those who later laid impious hands even upon Him who shone with miracles – at this time when He had not yet revealed Himself? Rightly, therefore, the just man resolved to send her away secretly, so as not to be forced either to lie or to defame an innocent woman.

Footnotes

[1] Luke v. 8.

[2] Matt. viii. 8.

[3] Luke i. 43.

 §15.   If, however, anyone holds a different view, maintaining that Joseph did indeed doubt; that because he was a just man, he was unwilling to live with her due to the suspicious circumstances; but that, because he was devout, he did not wish to expose her to public disgrace, and therefore wanted to put her away privately – I answer briefly that even in this case, Joseph’s doubt was necessary and merited a divine message of reassurance.

The Dream of Saint Joseph, by Philippe de Champaigne
(1642-43). National Gallery London. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

For it is written[1]: 

“But while he thought on these things” (namely, that he should her away privately), “behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” 

For the above reasons, therefore, Mary was espoused to Joseph, or rather, according to the words of the Evangelist[2], “to a man whose name was Joseph.” He calls him a man, not because he was a married man, but because he was a man of virtue[3]. Or rather, because – according to another Evangelist[4] – he is called not simply “a man,” but “her man,” being deservedly given the title that is thought necessary. Therefore, Joseph had to be called her man (husband) because it was necessary for him to be considered such. In the same way, Joseph earned the right not indeed to be but to be called, and thus to be considered, the Saviour’s father, as the same Evangelist states[5]: 

“And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty, being—as was supposed—the son of Joseph.”

Thus he was in a sense neither the husband of the Mother nor the father of the Son although, as has been said, he was both called and considered to be so for a time by a certain and necessary dispensation 

Footnotes

[1] Matt. i. 20.

[2] Luke i. 27.

[3] virtue: the Latin text has virtus which echoes the references here to vir (“man”) and which also bears the sense of “manliness.”

[4] This is a reference to Matt. i. 19 where the Vulgate has vir eius / “her man,” translated in the Douay-Rheims text as “her husband.” 

[5] Luke iii. 23.

+       +        +

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.