Sermon on St. Joseph

by St. Bernardine of Siena O.F.M.Obs., 1380-1444

translated from Latin by

Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., S.T.L.

with introduction and notes

first published in

The Round Table of Franciscan Research

Vol. 9 (March 1944) 164-177

republished as a pamphlet in 1947

in the Little Guild Classics series by

St. Anthony Guild, Paterson, New Jersey

digitized by

St. Conrad Archives Center, Denver CO

for the Year of St. Joseph, 2021

St. Bernardine’s Sermon on St. Joseph

Paging through the third volume of St. Bernardine of Siena’s Opera Omnia, one is

apt to pass by unnoticed his “Sermo de S. Joseph.” There are no elegant borders

around the sermon to set it off from its companions. And yet this sermon on the

foster-father of Jesus ranks among Bernardine’s greatest, both in it beauty of

thought and style, and in the remarkable influence it has exerted on subsequent

preachers and writers. That is the reason why its translation into English is here

undertaken, with the addition of critical notes.

To those who know St. Bernardine only as the “Pillar of the Observance,” “Apostle

of Italy,” and “Herald of the Holy Name,” it may come as a surprise to learn that

he occupies an exalted position in the history of devotion to St. Joseph. Perhaps

some brief notes on that history may help to make the fact clearer.

Though devotion to St. Joseph was observed in the Eastern Church from early

times, especially among the Copts, the Church in the West up to the fifteenth

century did not practice any extensive public devotion to the Saint. Bernardine

cites two reasons for this: the fact that Joseph belonged to the Old Testament, and

the fear entertained by the early Fathers that heretics might misinterpret such

devotion. There were other reasons also. In the early Church, it was the martyrs

who were venerated. And if for the most part the Father restricted their words on

St. Joseph to an exegesis of those parts of the Scripture where Joseph is mentioned,

this is also due to the fact that they understood the old feasts of Christ’s Nativity,

Circumcision, Presentation, etc., as being common to all three members of the

Holy Family.

It was the Carmelites who brought the cultus from the East to the West. Giants of

spirituality like the Benedictine Rupert von Deutz, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo

of St. Victor and others, wrote on St. Joseph sporadically but beautifully. However,

it remained for Gerson, the Chancellor of the University of Paris, Isidore Isolanus

the Dominican, and Bernardine of Siena the Franciscan really to initiate, in the

beginning of the fifteenth century, that great tide of devotion to Joseph which since

then has swept over the Catholic world.1

Bernardine of Siena set the pace for his Franciscan confreres. The one sermon he

wrote on St. Joseph, embodying all the richness of devotion which had marked his

preaching to the people, formed the well of doctrine to which those other two

Bernardines – of Feltre and of Busti – had recourse, and which they in turn passed

on to the Order as a glorious heritage.

As will be seen, St. Bernardine’s sermon on St. Joseph is not entirely original. It

has the full splendor of tradition. It rests on Scripture. It appeals to the Fathers

interpreting Scripture. The much-quoted Bernardine did not hesitate, in turn, to

borrow the best where he found it. But the whole sermon is shot through with that

ardor and devotion peculiar to Bernardine, which shines forth in so many of his

sermons even though they were intended to serve as a textbook for preaching

material and not to be delivered as they stood.

When St. Bernardine wrote his sermon he wrote with authority, and that authority

has been recognized. The Church takes the second Nocturn lessons for the feast of

the Solemnity of St. Joseph and for the first day within the octave, from

Bernardine’s sermon. Father Joseph Bover, S.J., in the latest postulatum seeking

the Church’s sanction on the cult of protodulia for St. Joseph, uses more quotations

from St. Bernardine of Siena than from any other ecclesiastical writer to bolster up

the theological foundations of the request.2 Indeed, there are not many articles

written on St. Joseph which do not appeal to the authority of St. Bernadine.

The following translation of the sermon, as it is found in Bernardine’s Opera

Omnia,3 was made after careful comparison with another text of the sermon given

by the Capuchin Cardinal Vivès y Tuto.4 The critical notes are intended as an aid to

1 For a further history of the devotion, cf. Joseph Seitz, Die Verehrung des hl. Joseph, Freiburg, Herder, 1908, passim; Hugh Blunt, “Give This Man Place” (The Sign, X [1930-30], pp. 615-16, 665-68); Placidus Pütz, O.F.M., ”Der Anteil des Franziskanerorders an der St. Josephverehrung in der vortridentinischen Zeit” (Franziskanische Studien, XIII [1921], pp. 298.303). 2 De Cultu S. Josephi Amplificando, Barcelona, Subirana, 1926. On this same question, cf. Isaie de Castel S. Pietro, “Du Droit de Saint Joseph au Culte de Protodulie” (Etudes Franciscaines, XLVII [1935], pp. 129-42, 257-70). 3 Sancti Bernardini Senesis Opera Quae Extant Omnia, Venetiis apud Juntas, 1591, III, “Sermon de Sancto Joseph Sponsi B. Virginis,” pp. 456-63. 4 Summa Josephina, Romae, Typo. Pontif. Instit. Pii IX, 1907, Lib. I, pp. 1-9. This book is a treasury of all the best that has been written on St. Joseph throughout the ages by doctors and ascetical and poetical writers of the Church. St. Bernadine’s sermon, given in full (with the omission of chapter headings), was probably taken by Cardinal Vivès from the la Hayes’ edition of Bernardine’s Opera Omnia. On the whole, there are only minor differences between the two texts.

the appreciation of Bernardine’s work. Bernardine, who had written so beautiful on

the Holy Name of Jesus and the great privileges of Mary, could not pass over in

silence the sublime prerogatives of the third member of the Holy Family. So, he

wrote as follows:

===========================================================

SERMON ON ST. JOSEPH

SPOUSE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN

“Enter thou, good and faithful servant, into the joy of thy Master” (Matthew 25

[23]). As a general rule covering all special graces communicated to rational

creatures, when Divine Providence selects someone for some singular grace or to

some sublime state, It furnishes the person so chosen and his office with all the

charismata which are necessary, and adorns him abundantly.5 This is evident in the

Fathers of the Old Testament, in Moses, Josue, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David,

Solomon, and so on with the other prophets. It is clear also from the New

Testament, in the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles, Evangelists, Doctors, and in

founders of Orders. Thus we find it in the whole course of the Old and New

Testaments.

This fact is verified to the highest degree in St. Joseph, the foster-father of our

Lord Jesus Christ and true spouse of the Queen of the world and of Angels, who

was chosen by the Eternal Father as faithful provider and guardian of His dearest

treasures, His Son and Joseph’s spouse—which duty Joseph fulfilled most

faithfully.6 Therefore the Lord spoke as above: “Good servant, etc.”7 These sacred

words describe a triple state of this most holy man The first is that of nature: “good

servant”; the second, that of grace: “and faithful”; the third, that of glory: “Enter

into the joy of thy Master.” The first explains the nobility of Joseph’s generation,

the second the graciousness of his intimacy, the third the sublimity of his

glorification.

5 Bover, De Cultu, p. 40, quotes this passage as the first principle of the high grade of sanctity which Joseph attained. – Bernardine developed this principle as found in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, III, q. 27, a. 4. Responsio, where Thomas applies it to Mary. In a critical note to his edition of Traité des mystères du très Glorieux Saint Joseph, Toulouse, Bureaux d’Orient, 1925, p. 12, note 3, Pere Michel-Ange, O.F.M.Cap., attributes the theological principal almost word for word to Hubert of Casale and a treatise on the Virgin by Bartholomew of Pisa. 6 Bover, ibid., strengthens the above quotation with this sentence. 7 Bernardine’s words thus far comprise Lesson 4 for the feast of the Solemnity of St. Joseph.

ARTICLE ONE

The Nobility of St. Joseph According to the Flesh

We will first describe the state of nature of this most holy man in which we find

expressed the nobility of his generation; for the Lord said: “good servant” –

namely, of noble nature, given to you by Me. For Joseph was born of the stock of

patriarchs, kings and princes according to the direct line of natural nobility. T

undersand this, we might consider the natural dignity of three persons: Joseph’s

spouse, Joseph himself, and Christ.

Chapter 1 – The nobility of the Blessed Virgin according to the flesh

In the first place, let us consider the nobility of the Virgin. The Blessed Virgin was

a more noble creature than all who have had a human nature, or who may yet exist,

or who could have been generated. For Matthew chapter 1), putting down three

groups of fourteen generations from Abraham to Christ inclusively, describes Mary

as born of fourteen patriarchs, fourteen kings and fourteen princes, according to the

way certain experts number and distinguish the text in question from St. Matthew.8

Luke also, describing Mary’s nobility in his third chapter, begins from Adam and

Eve and draws out her genealogy to the God-Man.

It is also evident that our Lord Jesus Christ, Who in heaven was without mother, on

earth without father, received from the Virgin His whole humanity and the dignity

which follows on that humanity, namely, that of relationship, that He might be

called the Son of David; and that of consanguinity, such as brothers are said to

receive from noble parentage. All this He received from His Blessed Mother. This

too, the last Prince, last King and last Patriarch of the whole people of Israel had

from no other source than through the Blessed Virgin, that thus it might clearly

shine forth how every corporal nobility conceded to the human race in Adam was

given by the Lord principally that it might descend through many generations to

the Blessed Virgin, and that through her it might terminate in Christ, the Blessed

Son of God.

8 Cf. the commentary of Fr. Mark Kennedy, O.F.M., on Mathew 1 (A Commentary on the New Testament, Catholic Biblical Association, 1942, pp. 32-34).

Chapter 2 – The nobility of Joseph according to the flesh

Secondly, we should consider the nobility of Mary’s husband, St. Joseph. For he

was the progeny of a patriarchal, regal and princely stock according to the direct

line, as we have already pointed out, since Matthew (chapter 1) gives the direct

line of all the aforementioned fathers from Abraham down to the Virgin’s spouse.

From this it is evident that the dignity of the patriarchs, kings and princes

terminated in Joseph.

But, if one should ask; Since the genealogy of Joseph does not seem to have

affected the genealogy of Christ except in some accidental way, why does Matthew

give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary?, three reasons can be brought forth

in answer. He did so, first, because it was the custom; secondly, on account of the

relationship; thirdly, on account of the union.

In the first place, it was customary; that is, Matthew followed the practice of the

Hebrews and of Sacred Scripture which never computed the genealogy of anyone

through the women or mothers, but through the men or fathers, Yet this reason,

independently of the next, is insufficient.

In the second place, Matthew did so because of the relationship. For the Blessed

Virgin and Joseph were of the same tribe and relationship. This can be proved in a

threefold way. First, both Joseph and Christ are said to have come from the root of

David, by the angel (Matthew [Luke] 2) and by the Apostles and Evangelists in

very many places. Then, according to the law, women, especially heiresses as was

the Virgin, were not supposed to marry anyone but those of their own tribe and

family and relationship in the closest licit degree. Such is evident from Numbers

36 [6-10] concerning the daughters of Salphat. Since Joseph therefore was a just

man, as Matthew 2 [1,19] testifies, had the Virgin not been from his tribe he would

by no means have married her. Lastly, the pair are considered and described in

Bethlehem as naturally born from one root (Luke 2 [3-4]. This is according to St.

Jerome, Matthew 2 [?], and Nicholas of Lyra.9

In the third place, Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary because

of the union between them, and to recommend the mystery of the marriage of the

Virgin and her spouse during which Christ was born. Christ namely Who was of

such a union that because of it Joseph was rightly call and in a certain measure

truly was the father of Jesus Christ. And this is the reason why Augustine (Book 2

9 St. Jerome, Commentarium in Evang. Matt., Lib. 1, cap. 2 (Patrologia Latina [PL]. [ed. Migne], XXVI, col. 24).

of the Consensus of the Gospels10 and Book [1] on Marriage and Concupiscence,

chapter 4),11 also says that all the good of marriage were fulfilled in these parents

of Christ: fidelity, offspring, and the sacrament; fidelity because there was no

adultery, offspring because of our Lord Jesus Christ, the sacrament because there

was no divorce between them.

Chapter 3 – The nobility of Jesus Christ, which He had

in a certain measure from each parent

Thirdly, let us consider the nobility of Christ. As is evident from the foregoing, He

was Patriarch, King and Prince through both parents, because He received as much

from His Mother as others receive from father and mother, since He took so much

from the substance of His Mother. Furthermore, in Romans 1 [3] the Apostle says:

“Who was born to Him according to the flesh of the offspring of David.” Luke also

(chapter 3), describing Christ’s nobility, beginning from Adam and Eve and

extends the genealogy right up to the Christ of the Lord. The patriarch Jacob

foretold this progeny (Genesis 49 [8]) when he said: “The sons of thy father shall

bow down to thee.” For adoration is due to Divinity. And he continues in the same

place: “The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, etc.” From the above it is

plain that the Evangelists describe the nobility of Mary and Joseph in order to

express Christ’s nobility. Joseph therefore was of such great dignity that in a

certain measure, if I may speak thus, he gave temporal nobility to God in our Lord

Jesus Christ.

ARTICLE TWO

The Triple Grace Given by God the Father to St. Joseph

Secondly, we describe the state of grace of this holy man Joseph, in which is

expressed the graciousness of intimacy. For the Lord adds: “and faithful” – that is,

in the grace given by Me to you. God gave Joseph a triple grace: that of virginal

intimacy, of divine intimacy, and of special intimacy.

10 Cap. 1 (PL, XXXIV, col. 1071). 11 De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis, Lib. 1, cap. 11 (not 4) (PL XLIV, col. 421). – Augustine, and later St. Bernardine calls the union of Mary and Joseph a “sacrament” (sacramentum). Since the Sacrament of Matrimony had not yet been instituted, Augustine probabLy refers to the marriage bond, as such. This would seem to be borne out by his own explanation of the term sacramentum: “because there was no divorce between them.”

Chapter 1 – With what great sanctity the

Blessed Joseph dwelt together with the Virgin,

and what great perfection he acquired

The first grace divinely given to him was intimacy with the Virgin. With regard to

the Virgin, it was necessary that her spouse should have been of admirable grace

and virtue particularly in three respects: in respect to matrimonial union,

continuous life in common, and diligent administration, since Joseph, above every

pure creature, had a relation to Mary of unity, familiarity and deference.

Joseph had unity relative to the matrimonial union, for between them existed the

truest marriage contracted by divine inspiration,12 and marriage effects such a

union of souls that husband and wife are called one person. Thus marriage can

indeed be called the greatest unity, according to Genesis 2 [24] “And they shall be

two in one flesh.” How can a prudent mind think that the Holy Ghost would unite

with such a Virgin, by such a union, any soul other than that which was similar to

hers in the performance of virtue? Hence I believe that this holy man Joseph was

most pure in his virginity, most profound in humility, most ardent in charity and

the love of God, most exalted in contemplation, most solicitous for the welfare of

his spouse the Virgin.13

Because the Virgin knew the greatness of this matrimonial union in spiritual love,

and knew that Joseph was given her by the Holy Ghost as spouse and faithful

custodian of her virginity, and to participate with her in the love of charity and in

deferential solicitude for the Most Divine Son of God: therefore I believe that she

loved Joseph most sincerely with the affection of her whole heart.14

Furthermore, since the Most Blessed Virgin can obtain so much for wicked sinners

and for the enemies of her Son, what great blessings must she not have obtained

for this most loving and solicitous foster-father, spouse of her modesty, and purest

lover? Then, since everything which belongs to a wife belongs to her husband, I

believe that the Most Blessed Virgin most liberally presented Joseph with the

whole treasure of her heart insofar as he was able to receive it.

12 Bover, De Cultu, p. 13, quotes this in support of the fact that Joseph was the true spouse of the Mother of God. 13 Where the Summa Jos. Has “sollicitissimus illius Virginis Sponsae suae,” The Opera Omnia reads “sollicitissimum pro omni salute ad similitudinem illius Virginis sponsae suae.” This is the only difference between the two texts which really amounts to anything. The others are mostly typographical errors. 14 Bover, De Cultu, p. 44, quotes this paragraph to support his fourth principle underlying the highest degree of Joseph’s sanctity. – This and the preceding paragraph constitute Lesson 4 for the second day with the octave of the Solemnity of St. Joseph.

But one may ask: Why, when the Blessed Virgin was espoused to Joseph, and was

already dwelling in his house, according to St. Chrysostom,15 did not Joseph

approach her to know her carnally? To this we may answer, with Nicholas of Lyra,

that it was the custom of the just not to perfect the sacrament by carnal copulation

until they had first given themselves to prayer and devotion for some time, that

they might implore the Divine Mercy, as appears in Tobias (chapter 6). And then it

is believed, the Virgin’s intention of remaining a virgin was revealed to Joseph; for

although she might be induced to contract matrimony according to the custom then

in vogue, as we have seen in article 1, chapter 1 [i.e., 2], nevertheless, despite the

fact that she was a virgin in desire and intention, she had not taken a vow

publicly.16

Therefore, Mary entered matrimony, surrendering herself to the divine good

pleasure. It is believed that Joseph knew by divine revelation the holy intention of

the Virgin and that then, by mutual consent, he took the vow of chastity.17 It is

further believed that Joseph had preserved holy chastity up to that time. The reason

is that since Christ in His Passion gave the custody of His Mother only into the

hands of a virgin, it is unbelievable that before the conception, when Mary was still

a young girl, she should be entrusted to one who was not a virgin.

When Jerome says, against Evodius,18 that Joseph himself was a virgin, so that

through Mary a Virgin Son might be born of virgin wedlock. And he also gives a

reason, saying: “For if fornication did not taint this holy man, and it is not recorded

that he had another wife, it remains that he dwelt with Mary as a virgin, and had

earned the title of the father of the Lord.” Again, Chrysostom says in his fifth

homily on Matthew:19 “For Joseph was such a friend of virtue and void of passion

that when prompted by suspicion he, who had also pondered the Law, did not

desire to punish the Virgin as having indeed transgressed the Law for the sake of

pleasure. For to put her away, and secretly, shows that he pondered the Law.”

15 Hom. 4 in Matt. (Patrologia Graeca [PG], [ed.VII, col. 42). 16 Compare this with present-day exegesis of Luke 1:34: “The common interpretation among exegetes of the Church today seems to be that the text ‘I do not know the man’ proves at least a resolution of perpetual virginity” (John Collins, S.J., “Our Lady’s Vow of Virginity (Luke 1:34)” in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, V [1943], [. 380). 17 It was the common consent of the fathers and scholastic doctors that St. Joseph observed perpetual virginity. Cf.Summa Jos., Cap. IX, nn. 144 ff., for pertinent quotations from Sts. Jerome and Augustine, Ven. Bede, Rupertus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Peter Damian, etc. 18 Liber de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae (PL, XXIII, col. 213). 19 The quotation in substance is found in the fourth homily (PG, LVII, col. 55).

Then Joseph enjoyed familiarity because of the continuous life in common. To

understand this it must be remembered that, the aforesaid vow having already been

taken, the Angel Gabriel visited Mary unknown to Joseph and she was made

pregnant by the Holy Ghost, as Luke says (chapter 1 [35]. And Mary immediately

went to the hill country,20 that is, to Jerusalem, that she might visit her relative

Elizabeth and serve her in her pregnancy; but more, that the Precursor of her Son

might be sanctified by His presence, and that John might be caressed, washed, and

have his necessities attended to by her hands. After three months, the Precursor

having already been born, Mary returned to her house. In the meantime, Joseph

wondered at the swelling womb of the Virgin and suffered vehement suspicions.

We might ask, however, whether Joseph believed that the Virgin had been

pregnant through adultery. In answering this we find, as it were, three contrary

opinions among the Saints and Doctors.21 Chrysostom 22 and Augustine23 hold that

Joseph did believe it. Three reasons impel them to believe this. First, a natural

reason: Joseph necessarily had to believe it according to nature’s course. Secondly,

there are the words of Matthew, in chapter 1 [18-19], where he says” “When

Mary…had been betrothed. etc.,” up to “and not wishing to expose her to

reproach”, that is, according to Catho, to make public, bring to light, what had

occurred in secret. It follows that “Joseph…was minded to put her away privately.”

But it is plain that, had Joseph known of Mary’s conception by divine power, it

would not have been just on his part to have deprived her of his deference and

comfort. Thirdly, there are the words of the angel as we read in Matthew 1 [20]:

“But while he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to

him in a dream saying, ‘[Do not be afraid.] Joseph, son of David, etc.’” Now an

angel could not have spoken thus if Joseph, believing this beforehand, for that

same reason wished to dismiss Mary.

In the second opinion, Origen24 and others25 maintain that Joseph believed Mary

had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that because of his great reverence he 20 It is disputed whether or not Joseph accompanied Mary on her visitation. Gerson and Isidore Isolanus are of one mind with Bernardine in the matter, and a long line of subsequent writers follow this opinion. Cf. Summa Jos., Cap. XVII, nn. 291 ff. Others deny that Joseph went with Mary to visit Elisabeth. Cornelius à Lapide, Toletus, Beda Seeauer. Cf. the latter’s sermon on this particular point, in which he gives the reasons advanced by both sides. 2121 Following Bernardine, Joannis de Carthagena also discusses these three opinions; cf. Summa Jos., Lib. I, nn. 525 ff. Chrysostom 22 Homilia 4 in Matt. (PG LVII, col. 44). But Chrysostom seems rather to have followed the third opinion on this matter; cf, the discusson of his words in the sermon of Denis Carthusian, Summa Jos., Lib. III, n. 2370. 23 Sermo CXCL de Annuntiatione III, Pseudo-Augustine (PL, XXXIX, Appendix coll. 2108-09); Sermo 51, cap. VI (PL, XXXVIII, col. 338). 24 In Matt., cap. 1; cf. the text in the sermon of Joannis de Cartagena, Summa Jos., Lib II, n. 738. 25 E.g., St. Basil (Hom 25) and Bernard (Hom. 2 super Missus est), Cardinal Hugo, Salmeron, etc. Cf. the sermon of Virgilius Seldmayr, Summa Jos., Lib. III, nn. 1942 ff.

wanted to depart from her; like Peter when he said to the Lord (Luke 5 [8]):

“Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”; and like the centurion when he

said (Matthew 8 [8]): “Lord, I am not worthy, etc.” These Fathers are moved by

the very patent evidence of the Virgin’s supreme sanctity and uprightness, and by

the great sobriety and correctness of judgment of Joseph himself. We too, seeing

some saint like Paul, or Francis doing or saying a thing which in the ordinary run

of affairs may be unbecoming did not immediately pass judgment upon him.

Rather we consider such a judgment irreverent or temerarious. Yet it is evident that

the Blessed Virgin was above all other saints, and could not hide such sanctity

from Joseph.

Furthermore, if from the circumstance of pregnancy, it were possible to argue for

the opposite view, so can we argue for this view from all the other circumstances

taken together. It is clear that there can be found in Mary no other sign supporting

an unfavorable opinion; rather, every indication points clearly to the contrary. For

Mary was never vain, nor dissolute and flighty, nor inanely exuberant; but with her

whole strength and in every way she fled the company of men, their talk, looks,

sensual desires. She was austere toward herself, most fervent in praising and

entreating God, of stable, serene and mature countenance, most truthful and noble

in her every word, and in her every action recollected, most religious and devout.

The third question holds that Joseph, beset by both thoughts and having reasons for

each, did not give simple credence to either, but remained with his mind stunned

and in suspense.26 For on the one side there was the very strong argument of

nature, though this would not be known to him except by the external swelling of

the womb or other similar signs.27 On the other side, there was all that he had seen

and heard from the very start of the Virgin’s sanctity, and those things which he

had received and enjoyed by special experience, just as holy people also

experience and enjoy the life of the saints with whom they live. And as those

holding the opinion say, this was the greatest reason why Joseph did not wish to

expose her publicly. Therefore, by reason of his uncertainty with regard to either

side of the matter, he wished to put her away secretly, since the facts were

unknown to him and transcended his judgment; his action can be explained as

taking the easier way out in preference to being implicated in these doubts.

Though I do not know infallibly which of these opinions was verified, I incline

more to the third opinion. If, however one had to chose from the first two, I would 26 St. Jerome, Comment. Matt. I, 2 (I, XXVI, n. 25); St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 145 (PL, LII, col. 588-589); also Hippolitus Marraccius and Virgilius Seldmayr, Summa Jos., Lib. III, nn. 2118 and 1943 resp. 27 Cf. Psuedo-Augustine, Sermo CXCL (PL, XXXIX, coll. 2108-09): “Vidit [Josephus] in ea tumescentes venas in gutture, et attenuari faciem, postremum vidit eam gessibus, gravari; intellexit Mariam uterum gravidari.”

select the first because of the words of Matthew and of Augustine, to whom the

second view is not fully satisfactory.

We may ask, however: Why was Joseph permitted to fall into this doubt? For there

followed the revelation to him before he could do what he proposed to do, just as it

had been made to the Virgin before she conceived. We can give a threefold

answer: first, because of greater certainty; secondly for the sake of greater

confirmation; thirdly, for greater probation.

First of all, it was for greater certainty concerning so great a thing. Indeed, when

we hear that Mary’s husband, so prudent, wise and just, considered and witnessed

all these things and according as his reason dictated doubted in such a manner; and

yet later believed so firmly that he held Mary as his true spouse and Christ as his

Son: we are more inclined to believe than if it had been said that Joseph simply

took her to wife – this according to the opinion of St. Gregory, who says that Mary

Magdalen, who believed quickly, was of less help to him than Thomas, who

doubted for a long time.28

Joseph’s doubt was also for greater confirmation. As we have experienced more

fully in ourselves, preceding motions of strong doubts drive us on more forcefully

to find out the truth, and in proportion as these doubts are afterwards expelled more

forcibly and sensibly through the truth’s manifestation and enlightenment, so much

the more sharp-sighted and firm in the truth do we become; and in temptations, the

more we experience our own helplessness and trouble, so much the more humbled

in ourselves and thankful to God and His benefit are we, and the more lovingly and

diligently do we guard these graces given us.

Lastly, the doubt was for Joseph’s greater probation – to effect and show

simultaneously the order of grace and of God’s providence; for although God at the

start may initiate His gifts in us, still He does not perfect and conserve them unless

we are first proven by labors and temptation and deserve the consummated graces

through victory over temptations. Since Joseph, by means of the highest grace, was

to become the spouse of Mary and in a certain sense the father of Christ, and to

live most familiarly with them, he had, accordingly, after the introduction of this

grace, to be exercised, tried and proved by temptation.

Hence we may also ask why Mary did not reveal the divine secret to Joseph. The

answer is, that such things are not to be revealed except insofar as consorts with

the Divine Will. The Blessed Virgin remained silent, therefore, firmly believing

28 He points this out in his Hom. 29 in Evangelia.

that just as the secret had been revealed to blessed Elizabeth (Luke 1 [42]), so at

the opportune moment it would be made known to others, according to the good

pleasure of God’s Will.

We may ask, too, why Joseph did not seek the knowledge from Mary. The answer:

he would have sought in vain, because Mary could be believed least of all if she

spokes in her own behalf. Again, it came about by divine dispensation that through

angelic revelation Joseph was made so certain that by no means could he doubt any

longer. Therefore, after he had been notified by the angel that Mary had conceived

by the Holy Ghost, he dwelt with his spouse in a more humble and reverent

manner; thus greater perfection was engendered in him. And if we miserable ones

can often make progress by dwelling together with holy men who, when compared

with the Virgin, are nothing, what great progress should we not attribute to Joseph

who lived together with the Virgin!29 For the prophet said: “With the holy, thou

wilt be holy, etc.”30

Joseph, thirdly was deferential in his diligent administration, and this proved a

source of great perfection for him. If the Blessed Virgin rewards even one Hail

Mary, with what heartfelt gratitude must she have responded to him whom she saw

so solicitously, deferentially and faithfully laboring to nourish her and her beloved

Son! The Blessed Virgin pondered very much on how St. Joseph exposed himself

to so many perils in order to save the life of Jesus, and how he returned from Egypt

to Jerusalem for the solemnities of the Law, and how he was with the Child in

various other places which cannot be enumerated.

Wherefore, balancing with one another all these things which the devout and

discerning mind can reasonably contemplate concerning Joseph and the Blessed

Virgin, I would not dare to say that the Blessed Virgin did not love Joseph, after

the blessed fruit of her womb, Jesus, as much as she did every other creature, and

more; yet I speak of social love, for in charity she loved those more who are better

in the eyes of God.

Chapter 2 – The perfection which Joseph acquired from living with the Lord

The second grace divinely given Joseph was that of living with his God. Therefore

the two things mentioned about Joseph in the preceding chapter, life in common

29 Bover, De Cultu, p. 46, quotes this sentence in support of his sixth principle underlying Joseph’s high degree of sanctity. 30 II Kings 22: 26; Psalm 17:26. Bernardine does not give the source.

and administration in all necessities, are to be admired. For they should be referred

not only to the Virgin but also to Jesus, by living with Whom an administering to

Him in all His needs, the saint obtained admirable graces and virtues.

What great perfection should not this divine common life have added to him, since

the Blessed Jesus acted obediently and reverently toward him by external signs as

to His father; and Joseph was not only publicly considered and called His father,

but it should be held that the holy man publicly treated Jesus as a father would his

son in word, deed, gesture, care and authority, Christ acting similarly toward him.

Otherwise the neighbors and the world would have known openly that Jesus was

not his son. In testimony of which we read in Luke 2 [51]: “And He was subject to

them,” namely to His Mother and foster-father.

Especially in three things (from which things he derived great perfection) was

Joseph most diligent while dwelling with Jesus Christ. He entertained toward Jesus

most reverent purity, most lustrous fidelity and most ardent charity; that is, he used

all the powers of his soul: his memory, his intelligence and his fervent will.

Joseph had the most reverent purity toward Jesus. Think what great reverence,

what great purity of mind, of body, of affection and of sense was always necessary

for Joseph in his constant, most immediate and intimate intercourse and

conversation with Jesus while awake, while sleeping, while eating near Him and

His Mother in the same little dwelling or room, or journeying together with Him

along the same path.

Consider diligently also how in all the Child’s infantile necessities, and other signs

of human helplessness which Joseph saw in the good Jesus, he contemplated and

tasted the height of Divine Immensity stooping to such a degree of love for us, to

teach us, inspire us, make us humble.

How greatly must not the soul of this saintly old man have been purified, seeing

these things with his own eyes, when in meditating on such matters even our stony

hearts seem to faint away before the sweetness and love and high dignity of God.

For Joseph experienced more sweetness in his devout mind by the fact that the

Most High God willed to stoop to our littleness and to be placed in a crib in order

to unveil our infirmity and with His sacred eyes to bewail our calamity, than by the

fact that He willed to perform miracles of power in raising the dead, or that He

may have wished to produce the nature of the angels. Though God did both with

equal goodness, yet his tender love is dearer to us.

Joseph practiced, too, the most resplendent fidelity toward Jesus. Consider with

what a great, shining and luminous faith he busied himself always in worthily

handling and providing for the infant members of Christ, for all His need and

nakedness; and then, when He was grown up, [guarding] all His works, actions,

gestures and words. Joseph marveled when he considered in his heart and saw with

his eyes that the Son of God had made Himself his Son, and had selected Joseph to

nourish Him, bear His burdens, govern and preserve Him in the necessities of His

mortal life.

Thirdly, he had the most ardent love for Christ. Who would deny that as Joseph

held Christ paternally in his arms and talked baby talk or conversed with Him as

His father, Christ, whether as a baby or adult, instilled into and impressed upon

him unutterable feelings and joys, linking to grace exterior filial looks,

communications and embraces? Oh, how many sweet kisses Joseph received from

Him! Oh, with what deep rapture did he hear the Child lispingly call him father,

and with what great tenderness did he experience those loving embraces!

Consider also the great compassion with which Joseph, on the journeys which they

made, caused the little Jesus Who was worn out with fatigue to rest on his bosom;31

for he bore a transfigured love toward Him as his most dear Son, given him by his

spouse the Virgin, through the Holy Ghost.32

Therefore, Christ’s most prudent Mother, who had experienced Joseph’s affection

for the Child, said to her beloved Son when they found Him again in the Temple

(Luke 2 [48]): “Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold, Thy father and I have

been seeking Thee sorrowing.” To understand these words, it is to be noted that

Christ had two kinds of influence, that of sweetness and that of sorrow.

The first is that of sweetness. The Blessed Virgin shows that she knew this by

experience when she said: “Son, why hast Thou done so to us?” Nowhere else in

Scripture do we read that the Virgin called Jesus “Son” except in this place. Filius

[the Latin word for “son”] comes from φíλος meaning “beloved.” In the mouth of a

mother it indeed has a taste of most heartfelt sweetness, especially when the Son

Whom it names is God. Truly, a sweeter word of love could not have been spoken

31 Bover, De Cultu, p. 45 used this part of this sentence and the whole preceding paragraph as proof for his fifth principle, and several extracts from this section to prove Joseph’s cor paternum (p. 27). 32 Bover, De Cultu, p. 21, quotes the last part of this paragraph in support of Joseph’s jus conjugii and (p. 27), of his cor paternum. This last paragraph and the one preceding constitute Lesson 5 for the second day within the octave of the Solemnity of St. Joseph.

than that which she uttered: “Son.” And wonderingly she added: “Why hast Thou

done so to us?”

Then there is that other influence of grief, of deep anguish, which the devoted

Mother evidenced when she added: “Behold, Thy father and I have been seeking

Thee sorrowing.” And because the most holy Joseph shared wonderfully in both

these experiences, therefore the Blessed Virgin in a singular manner calls him the

father of Christ. It is to be noted that here alone do we read that the Virgin called

Joseph the father of Jesus; for the sense of sorrow which he felt over the lost Jesus

showed that he had the true affection of a father.33 If according to human laws

approved by God, a stranger can adopt someone as his son, much more ought the

Son of God, given to Joseph by his most sweet spouse under the wonderful

sacrament of a virginal marriage, to be called Joseph’s Son.34 And it should be

believed that there was in Joseph the relish of paternal love and sorrow with regard

to the beloved Jesus.35

Consider, therefore: if we know by experience how one could scarcely live for a

long time with great saints, a Paul or a Francis, without receiving from them and

with them wonderful illuminations and inspirations and the consolations of God,

how much more credible it is that this most holy man should have derived

marvelous illuminations and consolations from Christ and Mary during the long

time in which he lived with them—and this as the father and provider of Christ,

and the legitimate spouse of the Virgin, enduring fatigues and journeys for them

and with them night and day.

Chapter 3 – That Christ, Who was promised to the ancient fathers,

was born of God to Joseph alone

The third grace divinely given this holy old man was that of special intimacy. If

you consider him in connection with the whole Church of Christ, is he not the

select and particular one through whom and under whom Christ was properly and

becomingly introduced into the world?36 If, therefore, the entire Church is indebted

to the Virgin Mother because it was made worthy to receive Christ through her,

then indeed, after her, it owes thanks and special reverence to Joseph.

33 Bover, De Cultu, p. 27, uses this to prove the cor paternum. 34 Bover, De Cultu, p. 19, uses this sentence to support his thesis of St. Joseph’s virginal paternity. – Bernardine’s notion of Joseph’s adoption is based on St. Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum, Lib. II, cap. 1 (PL, XXXIV, col. 1071). 35 Bover, De Cultu, p.27, quotes this sentence in support of the cor paternum. Excerpts from this and the preceding two paragraphs form Lesson 6 for the second day within the octave of the Solemnity of St. Joseph. 36 Bover, De Cultu, p. 21, uses this sentence for the jus conjugii.

Joseph is the key of the Old Testament, in whom the patriarchal and prophetical

dignity attained to its promised fruit. He alone, furthermore, possessed corporally

what the Divine Majesty had promised to the fathers. Justly therefore was he

typified by the patriarch Joseph, who gave grain to the peoples (Genesis 41). But

the spouse of Mary excels the other Joseph, since, more than merely giving the

Egyptians the bread of corporal live, he, with much ingenuity, fed all the elect with

the Bread from Heaven, which gives eternal life.37

Though we do not read in Scripture when St. Joseph died, yet it may be believed

that he probably died before our Lord’s Passion.38 For he would not have been

absent from the Savior’s cross had he been alive; nor would it have been becoming

for Christ, from His cross, to have placed Mary in another’s care. Perhaps, too,

Joseph died before Christ’s baptism, since from that time onward no mention is

made of him in the Gospels, except for the instance in which some found fault with

Christ as the son of a carpenter, saying (Matthew 13 [55]: “Is not this the

carpenter’s son?”

It is, then, piously to be believed that at Joseph’s passing Jesus Christ was present,

together with the most holy Virgin. The number of pure exhortations, consolations,

promises, illuminations, inspirations and revelations of eternal goods he received

on his deathbed from his most holy spouse and the most sweet Jesus, Son of God, I

leave to the devout mind to contemplate and consider.

God wished Joseph to die before the Sacred Passion for two reasons in particular:

lest he be tormented with immense sorrow at the death of Christ; and in order that

the privilege of faith during the Passion might remain in the Virgin alone [sic].

Finally, although St. Joseph was of such great dignity and favor that the Eternal

Father most liberally gave him the likeness of His primary over His Incarnate Son,

yet Holy Church has not prescribed much solemnity for him; first because he

descended into limbo and pertains to the Old Testament, and secondly, to avoid

37 In this beautiful thought, Bernardine follows St. Bernard (Hom. 2 super Missus est), and through him, Origen, Homilia 28 in coll. 303-304). – All that has gone before in this chapter constitutes Lesson 5 for the feast of the Solemnity of St. Joseph. 38 There are different opinions on this point. Epiphanius says that Joseph died when Christ was twelve (Adv. Haereses 78, PG, XLII, col. 714). Jerome and Pseudo-Bonaventure agree with Bernardine. Isidore Isolanus says the death occurred after the call of the Apostles. Ambrose and Augustine hold that Joseph was still living at Christ’s Resurrection, and adored Him. Cf. Summa Jos., Cap. XLV, “De Pretiosissima Morte S. Joseph.”

giving scandal to the heretics.39 Therefore the Church does not call him the father

of Jesus, except with the modification “foster.”

ARTICLE THREE

The Reward of Glory Which St. Joseph Obtained in Soul and Body40

Thirdly, the text quoted in the beginning to describe the state of glory of this

saintly man, expresses the sublimity of glorification since it concludes with: “Enter

into the joy of thy Master.” Indeed, we should believe that Christ has not denied to

Joseph in heaven that familiarity, reverence, and most sublime dignity which He

showed him as a son to his father while on earth, but rather has completed and

consummated it. This is justly inferred from the text proposed by the Lord: “Enter

into the joy of thy Master.” Although it is the joy of eternal beatitude which enters

into the heart of a man, the Lord wished rather to say to him, “Enter thou into joy,”

that He might insinuate mystically how, in the case of Joseph, this joy is not only

within him but encircling and absorbing him on all sides, immersing him as in an

infinite abyss.

We may piously believe, but not assert, that the Most Holy Son of God Jesus

crowned His foster-father with the same privilege which He gave His Mother: that

as He assumed her into heaven bodily and glorious in soul, so also on the day when

He arose He took Joseph up with Him in the glory of the Resurrection.41 So that as

this glorious family, Christ, the Virgin and Joseph, had dwelt together on earth in

the labors of life and in loving grace, so now they reign in heaven in loving glory

of both body and soul.

This is according to the norm of the Apostle (II Corinthians 1 [7]: “As you are

partakers of the sufferings, so will you also be of the comfort.” For it is written

(Matthew 27 [52]): “And many bodies of the saints arose, who had fallen asleep,”

that is, were dead. According to Jerome,42 this was done at the Lord’s Resurrection

39 Cerinthus, the Ebionites, Photinus, etc. For a treatment of these heretics in the present connection, cf. the sermon of John Chrysostom Trombellus, Summa Jos., Lib. II, nn. 1342 ff. 40 Lesson 6 for the feast of the Solemnity of St. Joseph is taken passim from this article. 41 The Franciscan Bernardine of Busti in his Mariale, p. IV, sermon 12 (Summa Jos., Lib. II, n. 968), has the following: “Hoc [i.e., assumption Josephi] Sanctus Bernardinus, praedicans Paduae, affirmans clamabat: ‘In anima et corpore est Sanctus Joseph in coelis gloriosis’; et visa est crux quasi aurea super caput ejus; et sic ego credo quod sit in vita aeterna in anima et corpore cum maxima et indicibiili Gloria….” Many others also see in this reported miracle a proof that St. Bernardine was correct. Gerson, however, did not commit himself on the question (Summa Jos., Lib. II, p. 262, note). 42 Comment. In Evang. Matt., Lib. IV, cap. 27 (PL, XXVI, col. 222)

because the Lord was “the Firstborn of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the

earth,” as we read in Apocalypse 1 [5]. This is narrated nevertheless by

anticipation, to show that the fact took place by the power and merit of His

Passion.

I say these souls arose with Christ as proofs of His Resurrection. This, Matthew

(27:52) sets down plainly when he says: “And coming forth out of the tombs after

His Resurrection, they came into the holy city, and appeared to many.” We may

piously believe that among these risen ones was the most holy Joseph.

Remigius asks, What happened to those who rose with Christ? And he answers that

we should believe by all means that they did not go back afterwards, but ascended

into heaven together with Christ; and this agrees with right reason, first, with

respect to Christ, secondly, with respect to the fact.43

Regarding Christ, it harmonizes with His power and glory and the testimony of the

Resurrection—both His own, already accomplished, and our future resurrection—

so that it cannot be believed that He arose alone as God, and not His elect. For on

the authority of Paul (I Corinthians 15 [51], “we shall all indeed rise.” Regarding

the fact, it conforms to reason because on the part of any blessed soul, its

resurrection as regards the body is deferred only that so solemn a thing may occur

with a certain greater solemnity and unity, and, as it were, in a more noble order of

time and of other circumstances. Wherefore Paul says of the saints (Hebrews 11

[39]): “These did not receive what was promised,” namely eternal glory, “for God

had something better in view for us; so that they should not be perfected without

us,” namely in glory, with their bodies.

If, therefore, for a reasonable cause and by special privilege, the resurrection of

both body and soul were given sooner to Joseph and some others, there is no

disturbance of order; rather does it harmonize with reason. For it behooves

ordinary things so to be conserved in their order that they nevertheless allow of the

great King’s privileges.

43 Summa Jos. Has “respectu sancti” where the Opera Omnia, evidently more correctly in this instance, has “respectu facti.”

===========================================================

Therefore, be mindful of us, holy Joseph, with the aid of your

prayers, and intercede for us to your Foster-Son; incline

favorably toward us also the most Blessed Virgin, your spouse,

the Mother of Him Who, together with the Father and the Holy

Ghost, lives and reigns throughout all ages. Amen.44

============================================== Fr. Eric May, O.F.M.Cap., born June 12, 1913 in the East New3 York section of Brooklyn, made

first profession as a Capuchin Franciscan friar on August 27, 1936, in Huntington IN, and was

ordained a priest on June 23, 1943, in Marathon WI. He was 30 years old when he first published

this annotated translation in 1944. He earned an S.T.L. and an S.T.D. from Catholic University

of America, Washington DC, in 1945 and 1947, and an S.S.L from Pontifical Biblical Institute in

Rome in 1948. His major lifetime assignment was teaching Sacred Scripture and dogmatic

theology to Capuchin students for the priesthood at Marathon WI, 1948-52, and Garrison NY

1952-81. He was active for many years in the Catholic Biblical Association of America, the

Mariological Society of America, and the Society of Biblical Literature. He died August 2, 1981,

in Valhalla NY..

44 According to Fr. Victor Mills, O.FM., this is “the oldest prayer to St. Joseph which has come down to us” (“A Bibliography of Franciscan Ascetical Writers” in the Franciscan Educational Conference Report, VIII [1926], p. 267).